The Unique Move of God

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is the part I found amusing:

I think I have a better feel for the attitudes and beliefs of the Church at large than the average LCMer. ... Go to any Christian bookstore. Start reading the books ...

It reads as if you have a better feel for the attitudes and beliefs of the Church at large because you have read the books in Christian bookstores. I'm sure you did not mean that but that is how it reads to me.

Well, again this shows how ignorant you are. Because you can learn a lot about what's going on the in Church by reading what's in Christian bookstores.

You should try it sometime.

And again, I challenge you to find one book that says something like, "in order to be a truly faithful Christian you must join the [insert specific flavor] church."

You'll likely only find that sort of comment in LCM literature. That's ironic, but I'm sure the irony is lost on you.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, again this shows how ignorant you are. Because you can learn a lot about what's going on the in Church by reading what's in Christian bookstores.

You should try it sometime.

And again, I challenge you to find one book that says something like, "in order to be a truly faithful Christian you must join the [insert specific flavor] church."

You'll likely only find that sort of comment in LCM literature. That's ironic, but I'm sure the irony is lost on you.

the joke is still going on because you don't realize what you are saying.

I might start with "Your Best Life Now" by Joel Olsteen, and then I might read how to improve my finances by Creflo Dollar.

Actually I agree with you - the total content of a Christian bookstore is fairly reflective of the true state of Christianity.

I might just "come out" of the prosperity teaching section, walk past the Catholic/Pope section and stroll over to the Witness Lee /Watchman Nee section and start reading there.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

the joke is still going on because you don't realize what you are saying.

I might start with "Your Best Life Now" by Joel Olsteen, and then I might read how to improve my finances by Creflo Dollar.

Actually I agree with you - the total content of a Christian bookstore is fairly reflective of the true state of Christianity.

I might just "come out" of the prosperity teaching section, walk past the Catholic/Pope section and stroll over to the Witness Lee /Watchman Nee section and start reading there.

As usual you succumb to the fallacy of the appeal to extremes. Not that I don't like Joel Osteen. I do.

But if you look at most of the bookstore content it will be solid, mainstream, fundamental and decidedly non-divisive.

Unlike the LCM wackadoo.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

the joke is still going on because you don't realize what you are saying.

I might start with "Your Best Life Now" by Joel Olsteen, and then I might read how to improve my finances by Creflo Dollar.

Actually I agree with you - the total content of a Christian bookstore is fairly reflective of the true state of Christianity.

I might just "come out" of the prosperity teaching section, walk past the Catholic/Pope section and stroll over to the Witness Lee /Watchman Nee section and start reading there.

Evangelical's quote from a different thread. "As I was strolling through my local Christian bookstore the other day (tongue in cheek), I came across a book "Pagan Christianity" that said, "most of what we do in religious circles has no precedent in Scripture. This includes many of the activities within church services"."

This guy won't see the irony in his attempt at a "gotcha" statement. He won't see that this is what many have pointed out - he is clearly out of touch with Christianity. He thinks that the mindset described above (By Frank Viola) is somehow counter the the movement of Christ across the world and perfectly aligned only with the teachings of Witness Lee and the LSM denomination.

I've seen first hand the difficulties in breaking this bondage within the LCM and seeing Christianity for what it is today. It is difficult when you're living in a world organized by a fallen man (Lee) and orchestrated by Living Streams Ministry. Come back to the truth set out in Scripture, come back to the Author of Truth, and the Spirit of Truth. Other believers are not adversaries stuck in Babylon and will come along side you through your journey.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Come back to the truth set out in Scripture, come back to the Author of Truth, and the Spirit of Truth. Other believers are not adversaries stuck in Babylon and will come along side you through your journey.

Unfortunately, the need to feel unique and superior, and hence to discredit all others, seems to be a deep-seated one within LCMers.

In fact, it is almost as if their spiritual identity hinges on this need. LCMers seem to think "just being another group" is entirely unacceptable. Of course, we all want to be more than just a group, we all want to be the Church. And we are, thankfully. But for LCMers that is not good enough. They seem to feel that if anyone else is allowed to be the Church then they are denied something. Hence Evangelical's vitriol toward "Christianity."

It really is a form of greed. Although I'm sure they would deny that tooth and nail.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Unfortunately, the need to feel unique and superior, and hence to discredit all others, seems to be a deep-seated one within LCMers.

In all fairness, not everyone in the local churches feel that way. There are those who are expressive and do speak and come across as wanting to discredit all other fellowships, ministers, etc. Those in the local churches who disagree with that expression will remain silent and won't make an issue by speaking contrarily.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

LCMers seem to think "just being another group" is entirely unacceptable. Of course, we all want to be more than just a group, we all want to be the Church. And we are, thankfully. But for LCMers that is not good enough. They seem to feel that if anyone else is allowed to be the Church then they are denied something.

Very much so. To be just another group or fellowship, how would they be able to emphasize their distinction?
In the mind of a general LCer, to be meeting practically as the church you need to be in fellowship with LSM as the vehicle for the fellowship. Wherever you live, if you want to be meeting practically as the church, you must come to us where we meet. We won't go to where you're at. To meet practically as the church, in any given city the address is The Church in ______ 12345 Street. There are meeting times listed. Those who want to be there will show up at the appointed times.
Christians meeting with various assemblies in the same city are viewed as "illegitimate", "on the wrong ground", "missing the mark", "denominations".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Evangelical's quote from a different thread. "As I was strolling through my local Christian bookstore the other day (tongue in cheek), I came across a book "Pagan Christianity" that said, "most of what we do in religious circles has no precedent in Scripture. This includes many of the activities within church services"."

This guy won't see the irony in his attempt at a "gotcha" statement. He won't see that this is what many have pointed out - he is clearly out of touch with Christianity. He thinks that the mindset described above (By Frank Viola) is somehow counter the the movement of Christ across the world and perfectly aligned only with the teachings of Witness Lee and the LSM denomination.

I've seen first hand the difficulties in breaking this bondage within the LCM and seeing Christianity for what it is today. It is difficult when you're living in a world organized by a fallen man (Lee) and orchestrated by Living Streams Ministry. Come back to the truth set out in Scripture, come back to the Author of Truth, and the Spirit of Truth. Other believers are not adversaries stuck in Babylon and will come along side you through your journey.

I think I have a real "gotcha" there.

Igzy said I should read all the Christian books, that "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore".

Yet the book "Pagan Christianity" clearly prejudices against most churches today by declaring most of their practices to be pagan. According to Igzy they must not be serious Christians.

Or maybe you and others are just blind to the truth revealed by independent researchers and thinkers like Viola and Barna. Just like the majority of Christians in the time of Luther could not see the paganism of the Catholic church, and chose to remain there rather than come out with Luther.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think I have a real "gotcha" there.

Igzy said I should read all the Christian books, that "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore".

Yet the book "Pagan Christianity" clearly prejudices against most churches today by declaring most of their practices to be pagan. According to Igzy they must not be serious Christians.

Or maybe you and others are just blind to the truth revealed by independent researchers and thinkers like Viola and Barna. Just like the majority of Christians in the time of Luther could not see the paganism of the Catholic church, and chose to remain there rather than come out with Luther.

I've read this book, its actually on my bookshelf. I'm not the one that is blind to the truth. I'm happy to send you my copy.

You are your own worst enemy on this forum. The casual reader can see what you're attempting to do and sees right through it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I've read this book, its actually on my bookshelf. I'm not the one that is blind to the truth. I'm happy to send you my copy.

You are your own worst enemy on this forum. The casual reader can see what you're attempting to do and sees right through it.

I have copybtoo. So you've read that most of church service is pagan. Now are you just going to ignore it or do something about it?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I have copybtoo. So you've read that most of church service is pagan. Now are you just going to ignore it or do something about it?

You are disingenuous. A number of things that Viola discusses in that book are practiced in the LC too.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think I have a real "gotcha" there.

Igzy said I should read all the Christian books, that "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore".

Yet the book "Pagan Christianity" clearly prejudices against most churches today by declaring most of their practices to be pagan. According to Igzy they must not be serious Christians.

Or maybe you and others are just blind to the truth revealed by independent researchers and thinkers like Viola and Barna. Just like the majority of Christians in the time of Luther could not see the paganism of the Catholic church, and chose to remain there rather than come out with Luther.

Evangelical, you have been distracted by shiny objects again.

The subject was division and denominations. I suggested you check in a Christian bookstore for evidence of Christian writers insisting membership in their denominations are requirements for pleasing God.

Instead, knowing you would find little such evidence, you decided to change the subject to paganism.

But we weren't talking about paganism, we were discussing the unique move of God. And my point is that the LCM abuse of that idea puts them as the leaders of the pack of divisive groups these days.

And you continue to find ways to avoid that point, while at the same time proving it.

Astounding.

[Drake]

Igzy) "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. "

Igzy,

Ok, you did not fear the disapproval of others. Let's just take them out of your fear equation.

Therefore, you feared the dread, the daily dread. Expectations were unreasonable. Expectations set by "LCM". So a kind of group pressure to dress a certain way, to have morning watch, to not enjoy that Big Mac and fry, to live a life of deprivation from TV and movies, to be at all the meetings, to serve on clean up, or parking, or unpacking boxes at meetings and trainings. You were a young man so you may have had a love interest but that was discouraged too. No staring, no quality time alone, and definitely no dating. Rather, surrounded mostly by brothers 24X7 you had to read the ministry, share, pray, exercise your spirit, shine your shoes, iron your own clothes, and make sure your dirty socks did not end up in someone's drinking glass.

That sort of thing is what you feared. It wasn't just dread of that "spartan" life, you also had fear of the dread. Fear that you would slip, fall short, become disapproved and not be worthy of being a "good brother". Each day could be the day it became too much. The pressure was enormous.

Something like that?

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Therefore, you feared the dread, the daily dread. Expectations were unreasonable.

Well, dread is a kind of fear. I think it came down to that I began to question whether the expectations of the LCM were God's expectations. There was a conflict between what I'd been indoctrinated with and perhaps what God was really expecting of me.

In short, I did not experience the grace to fully take on the challenge of the LCM as if the requirement was from God. It became a religious exercise because, I believe now, that's what it was. That doesn't mean I didn't have good experiences. Just that God was not requiring me to accept and believe everything that was taught there, including and especially that their way was the only way to truly serve God, whether I saw "the vision" or not. I believe in obeying God, but the LCM "vision" is just one more interpretation of things and a flawed one I believe. It doesn't carry any weight in and of itself or because Lee taught it.

However, the indoctrination produced an inner conflict in the heart of a young person. Though my gut told me that I was doing the right thing by leaving, my mind argued back, because I did not have the intellectual backing to support my gut. All I knew was there was something not right with the whole situation and I was very unhappy.

Further since the LCM does not prepare a young person for life on their own outside the LCM (I joined when I was 18), I was not emotionally prepared for the challenges of life among non-LCMers. Also, my disposition and personality were quite naive and immature. So adjustment was very tough, which lent more fodder to the Devil's accusations.

But it all hinged on the edict which in my day was taught quite plainly: "You cannot leave 'the church' and if you do you are in rebellion against God." This I now know is a lie, but that doesn't stop the Devil from accusing. Martin Luther suffered terribly from the Devil's accusations after he left Catholicism, even though he was not wrong to do so.

But I don't know what you are getting at with these questions. Perhaps you are trying to help me? That's fine. I have nothing to hide, fear or prove now, and I don't mind answering questions. But I'd like the discussion to be relevant to the subject matter.

So I like for you to try to respond to my whole argument that telling people they can't leave your group is an abusive practice.

And also tell me: Who is responsible for my suffering? Just me? I accept some responsibility. I should have gotten Christian counseling. But I expect you are thinking that, well, if I hadn't had left I wouldn't have suffered.

But don't you see that to me that's just one more piece of the manipulation? It's also kind of calloused.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Evangelical, you have been distracted by shiny objects again.

The subject was division and denominations. I suggested you check in a Christian bookstore for evidence of Christian writers insisting membership in their denominations are requirements for pleasing God.

Instead, knowing you would find little such evidence, you decided to change the subject to paganism.

But we weren't talking about paganism, we were discussing the unique move of God. And my point is that the LCM abuse of that idea puts them as the leaders of the pack of divisive groups these days.

And you continue to find ways to avoid that point, while at the same time proving it.

Astounding.

Leastofthese not me ,brought the topic of paganism to this thread in #185. In fact he had no business to do that. You should read posts more carefully. I was addressing that. But the two topics are related through Bablyon which is both division and worldly mixture.

I wonder if there is any book that says God is pleased with denomination.
I am sure there are many catholic or orthodox who would say or believe that membership with them will please God.

But we do not say membership with us will please God. Firstly we do not have membership. Secondly, what pleases God is to leave Babylon. We would never say that one can please God by joining a denomination which is in Babylon.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think I have a real "gotcha" there.

Igzy said I should read all the Christian books, that "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore".

Yet the book "Pagan Christianity" clearly prejudices against most churches today by declaring most of their practices to be pagan. According to Igzy they must not be serious Christians.

Or maybe you and others are just blind to the truth revealed by independent researchers and thinkers like Viola and Barna. Just like the majority of Christians in the time of Luther could not see the paganism of the Catholic church, and chose to remain there rather than come out with Luther.

Actually, not a "gotcha."

You picked one of the few books that is picking the scab on some particular things and is using some rather extreme language to talk about it.

While it is a different conversation, it is like the critiques of Christian ways in general by the "emerging" and "emergent" movements of the recent past. While the "emergent" group eventually went off a cliff in many ways, the "emerging" group made many valid observations that are in the process of being continually discussed and even have caused changes in the landscape of Christianity as a whole. While I am not sold on the idea, there are some that think that even evangelicalism as we know it will look very different in just another 20 years or so. Not because we dumped our beliefs, but because we changed the thrust of our focus.

And even if Viola's book is the extreme thing you say it is, it is not what most of the books in the bookstore are saying.

So Igzy's comment about living at the extremes remains true. You want to insist upon an extreme group and are busy trying to paint every other group as a different kind of extreme that they just aren't. You found one book and think you have won.

You haven't. You just found one book. I could show you several books that are worse in the kind of extremes that they teach. The problem is that they are generally only found in the LRC bookrooms.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, not a "gotcha."

You picked one of the few books that is picking the scab on some particular things and is using some rather extreme language to talk about it.

While it is a different conversation, it is like the critiques of Christian ways in general by the "emerging" and "emergent" movements of the recent past. While the "emergent" group eventually went off a cliff in many ways, the "emerging" group made many valid observations that are in the process of being continually discussed and even have caused changes in the landscape of Christianity as a whole. While I am not sold on the idea, there are some that think that even evangelicalism as we know it will look very different in just another 20 years or so. Not because we dumped our beliefs, but because we changed the thrust of our focus.

And even if Viola's book is the extreme thing you say it is, it is not what most of the books in the bookstore are saying.

So Igzy's comment about living at the extremes remains true. You want to insist upon an extreme group and are busy trying to paint every other group as a different kind of extreme that they just aren't. You found one book and think you have won.

You haven't. You just found one book. I could show you several books that are worse in the kind of extremes that they teach. The problem is that they are generally only found in the LRC bookrooms.

I am wondering why the double standards here. If I say that denominations are wrong, sectarian and divisive, why is the response "that is more divisive than the denominations". If denominations are sectarian that makes them sects. I have said this many times as well.

Yet Viola's book say the same thing. I have quoted the page which is word for word almost like I say - denominations are sectarian, divisive, and there was one church per city.

The only big difference I see is that Viola promotes the house church or free group movement, and Viola claims to be saying it in a "loving way". If denominations truly are sectarian, divisive, pagan, then they cannot be serious about what they write if they try to sugar coat it with pleasantries. Putting that out there with false niceties to temper the fact, to me is the definition of insincerity. Rather, our attitude should be like Jesus driving the money changes out of the temple, otherwise, it indicates we are not serious about God's temple, or don't really believe that sectarianism and paganism is a problem. I believe it was Nee who wrote - either support denominations, or tear them down. Don't sit on the fence because being hot or cold is better than lukewarmness. Viola's book does its fair share of fence sitting by presenting a rather serious matter but then trying to sugar coat it.

Only in LRC bookrooms? You can also buy Lee/Nee books in Christian bookstores these days too. Normal Christian Church life would be extreme as it puts forward the one city per church model and speaks against denominations.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am wondering why the double standards here. If I say that denominations are wrong, sectarian and divisive, why is the response "that is more divisive than the denominations". If denominations are sectarian that makes them sects. I have said this many times as well.

Yet Viola's book say the same thing. I have quoted the page which is word for word almost like I say - denominations are sectarian, divisive, and there was one church per city.

The only big difference I see is that Viola promotes the house church or free group movement, and Viola claims to be saying it in a "loving way". If denominations truly are sectarian, divisive, pagan, then they cannot be serious about what they write if they try to sugar coat it with pleasantries. Putting that out there with false niceties to temper the fact, to me is the definition of insincerity. Rather, our attitude should be like Jesus driving the money changes out of the temple, otherwise, it indicates we are not serious about God's temple, or don't really believe that sectarianism and paganism is a problem. I believe it was Nee who wrote - either support denominations, or tear them down. Don't sit on the fence because being hot or cold is better than lukewarmness. Viola's book does its fair share of fence sitting by presenting a rather serious matter but then trying to sugar coat it.

Only in LRC bookrooms? You can also buy Lee/Nee books in Christian bookstores these days too. Normal Christian Church life would be extreme as it puts forward the one city per church model and speaks against denominations.

The LCM is not hypocritical for pointing out the divisions in denominational Christianity, rather because they practice the same things, and worse. This is the part of the story that you refuse to acknowledge. As they say, "there is none that are so blind as those who refuse to see."

The LCM is a history of divisions, quarantines, excommunications, power struggles, etc. There is also a long history of corruptions and unrighteousness in their LSM leadership which they have never repented for, instead they condemn the ones who happen to point it out. Somehow all the irony has been lost on you.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am wondering why the double standards here. If I say that denominations are wrong, sectarian and divisive, why is the response "that is more divisive than the denominations". If denominations are sectarian that makes them sects. I have said this many times as well.

No double standard on my part. I am fully aware that we are not completely one on every side issue. But you are so focused on the fact that we are not one on the side issues while ignoring that you are no different, and in some ways more so.

We do not declare others to be "non church" or "defective church." That is left to your group. You think that you can be both in disagreement and dismissive of all others, and yet claim the high road? Hard to do from the gutter.

The rest of your response is not worthy of a response. One book does not make your point. It only proves that there is a tendency in man to look for reasons to think more highly of their own thoughts than of anyone else's.

And house churches are not the answer to the problem. They are just a prone to following divisive ways as any other. The only difference is that they do not at least band together with other similars. Instead they just go it alone. And they cease to have a sufficient core of people with which to vet the latest idea. The craziest ideas of recent times came from people who were leaders of independent groups, not the denominations. The "Love Wins" dismissal of Hell was from an independent free group. No connection to others. No one to stand up and critique it. And that is not the only example.

Meanwhile, whether assemblies are completely independent, somewhat independent, or grouped together, they are only as divisive relative to others as they have tendency to declare others to be less than "church" or otherwise deficient for not being like them. That would be your group. Not he denominations. Not so many of those free groups or house churches.

But why are there house churches? Because they don't like larger groups? Because they want to have truly local control over all aspects of their belief? None of these are simply bad. But none of these are simply good.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

This guy won't see the irony in his attempt at a "gotcha" statement. He won't see that this is what many have pointed out - he is clearly out of touch with Christianity. He thinks that the mindset described above (By Frank Viola) is somehow counter the the movement of Christ across the world and perfectly aligned only with the teachings of Witness Lee and the LSM denomination.

Here's another "gotcha" from the book, which is on topic, about denominations and divisions.

The early Christians did not divide themselves into various
denominations. They understood their oneness in Christ and
expressed it visibly in every city. To their minds, there was only
one church per city (even though it may have met in many
different homes throughout the locale). If you were a Christian
in the first century, you belonged to that one church. The unity
of the Spirit was well guarded. Denominating themselves ("I
am of Paul," "I am of Peter," "I am of Apollos") was regarded
as sectarian and divisive (see 1 Corinthians 1:12).

The church in the first century was an organic entity. It was a living, breathing organism that expressed itself far differently from the institutional church today. And that expression revealed Jesus Christ on this planet through His every-member functioning body


In short, this book demonstrates beyond dispute that those who have left the fold of institutional Christianity to become part of an organic church have a historical right to exist—since history demonstrates that many practices of the institutional church are not rooted in Scripture.


Remember I did not get this from Lee/Nee books. This is from a book in my local christian bookstore

Now I can rephrase my previous statements to be on topic to this thread:

Igzy said I should read all the Christian books, that "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore". (#144)

Yet the book "Pagan Christianity" clearly prejudices against most churches/denominations today by declaring their existence to be "not rooted in Scripture".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Here's another "gotcha" from the book, which is on topic, about denominations and divisions.

Igzy said I should read all the Christian books, that "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore". (#144)

Yet the book "Pagan Christianity" clearly prejudices against most churches/denominations today by declaring their existence to be "not rooted in Scripture".

Both examples are exceptions to the rule. They are extreme minority opinions.

And as they say, the exception proves the rule.

I never said you wouldn't find any examples. My point was that the vast overall attitude in the Church today is not divisive. (You seem to have cornered the market on divisive attitudes.)

Evangelical, you are no longer discussing issues in good faith. It's one thing to have an opinion and disagreement. It's another to willfully ignore the clear point someone is trying to make and to twist into something else. That's trolling and that's what it seems you have come to.

Someone else may have mentioned Paganism first. I really don't care. But you directed a statement about it at ME as if it had something to do with MY argument. And you knew it didn't.

The fact is you haven't addressed any of my points in days and yet you are still posting on this thread. If you are not going to address the main point please take your comments elsewhere. Thank you.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Someone else may have mentioned Paganism first. I really don't care. But you directed a statement about it at ME as if it had something to do with MY argument. And you knew it didn't.
.

If I did not respond it is because some of your arguments are very hard to refute or I would only be repeating myself. There is little more I could do to reply to your points and Drake as mostly picked up the ball on that one. Plus you would rather discuss with Drake than me anyway, and I'm fine with that.

I'm not trolling but addressing some factual errors. You replied to leastofthese's post #185 in #186. That means you stepped into this little side discussion about Pagan Christianity (the book).
It should be no surprise to anyone then that I was addressing both of you.

If someone quotes me from another thread and brings that into here, and then you comment or reply to that,
don't act surprised or "this is not the topic of the thread" when I address that. That is not trolling, that is clearing the air.

But thank you for acknowledging that Pagan Christianity is one example of such a book. Certain parts seem to be taken straight from Nee's books anyway. It's not really an independent source of information about the early church. The book is not a reliable theological resource -I can't point to it and say it proves Nee right, if they are just quoting him anyway.

To a limit I agree with you that most Christian books are not prejudiced or say negative things about each other. But I think that is because of the consequences of saying negative things rather than because they do not have anything negative to say. Most authors want to shy away from controversy. Viola and Barna have tried to stay away from controversy by the points that leastofthese raised, the "spirit of the book", yet have still received a certain amount of flak from Christianity.

Even though I may agree with the things in the book, there is a fundamental difference in the approach. The book declares most of Christianity to be pagan, and yet much is neutral and therefore okay.
The Recovery is not about rejecting denominations because they are pagan. It because of what we believe the bible reveals about one church per city. If the one church per city is true, then denominations are ruled out. Not, denominations are ruled out because they have pagan practices.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If I did not respond it is because some of your arguments are very hard to refute or I would only be repeating myself. There is little more I could do to reply to your points and Drake as mostly picked up the ball on that one. Plus you would rather discuss with Drake than me anyway, and I'm fine with that.

If my arguments are hard to refute you might consider asking yourself why. Hint: I don't do it with tricks and mirrors.

I have no personal preference for Drake. I have a preference for people who are reasonable, fair-minded and honest thinkers. But my observation is that even the most seemingly reasonable LCMers eventually succumb to irrationality. Why, because their values force them to.

If you guys have a corner on the truth you ought to be able to answer any question, any argument, any misgiving. But you can't and you really don't even try. You just keep repeating the same mantras as if they answer all the questions.

There are whole ministries out there devoted to the defense of the faith. Many of them are amazing in their research and insights. There is nothing like that in the LCM. All DCP does is find more ways to call everyone who disagrees with them stupid or evil. But they do not try to defend the LCM dogma with the kind of humble and loving sincerity you see in other faith defense ministries. They never admit to faults, and that is the calling card of phonies.

If I was leading the LCM (assuming I believed in it) I have my best and brightest on this board every day fighting the battle. After all, if what you believe can't stand up to argument, why believe it? But there's not a peep. Awfully strange if you ask me. Sounds to me they know they's lose so they just content themselves by netting the dupes who don't ask questions and do what they are told.

I know you try hard Evangelical, and I believe you and Drake want to be sincere. But you have your priorities screwed up. Truth comes first, faith second. Not the other way around. And the LCM insists having it the other way around.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now I can rephrase my previous statements to be on topic to this thread:

Igzy said I should read all the Christian books, that "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore". (#144)

Yet the book "Pagan Christianity" clearly prejudices against most churches/denominations today by declaring their existence to be "not rooted in Scripture".

That is not the spirit of the book at all. In the introduction he says, "we encourage healthy skepticism that leads to fact finding and truth" "Every Good author writes in order to bring about positive meaningful change" "Pagan Christianity? was not written to divide the body of Christ". "We believe that some pagan practices are neutral and can be redeemed for God's glory" "Also, we do not believe that just because a practice has pagan roots, it is wrong"

These don't sound like divisive prejudices - If you read the book, you already realized this.

This quote from "Pagan Christianity?" may help give you insight to Igzy's quote: "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore".

"Most readers, however, responded positively, saying things like, "This book articulated what I've been feeling about the church for many years. And it gave me biblical and historical merit for those feelings". Interestingly, George and I received countless letters from pastors saying the same thing"

I have never experienced more judgement and divisiveness then my time in the LSM denomination.

On a similar note: have you seen what Viola has to say about Witness Lee and his "Local Church movement"?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

That is not the spirit of the book at all. In the introduction he says, "we encourage healthy skepticism that leads to fact finding and truth" "Every Good author writes in order to bring about positive meaningful change" "Pagan Christianity? was not written to divide the body of Christ". "We believe that some pagan practices are neutral and can be redeemed for God's glory" "Also, we do not believe that just because a practice has pagan roots, it is wrong"

These don't sound like divisive prejudices - If you read the book, you already realized this.

This quote from "Pagan Christianity?" may help give you insight to Igzy's quote: "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore".

"Most readers, however, responded positively, saying things like, "This book articulated what I've been feeling about the church for many years. And it gave me biblical and historical merit for those feelings". Interestingly, George and I received countless letters from pastors saying the same thing"

I have never experienced more judgement and divisiveness then my time in the LSM denomination.

On a similar note: have you seen what Viola has to say about Witness Lee and his "Local Church movement"?

The book is saying the exact same things we say. That denominations are sectarian, divisive and unbiblical. I have written this many times on this forum. In fact the information in the book sounds like it was quoted from one of Watchman Nee's books in the first place.

This is the very definition of hypocrisy:

When we say it or Lee writes it, it is prejudiced and divisive, according to Igzy et al.

When they write it in a book, the same things, that denominations are sectarian and divisive and unbiblical, it is not prejudiced and divisive (as you are now saying).

You have highlighted a difference however in their view and ours. We may disagree on pagan practices being "redeemed for God's glory". I don't think any practice of another religion, Hindu, Muslim, whatever, can be "redeemed for God's glory".

The book is essentially highlighting all the problems with Christianity today, yet what is more concerning is the book offers no advice about what to do about it. Christianity is pagan, let's call some things "neutral" and declare they can be "used for God's glory".

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The book is essentially highlighting all the problems with Christianity today, yet what is more concerning is the book offers no advice about what to do about it. Christianity is pagan, let's call some things "neutral" and declare they can be "used for God's glory".

You didn't read it, obviously. He specifically addresses your comment in the book.

Then you say "When they write it in a book, the same things, that denominations are sectarian and divisive and unbiblical, it is not prejudiced and divisive (as you are now saying)"

What a joke... The same things? Viola wouldn't touch Post 1970 Lee with a ten foot pole. I'm officially done with you Evan-gelical. Either you're completely oblivious or feigning naivety for the sake of your "argument".

For the sake of those in the LSM denomination or those looking for more information - Please keep posting, they need to see your "logic" and "truth"

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The book is saying the exact same things we say. That denominations are sectarian, divisive and unbiblical. I have written this many times on this forum. In fact the information in the book sounds like it was quoted from one of Watchman Nee's books in the first place.

But it was not quoted from Nee or Lee. And if you really read more than a summary sentence, I think you will see that what they are seeing is not the same thing that Nee and Lee saw. They are not concluding that the answer is a better name. It is not that changing the name makes everything right. It is not that following someone who says that makes everything right.

Actually, it is a view expressed from the most superficial analysis of the Christian landscape. There is no hiding that this landscape is very complex and nuanced. But oversimplifying things in the way Viola did is not really that meaningful. Viola and Barna have both made their names trying to shake things up. And from what I have read of them in the past (I did not read this one) is that they have some points to make. But too much of the time their primary rhetoric is at least a little over the top. (Sometimes more so.)

The whole idea that certain things are pagan is probably more of a correlation between things than any clear evidence that it is contrary to scripture and instead a following of a pagan practice. And someone in the LRC should be quick to avoid that kind of thing because they have been accused of following many pagan practices just because of outward similarities without any evidence that the source was actually pagan.

And don't forget that lack of a clear word for is not the same as a clear word against. (Which is not that same as saying just because there is not a clear word against, it must be clearly for.)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

On a similar note: have you seen what Viola has to say about Witness Lee and his "Local Church movement"?

I don't know, but the book certainly sounds like it is Witness Lee flavored at times:

For example, under "THE REFORMATION" it says:

What the Reformers failed to do was to recover the corporate dimension of the believing priesthood.

In other words, the Reformers only recovered the priesthood of the believer


It even quotes LSM publications:

For more details, see The Normal Christian Church Life by Watchman Nee (Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1980).

God's Plan of Redemption (Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1999)

[Cal]

Well, it seems that the verdict is in and none of our dear LCM apologists have been able to or have really tried to defend the idea that "the Recovery" (aka the movement started by Nee and Lee) is the "unique move of God." Presumably they will continue to believe it even though they cannot or will not defend the idea publicly.

Again, this is typical of the most outrageous of Lee's teachings. LCMers just expect everyone to be smart enough to swallow such ideas whole, even though they wither under public scrutiny. I guess we're all too stupid to understand how true these indefensible ideas are.

So much for sarcasm. Yes, God has a unique move. After all, there is one unique God. The move is his. Only he really knows what he is doing. The LCM is not wrong to say God's goal is to build the Church. Where they go wrong is insisting "building the Church" equates to their definition of it and of the details of how it must be carried out.

For example, the LCM decided the Church cannot be built without local churches (just like theirs) where members are set free to "function" (meaning speak in meetings). The problem is after 50+ years of this exercise there is no evidence that it has lent to the "building of the Church" to any greater degree than the various other means of building each other that believers employ. There is no evidence of superior spiritual maturity in the LCM over what you see among groups of serious Christians in other congregations.

In short there is NO evidence that this movement is the "unique move of God." And they've had over 50 years to prove this grandiose and outrageous claim. So the mantra has grow quite tiresome, and the damage it has done had grown even more tiresome. They must be tired of it too, given the lethargic response in this thread.

I've always felt the LCM had something to offer. Imagine that instead of holing up and being greedy and proud about what the Lord had given them, they had, as it says in Ecclesiastes 11, "cast their bread upon water." Good and helpful ideas like calling on the Lord, pray-reading, the human spirit, simple Christian community, the priesthood of believers and so forth (before they became so stamped with LCM proprietary spin that they lost their general appeal) could have truly helped millions of believers.

But instead they became greedy. They wanted to build their kingdom more than they wanted to help strangers. They insisted that they and they alone were qualified to transport the Ark. And, because of their arrogance, they became irrelevant. Ideas which were so fresh and appealing in their general essence 50 years ago have found their way into the Christian mainstream by other paths. God will always find a way. But how different it could have been, if only for a little humility.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Here's another "gotcha" from the book, which is on topic, about denominations and divisions.

The early Christians did not divide themselves into various
denominations. They understood their oneness in Christ and
expressed it visibly in every city. To their minds, there was only
one church per city (even though it may have met in many
different homes throughout the locale). If you were a Christian
in the first century, you belonged to that one church. The unity
of the Spirit was well guarded. Denominating themselves ("I
am of Paul," "I am of Peter," "I am of Apollos") was regarded
as sectarian and divisive (see 1 Corinthians 1:12).

The church in the first century was an organic entity. It was a living, breathing organism that expressed itself far differently from the institutional church today. And that expression revealed Jesus Christ on this planet through His every-member functioning body


In short, this book demonstrates beyond dispute that those who have left the fold of institutional Christianity to become part of an organic church have a historical right to exist—since history demonstrates that many practices of the institutional church are not rooted in Scripture.


Remember I did not get this from Lee/Nee books. This is from a book in my local christian bookstore

Now I can rephrase my previous statements to be on topic to this thread:

Igzy said I should read all the Christian books, that "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore". (#144)

Yet the book "Pagan Christianity" clearly prejudices against most churches/denominations today by declaring their existence to be "not rooted in Scripture".

But the book did not endorse your version of oneness. It said that oneness was in Christ. You have actually done the same naming game issue as the Corinthians because you do not use the name of the city as a non-thing that unifies the Christians, but as a specific thing that separates them. Our oneness is in Christ. But saying "I am of Christ" which implies that others are not is still sectarian. So in the same way, to declare that "we are the church in [city]" and meaning that others are not is just as sectarian.

The problem with your logic about names and "denominations" is that even though they don't agree on everything, unlike those in Corinth, they actually are not putting up walls around their groups and declaring others to be wrong, and therefore "not church." Instead they just are honest up front that they, as a group, believe in certain things in a certain way. If you want to come anyway, that is fine. If you want to join with others who think more like you, that is also fine. But we are all agreed that we are the church and together we are reaching the world.

Everyone except the LRC and a very few other extremists.