I love the local church

[Paul Cox]

You are right. For the most part, their love is conditional, although there are some exceptions. When the Blended Brothers stand on a pulpit and spouts off all the "High Peek Truths," they are a clanging symbol.

P.C.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

You are right. For the most part, their love is conditional, although there are some exceptions. When the Blended Brothers stand on a pulpit and spouts off all the "High Peek Truths," they are a clanging symbol.

P.C.

Even if you had "the high peak of the divine revelation", why would you label it like that? Witness Lee's favorite apostle Paul -- where did he refer to his own letters as the "kernel" of Scripture? Can you imagine Paul's response if some cheerleaders, you know, like the ones in Corinth, started using vocabulary like that?

When Paul said, don't call yourselves "of Paul", maybe he was winkin' and noddin' the whole time. Good job, cheerleader squad in Irving...er...Corinth. Keep up the good work! I wonder if some folks in the Recovery really believe that...

[rayliotta]

Check out the winkin' and noddin' in this clip from The Break-Up.

The guy in plaid gets it.

http://movieclips.com/2ztb-the-break-up-movie-ill-take-care-of-it/

[Cal]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Even if you had "the high peak of the divine revelation", why would you label it like that? Witness Lee's favorite apostle Paul -- where did he refer to his own letters as the "kernel" of Scripture? Can you imagine Paul's response if some cheerleaders, you know, like the ones in Corinth, started using vocabulary like that?

When Paul said, don't call yourselves "of Paul", maybe he was winkin' and noddin' the whole time. Good job, cheerleader squad in Irving...er...Corinth. Keep up the good work! I wonder if some folks in the Recovery really believe that...

It's interesting, too, Ray. I was reading 1 Cor 3 again yesterday, and I realized that Paul's warning that some works would be burned was in the context of cheerleading a particular man.

Paul give his whole warning of works being burned and then ends the chapter with, "So then, no more boasting about human leaders!" v. 21. (emphasis mine).

Surely this is indicating that one way to get your work burned is to do them in the context of elevating a particular leader!

[Cal]

It's hard to take someone like that seriously unless he's all you know, which is why the BBs want you to just know him.
I don't know of any true theologians who have come around to Lee.

It's probably hard to take seriously someone who calls himself "Igzy," too, I imagine.

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's interesting, too, Ray. I was reading 1 Cor 3 again yesterday, and I realized that Paul's warning that some works would be burned was in the context of cheerleading a particular man.

Paul give his whole warning of works being burned and then ends the chapter with, "So then, no more boasting about human leaders!" v. 21. (emphasis mine).

Surely this is indicating that one way to get your work burned is to do them in the context of elevating a particular leader!

Is the LRC really worse than any other Christian group on this point? WL was a very minor part of my LRC experience. No doubt some boasted in WL, but others were much more balanced in focusing on the ministry of WL, WN, and the brethren teachers, etc.

Things may have changed since I was in the LRC, but I was encouraged to read far more spiritual books in the LRC than in Christianity and few of them were published by LSM. I read biographies of several Christians, none of which were published by LSM, I read a bunch of books by WN that were not published by LSM, and I purchased a number of reference books, again not published by the LSM.

This may also answer Ohio's question. Peter was not a cheerleader for himself, but turned us to Jesus. Likewise with Paul. Did they have failings? Yes. Does that mean we cannot benefit from their ministry? No.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This may also answer Ohio's question. Peter was not a cheerleader for himself, but turned us to Jesus. Likewise with Paul. Did they have failings? Yes. Does that mean we cannot benefit from their ministry? No.

Well ... thanks unReggie ... but ...

You merely addressed the obvious concerning the early Apostles. What about today's ministers? What about LSM's ministers? LSM just loves to proclaim how "nobody's perfect" when it comes to their own long history of failures, but when it comes to heaping condemnation upon Christianity without, and quarantining former ministers within, they are merciless, and that's something they are proud of.

But listen folks ... I did not leave the Recovery after 30 odd years because of a few "failings." I have far too many "failings" of my own to worry about others' "failings." This forum does not exist because some ministry in Anaheim just had a few "failings."

I also can overlook LSM's own cheerleading efforts, but don't you admit that they took this way over the top? WL did not just sell himself as the best around, the Minister of the Age, the Acting God, but he condemned all others outside his Recovery. Where does this stop being a brother's "failing" and become a system of error? But, still ... I never left the Recovery because some had become plain old arrogant and egotistical.

Back to the question at hand: Are we ever justified, as members of the body of Christ, to hold our leaders accountable, and is there ever a point at which their "failings" disqualify them from the ministry?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

WL was a very minor part of my LRC experience.

Sorry, this is not possible. There is a very good reason that The Local Church is also known as The Local Church of Witness Lee. This is a name tag that members were once proud to wear. As the years have gone by they have realized how cultish this sounds, and they have backed off a bit...but the reality remains. The books are all Witness Lee. The "HWMR" is Witness Lee. The bi-annual trainings are Witness Lee. The Full-Time Training is a two year "seminary" of Witness Lee. Many/most of the hymns are either written by Witness Lee or based upon his teachings. The entire culture of the Movement is based upon the person and work of Witness Lee. It is simply not possible that Witness Lee is/was a minor part of a member's experience.

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sorry, this is not possible. There is a very good reason that The Local Church is also known as The Local Church of Witness Lee. This is a name tag that members were once proud to wear. As the years have gone by they have realized how cultish this sounds, and they have backed off a bit...but the reality remains. The books are all Witness Lee. The "HWMR" is Witness Lee. The bi-annual trainings are Witness Lee. The Full-Time Training is a two year "seminary" of Witness Lee. Many/most of the hymns are either written by Witness Lee or based upon his teachings. The entire culture of the Movement is based upon the person and work of Witness Lee. It is simply not possible that Witness Lee is/was a minor part of a member's experience.

I might add that whichever Living Stream Church local franchise you belong to, the leadership there is in lockstep with the leadership in Anaheim. The leadership in Anaheim lives and breathes by what "bruther lee said." That's just a fact. Even if Lee's name ceased to be mentioned by anyone in the Local Churches, he is everywhere. From the foundation up, Witness Lee in an integral part of every Local Church franchise.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Is the LRC really worse than any other Christian group on this point?

Short answer. Yes. They are a lot worse than most groups.

WL was a very minor part of my LRC experience.

You are the exception. And this really isn't about what some common members did. This is about what the designated leaders of the movement say and do. Read their websites. It's all Lee. (Except for some Nee, and Nee takes a backseat to and is interpreted in light of Lee. He's really kept just to give Lee more credibility. Nee's differences from Lee are always either denied or ignored.)

Early on, elders and even traveling teachers like Ingalls had more freedom to put their spin on things. But as time went on, mostly beginning around 1980, more and more it became all about Lee. It was flatly stated that everything you needed was baked into Lee's messages. Of course, this was nonsense, but it was amazing how many people believed it and expected everyone else to believe it, too.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Short answer. Yes. They are a lot worse than most groups. You are the exception. And this really isn't about what some common members did. This is about what the designated leaders of the movement say and do.

This was a response to your post on 1Cor 3 with the conclusion "therefore, no more boasting about leaders" in reference to "some saying they are of Paul and others of Apollos". So clearly the context is about what the "common members did".

I am not denying that your view is a valid view of the LRC, what I am saying is that your view is limited to a minority of saints. I would define "minority" as less than 50%. I would call the ones I am referring to as the "silent majority". No matter where I met (NY, Houston, Irving, West Texas, NH, or Taipei) I was always able to fellowship with them. Get them out of the meeting hall and WL is nothing more than a footnote.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This was a response to your post on 1Cor 3 with the conclusion "therefore, no more boasting about leaders" in reference to "some saying they are of Paul and others of Apollos". So clearly the context is about what the "common members did".

I am not denying that your view is a valid view of the LRC, what I am saying is that your view is limited to a minority of saints. I would define "minority" as less than 50%. I would call the ones I am referring to as the "silent majority". No matter where I met (NY, Houston, Irving, West Texas, NH, or Taipei) I was always able to fellowship with them. Get them out of the meeting hall and WL is nothing more than a footnote.

Well, this correlates to one of my basic beliefs about this whole situation which I stated earlier.

The whole problem with the LRC movement is the common saints need to speak out and tell the leadership what they believe.

If it is true what you say, that WL is just a footnote to most, then why are they letting a subgroup which believes he was the MOTA lead them around by the nose? Why are they allowing this subgroup to create this reputation for them of abuse, intolerance and exclusivity?

SavedbyGrace came here to tell us the LRC ain't that bad, and that he doesn't buy into the MOTA stuff. In other words, he saying he's a sane and reasonable member. He resents the implications about his group presented here.

But we are not the ones creating this implication! We are just pointing it out. It's the extreme leadership of LSM and the BBs which is creating this image. Just read www.afaithfulword.org.

As long as LSM and the BBs hold the reins and they do not publicly repent of their abuses this image will persist. As long as the common saints are silent about it, they will have to live with that reputation, and in fact they deserve it.

Tough words, but they are facts.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

... pay no attention to the MOTA behind the curtain ...

Too funny!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

How could you possibly know this? Maybe you’re more travelled than I thought. As one taking hospitality in the Anaheim area for many years, including many brothers and sisters from all over America, including those from older, established churches, I never noticed a major difference in them. If anything, they were usually more zealous for “the ministry” than those of us there at the feet of Witness Lee on a weekly basis.

The saints that went to Anaheim trainings from NYC were in no way representative of the Body of saints in NYC. BC would be the elder (the one BB in NYC) two or three full timers who were supported by the church would go, a couple of cheerleaders, and the rest would be new saints. They would send about 10 a year, from a church that had over 400 members.

In order to go to the Training, and this included every church I met with, you had to have the elders approval. The elders only wanted saints that "would not embarrass" the church. They especially wanted to show off new saints to demonstrate that the church was "thriving and growing". As a result new saints would be recruited and their transportation costs would be subsidized. After that only saints whose loyalty to the brand was unquestioned would be allowed. While in NY I was amazed that they would announce sign ups for the training and no one, I mean no one, would care. These announcements were totally ignored. You already knew the five regulars who would go, and you knew that the elders would discuss among themselves who else to recruit and then recruit them. Since NY did not have a very effective gospel work these new ones were almost always children of the saints who were in high school. As a result the church had two full time brothers who I came to realize were merely glorified nannies.