The Unique Move of God

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Were do you put false teachers, and poisonous imitations like the darnel in Matt 13?

Your point would be fine if it were not for the fact that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

Z,

You can't muddy every discussion with every other discussion. We are trying to parse out the coded message that the LRC sends when it makes reference to the "unique move of God," not take a different approach to ferretting out all the other problems in the church that might cause us to actually invalidate some particular group.

The LRC uses "unique move of God" to invalidate virtually everyone that is not them. The things you are pointing to are useful to eliminate the truly aberrant groups and leaders. While not a completely different subject, it is almost the polar opposite side of the discussion. But in between is a vast collection of assemblies that make up the church both as local assemblies and as part of the body of Christ universal. The goal of this discussion is not to find valid ways to invalidate any group (even if there is legitimately such an endeavor). It is to demonstrate that the LRC's rhetoric for invalidating most of Christianity, leaving only their little sect as the one that is in "God's unique move," is not a valid, scripture-supported position.

Further, there is nothing defined by the scripture as the "unique move of God" that would not encompass all that God is doing rather than just the little that one particular group is doing.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Z,

You can't muddy every discussion with every other discussion. We are trying to parse out the coded message that the LRC sends when it makes reference to the "unique move of God," not take a different approach to ferretting out all the other problems in the church that might cause us to actually invalidate some particular group.

The LRC uses "unique move of God" to invalidate virtually everyone that is not them. The things you are pointing to are useful to eliminate the truly aberrant groups and leaders. While not a completely different subject, it is almost the polar opposite side of the discussion. But in between is a vast collection of assemblies that make up the church both as local assemblies and as part of the body of Christ universal. The goal of this discussion is not to find valid ways to invalidate any group (even if there is legitimately such an endeavor). It is to demonstrate that the LRC's rhetoric for invalidating most of Christianity, leaving only their little sect as the one that is in "God's unique move," is not a valid, scripture-supported position.

Further, there is nothing defined by the scripture as the "unique move of God" that would not encompass all that God is doing rather than just the little that one particular group is doing.

Post #1 quotes Drake saying "Any group that does not filter out teachings that do not align with their calling or mission has no purpose for existing."

So perhaps you might want to rethink your lecture on this thread not being about filtering out teachings that don't align with the mission and purpose of the church.

This thread was started by Igzy as a response to Drake. Igzy feels the use of the term "unique move of God" is sectarian because he views the term "unique move of God" as referring to the "Lord's Recovery Church". Drake on the other hand feels that the term refers to the Lord building His church in this age, that many groups of Christians have not been faithful to that vision but as for him and his house he is going to embrace that vision.

Now if that is not what this thread is about then by all means help me see clearly.

As far as I can see both sides have valid points but they aren't listening to each other.

If I claim my little fellowship of 200 Christians in some city of millions is "the unique move of God" then, yes, that is sectarian. On the other hand if I identify Jesus word that "I will build my church" as "the unique move of God in this age" then that is not. If I claim that some Christian groups have "misaimed" or perhaps have aimed correctly but "missed the mark" then that is also a valid point. The point being not that they are not genuine Christians, not that they are not the beloved of the Lord, but that they are not fully matured and have not yet been perfected.

How could anyone be "perfected" or "fully matured" if they cannot identify the errors?

Claiming that they are all "the church" does not help anyone to "be perfect" or to let patience have its perfect work.

So if we are going to discuss "the unique move of God" surely it includes growing unto maturity, letting patience have its perfect work, expressing the Lord Jesus in His fullness.

Returning to Drake's quote, he is saying that there is a process that leads to maturity, and that is to "filter out teachings". If this thread is not about this process then this entire thread is off topic.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Post #1 quotes Drake saying "Any group that does not filter out teachings that do not align with their calling or mission has no purpose for existing."

So perhaps you might want to rethink your lecture on this thread not being about filtering out teachings that don't align with the mission and purpose of the church.

That post was copied from another thread.

I created this thread because we were going off-topic in the original one and asked the moderator to copy some relevant posts over from it.

But the subject of the thread is the idea of the "Unique Move of God."

Knowing the usual LCM double-talk and equivocation, that term can mean several things. The purpose of this thread is to identify any legitimate meanings and expose self-serving and damaging meanings.

This thread was started by Igzy as a response to Drake. Igzy feels the use of the term "unique move of God" is sectarian because he views the term "unique move of God" as referring to the "Lord's Recovery Church". Drake on the other hand feels that the term refers to the Lord building His church in this age, that many groups of Christians have not been faithful to that vision but as for him and his house he is going to embrace that vision.

Now if that is not what this thread is about then by all means help me see clearly.

As far as I can see both sides have valid points but they aren't listening to each other.

Thanks for these comments because they give a chance to clarify.

I didn't exactly hear Drake say the things you said. I still hear him saying that the real work of God is only going on in the LCM.

Although I understand the impulse to be faithful to an overriding vision, the problem with the LCM vision is that the practical outworking of it always seems to be more than a little self-serving.

So they are focused on "the building of the church." How is that really different than any church being focused on the growth and condition of its members? What is different between the church being built and all the members growing in community? There shouldn't be any, really. So why the problem with 'Christianity'?

With the LCM it always comes down to their defining general ideas in such proprietary specifics that they effectively de-legitimize everyone but themselves. For example, there are surely many groups that meet as the church in the city. But the LCM recognizes only those associated with LSM.

What does "building the Church" really mean, anyway? I don't think any of us really know.

And the fact is the Lord did not commission us to build the church. He commissioned us to disciple the nations. He said HE would build the church. But he never told us to. At the very most he told us to build up "one another." But no place in the NT does he tell us to build the church.

Now I know there are OT types of temple and wall building. But there has to be a reason that the charge to us to build the church is not so direct. And I think the reason is because the Lord wanted us to focus on people and not an institution. One of the pitfalls of getting into "church building" is that it easily transmutes into an impersonal effort where people become subordinate to the cause, where they become means to an idealized but never quite realized end--in this case the awesome and terrible "Builded Church." This is exactly what has happened in the LCM. When it becomes about "the Church" in the way the LCM means, people become secondary. Huge mistake.

For what is the Church? It's just the people. The LCM seems to miss this, though. To them building the Church means furthering the cause of the LCM movement. It's about an abstract idealistic "purpose." It's not about helping the brother or sister sitting next to them. "Sorry, brother. I can't help you. I'm too busy building the Church."

The Jesus who left the flock to rescue one lost lamb is a Jesus the LCM is unfamiliar with. In the LCM Jesus would be more likely to dump the lamb for the sake of "the Church," which in their case is not people, but a MacGuffin
.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Thanks for these comments because they give a chance to clarify.

I didn't exactly hear Drake say the things you said. I still hear him saying that the real work of God is only going on in the LCM.

Although I understand the impulse to be faithful to an overriding vision, the problem with the LCM vision is that the practical outworking of it always seems to be more than a little self-serving.

Being self serving is an excellent example of not being fully matured. We all know that children are completely self centered and as we grow and mature we learn to care for and be empathetic for others.

Originally Posted by Igzy

So they are focused on "the building of the church." How is that really different than any church being focused on the growth and condition of its members? What is different between the church being built and all the members growing in community? There shouldn't be any, really. So why the problem with 'Christianity'?

Paul says if in anything you are otherwise minded the Spirit will make that known to you. As long as they are pursuing this avenue in a genuine spirit of oneness with the Lord they'll be adjusted if they have gone down a dead end.

Originally Posted by Igzy

With the LCM it always comes down to their defining general ideas in such proprietary specifics that they effectively de-legitimize everyone but themselves. For example, there are surely many groups that meet as the church in the city. But the LCM recognizes only those associated with LSM.

Ironically they act like they are in the barn, which WL shared was akin to religion, and that following Jesus led the sheep out of the barn and into the pasture. But this "failing" of theirs is hardly that different from many other Christian groups.

Originally Posted by Igzy

What does "building the Church" really mean, anyway? I don't think any of us really know.

And the fact is the Lord did not commission us to build the church. He commissioned us to disciple the nations. He said HE would build the church. But he never told us to. At the very most he told us to build up "one another." But no place in the NT does he tell us to build the church.

This is not how I read 1Cor which tells us to be careful how we build. It is also contrary to the concept of "edification" used by Paul in his epistles.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Now I know there are OT types of temple and wall building. But there has to be a reason that the charge to us to build the church is not so direct. And I think the reason is because the Lord wanted us to focus on people and not an institution. One of the pitfalls of getting into "church building" is that it easily transmutes into an impersonal effort where people become subordinate to the cause, where they become means to an idealized but never quite realized end--in this case the awesome and terrible "Builded Church." This is exactly what has happened in the LCM. When it becomes about "the Church" in the way the LCM means, people become secondary. Huge mistake.

That is one possible theory. Another is that during the gospels the Lord was speaking to those who had not been saved, were not part of the new creation and needed to pass through death and resurrection prior to "working". This is a pretty clear type with the matter of the Sabbath rest.

Originally Posted by Igzy

For what is the Church? It's just the people. The LCM seems to miss this, though. To them building the Church means furthering the cause of the LCM movement. It's about an abstract idealistic "purpose." It's not about helping the brother or sister sitting next to them. "Sorry, brother. I can't help you. I'm too busy building the Church."

That is a very valid point, according to James pure religion is to care for the brothers and sisters. I don't take issue with their doctrine of building the church, but I do take issue with their doctrines somehow bypassing Jame's word concerning caring for orphans and widows.

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Jesus who left the flock to rescue one lost lamb is a Jesus the LCM is unfamiliar with. In the LCM Jesus would be more likely to dump the lamb for the sake of "the Church," which in their case is not people, but a MacGuffin
.

I agree with this but think you have gone further astray from the thread. It seems contrived to attribute this to "building the church" or that "the church is the unique move of God in this age".

I would attribute this to a love of money. I knew many saints who were very concerned with charitable works, but it was clear that you had to not let the right hand know what the left hand was doing. Once again, the problem is with Judas who holds the money bag, he complains about how you are wasting your money instead of giving it to him. The reasons are just lies, the reality is the love of money and trying to make merchandise of the saints.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree with this but think you have gone further astray from the thread. It seems contrived to attribute this to "building the church" or that "the church is the unique move of God in this age".

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your perspective.

The reason it is relevant to this thread is because the "unique work of God" if it is about building the Church, is not about it in the way the LCM is about it.

My point is that it is easy to say "I am for God's true purpose." But if that purpose is not about helping people then however good it sounds it is off. And I mean "helping" in the way Jesus wants to help people--that is, he is concerned about spirit, soul, body, in that order. But he was concerned about people, not an abstract ideal or institution called "the Church."

"I'm for the building of the Church" sounds really, really good. But if you look closer at the LCM vision it is really about building an institution. It isn't about people. The Church is some separate entity from people to them. They don't admit it, but that's the way it is. People are a means to an end in their model. But in God's heart people ARE the end. Yes, he wants us "built up together." But that is because the highest blessing is living in cooperative community with God at the center, not because some ideal called "the Church" beckons us.

God is all about loving and blessing people. Besides himself, people are his highest ideal. Not the LCM's "Church" abstraction, which really turns out to be their movement in disguise.

[Drake]

Igzy) "Fear of not being good enough, fear of not "making" the kingdom, fear of not pleasing "the brothers." In general fear of failure, of not being a "good brother." "

Igzy,

From my perspective there is mixture described above..... healthy fear and perhaps some misplaced fear.

Healthy fear is toward God including a fear of not entering into His rest. A fear of being disapproved standing before the judgement seat of Christ (the Bema) and missing the reward of the kingdom are also very healthy fears.

The fear of not pleasing the brothers or failing to be a good brother was never a fear that I experienced. When the Lord brought me into His recovery I gained a heightened awareness of whether my actions or words might offend others but that never reached the level of fear. Doing well on training tests was concerning yet I wouldn't use fear to describe that. Neither did I always agree with everything said or go along with it. I always checked with the Lord and sometimes I held back when others went forward and other times I felt very alone in the front while others were holding back.. Yet, whether I was sidelined, or leading the charge, or in the middle of the pack or at the back, I had peace. I may have been puzzled at times but I was at peace before the Lord. Unless I was restful before the Lord I typically did not act. Still, I recall times when I had the peace to sit something out, yet the Lord encouraged me to get up. Or I felt to charge ahead on something and the Lord spoke to be still. Fear was not a factor.

What I am saying net net Igzy, is that fear of not pleasing others or not being a good brother ON THEIR OWN MERITS is misplaced fear. It sounds like law to me. Truth is, I cannot be a good brother unless Christ is the good brother in me. I can pretend to be a good brother but only His life reaches the good brother standard. If your fear was that you were not living the good brother life of the Lord through you then I would say that is healthy because we should be concerned about missing Him in every situation. Otherwise, a fear of not living up to some standard apart from His life is misplaced fear. It simply cannot be done so why fear it? Rather acknowledge and confess it to Him then allow Him to become that in you... e.g. the good brother.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

I appreciate your perspective. I am happy that this forum includes different perspectives and experiences.

In my own experience the fear was a mirage. Face it, go through the cross, experience the fellowship of the Lord's sufferings and you will also experience the outstanding resurrection.

I was threatened by elders, slandered by them, and had my hospitality manipulated by them to make my life miserable, but in the end all of those threats were impotent. Why, what prompted them to do this? I once told a brother in the book room that I preferred WN to WL because when I read WL's book's I didn't get anything from them.

But it didn't matter. I was able to fully function in the LRC standing on the word of God and I did not need to lift up WL. I worked on the construction site in Irving for 18 months, I was involved in the raising up of a church in Odessa for about 2 years, and I was in Taipei in the FTTT for 8 years.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

From my perspective there is mixture described above..... healthy fear and perhaps some misplaced fear.

Thanks for your insights. I generally agree. Actually I didn't fear the disapproval of others as much as my post might have indicated.

I really just feared the daily dread of not being good enough. The daily grind of the unreasonable expectations of the LCM. The tediously spartan lifestyle.

I realize things have softened some since the early days. But the fundamental problem remains. You talk about the Lord bringing you into "his recovery." This shows you've allowed yourself to be indoctrinated with the belief that the focal point of God's work on the earth is centered in a tiny group of Christians which hasn't appreciably increased in 60 years. That's simply irrational. I can't see how intelligent Christians still believe that. I mean, if there were some indication of superior results in that system I might be swayed. But every person I've encountered from the LCM who was there when I was show no more appreciable growth than I've had, for all I can tell. So I just see no real evidence of all the claims.

As far a I'm concerned, this belief--that the LCM or any other group, is so "special" that the members feel justified in placing fear in each of leaving it--is a doctrine of demons. Using the fear of God's judgment to hold members in one's group is one of the most craven and underhanded things a leader can do. It's abuse, plain and simple

That's what I fight against and that's what this thread is all about.

Here's a bet. I'd be willing to bet that if the leaders of the LCM finally announced, as in good conscience they should, that the members should feel the freedom to leave and meet where the Lord leads with no fear of judgment, the LCM would lose at least half its membership in short order.

They should do it anyway. Why would you want to hold people there that don't want to be there? The LCM would be better off with just willing participants.

But the leaders have a deep-seated fear, too, I think. The fear of losing a huge chunk of membership if they ever told their members the WHOLE truth.

I think everyone knows deep down that if the the leaders of the LCM didn't put the fear of leaving into its members, then eventually no one would stay.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How could anyone be "perfected" or "fully matured" if they cannot identify the errors?

Or are unwilling to address the errors.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is to demonstrate that the LRC's rhetoric for invalidating most of Christianity, leaving only their little sect as the one that is in "God's unique move," is not a valid, scripture-supported position.

Further, there is nothing defined by the scripture as the "unique move of God" that would not encompass all that God is doing rather than just the little that one particular group is doing.

This portion was well said OBW. Rhetoric to invalidate much of the Body of Christ. Only those in fellowship according to a Christian publishing company's publications are privy to God's unique move. What should be asked, what if? What if God isn't in that move? Still that's the rhetoric that will be maintained, "God's unique move". What it really comes down to is wanting to have distinctions from all other Christian believers and fellowships.