Latter Rain, Kingdom Now, & the Lord's Recovery

[Jo S]

Briefly fellowshipping with member's of the LC and talking with you all here, I've noticed patterns in biblical interpretation and from reading Lee's own writings that to me sound's very similar to teachings such as Pentecostal "Latter Rain" and New Apostolic "Kingdom Now" theology which are both variants of Christian Dominionism.

Some of the characteristics of LC theology to me seem partially influenced by Latter Rain Pentecostal thought so I'd like to get the forum's views on whether you believe the LC is a strong proponent of dominionist theology.

Here are a couple of excerpts from gotquestions.org and theopedia.com that seem to fall in line with this view;

"Latter Rain teaching is characterized by a highly typological hermeneutic. That is, the Bible is interpreted in a symbolic, extremely stylized manner. An emphasis is placed on extra-biblical revelation, such as personal prophecies, experiences, and directives straight from God. "

and,

"Many “apostles” in the Latter Rain Movement also teach the doctrine of “the manifest sons of God.” This is a heretical doctrine which says that the Church will give rise to a special group of “overcomers” who will receive spiritual bodies, becoming immortal."

also,

"The Latter Rain taught that God saw the church organized not into denominational camps, but along geographical lines. They expected that in the coming last days, the various Christian denominations would dissolve, and the true church would coalesce into citywide churches under the leadership of the newly-restored apostles and prophets." This is also called Christian ecumenism. It is then no surprise that many former Pentecostals become attracted to the LC.

Then there is Kingdom Now theology.

Per gotquestions.org;

"Kingdom Now proponents believe that God lost control over the world to Satan when Adam and Eve sinned. Since then, the theology goes, God has been trying to reestablish control over the world by seeking a special group of believers—known variously as "covenant people," "overcomers," or "Joel's army........."

This belief that God lost control can be found in Lee's writings on Genesis;

"Man must have dominion over all things on the earth, the field of Satan's activities. Satan is very active on the earth (Luke 4:5-6). So, here in Genesis 1:26 it especially says that man may have the dominion "over all the earth." The earth has been usurped by Satan. Thus, it needs to be ruled over by man, God's representative." -Witness Lee

We know from scripture that God is sovereign which means there isn't anything that is not allowed by him first including allowing Satan to have rule over the earth. Satan did not "usurp" anything meaning taken illegally or by force apart from God's allowance. Stating or implying otherwise is saying that God is not sovereign and in complete control.

The mindset that Christians need to take back control from Satan is the foundation of dominionism and it seems to be what Lee is promoting in his writings. I'm curious on what you guys think.

[Evangelical]

Its quite different. Pentecostalism gets into extra biblical things. Prophecy in the local churches is more or less expounding biblical truth already known. I think both groups found some biblical truth independently of each other. Eg dominion is biblical. Dont confuse correlation with causation.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Its quite different. Pentecostalism gets into extra biblical things. Prophecy in the local churches is more or less expounding biblical truth already known. I think both groups found some biblical truth independently of each other. Eg dominion is biblical. Dont confuse correlation with causation.

Wouldn't the whole concept of the Lord having a latter day "recovery" of the Church using a city model before the 2nd coming be extra-biblical in itself?

You say don't confuse correlation with causation. Doesn't Paul ask rhetorically, "What relationship does light have with darkness?" Either doctrine is rooted in God's truth or it's a lie. Both predate any official position, denominational or not.

I see God's original intent was for us to have dominion over the land and animals in Genesis but where does scripture teach this kind of dominion after the fall? Isn't it more reasonable to assume this privilege was forfeit by sin? Dominionism is the belief that we are to reclaim that responsibility before the Lord's coming and interjecting it within politics and religion as well. This doctrine would be considered extra-biblical.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Wouldn't the whole concept of the Lord having a latter day "recovery" of the Church before the 2nd coming be extra-biblical in itself?

You say don't confuse correlation with causation. Doesn't Paul ask rhetorically, "What relationship does light have with darkness?" Either doctrine is rooted in God's truth or it's a lie. Both predate any official position, denominational or not.

I see God's original intent was for us to have dominion over the land and animals in Genesis but where does scripture teach this kind of dominion after the fall? Isn't it more reasonable to assume this privilege was forfeit by sin? Dominionism is the belief that we are to reclaim that responsibility before the Lord's coming. This doctrine would be considered extra-biblical.

In Genesis 1:28 , there are two commands.
1) be fruitful and multiply - this is by marriage.
2) fill the earth and subdue it - this is achieved primarily by being fruitful and multiplying.

If dominion was forfeited by sin, then marriage would be also. Since there is no indication that marriage was forfeited by sin, I think we can conclude that dominion is not forfeited either.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In Genesis 1:28 , there are two commands.
1) be fruitful and multiply - this is by marriage.
2) fill the earth and subdue it - this is achieved primarily by being fruitful and multiplying.

If dominion was forfeited by sin, then marriage would be also. Since there is no indication that marriage was forfeited by sin, I think we can conclude that dominion is not forfeited either.

Dominion is the relationship between man and the earth. Marriage is the relationship between man and women. Scripture says that Satan is the "god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4) and not the god of man so you're argument fails by equating these two types of relationships. Marriage is further taught in scripture, dominion is not. Dominion implies mastery over creation. Genesis states that after the fall, man will "eat bread by the sweat of your brow". Does this sound like mastery or slavery?

Either way the type of dominion I'm talking about is religious/political dominion.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Dominion is the relationship between man and the earth. Marriage is the relationship between man and women. Scripture says that Satan is the "god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4) and not the god of man so you're argument fails by equating these two types of relationships. Marriage is further taught in scripture, dominion is not. Dominion implies mastery over creation. Genesis states that after the fall, man will "eat bread by the sweat of your brow". Does this sound like mastery or slavery?

Either way the type of dominion I'm talking about is religious/political dominion.

Dominion is also here in Genesis 9:1

9 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

This is after the fall, so obviously dominion was not forfeited by sin.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Dominion is also here in Genesis 9:1

9 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

This is after the fall, so obviously dominion was not forfeited by sin.

This verse does not teach dominion. Dominion means to govern and rule which would require willful cooperation between ruler and subject.

God is stating here in Genesis 9:1 that from now on we aren't going to rule over creation as per God's original will before the fall. But because of the fall, now creation is subject to fear and terror introduced through sin.

Genesis 9:1 is declaring subjugation rather than declaring a right to dominion.

The difference between subjugate and dominate is that subjugate is to forcibly impose obedience or servitude while dominate is to govern, rule or control by superior authority or power.

Terror and fear are Satan's dominion.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

This verse does not teach dominion. Dominion means to govern and rule which would require willful cooperation between ruler and subject.

God is stating here in Genesis 9:1 that from now on we aren't going to rule over creation as per God's original will before the fall. But because of the fall, now creation is subject to fear and terror introduced through sin.

Genesis 9:1 is declaring subjugation rather than declaring a right to dominion. Big difference.

Are you just making this up as you go? Your meaning of dominion is plain wrong according to any English dictionary. And, Genesis 1:28 uses the word subdue, so subjugation is implied pre-fall.

Dominion means to govern and rule.

It does not require willful cooperation between ruler and subject. That's why we have the police and military. You seem to have just added that meaning so you could form your argument.

I would say that dominion before the fall was to be accomplished through fruitful multiplying (in marriage). Man was to lovingly care for all the animals and no one ate each other.

Dominion after the fall requires means other than just multiplying, because now there is fighting and death, and the ground is no longer easy to work with, so we need technology and invention. So, dominion through subjugation.

But the command to have dominion persists before and after the fall. It was first given to Adam and Eve, then after "resetting" the Earth by the flood, God gave the command again to Noah.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Are you just making this up as you go? Your meaning of dominion is plain wrong according to any English dictionary.

Dominion means to govern and rule.

It does not require willful cooperation between ruler and subject. You seem to have just added that meaning so you could form your argument.

Biblical dominion was a command according to God's will. Before the fall, humans and creation were both still under his will. That's why I say dominion is cooperation between ruler (being God through man) and subject (being the land and animals).

After the fall, Genesis 9 states that creation is now subject to terror and fear which confirms the transfer of dominion from man over to Satan. Dominion is taught after the fall, but it is no longer ours in accordance with God's original intent.

Paul teaches in Romans 13 that all powers on earth are established by God. So yes in order for someone to have dominion over people, those people will have to be in willful cooperation to the established power, in the case of Satan it is a cooperation through sin. This is scripture.

Scripture does not teach that man will establish Christ's kingdom on earth and only then Christ will come, it says that Satan will be in dominion of the earth until Christ comes to destroy Satan's kingdom and then establish his rule on earth.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Biblical dominion was a command according to God's will. Before the fall, humans and creation were both still under his will. That's why I say dominion is cooperation between ruler (being God through man) and subject (being the land and animals).

After the fall, Genesis 9 states that creation is now subject to terror and fear which confirms the transfer of dominion from man over to Satan. Dominion is taught after the fall, but it is no longer ours in accordance with God's original intent.

Scripture teaches that all powers on earth are established by God. So yes in order for someone to have dominion over people, those people will have to be in willful cooperation to the established power, in the case of Satan it is a cooperation through sin. This is scripture.

The transfer of dominion from man to Satan is not really taught in Scripture.

This CARM article explains why and includes scripture that teaches that dominion has always belonged to God:

https://carm.org/adam-fall-dominion

Adam's, Noahs and the Christian's dominion is not their own but through God or Christ.

If Satan is said to have any sort of dominion, it would be perceived dominion that he has acquired illegally or attributed to himself but not real dominion.

Scripture does not teach "Adam forfeited his right to have dominion and so God gave that dominion to Satan". Dominion always belonged to God and in some sense Adam as God's agent on Earth, forfeited his ability (not right) to exercise God's dominion.

The concept of Satan having legal rights over anything is not scriptural as Satan is said to be a thief, deceiver, liar, so anything he has or claims to have is illegally obtained.

I like how discussions diverge to more fundamental topics. In this case, the identity of Satan Himself i.e. Satan - illegal usurper?, or legitimate God-granted ruler of the world? The second identity I cannot see fitting within Old Testament (Jewish) or Christian theology.

But you can prove it with this verse:

Luke 4:6 And the devil said to him, All this power will I give you, and the glory of them: for that is delivered to me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

How do we interpret Luke 4:6? Did God truly deliver everything to Satan?

Ellicotts commentary says this:

(6) For that is delivered unto me.—Better, hath been delivered unto me. The specific assertion of the usurped dominion, though implied in St. Matthew, is in its form peculiar to St. Luke. (See Note on Matthew 4:9.) The notion that any such delegated sovereignty had been assigned to the Tempter, either before or after his fall from his first estate, has, it need hardly be said, no foundation in Scripture. It asserts that “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof” (Psalm 24:1); and the claim of the Tempter was a lying boast, resting only on the permitted activity and temporary predominance of evil in the actual course of the world’s history.

Gill's commentary says this:

for that is delivered unto me: so far he spoke modestly, in that he owned an original, superior governor of them, by whom he pretended they were transferred to him; but lied, in that he suggested they were put into his hands by him, who had the supreme power over them; and that he acted by his constitution and appointment, as a deputy under him; when what power he had, as the God of the world, was by usurpation, and not by designation of God; and at most only by permission: and least of all was it true what follows;

So if anyone believes that Satan has any sort of legality over the world, they have believed Satan's lie, for any power he had was by usurpation not designation.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The transfer of dominion from man to Satan is not really taught in Scripture.

This CARM article explains why and includes scripture that teaches the dominion has always belonged to God:

https://carm.org/adam-fall-dominion

Evangelical, in the future if you decide to commit yourself to a certain position then please finish in your own words rather than always deferring to links or appealing to authorities. It shows you really just look to out argue an opponent rather than having a genuine concern for the truth of scripture. It's easy to copy and paste, anyone can do that. Pigeon chess comes to mind.

The simple fact that at Christ's tempting Satan showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time and said to him, 'All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou wilt worship me all shalt be thine.' (Luke 4:5-7), shows that Satan couldn't have offered Christ what wasn't his to begin with otherwise there wouldn't have been no bases for Christ to potentially sin in the first place.

And then there is 2 Corinthians 4:4;

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not........."

Again, God establishes ALL powers on earth (Romans 13:1). If Satan is "ruler of this world", it implies God allowed him to establish it. Nothing was taken from God that wasn't allowed by him in the first place.

Satan is a thief relative to man but not God. Satan did not "usurp" as Lee or the commentators put it or take anything by force. Instead by sin, he subjected man to himself and with that, man's dominion. Force was not involved in any way, man sinned willfully.

As long as man is subject to sin, he is subject to Satan. Therefore, if fear and terror come through sin and creation is subject to it, it follows that creation is subject to Satan. This is the conclusion the apostles reached otherwise they wouldn't have called Satan "god of this world".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Evangelical, in the future if you decide to commit yourself to a certain position then finish in your own words rather than always deferring to links or appealing to authorities. It just shows you really just look to out argue an opponent rather than getting to the truth of the matter. Pigeon chess comes to mind.

Jo I'm taking an intellectual approach to this topic. I am not good for discussing thoughts and opinions over a cup of tea, maybe others are. I don't post links or appeal to authorities to argue. To argue, in my view, would be to do the opposite (ignore credible evidence, argue ill-formed opinions only). I do that because I don't think we can arrive at the truth of the matter by being ignorant (of CARM, Gill, Ellicott etc). At least, I can show that my opinion is informed by others who have some credibility. So far I believe we cannot reach an agreement on this topic if we have fundamentally different views about God and Satan. Your statement "Satan is a thief relative to man but not God. " reminds me of the view that Satan is God's servant rather than his enemy. Am I correct that you approach these topics as a Jew or a Messianic Christian/Jew or perhaps 7th Day Adventist? Are you willing to share your denominational background so I know where you are coming from?

However the question of this thread I believe is "did part of Lee's theology come from Kingdom/Latter Rain theology?". Comparing theology won't answer that question. I would say no unless there is some credible link between the two groups, historically speaking. There are similarities but also clear differences.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jo I'm taking an intellectual approach to this topic. I am not good for discussing thoughts and opinions over a cup of tea, maybe others are. I don't post links or appeal to authorities to argue. To argue, in my view, would be to do the opposite (ignore credible evidence, argue ill-formed opinions only). I do that because I don't think we can arrive at the truth of the matter by being ignorant (of CARM, Gill, Ellicott etc). At least, I can show that my opinion is informed by others who have some credibility.

This is exactly what appealing to authority is. My point is I'd rather hear your own thoughts, the thoughts that stay with you according to your own study of scripture rather than someone else's views. Otherwise it all seems a bit too impersonal if you know what I mean. As a Christian, scholars aren't an authority for me. If you claim to be a Christian, Christ should be your only teacher. You should not look to any man to dictate truth for you.

So far I believe we cannot reach an agreement on this topic if we have fundamentally different views about God and Satan. Your statement "Satan is a thief relative to man but not God. " reminds me of the view that Satan is God's servant rather than his enemy. Am I correct that you approach these topics as a Jew or a Messianic Christian/Jew or perhaps 7th Day Adventist? Are you willing to share your denominational background so I know where you are coming from?

I can't recall anywhere in scripture stating Satan can steal anything from God. It does however say that God's word will not return to him void.

I also don't know how you came to the conclusion that Satan = servant of God through that statement but no I do not think that. Slave would perhaps be more accurate, not servant.

I'm not a Jew nor involved in a particular denomination.

However the question of this thread I believe is "did part of Lee's theology come from Kingdom/Latter Rain theology?". Comparing theology won't answer that question. I would say no unless there is some credible link between the two groups, historically speaking. There are similarities but also clear differences.

The question wasn't whether the LC's teaching came from any other theology. I was noting the similarities between them and potential influence. The question was whether LC is dominionist or not and judging by your comments you freely admit to it then, correct?.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

The question wasn't whether the LC's teaching came from any other theology. I was noting the similarities between them and potential influence. The question was whether LC is dominionist or not and judging by your comments you freely admit to it then, correct?.

I only said there are similarities but I disagree that LC is dominionist, for a few reasons.

Dominion theology emphasizes control over all creation and human institutions, in this life, including culture and politics. The local churches do not have interest in controlling these things. Lee talked about not getting involved with politics. And where Lee talks about dominion it is about the next life, the 1000 year reign of Christ, not this life. So this is a clear point of difference in my view.

The movements you mentioned, like kingdom now are fairly late, e.g 1970's/80's. I am doubtful that the two groups had much to do with each other as it concerns Lee's theology.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

This is exactly what appealing to authority is. My point is I'd rather hear your own thoughts, the thoughts that stay with you according to your own study of scripture rather than someone else's views. Otherwise it all seems a bit too impersonal if you know what I mean. As a Christian, scholars aren't an authority for me. If you claim to be a Christian, Christ should be your only teacher. You should not look to any man to dictate truth for you.

Perhaps you could specify how many "I's" you would like me to use in my post, so I can get the balance of personal/impersonal right? How many ? 10, 20? 1? Unless you are willing to consult scholarly sources then aren't you just being willfully ignorant? I don't call that being "taught by Christ" I call that willful ignorance. By definition: Willful ignorance is the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one's inner model of reality. So the "Christ" that you say is teaching you is probably just your own inner model of reality. Instead, Christ's teaching comes by improving our own inner models of reality with external evidence. This is why God gifted the church with teachers, and to say "Christ should be your only teacher" is also to deny the role of parents as teachers in a family.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Perhaps you could specify how many "I's" you would like me to use in my post, so I can get the balance of personal/impersonal right? How many ? 10, 20? 1? Unless you are willing to consult scholarly sources then aren't you just being willfully ignorant? I don't call that being "taught by Christ" I call that willful ignorance. By definition: Willful ignorance is the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one's inner model of reality. So the "Christ" that you say is teaching you is probably just your own inner model of reality. Instead, Christ's teaching comes by improving our own inner models of reality with external evidence. This is why God gifted the church with teachers, and to say "Christ should be your only teacher" is also to deny the role of parents as teachers in a family.

Christ commands us Christians to only call him teacher (Matthew 23:8)

Also, God through David says in Psalms 146:3;

"Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save"

Therefore calling Christ my only teacher and final authority on truth is scripture.

Aren't you a Christian? I'm not looking for your "I's" or anyone else's "I's". What has Christ revealed to you personally from scripture? Can't you just speak the truth for once?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Christ commands us Christians to only call him teacher (Matthew 23:8)

Also, God through David says in Psalms 146:3;

"Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save"

Therefore calling Christ my only teacher and final authority on truth is scripture.

Aren't you a Christian? I'm not looking for your "I's" or anyone else's "I's". What has Christ revealed to you personally from scripture? Can't you just speak the truth for once?

Whatever I posted before that is the result of Christ revealing to me from Scripture, or should I say, lack of Scripture. Confirmed by the bible commentaries and CARM.

[awareness]

Jo S, while you and EvanG go at it about dominion, I just want to know more about how you relate Christian Dominionism with Nee and Lee's Recovery movement.

Having looked into R. J. Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism a number of years ago, and the New Apostolic Reformation, I never saw a link to Lee et al.

I'm not familiar with this Latter Rain Kingdom now.

But even tho Rushdoony was contemporary with both Nee and Lee, I don't think there was any connection to them, or influence.

I've read that at one point Lee had a scheme where he thought the local churches would take over the whole world in 10 years.

Are you saying Lee wanted to set up a theocracy?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by awareness

I've read that at one point Lee had a scheme where he thought the local churches would take over the whole world in 10 years.

Are you saying Lee wanted to set up a theocracy?

Theocracy? I don't think so but if you have a link to this 10 year scheme I'd like to read into it.

Rather, his theology seems to be in line with Kingdom Now thought which could be an explanation for the effort behind the LC's worldwide church growth.

Kingdom Now is a type of spiritual dominionism which teaches that Christianity has to be setup a certain way in order to usher in Christ's return to earth.

In the case of the LC, Christianity has to be organized in a one church per city model believed to be shown in Revelation. This ideal would be considered a sort of preparatory stage of the "bride" and precursor to Christ's second coming.

It's also a theology many Christian leaders use on the basis of an emotional appeal to justify personal ambition, IMO. It starts with the mindset that Satan forcefully took the dominion that belonged to God so now we as God's "overcomers" have to take it back. Essentially this is setting up Satan as a scapegoat for a leaders own ambition for church growth in their own name.

From Lee's belief that the body of believers are the "bride" with a need as the bride to get ourselves ready for Christ to believing Satan usurped God's dominion of the earth in which "overcomers" will eventually defeat him leads to a works based religion fueled by man's own efforts that, perhaps inadvertently, ignores God's sovereignty and the work already accomplished on the cross.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Theocracy? I don't think so but if you have a link to this 10 year scheme I'd like to read into it.

Rather, his theology seems to be in line with Kingdom Now thought which could be an explanation for the effort behind the LC's worldwide church growth.

Kingdom Now is a type of spiritual dominionism which teaches that Christianity has to be setup a certain way in order to usher in Christ's return to earth.

In the case of the LC, Christianity has to be organized in a one church per city model believed to be shown in Revelation. This ideal would be considered a sort of preparatory stage of the "bride" and precursor to Christ's second coming.

It's also a theology many Christian leaders use on the basis of an emotional appeal to justify personal ambition, IMO. It starts with the mindset that Satan forcefully took the dominion that belonged to God so now we as God's "overcomers" have to take it back. Essentially this is setting up Satan as a scapegoat for a leaders own ambition for church growth in their own name.

From Lee's belief that the body of believers are the "bride" with a need as the bride to get ourselves ready for Christ to believing Satan usurped God's dominion of the earth in which "overcomers" will eventually defeat him leads to a works based religion fueled by man's own efforts that, perhaps inadvertently, ignores God's sovereignty and the work already accomplished on the cross.

That is mostly nonsense. You just post wild assertions with no factual basis. For example how do you explain that these movements arose in the 80s well after Lee taught his teachings. And there are key differences such as level of involvement and interest in politics and social work and beliefs about the rapture.

What is also nonsense is what you say about doctrine of works. To be an overcomer is motivated by the rewards stated in Revelation not salvation. It is well documented in Lees teachings that overcoming is for rewards not salvation and the eternal security of the believer. It just shows you don't know the basics of Lees teaching because Lee has been accused of teaching "easy believing" but you say it is doctrine of works. Which is it? Lee can't be teaching both at the same time. I might take you more seriously if I didn't know that behind your aversion to the teaching about the body of Christ as the bride and rejection of most bible commentaries that say it is, is some conspiracy about Gnosticism in the church.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Theocracy? I don't think so but if you have a link to this 10 year scheme I'd like to read into it.

Brother Jo S, I hate to tell you this, but ... if all you got to relate the Recovery to Christian Dominionism is the preparation of the bride for the return of the bridegroom, and that to you is Dominionism, then Christianity is covered up with Dominionism.

This idea of preparing the bride for the return of the bridegroom has been used to scam unsuspecting and gullible believers for millennia.

Present example, right now it's the biggest Christian movement in China, I've read. That's because it works well on those trapped in a dreadful life, who are looking for a better life, and the idea of a new heaven and a new earth sounds like a way out of their dreadful life.

And it's big money. Harold Camping, for instance, made 95 million on promising the return of Jesus. It didn't happen.

Face it, Witness Lee used the bride prep to scam everyone ... and LSM is still doing it.

Please show me in scripture where it's specifically developed that we're told to prepare the bride for the return of the bridegroom. Then I might give this return of Jesus scam a fair hearing.

Until then, buyer beware, or believer beware.

And by the way, I can't remember where I got that Lee believed the LC could take over the whole world in 10 years. It might be on LCD somewhere, or I could have gotten on the old Bereans forum. Needless to say, Lee had all the math worked out on it.

I looked to see if I had it saved on my hard drive, but didn't. Others out here might be able to help us with this.

Thanks for this thread brother. Let's see where it goes.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That is mostly nonsense. You just post wild assertions with no factual basis. For example how do you explain that these movements arose in the 80s well after Lee taught his teachings. And there are key differences such as level of involvement and interest in politics and social work and beliefs about the rapture.

The New Apostolic Reformation and Latter Rain were/are movements. Kingdom Now is a more modern term describing an age old theology.

The mistake you're making is equating the resurgence of this dominionist teaching that took place in the seventies and eighties to it's origins.

If you do some research you'll find out Kingdom Now theology is rooted in other movements such as Latter Rain which came out of 40's Pentecostalism.

Dominionism covers a wide spectrum. You are taking specifics from one school of dominionist thought and setting up a strawman to discredit all of dominion theology.

I've argued the doctrines that influence these movements/schools of thought with scripture always showing Lee's own words supporting them so by you saying that I've made "wild assertions" is an impulsive statement.

What is also nonsense is what you say about doctrine of works. To be an overcomer is motivated by the rewards stated in Revelation not salvation. It is well documented in Lees teachings that overcoming is for rewards not salvation and the eternal security of the believer. It just shows you don't know the basics of Lees teaching. I might take you more seriously if I didn't know that behind your aversion to the teaching about the body of Christ as the bride and rejection of most bible commentaries that say it is, is some conspiracy about gnosticism in the church.

Lee viewed overcoming as something far off achieved by certain works like organizing Christians in a one church per city model.

Lee's version of overcoming is one that's motivated by setting Satan up as a boogeyman yet to be defeated rather than overcoming through faith in Christ's work knowing Satan has already been defeated on the cross. Scripture says we overcome through the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 12:11) and not through an ideal.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Jo S, I hate to tell you this, but ... if all you got to relate the Recovery to Christian Dominionism is the preparation of the bride for the return of the bridegroom, and that to you is Dominionism, then Christianity is covered up with Dominionism.

The body being the "bride" doctrine and believing certain overcomers will restore what Satan usurped from God are justifications for dominionism, not necessarily evidence.

The extra-biblical belief that Christians need to be organized in a one church per city model is the evidence.

This meant Lee had the great ambition to have an LC in every city on the entire planet. If that's not dominionism then I don't know what is.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Lee's version of overcoming is one that's motivated by setting Satan up as a boogeyman yet to be defeated rather than overcoming through faith in Christ's work knowing Satan has already been defeated on the cross. My bible says we overcome through the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 12:11) and not through an ideal.

This is nonsense and unfounded allegations. Please educate yourself about Lee's teachings first, before posting? Lee teaches what the bible says - that overcoming is by the blood of the Lamb. That is well documented throughout his ministry books. Another aspect of overcoming is by not loving the soul life unto death.

You are confusing Lee's teachings about denial of the self/flesh with works-based salvation. Your misconceptions are equivalent to saying that these martyrs in Revelation who did not love their soul unto death and obtained an overcomer's reward, are "saving themselves by works".

This would be the first time, to my recollection, on this forum or elsewhere, that Lee would be accused of teaching salvation by works. Anyone who knows Lee's teaching knows he taught that everyone gets to go to heaven because of Christ - "call on the name of the Lord 3 times and you will be saved". Lee taught and believed in eternal security. The fact that you are accusing him of salvation by works and not 5 point Calvinisms proves how little you know about his teachings.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This would be the first time, to my recollection, on this forum or elsewhere, that Lee would be accused of teaching salvation by works.

Where did I accuse him of that? I'm arguing he teaches a 2nd coming based on works aka dominionism. I never brought up the issue of eternal salvation. Freudian slip?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Where did I accuse him of that? I'm arguing he teaches a 2nd coming based on works aka dominionism. I never brought up the issue of eternal salvation. Freudian slip?

If it's nothing to do with eternal salvation then what is the real problem with works again? If it doesn't affect salvation then overcoming by works is a non-issue. It is no different to saying "I will show you my faith by my works". You seem to be saying that overcoming does not require effort on our part, you seem to ignore man's responsibility which seems ultra-Calvinistic.

You made 3 false allegations:

"Lee's version of overcoming is one that's motivated by setting Satan up as a boogeyman yet to be defeated rather than overcoming through faith in Christ's work "

Firstly I think your language "Satan up as a boogeyman" is disrespectful and not taking the matter of Satan seriously. Lee definitely teaches overcoming through Christ's work. Satan is defeated, but his works are to be overcome.

"knowing Satan has already been defeated on the cross."

Lee teaches that Satan has already been defeated on the cross and that the way to defeat Satan is by the cross. There's no disagreement there.

Lee does not motivate overcoming by setting Satan up as a boogeyman, it is the biblical motivation for overcoming which is to be rewarded and hear "well done good and faithful servant". This is well documented in Lee's teachings. It is motivated by faithfulness.


" Scripture says we overcome through the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 12:11) and not through an ideal."

The issue is that you are arguing from what you assume to know of Lee's teachings (which in essence constitute straw-man arguments) and not addressing Lee's teachings themselves. Lee states many times that we overcome by the blood.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

The body being the "bride" doctrine and believing certain overcomers will restore what Satan usurped from God are justifications for dominionism, not necessarily evidence.

The extra-biblical belief that Christians need to be organized in a one church per city model is the evidence.

This meant Lee had the great ambition to have an LC in every city on the entire planet. If that's not dominionism then I don't know what is.

Does merely establishing a church in every city fit this definition of dominionism?

Dominion theology (also known as dominionism) is a group of Christian political ideologies that seek to institute a nation governed by Christians based on their personal understandings of biblical law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology

If so then every denomination is part of dominionism. Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Baptist etc.

To my knowledge Lee had no interest in politics and governing any nation with Christians. Roman Catholicism on the other hand....

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Jo S

The body being the "bride" doctrine and believing certain overcomers will restore what Satan usurped from God are justifications for dominionism, not necessarily evidence.

The extra-biblical belief that Christians need to be organized in a one church per city model is the evidence.

This meant Lee had the great ambition to have an LC in every city on the entire planet. If that's not dominionism then I don't know what is.

To me what's disturbing about Christian Dominionism is their desire to bring back Old Testament punishments, like stoning, and all the rest of that dreadful law in the OT.

I don't see the recovery wanting that, not here in America, where our constitution disallows a theocracy, with separation of church and state.

However, offshoots of Lee, like Eastern Lightning, do seem to be Dominionists, and are linked to kidnappings, violence and extortion. So Lee's movement could morph into God knows what ; like becoming a doomsday cult. That's not a far leap. With Witness Lee as their personality cult leader, even while dead, they've got a good start on it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is nonsense and unfounded allegations. Please educate yourself about Lee's teachings first,

What's nonsense is thinking that we need to educate ourselves with Lee's teachings at all. There's no reason whatsoever to do that. There's many better teachers available to us.

Why learn from somebody that has no degrees in anything? and who puts the Bible on a torture rack, to make it say what he wants it say? and who was deluded with megalomania, by claiming to be the one and only apostle on the earth, the oracle of God, and the authority of God one the earth?

That makes it obvious that, it would be wise to avoid Lee's teachings.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

What's nonsense is thinking that we need to educate ourselves with Lee's teachings at all. There's no reason whatsoever to do that. There's many better teachers available to us.

I wrote "Educate yourself about". You are talking about "Educate yourself with".

If someone is going to be make claims about Lee's teachings, they should first educate themselves about what he taught before posting unfounded allegations. To not do that would be called ignorance.

If you want to talk about "Why learn from somebody that has no degrees in anything? ", then perhaps ask Jo S that question, as they made it quite clear that Jesus who had no degrees, teaches them everything, and have no need for Lee, CARM, or Gill or other bible scholars, or even this forum.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If it's nothing to do with eternal salvation then what is the real problem with works again? If it doesn't affect salvation then overcoming by works is a non-issue. It is no different to saying "I will show you my faith by my works". You seem to be saying that overcoming does not require effort on our part, you seem to ignore man's responsibility which seems ultra-Calvinistic.

Believing it will take some sort of concerted work or effort by Christians, as in the LC's doctrine of locality along with the "bride of Christ" doctrine, to bring about the second coming of Christ is a form of Christian dominionism and it is a heretical belief. The problem is this inadvertently denies the finished work on the cross and God's sovereignty in the ability to establish his own church.

If you believe you can overcome the works of Satan by denying the flesh/world, then all the ascetics of all the world's religions have one up on you. This was the mentality of the Pharisees. They fasted twice a week thinking that righteousness came through this type of denial of the flesh. They too thought they were overcoming the world through these types of things.

Christians overcome through Christ's obedience and through his completed work on the cross and not by any works of our own, only faith. Can works accompany faith? Of course but our efforts, like setting up LC's in every city, do not and will not defeat the works of Satan. That is a work left to Christ alone (1 John 3:8).

You made 3 false allegations:

"Lee's version of overcoming is one that's motivated by setting Satan up as a boogeyman yet to be defeated rather than overcoming through faith in Christ's work "

Firstly I think your language "Satan up as a boogeyman" is disrespectful and not taking the matter of Satan seriously. Lee definitely teaches overcoming through Christ's work. Satan is defeated, but his works are to be overcome.

By your own words you as an "overcomers" believe you will overcome the works of Satan when scripture teaches that Christ is the one that came to destroy Satan's works (1 John 3:8).

"knowing Satan has already been defeated on the cross."

Lee teaches that Satan has already been defeated on the cross and that the way to defeat Satan is by the cross. There's no disagreement there.

Lee does not motivate overcoming by setting Satan up as a boogeyman, it is the biblical motivation for overcoming which is to be rewarded and hear "well done good and faithful servant". This is well documented in Lee's teachings. It is motivated by faithfulness.

Overcoming and our works have no correlation. Overcoming is achieved only by faith in Christ.

The issue is that Lee's solution to "overcoming" is denying or coming out of denominations and setting up LC's in every city across the globe. This is a concerted works based system meant to bringing about Christ's return and is dominionist in nature. This teaching can also be found in the Pentecostal Latter Rain movement.

The LC's extra-biblical revelation goes that "one church one city" will be the model for Christians before the return of Christ. This reality being a sort of preparation of the "bride". This is where the doctrine of the "bride of Christ" being the church then comes into play. This is all rooted in charismania.

" Scripture says we overcome through the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 12:11) and not through an ideal."

The issue is that you are arguing from what you assume to know of Lee's teachings (which in essence constitute straw-man arguments) and not addressing Lee's teachings themselves. Lee states many times that we overcome by the blood.

Isn't that what you are doing?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Does merely establishing a church in every city fit this definition of dominionism?

Dominion theology (also known as dominionism) is a group of Christian political ideologies that seek to institute a nation governed by Christians based on their personal understandings of biblical law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology

If so then every denomination is part of dominionism. Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Baptist etc.

To my knowledge Lee had no interest in politics and governing any nation with Christians. Roman Catholicism on the other hand....

Not exactly but by you defining all segments of Dominion theology by using this definition you are setting up a strawman. Lee's teachings do share this characteristic of the Pentecostal Latter Rain movement which is also considered dominionism;

"The Latter Rain taught that God saw the church organized not into denominational camps, but along geographical lines. They expected that in the coming last days, the various Christian denominations would dissolve, and the true church would coalesce into citywide churches under the leadership of the newly-restored apostles and prophets."

Again, Christian dominionism covers of broad spectrum of thought. The main premise being that certain preparations need to be made by Christians on earth in order to usher in Christ's return whether that be in the political, cultural, or religious spheres or all of the above.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by awareness

To me what's disturbing about Christian Dominionism is their desire to bring back Old Testament punishments, like stoning, and all the rest of that dreadful law in the OT.

I don't see the recovery wanting that, not here in America, where our constitution disallows a theocracy, with separation of church and state.

However, offshoots of Lee, like Eastern Lightning, do seem to be Dominionists, and are linked to kidnappings, violence and extortion. So Lee's movement could morph into God knows what ; like becoming a doomsday cult. That's not a far leap. With Witness Lee as their personality cult leader, even while dead, they've got a good start on it.

This is really just fringe stuff. It doesn't apply to the typical dominionist thought you'll find today in the churches but I suppose it has the potential to morph into that in very troubled times. Catholicism during the crusades and inquisitions are a good example of that happening.

Think about this, if the LC succeeded in the one church one city mandate all under the supervision of one MOTA, don't you think this type of meticulous organization of the church would make for an easy target? And couldn't this possibly set the stage for what happened to the early church by the Romans?

The LC would then most likely be usurped and become the new Catholicism aka the end times apostate church. It's all hypothetical of course, but this thinking leads me to believe the Lord allowed a bit of segregation within Christianity to exist for this reason. As a way to preserve his people until Christ comes to sort everything out.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Not exactly but by you defining all segments of Dominion theology by using this definition you are setting up a strawman. Lee's teachings do share this characteristic of the Pentecostal Latter Rain movement which is also considered dominionism;

"The Latter Rain taught that God saw the church organized not into denominational camps, but along geographical lines. They expected that in the coming last days, the various Christian denominations would dissolve, and the true church would coalesce into citywide churches under the leadership of the newly-restored apostles and prophets."

Your broad sweeping generalization of Lee's theology under the broad spectrum of dominionism is not a straw man?

Originally Posted by Jo S

Again, Christian dominionism covers of broad spectrum of thought. The main premise being that certain preparations need to be made by Christians on earth in order to usher in Christ's return whether that be in the political, cultural, or religious spheres or all of the above.

So we don't need to prepare for Christ's return?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your broad sweeping generalization of Lee's theology under the broad spectrum of dominionism is not a straw man?

I likened his theology to two other schools of thought, Latter Rain and Kingdom Now, one of which is directly influenced by the other. How is that broad? This is rather specific in relation to all of dominion theology.

So we don't need to prepare for Christ's return?

Depends, is your faith in man or in Christ?

The Lord said to keep watch. He's the one that has done all the preperations;

Hebrews 10:5 "Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me.

and

Hebrews 11:16 "But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city."

God has already prepared us a new body and a heavenly city (the bride). Do you believe this?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Believing it will take some sort of concerted work or effort by Christians, as in the LC's doctrine of locality along with the "bride of Christ" doctrine, to bring about the second coming of Christ is a form of Christian dominionism and it is a heretical belief. The problem is this inadvertently denies the finished work on the cross and God's sovereignty in the ability to establish his own church.

That is nonsense because the local churches achieve this by "as the Lord leads". The finished work on the cross is for salvation and not for us to not do anything.

And on what authority do you say it is heretical other than your own?

Originally Posted by Jo S

If you believe you can overcome the works of Satan by denying the flesh/world, then all the ascetics of all the world's religions have one up on you. This was the mentality of the Pharisees. They fasted twice a week thinking that righteousness came through this type of denial of the flesh. They too thought they were overcoming the world through these types of things.

The Bible teaches to deny the flesh and the self. Do you deny this? Your accusations are baseless and ignorant. You are confusing the righteousness of salvation (as the Pharisees lived) with righteousness of practical living.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Christians overcome through Christ's obedience and through his completed work on the cross and not by any works of our own, only faith. Can works accompany faith? Of course but our efforts, like setting up LC's in every city, do not and will not defeat the works of Satan. That is a work left to Christ alone (1 John 3:8).

By your own words you as an "overcomers" believe you will overcome the works of Satan when scripture teaches that Christ is the one that came to destroy Satan's works (1 John 3:8).

Overcoming and our works have no correlation. Overcoming is achieved only by faith in Christ's finished work.

To say that overcoming and our works have no correlation means that everyone is an overcomer. So why would Christ talk about "to him who overcomes". If everyone is an overcomer there is no incentive and so Revelation is pointless. You are confusing salvation with how we live the Christian life and Christ does not discourage anyone from overcoming "as He also overcame":

Rev 3:21
21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

It is well documented in Lee's teaching that we overcome only by Christ not ourselves. Yet, there are certain things we must do, such as pray, read the Word, fellowship, deny the self etc. You seem to be advocating a faith that is without any works at all which is not real faith (James 2:18). Only Satan would discourage Christians from even trying to overcome because of some twisted understanding of faith and works. You sound a lot like an ultra-Calvinist who thinks God's sovereignty will take care of everything and "Christ did so I don't have to".

Originally Posted by Jo S

The issue is that Lee's solution to "overcoming" is denying or coming out of denominations and setting up LC's in every city across the globe. This is a concerted works based system meant to bringing about Christ's return and is dominionist in nature. This teaching can also be found in the Pentecostal Latter Rain movement.

The LC's extra-biblical revelation goes that "one church one city" will be the model for Christians before the return of Christ. This reality being a sort of preparation of the "bride". This is where the doctrine of the "bride of Christ" being the church then comes into play. This is all rooted in charismania.

Isn't that what you are doing?

So what is the church for then? The church shouldn't do anything to prepare for Christ's return?

Where does the Bible say that Christ intended to return to a "messy house" after leaving it in good order as one church per city?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Hebrews 11:16 "But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city."

God has already prepared us a new body and a heavenly city (the bride). Do you believe this?

So what exactly do you think Christians need to do to prepare for Christ's return?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That is nonsense because the local churches achieve this by "as the Lord leads".

And on what authority do you say it is heretical other than your own?

On what authority did Lee claim one church one city is scripture? And by what standard would you judge what my authority or his authority is either way?

The Bible teaches to deny the flesh and the self. Do you deny this? Your accusations are baseless and ignorant.

Scripture teaches there are two approaches to denying the flesh. One is obedience that comes by faith and the other is works through self-righteousness. You fail to mention both sides. How is it then that I am the ignorant one?

To say that overcoming and our works have no correlation means that everyone is an overcomer. You are confusing salvation with how we live the Christian life and Christ does not discourage anyone from overcoming "as He also overcame":

Overcoming comes through faith alone. Not everyone has faith in Jesus Christ so how then do come to this conclusion?

Rev 3:21
21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

The question is how did Jesus overcome? By works of his own or by faith unto death on a cross?

It is well documented in Lee's teaching that we overcome only by Christ not ourselves. Yet, there are certain things we must do, You seem to be advocating a faith that is without any works at all which is not real faith (James 2:18). Only Satan would discourage Christians from even trying to overcome because of some twisted understanding of faith and works.

This is a contradiction in thought. If we overcome only by Christ, why must we do anything of our own to overcome? "Must" implies a means to an end, the end being personal victory (overcoming). By this you then confirm that you adopt a systematic approach to overcoming through works "such as pray, read the Word, fellowship, deny the self etc."

Prayer and fellowship should be the outflow and result of faith in Christ in knowing that he himself already overcame the world.

Works do not result in overcoming

Overcoming is the result of faith and a genuine faith produces works.

So what is the church for then? The church shouldn't do anything to prepare for Christ's return?

Where does the Bible say that Christ intended to return to a "messy house" after leaving it in good order as one church per city?

In Luke 18:8, Christ questions whether he will even find faith on the earth when he returns. Doesn't sound like things will be so tidy to me.

So what exactly do you think Christians need to do to prepare for Christ's return?

Where exactly in scripture does it say we need to make any preparations to his own body before he returns?

[Evangelical]

I know the difference between faith and works. You are preaching to the converted, not a Catholic. Both Nee and Lee taught that it is a mistake to think that salvation comes to us freely while overcoming comes as a result of our own effort.

See Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 2) Vol. 24: The Overcoming Life by Watchman Nee

I can provide other ministry material references if you like.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I know the difference between faith and works. You are preaching to the converted, not a Catholic. Both Nee and Lee taught that it is a mistake to think that salvation comes to us freely while overcoming comes as a result of our own effort.

See Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 2) Vol. 24: The Overcoming Life by Watchman Nee

I can provide other ministry material references if you like.

You already made the point that you have an intellectual understanding of the differences between faith and works through your argument here. No one questions that you are a convert of Witness Lee and not of the Catholic church. By making that remark maybe you assume I'm Catholic. Otherwise why would you so randomly bring up Catholicism here

Why do you insist on providing me with references? I certainly don't question your willingness to defer to links and other's material because you've demonstrated this over and over again. If I'm looking for a reference, I'll be sure to ask you at this point although I'd rather you yourself articulate what it is that you believe Nee and Lee taught. Otherwise by you constantly deferring without an actual argument in support of your reference, I question if you truly understand what you are presenting here of if you are simply doing so to hint at a perceived ignorance on my part.

If Nee and Lee taught that salvation does not come freely by God's grace and that overcoming the world comes by works like praying or reading scripture or setting up a one church per city model like the Latter Rain Pentecostals taught and not by faith (1 John 5:4-5), they taught wrong.

"4 For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world-- our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 Jn. 5:1 ESV)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

If Nee and Lee taught that salvation does not come freely by God's grace and that overcoming the world comes by works like praying or reading scripture or setting up a one church per city model like the Latter Rain Pentecostals taught and not by faith (1 John 5:4-5), they taught wrong.

)

We cannot overcome by praying or reading Scripture? Wow..did Christ teach you this? Did Christ also tell you not to prepare for His return?

I gave you references that show Lee and Nee do not believe in salvation or overcoming by works...because you are making false claims about their beliefs.. Not only, you refuse the information presented. Isnt it hypocritical for you to reference Lee but ask that I don't?

Everything you've written so far even this thread and forum is about Lees beliefs so why refuse the references and make this about my beliefs?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I wrote "Educate yourself about". You are talking about "Educate yourself with".

If someone is going to be make claims about Lee's teachings, they should first educate themselves about what he taught before posting unfounded allegations. To not do that would be called ignorance.

If you want to talk about "Why learn from somebody that has no degrees in anything? ", then perhaps ask Jo S that question, as they made it quite clear that Jesus who had no degrees, teaches them everything, and have no need for Lee, CARM, or Gill or other bible scholars, or even this forum.

So now you're comparing Lee to Jesus. Okay. Why not chant Lord Changshou then, instead of Lord Jesus?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

So now you're comparing Lee to Jesus. Okay. Why not chant Lord Changshou then, instead of Lord Jesus?

Where did I compare Lee to Jesus? This person started a thread about Lees teachings and wont even consider references to Lees teachings from anyone except themselves. It seems they are absorbed in their own gnosis and internal realities.

[Jo S]

I welcome your input, Awareness and I'm always up for a challenge, Evangelical.

I wonder if there's anyone else on the forum that would like to share their thoughts on the topic of dominion theology found within the LC's one city one church teaching.

Do you believe it applies or not? Or if you don't have an opinion either way, have you heard this comparison being made before?

I'd appreciate your thoughts.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I welcome your input, Awareness and I'm always up for a challenge, Evangelical.

I wonder if there's anyone else on the forum that would like to share their thoughts on the topic of dominion theology found within the LC's one city one church teaching.

Do you believe it applies or not? Or if you don't have an opinion either way, have you heard this comparison being made before?

I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Bro Jo S, I think we need to define dominion theology. Example, is dominion theology the Rushdoony type, and Theonomy type?

Like I stated, I'm not familiar with Latter Rain. What type of dominion theology do they embrace?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Jo S, I think we need to define dominion theology. Example, is dominion theology the Rushdoony type, and Theonomy type?

Like I stated, I'm not familiar with Latter Rain. What type of dominion theology do they embrace?

I always find myself having a hard time articulating my thoughts on this topic because it's just so easy to get lost in all the terminology, isn't it? I understand the more mainstream view of dominion theology is Christian nationalism but that's not what I'm talking about here. The type of dominionism I'm referring to is along the lines of church restoration and apostolic reformation. Here is the basis for the type of theology I'm talking about;

-Satan usurped dominion over the earth from Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.

-The body of believers (the overcomers/Joel's army/warrior bride of Christ ect), are the tool God will use to take back dominion and crush the serpent.

-Until the church is restored or prepared in a certain fashion, Christ will not return.

These three unscriptural beliefs are essentially the foundation of all dominion theology with the last one having the potential of focus, rather on just church reform, shifted to the political and social realms as well.

I believe all these types of dominionism are occurring simultaneously throughout a good portion of Christianity in one form or another (denomination or not) with the LC focused more on the restoration of the church to it's own exclusive extra biblical revelation of one church one city pattern of organization.

The belief that the members of the LC make up the only true church and all the rest of Christianity is apostate "Babylon" means that by having an LC in every city is having the ambition of bringing all Christians throughout the entire earth under the umbrella of the Local Churches by geographical city wide congregations. Essentially desiring to "dominate" Christendom and define Christianity by their ideology through their MOTA'S unique interpretation of scripture. They're not doing a great job at this because the LC is hardly known within Christianity but this is the driving force of it's organization from my understanding.

I also personally know that members of the LC branch which was quarantined view their leader as an apostle with unique revelation and rely solely on his guidance. This was from their own words. I assume the same was with Witness Lee. This is the mindset that comes straight out of movements like the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) and Kingdom Now, Latter Rain ect which is the type of dominionism I'm referring to.

Hope that makes it a bit more clear. Let me know your thoughts.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Satan usurped dominion over the earth from Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.

I believe that is correct. Satan usurped by deceiving man, rather than "God transferred ownership because man sinned". I am not sure other interpretations are possible.

Originally Posted by Jo S

-The body of believers (the overcomers/Joel's army/warrior bride of Christ ect), are the tool God will use to take back dominion and crush the serpent.

Romans 16:20 says
"And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly." , proving that Satan still has to be crushed ("will crush") and the church ("your feet") plays some part in that.

That is fundamental to the role of the church on the Earth as a tool God uses to bring about change on the Earth. It is related to Jesus's statement about us doing "greater things than these" (John 14:12), and "to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up" (Eph 4:12).

The building up of the church on the Earth is analogous to the defeat of Satan. If every person on the Earth was a Christian then Satan would be defeated completely. During the revivals of old, churches were full, crime ceased to exist, and police had nothing to do. This is a practical example of the church crushing Satan in a town or city. Who else but the church can do this?

Originally Posted by Jo S

-Until the church is restored or prepared in a certain fashion, Christ will not return.

The Bible says certain things have to be done by the church before Christ will return, such as:

Mark 13:10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I believe that is correct. Satan usurped by deceiving man, rather than "God transferred ownership because man sinned". I am not sure other interpretations are possible.

"Usurp" means to take by force. The purpose of using this specific word by these movements (Witness Lee also chose to use this term) is to provoke an emotional response as a type of rally cry.

Satan didn't force Eve to take the fruit, she willfully sinned just as Esau willfully gave up his inheritance. He didn't take dominion, it was lost through sin.

Romans 16:20 says
"And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly." , proving that Satan still has to be crushed ("will crush") and the church ("your feet") plays some part in that.

The "God of peace" will defeat Satan after his coming and after the millennial reign (Revelation 20), and not a pre-tribulation pre-raptured global church formed by MOTA'S or any other man. The LC looks to restore and organize Christianity in a one church per city model before Christ's coming. This won't happen because it's not scripture. If it does happen, it's not Jesus Christ's church. It's Anti-Christ's.

"That is fundamental to the role of the church on the Earth as a tool God uses to bring about change on the Earth. It is related to Jesus's statement about us doing "greater things than these" (John 14:12), and "to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up" (Eph 4:12).

The building up of the church on the Earth is analogous to the defeat of Satan. If every person on the Earth was a Christian then Satan would be defeated completely. During the revivals of old, churches were full, crime ceased to exist, and police had nothing to do. This is a practical example of the church crushing Satan in a town or city. Who else but the church can do this?

The Bible says certain things have to be done by the church before Christ will return, such as:

Mark 13:10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.

This is not written so why even consider this hypothetical? This scripturally unsupported mentality is where dominionism comes from. A need to dominate society absolutely through Christian ideology.

The commission given to God's people is to spread the gospel. Good works flow from that but a systematic organization of the church is not one of those works given to the Christians in scripture and it is not a work of ours that will defeat the works of Satan, that is a job for Christ's alone. (1 John 3:8).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I always find myself having a hard time articulating my thoughts on this topic because it's just so easy to get lost in all the terminology, isn't it? I understand the more mainstream view of dominion theology is Christian nationalism but that's not what I'm talking about here. The type of dominionism I'm referring to is along the lines of church restoration and apostolic reformation. Here is the basis for the type of theology I'm talking about;

-Satan usurped dominion over the earth from Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.

-The body of believers (the overcomers/Joel's army/warrior bride of Christ ect), are the tool God will use to take back dominion and crush the serpent.

-Until the church is restored or prepared in a certain fashion, Christ will not return.

These three unscriptural beliefs are essentially the foundation of all dominion theology with the last one having the potential of focus, rather on just church reform, shifted to the political and social realms as well.

I believe all these types of dominionism are occurring simultaneously throughout a good portion of Christianity in one form or another (denomination or not) with the LC focused more on the restoration of the church to it's own exclusive extra biblical revelation of one church one city pattern of organization.

The belief that the members of the LC make up the only true church and all the rest of Christianity is apostate "Babylon" means that by having an LC in every city is having the ambition of bringing all Christians throughout the entire earth under the umbrella of the Local Churches by geographical city wide congregations. Essentially desiring to "dominate" Christendom and define Christianity by their ideology through their MOTA'S unique interpretation of scripture. They're not doing a great job at this because the LC is hardly known within Christianity but this is the driving force of it's organization from my understanding.

I also personally know that members of the LC branch which was quarantined view their leader as an apostle with unique revelation and rely solely on his guidance. This was from their own words. I assume the same was with Witness Lee. This is the mindset that comes straight out of movements like the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) and Kingdom Now, Latter Rain ect which is the type of dominionism I'm referring to.

Hope that makes it a bit more clear. Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks. That helped a lot. Yes Lee's LC movement has some resemblance to dominion theology, particularly with your point #3 :

-Until the church is restored or prepared in a certain fashion, Christ will not return.

And it is true that there exists bigger and more successful dominionists, particularly in the political realm, than the Recovery could ever dream to be. Thank God for that.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

"Usurp" means to take by force. The purpose of using this specific word by these movements (Witness Lee also chose to use this term) is to provoke an emotional response as a type of rally cry.

Satan didn't force Eve to take the fruit, she willfully sinned just as Esau willfully gave up his inheritance. He didn't take dominion, it was lost through sin.

The meaning of the word usurp is not "take by force", and so the rest of your assertions are also wrong which are based on this wrong meaning about force.

I know you don't like external references but I must refer to a dictionary because your definitions are so wrong:

Usurp was borrowed into English in the 14th century from the Anglo-French word usorper, which in turn derives from the Latin verb usurpare, meaning "to take possession of without a legal claim." Usurpare itself was formed by combining usu (a form of usus, meaning "use") and rapere ("to seize").
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usurp

Take possession of without a legal claim can be by force but it can also be by deception. For example Jacob is also known as a usurper but there was no force, just deception.

Originally Posted by Jo S

The "God of peace" will defeat Satan after his coming and after the millennial reign (Revelation 20), and not a pre-tribulation pre-raptured global church formed by MOTA'S or any other man. The LC looks to restore and organize Christianity in a one church per city model before Christ's coming. This won't happen because it's not scripture. If it does happen, it's not Jesus Christ's church. It's Anti-Christ's.

If this verse referred to the second coming then why does it say shortly, i.e. "under your feet shortly"?

Your statement about it being Anti-Christ does not make sense. Yes I can see it happening, after the whole world has one church per city, in order to "bring the Lord back", then we'll bring out the pentagrams, the devil horns, force everyone to take a microchip in the hand, and when Christ comes tell Him to go back to Heaven.

Originally Posted by Jo S

This is not written so why even consider this hypothetical? This scripturally unsupported mentality is where dominionism comes from. A need to dominate society absolutely through Christian ideology.

The commission given to God's people is to spread the gospel. Good works flow from that but a systematic organization of the church is not one of those works given to the Christians in scripture and it is not a work of ours that will defeat the works of Satan, that is a job for Christ's alone. (1 John 3:8).

The systematic organization of the church can be found here:

Acts 14:23
Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

and here:

Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

And as a Christian I do not see a problem with dominating society with Christian idealogy. In fact I welcome it. The alternatives are atheist/secular, muslim, hindu, Jewish... the more Christian dominion the better I say.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The meaning of the word usurp is not "take by force", and so the rest of your assertions are also wrong which are based on this wrong meaning about force.

I know you don't like external references but I must refer to a dictionary because your definitions are so wrong:

Usurp was borrowed into English in the 14th century from the Anglo-French word usorper, which in turn derives from the Latin verb usurpare, meaning "to take possession of without a legal claim." Usurpare itself was formed by combining usu (a form of usus, meaning "use") and rapere ("to seize").
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usurp

Take possession of without a legal claim can be by force but it can also be by deception. For example Jacob is also known as a usurper but there was no force, just deception.

You just said it; to "seize". Your argument actually validates mine. Here is the definition of seize;

seize
sēz/Submit
verb
1.
take hold of suddenly and forcibly.

To usurp is to forcefully take hold of. This is not what took place in the garden yet it is a term used by Lee and other dominionist movements to appeal to people's emotions.

Satan didn't "take" anything. Through deception he subjected man to himself through sin. So if man was slave to sin how is it that they continued to be masters over creation? Humans as well became slaves to creation because Genesis 3:19 then said after the fall;

"By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

This no longer sound as if they we have mastery or dominion over the earth but rather became slaves to creation.

If this verse referred to the second coming then why does it say shortly, i.e. "under your feet shortly"?

Your statement about it being Anti-Christ does not make sense. Yes I can see it happening, after the whole world has one church per city, in order to "bring the Lord back", then we'll bring out the pentagrams, the devil horns, force everyone to take a microchip in the hand, and when Christ comes tell Him to go back to Heaven.

He also said at the end of Revelation 22:7, "Look, I am coming soon". Christ said this from heaven and remember with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

God still does all the work even if he uses our "feet". And this will all occur after the millennial reign, not before like the LC envisions it happening.

The systematic organization of the church can be found here:

Acts 14:23
Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

and here:

Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

Your verse of Acts does not make an argument for one church per city worldwide.

In Titus 1:5, Paul is meaning every town he directed on the island of Crete, not every town on the entire planet. I'd imagine Titus would be exhausted even thinking about undertaking such an enormous and ambitious task.

And as a Christian I do not see a problem with dominating society with Christian idealogy. In fact I welcome it. The alternatives are atheist/secular, muslim, hindu, Jewish... the more Christian dominion the better I say.

You just validated my thread. You are by definition a dominionist, Evangelical.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

You just said it; to "seize". Your argument actually validates mine. Here is the definition of seize;

seize
sēz/Submit
verb
1.
take hold of suddenly and forcibly.

To usurp is to forcefully take hold of. This is not what took place in the garden yet it is a term used by Lee and other dominionist movements to appeal to people's emotions.

Satan didn't "take" anything. Through deception he subjected man to himself through sin. So if man was slave to sin how is it that they continued to be masters over creation? Humans as well became slaves to creation because Genesis 3:19 then said after the fall;

"By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

This no longer sound as if they we have mastery or dominion over the earth but rather became slaves to creation.

That is only one possible definition. The meaning is a more general one to take something illegally or without authority. It can be by force but doesn't have to be.

The Oxford dictionary ( a real English dictionary by the way ) says (with some example sentences):

Take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force.

1.1 Take the place of (someone in a position of power) illegally; supplant.
‘the Hanoverian dynasty had usurped the Stuarts’

1.2usurp on/uponarchaic no object Encroach or infringe upon (someone's rights)
‘the Church had usurped upon the domain of the state’

‘By transmitting the virus willingly one is usurping on others’ rights to life and happiness.’

So the meaning of usurp is truly "illegal or by force".

The Collins dictionary makes it even clearer:

If you say that someone usurps a job, role, title, or position, they take it from someone when they have no right to do this.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di.../english/usurp

So "Satan usurping Eve" means taking something from her when he has no right to do it.

Originally Posted by Jo S

He also said at the end of Revelation 22:7, "Look, I am coming soon". Christ said this from heaven and remember with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

God still does all the work even if he uses our "feet". And this will all occur after the millennial reign, not before like the LC envisions it happening.

Paul seemed to think the church would have some sort of victory over Satan "shortly". I do not see it relating well to Christ's use of the word "soon".

Originally Posted by Jo S

You just validated my thread. You are by definition a dominionist, Evangelical.

So what's the problem with Christian idealogy (any oxymoron by the way) dominating society anyway? I think most Christians would like that.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So what's the problem with Christian idealogy (any oxymoron by the way) dominating society anyway? I think most Christians would like that.

I appreciate the challenge, Evangelical. It's all I needed to hear from you on this topic.

[Jo S]

Here's a good article explaining the New Apostolic Reformation which is the movement I believe the Local Churches are aligned with. Of course the LC's are infused with elements of Asian culture making it stand a bit more apart from the more westernized churches.

The issue is, the LC's are so good at isolating their members from the rest of Christianity that the majority aren't aware that these same core beliefs are wide spread throughout the churches today.


http://www.apologeticsindex.org/2977...ation-overview


or Podcast, including testimonies, if you prefer:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYL6ir-GKNk

Also look into the "Chinese House Church Movement" which is considered by NAR leader, C Peter Wagner, as the root of the modern New Apostolic Reformation movement.

BTW, you'll see within the New Apostolic Reformation the promoting of house churches or home meetings. The truth is it's all a part of this movements dominionist agenda. These are not independent house churches but are linked in networks, with a hierarchy of elders over them controlling what to be taught just as it is with the LC.

Pray for discernment. God bless.

[Jo S]

Another good article talking about the New Apostolic Reformation and their "local church" agenda.

https://churchwatchcentral.com/2018/...ch-government/

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Another good article talking about the New Apostolic Reformation and their "local church" agenda.

https://churchwatchcentral.com/2018/...ch-government/

See the quote below.

if we asked the Christian in a local church where their loyalty lies, they would say they are loyal to God, not to the church organization, but they would point out that they show their loyalty to God by being part of the church fellowship (Hebrews 10:25).

In contrast, the Super Apostles’ definition of Local Church means all Christians within one city being under one hierarchical administrative system.

Their definition rests on their assumption that Christians in the early church were all members of a single church in each city; the church in Cenchrea, the church in Ephesus, and so on. And while the church met in different places within the city, the whole church was supposedly run by a single overall city-wide administration.

The capital "L" capital "C" Local Church is posited as distinct from the generic local assembly in that it's a vehicle for a non-local apostle. The LC takeover of the city is a vehicle for the apostle to take over the church. Did we learn nothing from the Reformation? I thought the papacy was rejected as of men.

The "one hierarchical administrative system" idea is taking the letter of Paul - "apostles, prophets and teachers" - and subverting the spirit of Jesus, where those who desire to be great should be the least. Instead of humility and service, we get worldly concepts of administration and the fleshly corruption that follows. Whether it be the Western variant of Ted Haggert and Todd Bentley, or the Eastern variant of Witness Lee and David Yonggi Cho, we see men who should be categorically denied influence by NT dictum instead running roughshod over the church.

The inability of Bentley and Haggert to control their appetites, and the inability of Cho and Lee to control those of their progeny, indicated their lack of fitness to lead. Yet they were allowed to re-write the Bible to give themselves control. Why?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

The inability of Bentley and Haggert to control their appetites, and the inability of Cho and Lee to control those of their progeny, indicated their lack of fitness to lead. Yet they were allowed to re-write the Bible to give themselves control. Why?

Would you rather Lee have been better fit to lead then? Would that have made things better or worse?

BTW, the NAR has their own translation of the bible as well. It's called the TPT or the passion translation written by one man and a proponent of this movement, Brain Simmons.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Would you rather Lee have been better fit to lead then? Would that have made things better or worse?

I probably should define "fit to lead" here. First disqualifier is youth and inexperience. Watchman Nee probably took on too much too quickly (he essentially gained instant prominence by plagiarizing J P-L as a twenty-something but who knew, back then) and the glory of men went right to his head and ruined him for life. If you read his biographies he was extremely charismatic. Mesmerising. And I use that word deliberately. He took the wrong path, and brought many behind him. He had a rocket ride to the top of the heap, and when it flamed out, in front of the Communist show trial, it took many down. I heard that Ruth Lee became an atheist afterward.

A leader should be one with experience. What we'd call an "elder", an older or more mature person. There are elders who serve (read: lead) and elders who don't - those elders who serve should be accorded a double honour, and the elders who don't should get a single honour. (1 Tim 5:17).

All elderly folks should be respected; and those who lead well should be respected most of all. Some translations of 1 Tim 5 say "rule well" but for a Christian to "rule" means self-control; it doesn't mean you boss others around, telling them of the "flow from the throne".

The second qualification, following self-rule, is "Love and good works" ~Heb 10:24 "And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works," In this Dorcas is probably my template. She was full of good works. If she did that for many years, and became old, and had a history of love and good works, she would be a leader.

So I respect BP as an elder. I respect RK, I respected WL (no, really). I just think they got caught by a bad idea.

[Jo S]

Aron, I don't want to make this thread about Watchman Nee or Witness Lee. To be blunt, correcting Nee's or Lee's shortcomings will not make them any more men of God and fixing the LC's theology will not make it any more a legitimate move of God. My point with comparing the LC to NAR is to show how deep this runs throughout Christendom.

Correct me if I'm wrong but most of you, even though you've protested and left the LC's, still think it is/was something small and unique. I just don't see that and that's what I'm trying to show here so you all don't feel so small.

The more and more I study the New Apostolic Reformation, the more I'm convinced the LC's are aligned with this movement's spirit and theology if not one of the original progenitors of this more modern phenomenon.

From what I see, the LC's adopt theology stemming from early 20th century Pentecostal thought such as Latter Rain, Kingdom Now dominionism, Joel's army (overcomers), manifest Sons of God (God-men) ect which are the backbone to NAR's doctrine. And of course implementation of the apostolic office (or MOTA).

If you work to remove the cultural lingo and other nuisances from the LC's, beneath the surface you'll find NAR.

If you disagree let me know why.

[Cal]

Jo S, Hi. Do you mean the NAR is a kindred spirit of the LR, or that it has an official association with it? I can believe the former, but the LR is not going to share the stage with anyone. If anything defines the LR, it's that they and they alone are the be all and end all.

The characteristics of extreme and abusive religious groups are common among them. Usually they are based in ideas of unique mission, superior doctrine and vision, and self-assumed, overbearing spiritual authority. Starting from there, whole labyrinths of abusive practices can develop, which are common to the groups--essentially rooted in the compromise of the individual conscience.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Jo S, Hi. Do you mean the NAR is a kindred spirit of the LR, or that it has an official association with it? I can believe the former, but the LR is not going to share the stage with anyone. If anything defines the LR, it's that they and they alone are the be all and end all.

The characteristics of extreme and abusive religious groups are common among them. Usually they are based in ideas of unique mission, superior doctrine and vision, and self-assumed, overbearing spiritual authority. Starting from there, whole labyrinths of abusive practices can develop, which are common to the groups--essentially rooted in the compromise of the individual conscience.

Igzy, the thing is NAR isn't an organization and therefore does not have formal membership. It's quite simply a phenomenon. Just as an individual within the LR wouldn't consider themselves as being anything other than a Christian so it is with those influenced by NAR. And as with most other sweeping movement within Christianity, they also consider themselves be all and end all. So I don't see any distinction there other than the LR hasn't realized they're just a small part of a much bigger operation because of being so infectively sheltered from the rest of Christendom. The only thing I can think of that would keep the LR in an exclusivist mindset and stand in opposition to the rest of the NAR movement is if in fact the LR is one of the early progenitors of NAR and pridefully try to retain all the "glory" for themselves. Just a thought. I haven't yet researched enough to say for sure but one of the main proponents of NAR, C Peter Wagner, seems to think that the Chinese house movement of the early 1970's (if I'm not mistaken influenced Lee's LR) is at the root of it all.

[Cal]

As Jerry Seinfeld said, "There's always someone who wants to take a good thing just a little too far."

There's nothing wrong with wanting to break new ground in following the Lord, and be humbly thankful for any blessings he bestows in that. But is that enough for them? No-ooo! They have to be THE new ground. They have to be the sole recovering move of the Lord, so they can be special and look down their noses at everyone else.

It's human nature, and certainly not the new creation.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Igzy

There's nothing wrong with wanting to break new ground in following the Lord, and be humbly thankful for any blessings he bestows in that. But is that enough for them? No-ooo! They have to be THE new ground. They have to be the sole recovering move of the Lord, so they can be special and look down their noses at everyone else.

It's human nature, and certainly not the new creation.

I suppose my point in this thread was that the Lord's Recovery was never really "new ground" to begin with. Same ground different outgrowth. It's just that members of the LR aren't aware of all the other movements that have happened and are continuing to take place within post denominationalism. Could it be a case of ignorance is bliss? I'll let you be the judge.

[seeking1]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I suppose my point in this thread was that the Lord's Recovery was never really "new ground" to begin with. Same ground different outgrowth. It's just that members of the LR aren't aware of all the other movements that have happened and are continuing to take place within post denominationalism. Could it be a case of ignorance is bliss? I'll let you be the judge.

It's interesting that the LC's and the Latter Rain/NAR can both be traced back to the same ground, Keswick http://faithsaves.net/sanctification...-higher-life-3. We kicked this around a bit in the Egalitarianism Vs. Complementarianism thread.

Though I do see some similarities, like incorrect use of the office of Apostle and the idea of an elite group of remnant believers that will bring the Lord back, they differ in a lot of ways. The LR is an exclusive group that looks down on mainstream Christianity as poor and degraded. While the NAR has been mingling (yes, I'm using mingling) itself with mainstream Christianity and has even gained the endorsement of seemingly legit teacher's like Francis Chan, as mentioned in another thread.

In my opinion, what is going on in the LC's is small potatoes compared to what is going on in the Latter Rain/NAR Churches. Just watch this Youtube video on Todd Bentley https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDEsXVUQeLo&t=6s then watch this Youtube video of these "Apostles" C. Peter Wagner, Rick Joyner, Bill Johnson et al, public laying hands on Todd Bentley to endorse his ministry. It Is Nuts.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I suppose my point in this thread was that the Lord's Recovery was never really "new ground" to begin with. Same ground different outgrowth. It's just that members of the LR aren't aware of all the other movements that have happened and are continuing to take place within post denominationalism. Could it be a case of ignorance is bliss? I'll let you be the judge.

No, there's nothing new under the sun. Just the same old error recycled, repackaged and tweaked to look a little different.

It all boils down to people ill-content with servant-leadership, but rather wanting to be big shots. Or, as Ron Kangas calls them, "God-men." For all their talk about the cross, they don't know the cross from a three-legged house cat. The cross is basically choosing to love others in deed, no matter the cost.

The devil will keep rolling this stuff out as long as there are chumps to lap it up. Sadly, there probably will be.

Find a solid, Bible-based church which preaches service, others-centeredness and servant-leadership. That's the narrow way that leads to life.

[aron]

Originally Posted by seeking1

In my opinion, what is going on in the LC's is small potatoes compared to what is going on in the Latter Rain/NAR Churches. Just watch this Youtube video on Todd Bentley https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDEsXVUQeLo&t=6s then watch this Youtube video of these "Apostles" C. Peter Wagner, Rick Joyner, Bill Johnson et al, public laying hands on Todd Bentley to endorse his ministry. It Is Nuts.

Yes it is nuts, but in both cases it is people usurping for themselves a position that it is only the Lord's to give. Instead of taking the least place, people are tempted to take the greatest place. Look what followed on both counts. Confusion and disarray. People who are not qualified for local-level leadership get extra-local leadership.

That Witness Lee became the means whereby his obviously ungodly sons preyed upon the church, both financially and physically, shows that he's cut from the same cloth as Bentley. The only differences are in the details.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by seeking1

Though I do see some similarities, like incorrect use of the office of Apostle and the idea of an elite group of remnant believers that will bring the Lord back, they differ in a lot of ways. The LR is an exclusive group that looks down on mainstream Christianity as poor and degraded. While the NAR has been mingling (yes, I'm using mingling) itself with mainstream Christianity and has even gained the endorsement of seemingly legit teacher's like Francis Chan, as mentioned in another thread.

The way the NAR movement works is it creeps it's way into well established churches and slowly takes over.

I was under the impression that the LC's also use the practice of supplanting existing churches.

I really do not see any difference between the Lord's Recovery and New Apostolic Reformation other than the cultural quirks.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I was under the impression that the LC's also use the practice of supplanting existing churches.

They used to do that if there was a group meeting as the church in the city they wanted to migrate to. I don't think they ever bother with that anymore.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

They used to do that if there was a group meeting as the church in the city they wanted to migrate to. I don't think they ever bother with that anymore.

They do it a LOT overseas. What they did to the house churches of Nee that survived decades of Communist rule is well-documented. And Jane Anderson has a testimony from India on her site. And look at Ethiopia...

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

They do it a LOT overseas. What they did to the house churches of Nee that survived decades of Communist rule is well-documented. And Jane Anderson has a testimony from India on her site. And look at Ethiopia...

I figured. I meant I didn't think they did it in the US.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Correct me if I'm wrong but most of you, even though you've protested and left the LC's, still think it is/was something small and unique. I just don't see that and that's what I'm trying to show here so you all don't feel so small.

Jo S, when it comes to abusing and deceiving the elect of God, this is something global and timeless. I have repeatedly shown the connections between Catholicism, Plymouth Brethrenism, and the Recovery, only because I am familiar with them.

Though we focus on issues central to LSM and the LC's, they are by no means unique to them, as you say.

[aron]

This is on another thread:

Originally Posted by boa2014

have anyone heard of the international house of prayer? Living in Kansas, this is huge and I am pretty sure most Christians know about it. I wonder if anyone feels like in some ways ihop is similar to the local church.

Mike Bickle, the founder, focuses much on the book of Song of Songs and the book of Revelation. Lots of college students join the internship (which is ~ the training) and it has a strict schedule. It is a one-man ministry. And, pray-reading is widely encouraged throughout the movement. Also they believe the Lord will not come back until they make their prayer movement a global, international movement. They also stress the need of "forerunners" for Christ before He returns, which is similar of being "overcomers" in LC. Any thoughts?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

The simple fact that at Christ's tempting Satan showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time and said to him, 'All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou wilt worship me all shalt be thine.' (Luke 4:5-7), shows that Satan couldn't have offered Christ what wasn't his to begin with otherwise there wouldn't have been no bases for Christ to potentially sin in the first place.

And then there is 2 Corinthians 4:4;

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not........."

Again, God establishes ALL powers on earth (Romans 13:1). If Satan is "ruler of this world", it implies God allowed him to establish it. Nothing was taken from God that wasn't allowed by him in the first place.

Satan is a thief relative to man but not God. Satan did not "usurp" as Lee or the commentators put it or take anything by force. Instead by sin, he subjected man to himself and with that, man's dominion. Force was not involved in any way, man sinned willfully.

As long as man is subject to sin, he is subject to Satan. Therefore, if fear and terror come through sin and creation is subject to it, it follows that creation is subject to Satan. This is the conclusion the apostles reached otherwise they wouldn't have called Satan "god of this world".

In John 14 Jesus said, "The ruler of this world is coming, and in me he has nothing." If Jesus calls Satan the ruler of this world, who are we to argue?

I was considering the prayer where Jesus says, "Thy will be done on earth as in heaven". In such there are indeed "rulers over five cities" and "rulers over ten cities" (Luke 19:17,19) - the idea being that in heaven, God's will is done through deputies, in hierarchy... but on earth, God's will is done by our taking the least place. On earth, Jesus took the least place, because of sin. Paul made this very clear.

Then the self-anointed Super Apostle interposed his own fallen human will whilst calling it God's will, and the dupes were happy for a time, with new-found purpose and meaning. "Go out and take the cities of the earth" they were told. "Preach the high peak, recovered truth". Then at some point the Super Apostle imposed his admittedly unspiritual son as Office Manager, who then ran roughshod over local church elders and thus "the cities of the earth". What a scam.

I don't know much about the NAR but I see similarly in that a fallen sinner convinces other sinners to come under him, that this will incur God's blessing. Because of sin, we should not presume pride of place. Dominion, in Christan terms, is self-control, and the ability to resist evil and do good (help others, show love). Those who lack self-control will then try to control others. See, e.g., Witness Lee, and sons Timothy and Philip.

We called it "the flow" from the throne of God, through Witness Lee, but it was the God of this age tricking man into taking a position that was not his to claim. Remember that Jude 1 has a warning, repeated in 2 Peter, about the angels who did not keep their place? In the church there is the temptation to leave our place, and to begin to lord over others. This is exactly what is seen with Nee, Lee and the "recovery".

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Considering the prayer, "Thy will be done on earth as in heaven" - Jesus taught that there are indeed "rulers over five cities" and "rulers over ten cities" (Luke 19:17,19). In heaven, God's will is done through deputies, in hierarchy... but on earth, God's will is done by our taking the least place. On earth, Jesus took the least place, because of sin. Paul made this very clear.

Then the self-anointed New Apostle interposed his own fallen human will whilst calling it God's will, and the dupes were happy for a time, with new-found purpose and meaning. "Go out and take the cities of the earth" they were told. "Preach the high peak, recovered truth". Then at some point the New Apostle imposed his admittedly unspiritual son as Office Manager, who then ran roughshod over local church elders and thus "the cities of the earth". What a scam.

This is probably a crucial point to consider with the New Apostles movement, which arguably includes the LC. "Thy reign come: Thy will come to pass, as in heaven also on the earth." ~Matt 6:10 YLT

God's kingdom come to earth is where His dominion and reign extends. My argument is that the NT, building on the Hebrew scripture (OT) suggests that because of sin, the way home is repentance and faith, followed by humility, self control, and service. Those who believe into Jesus are transferred from one realm to another, and show signs of discipleship by self control, lowering themselves, and doing good to others. Clearly Jesus set the pattern, both in teaching and in works. Those who mouth the faith but don't consistently act accordingly to Jesus' pattern are merely "hearers and not doers" of the word.

Now, the "New Apostle" (NA) comes along, thinking that they're the apostolic channel of God's will on earth, and convinces others to subsume their will to theirs. The NA displays godly attributes and some teaching skills, or healing signs and "charisma", and then the gathering acolytes are taken as "proof" that the divine will rests on this elect vessel. The LC will cite books published and sold, assemblies raised up, training centres created, etc. For a while, those duped think they're onto some special "recovered truth" as the warm fuzzies from following a self-exalted person accomany the act. Their joy and satisfaction at your discipleship and obedience becomes your joy in submission. You then take this transferred, conditional joy as some "latter rain".

But there was a second, crucial, validating aspect of Jesus' ministry: the resurrection from the dead on the third day. This is taken as proof of God's giving him glory. The signs were proof ("if you don't believe me, believe the works" ~John 10:38; 14:11), and the resurrection was the confirmation from God. "And God blessed him, and gave him the name above every name on earth or in heaven, or under the earth, in this age and to come".

No matter how many 'signs' and 'proofs' one exhibits of being a Jesus-follower, even a possibly great one (a "spiritual giant" in LC terms), ultimately one's place is given by God at the end, and not by man today. If it's given by people then sin will at some point interpose itself, and we'll see the result: corruption. A Todd Bentley or a Ted Haggard sins, or David Yonggi Cho or Witness Lee son sins, and then what happens to our NA sand castle? It's ruined.

The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is proof that "there is one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus", but those who claim on earth today to be apostolic mediators between others and Jesus, or to be"Deputy God" in LC parlance, are making themselves Christ in position if not in title. Witness Lee complained that the Chinese worshiped him as God - well, guess what, he'd set them up. He'd put it into play, and they picked it up and ran with it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

Now, the "New Apostle" (NA) comes along, thinking that they're the apostolic channel of God's will on earth, and convinces others to subsume their will to theirs.

This is the core of the error, the presumption of authority and acquiescence to it. The false leader presumes authority, and the misled submit to it. Why? Because they are afraid not to. Why? Because they have been warned something bad will happen to them if they don't. Plus, hasn't the leader "helped" them? Isn't he "great?" This is a subtle, deceiving and powerful psychological trap. And it has been used again and again in history to control people, by both religious and political leaders.

And others. I've said that I watched the documentary "Leaving Neverland," which is about singer Michael Jackson's pedophilia, and even used the theme in one of the MOTA comics. Jackson told his young victims they shared a "unique" love, and that they had something that no one else would understand and would try to attack, and that they must never betray that love or discuss what they did in private or they would "go to jail." Does that sound eerily familiar?

This psychological trap was so strong that even in adulthood the victims felt they should protect Jackson and felt guilty about exposing him. Such is the power of this selfish, abusive control exploiting misplaced loyalty and fear.

As I watched the film, I slowly realized that I had been subjected to the same kind of abuse. Not sexual, but spiritual. My spiritual being was violated and abused for selfish purposes by people who cared more about their "vision" than they did about me or anyone else. Like those victims of Jackson, it took me years to face what had happened to me. Like them, I felt guilty about "betraying" Witness Lee. Hadn't he done so much for me? Hadn't he given me so much? Michael Jackson gave those boys a lot, too. He showered them with gifts and attention and let them do anything on his fantastic theme park estate in California. He "loved" them, as he "loved" all children.

But no sane person would say that excused what he did to them. And no sane person would say what Witness Lee did, and what his successors are now doing, is excusable either.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

No matter how many 'signs' and 'proofs' one exhibits of being a Jesus-follower, even a possibly great one (a "spiritual giant" in LC terms), ultimately one's place is given by God at the end, and not by man today. If it's given by people then sin will at some point interpose itself, and we'll see the result: corruption. A Todd Bentley or a Ted Haggard sins, or David Yonggi Cho or Witness Lee son sins, and then what happens to our NA sand castle? It's ruined.

I've never been a fan of either Christian News or Local News, and thus have missed out on many a story over the years, of both "blessings" and "scandals." Having become more than familiar with LSM's many "claims and shames," I guess knowing of that was enough for me, since I had invested so much in their program.

For me it has always been a struggle to discern the many 'signs' and 'proofs' which Christians claim. Yes, the Bible does provide instruction to heed them, (e.g. Mark 16.17; 2 Cor 12.12) but in our day how difficult it is to test them for authenticity. During Jesus time, recipients of miracles were often scrutinized by Jewish leaders, yet the facts were undeniable. (e.g. John 9, Acts 3) These events were so real, that they were willing to endure endless examination and even suffering.

WL made it easy for his followers. First he claimed a past history of miraculous signs, which none of us could verify. Second, he used "numbers" to prove he had the prerequisite "signs" for today, i.e. numbers of churches and numbers of books. Who was I to argue with that?

Recently, while visiting a Bible study in some friends' home, we heard about the "weeping Bible" in Dalton, GA. They have been collecting "anointing oil" from this bible for months, curing all manners of evils. I was told, "it has to be the Lord, cause how could they fake it?" I tend to believe everything can be faked, yet I still hold out hope, lest I be convicted of an "evil heart of unbelief."

Fortunately for me, salvation is based on my faith in the greatest sign of all, that Jesus Christ died for my sins according to the scripture, that God raised Him from the dead, and has exalted Him above all.

[Cal]

I think it's clear enough that displays of the miraculous power of God are required for proof of apostleship (2 Cor 12:12*). To try to water down that verse so that "signs" just means "great works" seems irresponsible. If the Bible even hints that an apostle must prove his apostleship with miracles then we should err on the side of caution.

Apostles should have to prove themselves. We shouldn't have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Neither should we have to go around worrying if we missed an apostle. Apostleship should be clear, and the Bible says that clarity comes by seeing miracles worked.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

*"The signs, indeed, of the apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." Young's Literal Translation

[aron]

There is a reason I brought up the subject of signs. Jesus' resurrection from the dead was the sign from God that his ministry was fully validated and now he is in glory. If one believes into the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, one tacitly accepts his position as "firstborn of creation". Case closed.

With the apostles, they were picked by Jesus and thus validated. Paul received the right hand of fellowship. The NAR and any other Apostolic-wanna-be lacks all of this. They have their delusion and their ability to convince others that it is real. But guess what - there are plenty of dupes out there, unfortunately. I was one. A mass of followers doesn't validate an apostle. Neither do signs.

Jesus alone has the validated sign - resurrection. The NT apostles were chosen by Jesus. Any other "apostle", whether RCC or post-Protestant has none of these. They get reflecting pools and mausoleums when they die. None of them has been resurrected. Only Jesus has. So claims of greatness not only ring hollow, but should be automatically viewed with suspiction.

Another thing that Jo S mentioned, is the connection between hyper-excited "charismatic" states and the susceptibility to suggestion. This is a danger. They get you to be subjective, and then they impose their subjectivity (which is self-oriented, natch). At some point they may even be telling you scripture is "fallen" and "natural concepts" (!!!) while you hang on their every word as if it came from God.

All of us who believe have some ability to channel God. All of us who believe have some residue which might block God, and interpose self-will of fallen man. Peter is used in the NT as an example of this. Revelation is seen, as well as error.

The New Apostle side-steps this with a special Untouchable status. And then everyone else is measured how they relate to the NA. This kind of referent point is only reserved for Jesus Christ. This last point may or may not apply to the NAR folk, but it certainly applies to Witness Lee and Watchman Nee. Ruth Lee apparently became an atheist when she realized Watchman Nee was a fallen human being like any other, with human frailty and foibles.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

But guess what - there are plenty of dupes out there, unfortunately. I was one. A mass of followers doesn't validate an apostle. Neither do signs.

When the prey is young people, I wouldn't call them dupes. They are definitely victims. We were victims. They exploited our idealism and trust.

But I agree that signs alone don't validate an apostle. But to me they are a minimum requirement. A following means little. Anyone ruthless enough can come up with a way to get a following. Just look at L. Ron Hubbard.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But I agree that signs alone don't validate an apostle. But to me they are a minimum requirement. A following means little. Anyone ruthless enough can come up with a way to get a following. Just look at L. Ron Hubbard.

Not only did Paul list "signs" as evidence, but also his suffering. Sufferings of all kinds, with little comfort to justify his status. This to me is a greater proof, the proving of our faith, trials by sufferings, so that what passes thru is of God alone.

Ministers love to duplicate his "hankerchief" miracles (Acts 19.12), but who is willing to suffer as he did, for the Lord, for the truth, for the gospel, for the saints, and for righteousness sake? Paul took his sufferings from the Lord, not just the "thorns," and did not see them as from the "devil." Who could ever be a real minister, when all he has to share is the gospel of "prosperity."

The apostles thus battled false "super-apostles" their entire lives. Endless counterfeits came and went, deceiving the elect. How much more today.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The New Apostle side-steps this with a special Untouchable status.

From a small child I was indoctrinated with this evil, called the "infallibility of the Pope." It was never questioned. Endless modifications of this same theme have been used to deceive God's children for centuries.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

From a small child I was indoctrinated with this evil, called the "infallibility of the Pope." It was never questioned. Endless modifications of this same theme have been used to deceive God's children for centuries.

It all comes down to: Does your leader seem like your servant, or like your lord? If he seems like your lord, he is not a biblical leader.

[Jo S]

Thesis on the "House Church Movement".

[Jo S]

The Lord's Recovery movement's main inertia comes from Dominionism or Kingdom Now theology.

This is a heretical and non scriptural teaching turns Christ's 2nd coming into a works based effort where taking every city for God and establishing a Local Church in each one is a requirement before he returns. Kingdom Now theology exalts man and makes God dependent on man and his faith in order for God to accomplish His will. God’s rule is diminished and His sovereignty is attacked.

People that adhere to this theology view themselves as the end-time army for God with the command to take dominion over three areas; 1) societal, 2) economic, and 3) religious spheres. The Local Churches fall into the third category.

Here's a website explaining Kingdom Now theology which is also a popular belief among charismatic faiths;

https://www.gotquestions.org/kingdom-now.html

[aron]

The connection between Watchman Nee, the Latter Rain and New Apostolic Reformation is probably stronger than most realize.

Here is a link to a website that points out the connection.

https://coveringandauthority.com/?fb...aRBmORYX8A_3Mk

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Jo S

The Lord's Recovery movement's main inertia comes from Dominionism or Kingdom Now theology.

This is a heretical and non scriptural teaching turns Christ's 2nd coming into a works based effort where taking every city for God and establishing a Local Church in each one is a requirement before he returns. Kingdom Now theology exalts man and makes God dependent on man and his faith in order for God to accomplish His will. God’s rule is diminished and His sovereignty is attacked.

People that adhere to this theology view themselves as the end-time army for God with the command to take dominion over three areas; 1) societal, 2) economic, and 3) religious spheres. The Local Churches fall into the third category.

Here's a website explaining Kingdom Now theology which is also a popular belief among charismatic faiths;

https://www.gotquestions.org/kingdom-now.html

EXCELLENT insight and info!!! Thanks!

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

EXCELLENT insight and info!!! Thanks!

You're welcome!

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

The connection between Watchman Nee, the Latter Rain and New Apostolic Reformation is probably stronger than most realize.

Here is a link to a website that points out the connection.

https://coveringandauthority.com/?fb...aRBmORYX8A_3Mk

Who would have thought. It is so important for us to seek the TRUTH, to study the Word with the help of God the Holy Spirit so we are not tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine.. especially false doctrine and false teachings.

Thanks Aron!

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It all comes down to: Does your leader seem like your servant, or like your lord? If he seems like your lord, he is not a biblical leader.

WOW!! you guys are on a roll with outstanding observations! muchas gracias for sharing your findings.

[Jo S]

Another thing to look out for in those that adhere to the spirit of the New Apostolic Reformation is an inclination toward, or even an obsession with, the Song of Songs.

Brian Simmons, a main leader of the NAR movement, (who authored the official NAR bible translation; "The Passion Translation") also based his very first book on the Song of Songs.

The NAR minded believer's faith is typically centered around the "subjective Christ" and the pursuit of spiritual passion and ecstasy, as in focusing on the "joy of the Lord" (which is really just induced states of consciousness) so they're naturally drawn to the Song of Songs as it's poetry that primarily celebrates human sexuality and passion.

While doing research I discovered a book written by GLA Local Church "apostle" and "prophet", Titus Chu, coincidentally carrying an identical title to that of Brian Simmons book; "Song of Songs, A Divine Romance".

https://ministrymessages.org/song-of-songs-dr/

I don't know if that's where the coincidence ends but nevertheless it was interesting to discover...

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

Ruth Lee apparently became an atheist when she realized Watchman Nee was a fallen human being like any other, with human frailty and foibles.

How did you find this out? just curious as I never heard tthis. But I never knew W Lee was twice married either

[aron]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

How did you find this out? just curious as I never heard tthis. But I never knew W Lee was twice married either

I believe that poster 'awareness' noted this about Ruth Lee, sourced from Dana Roberts' biography. Hardly anything could be more damning of Nee's ministry and the damage it brought forth was in the 'flipped' role of women. With Nee, his closest coterie were women. In Witness Lee's hagiography of Nee (one can't call it a biography, proper) there is a whole chapter on the women who served with (mostly under) Nee. Then 80 years later they're relegated to anonymity and servitude. Once they had served their purpose they were discarded. Do you think Peace Wang or Dora Yu or Ruth Lee would last a fortnight with today's Blendeds? I doubt it.

And I don't mean to ignite a firestorm over the role of women in the churches today. I'm simply pointing out the glaring hypocrisy of using women to gain control, then summarily dumping them.

The power of God raised Jesus from the dead. "And the power was with him [Jesus] to heal." This same power is with Peter and Paul in the book of Acts. Yet Peter and the Jerusalem church is never "under" Paul, nor vice versa. Those who claim dominion over the souls of others are precisely those evil fallen spirits that Paul calls the authorities of the air. Reject them utterly. That is my advice. Call them out for what they are and their grip on you is done.

People who try to control others are demonstrating that they themselves lack the power of self-control, thus they "feed" on others. When I talked to someone in the LC, about 8 or 10 months ago, they told me of the campus recruiting efforts, and called it "fresh blood for the Body." Hel-lo?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

I believe that poster 'awareness' noted this about Ruth Lee, sourced from Dana Roberts' biography.

Hindsight is not 20/20. From here today it's hard to sort all this out.

When I saw that I noted that Ruth Lee became an atheist after discovery of Nee's sexual immorality, I went on a frantic search to find where I got it, if I even did.

I haven't found it yet. But I did find that before Nee she was an avowed atheist. Did she -- like my Chinese wife after Lee, btw -- go back to it after Nee? I haven't found it yet. Will keep looking tho.

And aron is right. Ruth Lee was a fiery preacher, and serious co-worker with Nee, in the early development stages of Nee's movement.

But then I read, that because the Bible forbade women over men, that they would listen to females giving sermons from behind a sheet.

I don't recall any women giving sermons in the local church, sheets or otherwise.

I think countmeworthy should go there and preach today. She might turn the whole movement around ... and found The Blended Sisters.