Deceptions on Campus

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Ok, I have more time and feel you need to see a different perspective (if possible).

In response to your first paragraph, you're ignoring the fact that the government recognizes the LC as having a name and that the LC employs the people for CoC and owns the building CoC uses. In addition to ignoring that, you're now stating that the LC does have a name, but strictly speaking- it's only for Sunday table meetings. So they do have a name, but only on Sundays- according to you? Also, how is comparing the meetings of CoC (that are run by LC employees) and the Lord's table meeting in the LC proving that their different names are justified? Why do you consider the style of their meetings being equivalent to each other as a factor in this discussion? Do you really think that just because the meetings have a different flavor that it justifies them being called a different name when they're on a campus? With that reasoning, what should we call the group (although the same people) that meets on Wednesday nights for the prayer meeting? According to your logic, it could be acceptable to call them a different name (even though they're the same group of people) because the prayer meeting is run differently than the Lord's Table and their functions are different. Do you understand how your logic isn't applicable to justify them calling themselves CoC now? Obviously, the LC and CoC have two different initiatives but they're all on the "same team" and working together. Just like a business has a sales team and customer service team- but is still one company. It's exactly like the LC having CoC for recruiting, so why are they using a different name with CoC- if not to be deceitful? Given the general populations knowledge about deceitful recruiting practices- you'd think the LC would want to avoid this well known deceitful practice of giving themselves another name when recruiting on campus! But, it seems to be a small price they're willing to pay and will use the tactic to avoid the loss of potential recruits!

You can't deny, one exists to recruit for the other and you're right that the CoC meetings will not be the same as the Lord's table meeting but that is not "proof" as you're stating, that they are justified in being called different things! Also, you're just willfully ignoring the fact the the government does recognize the local church as having a name. Not the mention, the local church wouldn't be able to employ people or own property- without a name. You can insist all day long that there is no name, yet- from a legal standpoint, there is a name. You can't have it both ways and just claim to be "Christians who meet together on the (in theory only) ground of one-ness" with no name, but then also employ people and own property. To do those things, you must have a name. You can't argue that they legally have one but I guess you could argue that it's only due to "man's law" that they have a legal identity and then turn around and refuse to acknowledge that lowly characteristic of having a name as a mere "legal technicality." Feel free to do so, as do many other LC-goers! But you have a name, therefore- call yourself that name when out in the world doing things in an organized effort.

I appreciate the time you have taken to respond to my posts, if not for my benefit then for the benefit of any lurkers.

In my previous post I clearly stated that the church has a name, and even quoted Watchman Nee. But you are arguing the point that you introduced in your last post I replied to. I don't think I ever denied that the LC "has a name". It is stated, in the Nee quote I provided, that the name is the name of the city in which the church dwells. The city-name of the church is a point I have defended many times on this forum. BTW the name of the church can also be just Jesus Christ, it depends if we are looking at the local or Universal/spiritual side.

Regarding the naming of the on campus activity, I think we need to understand two things:

1)the objective of the on campus ministry is to add to the church. Call it recruitment if you like, that's the whole point of on campus ministry. The on campus ministry is a means to an end, not the end itself. Just like students are not expected to study at college their whole life, they are expected to graduate and join the real world in employment. So what do you expect? The objective of any evangelical effort is to "add to the church". The on campus meetings are not "lampstands" where the Lord's Table is held each Sunday. Just like I would not call my family home "the local church in <city>", it's probably not appropriate for the on-campus group either. Yes, we are members of the local church, but it is not correct to call ourselves "the local church in...". This is more appropriate for the Sunday meeting hall where the whole church gathers (not just students). If the other groups on campus are not there to build the church and recruit students, then what are they doing there?

Let's not be so naive and think that what Christians on Campus does and how it operates is so unique. The other on campus groups are not just "building the Body" and reaching any and all students, and all enjoying oneness with each other, while the "Christians on campus" are not. They each have their own reason for existence (if they didn't, the Navigators and the Campus Crusade for Christ etc would probably be joined into one organization already), they each have different motives for targeting particular kinds of students. They each are connected to local denominations (who may provide support by way of finance, resources or volunteers) who probably expect some sort of return on their investment (such as those students joining the church).

It is well known that Bill Bright's ministry, for example, targeted students especially, and those with special capabilities. Here is a statement how they targeted particular types of students for their purpose:

Reaching and recruiting leaders was always one of
Bill’s priorities. In fact, the very first outreach Bill
and Vonette carried out at UCLA focused on student
leaders. Campus Crusade has followed that pattern
ever since. Not because the souls of leaders are any
more valuable, but because they have a larger sphere
of influence and can expose even more people to the
gospel as their lives change. Also, they can provide
leadership within the ministry, bringing about
greater excellence.

https://www.cru.org/content/dam/cru/...lived_well.pdf

The on campus evangelical groups are there for the students, not the homeless people. They particularly target the students which have the greatest potential (the most athletic, brightest, or strongest leadership potential).

So if anyone criticize Witness Lee for seeking "Good building material" then you better also criticize the other on-campus groups for targeting "students with leadership potential".


2) the objective of the on-campus ministry is to add people into the church. Recruitment is otherwise known as evangelism. It is the response to the call of Christ to "make disciples" and build the church. Ephesians 4:12 - for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ

On these two points, the local churches are consistent with their beliefs. Therefore it is unlikely this is a deceptive practice. Basically it is good evangelism (which on-campus groups / denominations which use various gimmicks and tricks to attract people might applaud). The name "Christians on campus" is not even a gimmick - the name is very neutral. Other groups may use the name "power rangers" or "excitement sports club". Even the name "the Navigators" is sort of gimmicky. Adding to the church, is unlike the para and inter-organizations which run Christian activities but typically have little to do with the local churches. As the Gotquestions article I posted highlights, the on-campus organizations and the local churches (aka denominations) are somewhat disjointed.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

I hesitated even responding bc I knew this would be so repetitive and it's proving to be the case! I'm taking the time to respond to all your points but you've ignored the ones you can't defend and then thrown out more points that are, as the others, not proving your argument like you think they are! This topic you've brought up now about how LC and CoC meetings being different and how that somehow justifies the different names is such a bad example for your argument that I almost feel bad pointing out such flawed logic.

You could share some of the blame for any repetitiveness - consider that you wasted a whole paragraph or two arguing as if I said "the church has no name". You wrote:

"you're just willfully ignoring the fact the the government does recognize the local church as having a name"
"You can insist all day long that there is no name, yet- from a legal standpoint, there is a name. "

When I clearly showed it does have a name. I personally am okay with repetition if it helps the argument - it's a way to emphasize something.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Ok, 2nd paragraph. You said, "if names don't mean anything, why don't they drop them?" Ok, just because a congregation is required to have a name in order to operate in the way that most congregations do, that doesn't mean that they're a divisive denomination! A name could be a name for a denomination or a non-denominational group. How could they drop their name(denominational or not), as you're suggesting, and employ people and own property? I'm not sure what answer you believe the hypothetical pastors would give in your scenario but I'm going to take a wild guess and say their response would be something that someone in the local church told you it would be- ha! There are so many of those silly notions in the LC that make you think about the world in an alternate reality! Also, in regards to the evangelical campus ministries "competing with each other," that's also likely your perception due to being in the local church. They'll tell you that kind of stuff but in reality, unless individual evangelical leaders on campus have some sort of personal vendetta to "steal" other believers from other groups and be the exception to the rule-you're completely off base to say they're competing for students. There are needs that can be met, in different ways, and by different groups. A healthy Christian campus ministry will work with other groups that also preach the gospel but may serve in a different way. You really do have an LC indoctrinated view of how things work outside the LC- I'm not trying to be condescending. It's just very obvious and it makes me sad.

Again you are arguing what I am not, about becoming nameless, not my real point about changing names. You said "a congregation is required to have a name in order to operate". I am not talking about becoming nameless, but about changing their name. I agree that just because a congregation has a name does not mean they are divisive. But I am not saying that. I am saying that if they were not divisive (as you claim) they would not have a different name or would change it pretty quickly, to something non-denominational or similar to the groups they claim to be in unity with. Let's consider that if a company is taken over by another company, that company may be absorbed and take on the name of the larger company. Happens all the time. In rare cases, the companies may share the name, with a hyphen. But usually the little guy adopts the name of the big guy. They change their name! Also, suppose a woman divorces and re-marries. Suppose she does not change her name to the name of her new husband. Sure, maybe they are living together and everything, in practice they seem unified, but why wouldn't she change her name to her new husbands name if she is really really devoted to him?

I think it is obvious that a church can change its name, anytime it wants to. So why don't they? I came across this article which discusses the matter of churches changing their name:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/pa...l/87l4040.html

Firstly, this article supports my idea that names are important. So let's not pretend they aren't - they are. I am glad you agree that names are important - even legal! (other people on this forum don't agree that names are so important). Secondly, they seem to be saying that the reason churches don't change their name is because they don't want to upset their existing congregations, or cause strife. Of course, to change the name will by costly.

So basically a pastor of a Presbyterian church, for example, may desire to change their name to something denominational, but they can't, or more precisely, won't. This is why, it is easier to "come out" and start fresh, than try to change the name of all the denominations already existing.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Your third paragraph...I'm not sure why we're discussing this- I agree with you that different Christian groups tend to grow the group they're associated with. That seemed to turn into an argument on the definitions of different movements and actually- I'm glad bc it made me read up on the topic and now I can see why you're separating Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism. I thought that Pentecostalism was just a movement under the umbrellas of the Evangelicalism movement. While Pentecostalism TECHNICALLY does have its roots in Evangelicalism, there are some differences. Again, I don't see how this topic applies to the conversation at hand (CoC) since it's common knowledge that Christian groups are trying to gain members for their associated congregations but I do think it's interesting that you claim the local church doesn't do that! Anyways, I'd share his article about the differences/similarities of the two movements.

https://fullerstudio.fuller.edu/evan...-charismatics/

As Ohio stated, there are only two types of Christians - those who speak in tongues, and those who don't . Seriously, the differences can be big enough for pentecostals to not join evangelical on campus groups, and vice versa.

"I do think it's interesting that you claim the local church doesn't do that" (gain members for their congregations)

Did I really say that? It should be obvious that:
Christians on Campus does not exist for the sake of their own existence - neither should any of the other on campus groups think they can replace the local church (the ones I am most familiar with don't, to my knowledge)
Christians on Campus itself is not "a church" and is not a substitute for the local church (students are encouraged to attend a Sunday meeting, with the view to full fellowship at the Lord's Table meeting)

Originally Posted by kumbaya

4th paragraph... I didn't say that evangelicals "don't represent anybody more than the rest." They clearly can't "represent" Catholics bc Catholics wouldn't allow it! I already explained that evangelicalism is only within the Protestant churches because the Catholic Church, by definition, doesn't allow any movement to promote it or recognize it other than itself! I can't speak for Catholicism (need to look that up) but Evangelicalism recognizes the Catholic church as having members that are born again Christians and part of the body of Christ. But obviously, due to not being "welcomed" in the Catholic Church community, they don't have much affiliation with the Catholic Church as a result. Also, it's obvious that Evangelicals don't agree with the majority of Catholic doctrine so while they recognize that there are born again Christians there, it would be unreasonable for Evangelicals to promote attendance in a place they believe also teaches unscriptural doctrine- even if it's not doctrine related to the key issues of the faith. As far as the survey you brought up, I'm sorry-I don't see how that applies. I agree that Evangelicalism might be represented as a separate group than Catholicism (as shown in the survey). Again, for the most part- that's due to the Catholic Church not welcoming the evangelical movement into their services. What point does that survey make, in your opinion, by distinguishing the two groups of born-again Christians/Evangelical and Catholic Christians? Are you trying to imply this somehow means that Evangelicalism is to blame for this? After posting the survey, you're clearly stating that because Evangelicalism doesn't actively build up each denomination equally- according to you, this proves they are wrong to claim they are building up the Body of Christ? Wow! So it has to be one or the other in your mind? The ONLY thing you have to do to become a believer and member of the Body is to be born-again. Why does the issue of how Evangelicalism possibly creating more growth in certain denominations than others even matter? For someone so concerned about the one-ness of the body of Christ, do you really care that the movement has less affect on some groups than others? Even if they do cause some groups to grow more than others, do you think that result is 100% due to Evangelicalism deciding which groups they want to grow and which ones they don't? Please! They're growing the Body! That's all that matters! Evangelicalism isn't trying to "build up" evangelicalism. It's whole existence is to serve the Lord! If one denomination grows more than another because of Evangelicalism- that's just the Lord's mercy and has less to do with their efforts given that it's a movement that includes all Protestant churches!

If "growing the Body" meant this:

"The ONLY thing you have to do to become a believer and member of the Body is to be born-again. "

why do we have churches? Can't everyone just stay at home on Sunday and watch church on TV?

Originally Posted by kumbaya

5th paragraph.....forgive me if I don't take Watchmen Nee's words as a substitute for Scripture. Please! Show me where it says that in the Bible. The city boundaries as being the basis and boundary for meeting with other Christians is HIGHLY debatable and you should know that very few Christians agree with this doctrine due to it stretching Biblical teachings.

6th paragraph... see my first paragraph but your example of telling a cashier "we're Christians" instead of the fact that they're Baptists is clearly not the same as one group of people being employed by a Christian congregation, then recruiting for it under a different name. Who is the "cashier" in this example? The college students? In your example, you forgot to include that the Baptist church would actually be paying the "shoppers" to tell the cashier they are "just Christians" and then develop a relationship with the cashier, with the ultimate goal of bringing them to the Baptist church. If you're going to use that analogy-let's apply it fully!

I quoted Watchman Nee to prove that the local churches do have a name. So I don't know why you are arguing as if we believe we don't have a name.

It could be argued that the inter and para organisations on campus are recruiting for the local churches. I believe they are, because after leaving college or on a Sunday, those students converted will seek to attend a local church. And if those organizations are not seeking to add to the local churches - what's the point? just to create converts who will watch church on TV every Sunday or do something else? When those students graduate - are those on campus organizations going to continue providing a spiritual home for them? This is why connectivity with the local church and local church oversight is important.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

7th paragraph... well, that is your experience and perspective. Mine is different. I've seen it happen to two churches personally and have sensed the change. I looked it up and sure enough, it's happening! The article says churches are, "reinventing how evangelicals and others cooperate and shape their ministries in many contexts and across denominational borders." This seems to contradict your claim that they're ditching their denomination status "due to dissatisfaction with mainstream denominations, rather than a genuine attempt at unity." Sure, the article doesn't use LC lingo like "seeing a vision of the one-ness of the Body." It's basically the same thought process though! Also, give them a break! Change takes time! Clearly this is an awesome thing to see how congregations are moving towards more fellowship and involvement with each other! Do you not recognize that is from the Lord? You still think congregations efforts to be one in the Body of Christ is still somehow below the LC due to your insistence that the LC doesn't have a name, therefore stands on the ground of one-ness" (even thought they don't back that statement up)? Here's the article- again, I'm sorry you haven't seen it but it's happening!

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ne...inational.html

But if you read the article carefully it does support my statement.

After stating how people are leaving denominations:

""Christian Americans … prefer to either identify themselves simply as Christians or attend the increasing number of nondenominational churches that have no formal allegiance to a broader religious structure.”

The article then states the reasons WHY:

""The move away from historic denominations corresponds with a swelling sense of skepticism many Americans have toward institutions overall""
""even denominational churches downplay their affiliations to avoid the negative connotations now associated with religious hierarchy and structure""

So the reason for this move away from denominations is:
"scepticism towards institutions"
"negative connotations now associated with religious hierarchy and structure"


This supports my statement that:

""I believe the increase in non-denoms is in general, due to dissatisfaction with mainstream denominations, rather than a genuine attempt at unity. ""

No where in the article does it say that the non-denominational movement is "in general due to an attempt at unity"". But I cannot rule it out, that's why I said "is in general, due to..."

So, I cannot see much contradiction of my claim, rather, it supports my claim.


What is also interesting is this statement by theology professor at Baylor University’s George W. Truett Theological Seminary.

“Very few churches I know anything about are truly, totally, exclusively ‘nondenominational’ in the sense most people think,” he wrote in a blog post last month. “In almost every case where I am asked about a church that declares itself ‘nondenominational,’ I can find some affiliation of that church with some network of similar churches.”

I have said before that nondenominational churches are not really nondenominational. This professor seems to share my point of view. Of course, more is required than just a name change to achieve unity.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

8th paragraph... yes, there are many affiliations or denominations. That's why it's been great to see so many dropping those denominational ties and focusing on the key issues of the faith and fellowship with the whole body of Christ. Granted, being non-denominational, as I stated before, doesn't mean you can't have a name. Denominations do divide - I agree. Names however- don't. I know you're not going to agree due to your intense LSM indoctrination but just know your opinion and the LC doctrine on this issue is discredited by the majority of Christian scholars, and believers in general. The doctrine of "having no name besides that of your locality" is questionable at best, not emphasized in the Bible, and practically impossible to execute in the real world. It could never work and the LC knows it! It's easy to "state this ideology" knowing that it would never actually happen due to them not being able to manage it and ultimately LSM would lose their control. Still, the doctrine is definitely OVER EMPHASIZED by the LC in an classic sectarian attempt to elevate themselves over other believers. By elevating an obscure doctrine to such an unhealthy level- they actually create MORE division with other Christians in that this requirement is almost at the same level as the fundamental issues of the faith! They use this elevated doctrine as the basis of their existence and judge and follow any other doctrine as a measure against it. It's called BEING OUT OF BALANCE- and unfortunately it's something many cults and sectarian groups do. They take one doctrine of minor importance, that may even be correct, but elevate it to a point that is unhealthy and base/measure everything against it. The LC isn't the first to do it and it won't be the last!

Your statement

"Denominations do divide - I agree. Names however- don't."

Doesn't make sense because the word "denomination" means "to name".

See this definition:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/denomination

denomination (n.)
late 14c., "a naming, act of giving a name to," from Old French denominacion "nominating, naming," from Latin denominationem (nominative denominatio) "a calling by anything other than the proper name, metonymy," from denominare "to name," from de- "completely" (see de-) + nominare "to name" (see nominate). Meaning "a class" is from mid-15c. Monetary sense is 1650s; meaning "religious sect" is 1716.

Logically, if denominations divide, then different names divide as well (because denomination means 'to name').

To make this logical contradiction clearer, let me rephrase your statement according to the definition of the word denomination:

""to name is to divide - I agree. Names however- don't divide."

There is a meaning which is interesting:
"a calling by anything other than the proper name".

The Bible reveals the "proper name" of the church - the city name.

[Intothewind]

De Jour, CoC claims it represents all Christians


De facto, everyone's prime bible is the recovery version, all the reading is of Witness Lee, and all the members go to one place on Sunday.

If you don't, you're definitely a new one or else ostracized.

Don't forget meetings deciding what to invite whom to. Ah, I think this new one is ready to come to the Anaheim center.

I can think of two people who I was involved with in college that are now in or done with the FTTA as a result of being gained off the campuses

[clever sister]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

De Jour, CoC claims it represents all Christians


De facto, everyone's prime bible is the recovery version, all the reading is of Witness Lee, and all the members go to one place on Sunday.

If you don't, you're definitely a new one or else ostracized.

Don't forget meetings deciding what to invite whom to. Ah, I think this new one is ready to come to the Anaheim center.

I can think of two people who I was involved with in college that are now in or done with the FTTA as a result of being gained off the campuses

I know a few who went to FTTH from campus work, including Bradley who is on this site.

I don't know if he knows who I am though

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Strictly speaking the name "the local church in.." is for the Sunday meeting where the Lord's table is held. This is, strictly speaking, the assembly of the local church. Clearly, this is something which Christians on campus is not....

Dear Lord, please help me. I can't. I'm done. Please stop.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The on campus evangelical groups are there for the students, not the homeless people. They particularly target the students which have the greatest potential (the most athletic, brightest, or strongest leadership potential).

So if anyone criticize Witness Lee for seeking "Good building material" then you better also criticize the other on-campus groups for targeting "students with leadership potential".

If the on-campus evangelical groups contravene the gospel message of Jesus and tell the students to ignore those who can't repay you in this age (Luke 14:14) and instead go after "typical Americans" meaning white middle/upper-class college students, I'd also criticize that. Interesting that you find the "everybody does it" dodge. Go find someone in "degraded Christianity" who's doing what you are, and say, "See. Perfectly normal." No, if people are doing what you're doing, it's not normal and should be called out, as well.

There's a group called Youth With a Mission (YWAM), whose purpose is to recruit young people, send them to their "training centers", where they're trained to go recruit other young people, who will also (hopefully) become recruiters etc. I haven't been to YWAM "training centers" so I don't know if they have the equivalent of Paul Hon there, telling them not to waste their time with the poor, the sick, the weak, and go after healthy young (impressionable) specimens with good earning potential. But what little I've seen from the distance reminds me, too much, of the CoC and the FTT of the LSM.

It's a pyramid scheme, with one's relative position dependent upon: 1) success recruiting/discipling; and 2) abject servility to and promotion of the Top Dog and their programme. LC members only exist to consume ministry materials and recruit others to consume ministry materials. CoC wants to look like a "non-denominational campus evangelical group" but they're not; they're the recruiting arm of a book publisher that runs its own gulag archipelago of captive assemblies.

"Oh, we're just Christians from different backgrounds who love the Lord. . . " Yeah, right. Bait and switch.

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by aron

If the on-campus evangelical groups contravene the gospel message of Jesus and tell the students to ignore those who can't repay you in this age (Luke 14:14) and instead go after "typical Americans" meaning white middle/upper-class college students, I'd also criticize that...

I've had the same revelation! Plug all the components in and you have a direct sales model! They might as well sell Herbalife while they're at it- they already have the organization set up this way- not the mention the unquestionable devotion of the saints to LSM! They'd make a fortune!!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

If the on-campus evangelical groups contravene the gospel message of Jesus and tell the students to ignore those who can't repay you in this age (Luke 14:14) and instead go after "typical Americans" meaning white middle/upper-class college students, I'd also criticize that. Interesting that you find the "everybody does it" dodge. Go find someone in "degraded Christianity" who's doing what you are, and say, "See. Perfectly normal." No, if people are doing what you're doing, it's not normal and should be called out, as well.

There's a group called Youth With a Mission (YWAM), whose purpose is to recruit young people, send them to their "training centers", where they're trained to go recruit other young people, who will also (hopefully) become recruiters etc. I haven't been to YWAM "training centers" so I don't know if they have the equivalent of Paul Hon there, telling them not to waste their time with the poor, the sick, the weak, and go after healthy young (impressionable) specimens with good earning potential. But what little I've seen from the distance reminds me, too much, of the CoC and the FTT of the LSM.

It's a pyramid scheme, with one's relative position dependent upon: 1) success recruiting/discipling; and 2) abject servility to and promotion of the Top Dog and their programme. LC members only exist to consume ministry materials and recruit others to consume ministry materials. CoC wants to look like a "non-denominational campus evangelical group" but they're not; they're the recruiting arm of a book publisher that runs its own gulag archipelago of captive assemblies.

"Oh, we're just Christians from different backgrounds who love the Lord. . . " Yeah, right. Bait and switch.

I think the ministry is focused on a particular aspect as all ministries are - even Paul, who said "Christ did not send me to baptize". So maybe Christ did not send Witness Lee to look after homeless people (he possibly sent Mother Theresa and others to do that).

Also, today the church's role in society is not the same as it was in the time of Christ. Today I think there are enough charities (whether religious or secular), companies and governments to take care of homeless people's basic needs. The idea of public philanthropy or philanthropy on a mass scale came from the ideals of Christianity anyway. Just look at Bill Gates - there was no person like Bill Gates in the time of Christ. Bill Gates's donations really put the whole of Christianity to shame in terms of philanthropy.

Did you know that most homeless people actually need a smartphone? Homeless people don't really need food, clothes etc because they get plenty of donations from business or individuals, too much in fact, sometimes. What they really need is shelter (a safe place to spend the night) transportation, social activity, and the internet..and most importantly a smart phone to call for help or access resources. This is what a charity worker told me, and I spent some time in their organization seeing how they provide social activities for homeless people - they don't provide meals.

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think the ministry is focused on a particular aspect as all ministries are - even Paul, who said "Christ did not send me to baptize". So maybe Christ did not send Witness Lee to look after homeless people (he possibly sent Mother Theresa and others to do that).

Also, today the church's role in society is not the same as it was in the time of Christ. Today I think there are enough charities (whether religious or secular), companies and governments to take care of homeless people's basic needs. The idea of public philanthropy or philanthropy on a mass scale came from the ideals of Christianity anyway. Just look at Bill Gates - there was no person like Bill Gates in the time of Christ. Bill Gates's donations really put the whole of Christianity to shame in terms of philanthropy.

Did you know that most homeless people actually need a smartphone? Homeless people don't really need food, clothes etc because they get plenty of donations from business or individuals, too much in fact, sometimes. What they really need is shelter (a safe place to spend the night) transportation, social activity, and the internet..and most importantly a smart phone to call for help or access resources. This is what a charity worker told me, and I spent some time in their organization seeing how they provide social activities for homeless people - they don't provide meals.

These are all just excuses to disobey the word of God. Have mercy on us, God.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by kumbaya

These are all just excuses to disobey the word of God. Have mercy on us, God.

Or, maybe it's relevant, practical.. modern? What does the Word of God say regarding giving smart phones to homeless people? I think Christians give food and blankets to homeless people, obviously unwanted, instead of asking them what they really need. A smart phone? 1 month free internet? I've seen homeless people throw good food away or leave it to rot on the sidewalk - not their fault, what are they really going to do with too much food when they don't have a refrigerator? Anyway, first world problems. The situation is different in third world Asia of course, where Jesus's words about feeding hungry and clothing naked have more meaning. I think that's why Christians like going to third world countries, they can see a real difference. In the West, homeless people do sometimes complain about the food they get for free, and they can be very demanding. It can really feel like "wasting your time", if they really aren't in dire need, and you're there just to cater for their preferences. How relevant are Jesus's words to the Western world anyway when a third of homeless people need liposuction not another burger (obesity studies among homeless people show a third are obese).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think the ministry is focused on a particular aspect as all ministries are - even Paul, who said "Christ did not send me to baptize".

Yes and the brothers who were following Christ before Paul was, encouraged him to remember the poor, which thing he said he was eager to do. But that was Paul's particular focus (Gal 2:10)? Imitate me as I imitate Christ, said Paul (or not, if you have a "different burden")?

Christ did it and preached it, the brothers encouraged it, Paul was eager to take hold, but we may have our own (subjective/selfish) leading? Your Christ is different, right? This is the modern age. Religion is different now. Christ has a cell phone and Google account.

(But women still can't teach because that's the way the Bible says. Society changes but we don't. Always and forever.)

Originally Posted by kumbaya

These are all just excuses to disobey the word of God. Have mercy on us, God.

He's not disobedient to the word of God, just focused on a particular aspect. Jesus was focused on one aspect, and Lee was focused on another. So if we, like Lee, don't want to focus on "give to those who cannot repay you in this age" that's fine. It's a pick and choose religion, like Wendy's. "Have it your way".

Or was that Burger King?

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes and the brothers who were following Christ before Paul was, encouraged him to remember the poor, which thing he said he was eager to do. But that was Paul's particular focus (Gal 2:10)? Imitate me as I imitate Christ, said Paul (or not, if you have a "different burden")?

Christ did it and preached it, the brothers encouraged it, Paul was eager to take hold, but we may have our own (subjective/selfish) leading? Your Christ is different, right? This is the modern age. Religion is different now. Christ has a cell phone and Google account.

(But women still can't teach because that's the way the Bible says. Society changes but we don't. Always and forever.)


He's not disobedient to the word of God, just focused on a particular aspect. Jesus was focused on one aspect, and Lee was focused on another. So if we, like Lee, don't want to focus on "give to those who cannot repay you in this age" that's fine. It's a pick and choose religion, like Wendy's. "Have it your way".

Or was that Burger King?

I don’t know- I feel like actively “checking out” of one duty Jesus calls us to do doesn’t make sense. I’m not saying to do it in a legalistic way- but if you have the means to help, we should “check in” often with the Lord if you’re able to bless that way. Clearly we can’t even get food to some countries, but even in first world countries- having a cell phone doesn’t mean you’re “good.” Still a lot of people going hungry. Just feel it’s callous to be so unaware. I haven’t done much but have worked at a Christian food pantry several times- eye opening experience. Also, to just dismiss the need as something others can do and spend time and effort investing in those who can further promote your agenda- is wrong- regardless of what group is doing it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Just feel it’s callous to be so unaware. I haven’t done much but have worked at a Christian food pantry several times-

To me, it's not about the poor, or the sick, or the imprisoned. There is a bigger, spiritual issue. We are fallen creatures. We are frightened, selfish, "me-first" creatures with unlimited desires and limited means. To give to someone who can't give back, to care for someone who can't or won't care back, to forgive someone who has done you wrong, to visit the one who can't reciprocate - all these are opportunities to "get out of yourself" and find God.

As you do to others, God will do to you. Give to others and God will give to you. Forgive others and God will forgive you. Bless others and God will bless you. Jesus taught it, and lived it out in front of Peter and the rest.

The more poor and miserable the creature, and the more unlikely any earthly reciprocal blessing to come back to you, the greater the "reward in heaven". The reward in heaven is to see the Father's face. To be called Sons of God. To be comforted, encouraged, just as you once comforted and encouraged others.

If we reduce it to a earthly quid-pro-quo and say, "Why bother" we miss the point of the whole exercise.

Jesus lived with the Father in unapproachable light, but came down and visited the lepers, the drunkards and harlots. Should we not also lower ourselves? You don't have to be "Mother Theresa" - you just have to stop thinking of YOUR enjoyment and YOUR "making it" and reach out to those around you who lack. If you care about yourself, you will give to those who can help you. You won't "waste your time" on those who can't.

Do I live this? I hope, a little. But to what degree I don't presume to say. Those who pretend this was only applicable in the era before Social Security and Welfare are just making excuses. That is what I am saying is wrong. It is not the gospel that is preached by the CoC/LC/LSM/FTT; it's rather a network-building, a social-ladder-climbing 'gospel'; it is the Way of the Gentiles, just like the Gambino family in NY and the politicians in the National Capitals and the Knights of Colombus downtown and the Delta Psi at State U. You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours.

Jesus taught, they have their reward.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by kumbaya

I don’t know- I feel like actively “checking out” of one duty Jesus calls us to do doesn’t make sense. I’m not saying to do it in a legalistic way- but if you have the means to help, we should “check in” often with the Lord if you’re able to bless that way. Clearly we can’t even get food to some countries, but even in first world countries- having a cell phone doesn’t mean you’re “good.” Still a lot of people going hungry. Just feel it’s callous to be so unaware. I haven’t done much but have worked at a Christian food pantry several times- eye opening experience. Also, to just dismiss the need as something others can do and spend time and effort investing in those who can further promote your agenda- is wrong- regardless of what group is doing it.

Sometimes on M9nday mornings I help my local church and some needy folks by pushing a wheelbarrow with their donated food to their car. I do a lot of watching, a bit of silent praying, and an occasional verbal blessing. I'm just a nobody pushing a wheelbarrow sometimes praying for what looks like a single mom with little kids, old, and mentally and physically challenged folks. This is helping me love people who are very different from me. Maybe someday I'll hear their stories and pray, rejoice or cry. My bad is that I know that if I never hear them, then I may never feel the Spirit move me to act and or pray.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think the ministry is focused on a particular aspect as all ministries are - even Paul, who said "Christ did not send me to baptize". So maybe Christ did not send Witness Lee to look after homeless people (he possibly sent Mother Theresa and others to do that).

Also, today the church's role in society is not the same as it was in the time of Christ. Today I think there are enough charities (whether religious or secular), companies and governments to take care of homeless people's basic needs. The idea of public philanthropy or philanthropy on a mass scale came from the ideals of Christianity anyway. Just look at Bill Gates - there was no person like Bill Gates in the time of Christ. Bill Gates's donations really put the whole of Christianity to shame in terms of philanthropy.

That's not true. Take a look at Cornelius. And he had faith sorely missing in Gates. (see Acts 10)

"There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always."

[kumbaya]

In an effort to make this shorter, I'm just responding to new points.

You originally argued a point that CoC was justified in being called that bc the local church didn't have a "name" per say- just a description to be used for a Sunday table meeting. Later you agreed that they legally had a name. I was always told in the local church that we had no name, but the "church in BLANK locality" had to be on a sign outside the meeting hall for a "description" of what it was . If you think they have a name now- great. I assumed you were in agreement with most people in the LC that believe the "name" isn't a name like the denominations have- of course not! It's just a DESCRIPTION of who they are- not a name (heaven forbid!). Only fallen Christianity has "names," right? Good for you for standing against that ridiculous thought and agreeing that they do, in fact- have a name.

As far as this topic goes...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"I do think it's interesting that you claim the local church doesn't do that" (gain members for their congregations)

Did I really say that? It should be obvious that:
Christians on Campus does not exist for the sake of their own existence - neither should any of the other on campus groups think they can replace the local church (the ones I am most familiar with don't, to my knowledge)
Christians on Campus itself is not "a church" and is not a substitute for the local church (students are encouraged to attend a Sunday meeting, with the view to full fellowship at the Lord's Table meeting).

This is why connectivity with the local church and local church oversight is important.

You were previously criticizing Evangelicalism for "only building up Evangelicalism" and not the whole Body of Christ. So, I was pointing out that it was interesting that you didn't recognize that the Local church is using CoC to only increase their localities. You stressed this even more by going on to describe how CoC is no substitute for local church meetings/how the connectivity with CoC and the LC is so important/how CoC needs the LC's oversight....

You didn't CLAIM the local church was "building up the whole body of Christ" but you condemned Evangelicalism for not "considering the whole body of Christ" (in your opinion), and just (according to you) building up Evangelicalism. My apologies, I should have asked. I ASSUMED that by your judgements of Evangelicalism falling short of "building up the whole body of Christ" that you believed that the Local churches and CoC WERE building up the whole body of Christ. I guess I don't understand why you're criticizing the Evangelicalism movement for the same behavior you describe as "good" for the local church and CoC. Did you just not realize you were doing that? It's always easy to find criticism looking out, not as fun to critically examine ourselves though. The LC doesn't make a habit of critically examining itself against the concerns of former members, so I guess I can see how that would be hard since you have little guidance in this practice.

On the same note, I'm sorry that you continue to criticize Christian denomination's motives in their decisions to become non-denominational. Maybe some day they'll evolve to the local church's elite model of a proper group that meets in the proper way- by first and foremost "seeing a vision of one-ness" that only the local church currently sees. After all, the Lord's Recovery has already "taken the ground" in so many cities around the earth, in an unquestionably correct and needed attempt to "recover the church." But, should we worry about the peculiar and distinct practices of the LC's with their requirement of full submission to Anaheim and LSM? Would any of those issues be a factor in the prevention of a massive exodus from congregations outside the LC, given the possibility that the non-denominational churches are unable to meet the LC's requirements of being a "proper lampstand??" Are these the only solutions the LC would need to stop criticizing fellow believers and followers of Christ- as falling short, in comparison, to themselves? Being a Christian, we're called to follow the commandment of "loving thy neighbor." So, how much more should we love our brothers and sisters in Christ? Since the Bible tells us that without love- our talents and knowledge are worthless... should I assume that your criticism of Christians (fellow members of the Body) doesn't come without lovingly praying for them? Should I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you dislike this practice of "properly admonishing" other believers and naturally, want it all to end! Ok, fine- I will. But, with your criticism I hope you also have a solution! Will you please share that? What needs to happen for all believers outside the local church to stop being criticized and accepted as your equals in the body of Christ?

Unfortunately, I think we both can recognize that the likelihood of the LC viewing other Christians as "counterparts" instead of "falling short," in comparison to the LC, isn't probable- based on the LC's history of continued criticism towards them. WL's vision of all Christians outside the LC was that they weren't the "expression of Christ" like the LC but fortunately all believers outside the LC- during the tribulation, after the firstfruits (majority being in LC of course) were raptured, that the purpose of the remaining saints in the LC would be to bring all seeking Christians out of "Babylon" (Christianity) and into the local churches to be part of the 2nd rapture (was this one called "the harvest") just in time to make the 1,000 years wedding feast and avoid 1,000 years of outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. For the Christian's who had not been fully perfected into enough of a "God-man" by the time the tribulation was up- 1,000 years in outer darkness was the price to pay.

WL blatantly criticized Christians outside of the LC, and had the audacity to call himself "the minister of the age." Do you really believe he was? Do you believe that EVERYTHING HE SAID AND WROTE IS TRUE?? If he really was the "MOTA-" one would assume his teachings were correct! What's your take on his last message when he (thankfully) apologized to the Body of Christ, admitted to making many mistakes, and challenged the local church to examine their practices in regards to other believers? What's your take on how the Blending Brothers "interpretation" of what WL really meant when saying these words in his last message (it's available on you tube if you'd like to hear what he chose to say to the LC in the last few minutes of his last message ever). Can you consider the possibility that the "ground of one-ness" although an excellent concept, was/still is being exploited as an excuse to look down on other members of the Body of Christ? By teaching the "ground of one-ness" in such an absolute way, ignoring the impractical issues this standard creates, and combining the "ground of one-ness" requirement with real Christian truths, and thought reform tactics, WL has succeeded in a facade of "spiritual eliteness." This is easily proven by YOUR comments, other local church members comments, and most importantly WL's comments about Christianity ("poor, poor, Christianity").

So, the REAL QUESTION IS- what would congregations and Christians outside the LC have to do to stop the LC from being so critical of them? Is it even possible? Now, since most of your "logic" and ideas seem to come from LSM material (which contain contradictions and logical errors- also explaining your indoctrinated logic), you might need to go to ministry.org to find an answer for me- I understand that may take time. Maybe calling an elder to ask would be faster.

There's got to be an answer. When congregations are dropping their denominational ties, ending their practice of doctrinal agreements for potential members to sign, declaring themselves as non-denoninational, yet continuing to fellowship with churches they have in the past, and also- reaching out for fellowship with new congregations.....this is still not good enough for the local church. Why? Because, according to you... they're "not doing it for the right reasons." Do you hear yourself? Is it just a knee-jerk reaction to judge any believers positive actions outside the local church as lowly, falling short, and due to shallow motives? If I could propose a different idea about why the LSM ministry indoctrinates you and other members with these ideas about churches becoming non-denominational.... Could they be doing that because this conversion we're seeing to non-denominational congregations just isn't on the local churches terms? Even though the LC represents such a small portion of the Body of Christ, because they are the only ones "recovering" the church (a duty that no one but the LC recognizes), does that really mean that all other congregations throughout the world are supposed to model the Lord's Recovery in their congregation and submit to the authority of LSM and the Blendes? I wonder if the new non-denominational congregations stopped buying any other reading material with the exception of what LSM publishes, agreed to a standing monthly book order with them, replaced all their Bibles with the Recovery version- if that would be enough to end all the criticism from the LC? What would you suggest they do to live up to the local church standards?

In your previous post (I can find your quote if you'd like me too) you said the local church did have a name, the name of the locality. Your points are getting downright hypocritical here. How can you use the logic below but still claim the LC isn't divisive by having a name?

I said...

"Denominations do divide - I agree. Names however- don't"


Your response was this...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"Doesn't make sense because the word "denomination" means "to name".

See this definition:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/denomination

denomination (n.)
late 14c., "a naming, act of giving a name to," from Old French denominacion "nominating, naming," from Latin denominationem (nominative denominatio) "a calling by anything other than the proper name, metonymy," from denominare "to name," from de- "completely" (see de-) + nominare "to name" (see nominate). Meaning "a class" is from mid-15c. Monetary sense is 1650s; meaning "religious sect" is 1716.

Logically, if denominations divide, then different names divide as well (because denomination means 'to name').

To make this logical contradiction clearer, let me rephrase your statement according to the definition of the word denomination:

""to name is to divide - I agree. Names however- don't divide."

There is a meaning which is interesting:
"a calling by anything other than the proper name".

According to you, any name is divisive because of ONE definition of the word "denomination" being- "TO NAME." (I'll get to that flawed logic in a sec...) I don't think that's a very accurate definition of the word "denomination" as it relates to church congregations- but you copied and pasted that definition from the internet so I guess it must be accurate! Maybe though, the accuracy has less to do with your using it as what you were trying to prove- but unfortunately failed at. It's also a little ironic that your flawed logic is so incriminating against the LC. According to you, a NAME will automatically label a non-denominational congregation as divisive. The problem with your argument is this places the LC in the same category-oops. Using your logic, how is the local church NOT automatically labeled divisive by having name? Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe the LC is divisive- but not because it has a name... IF ONLY that were to blame!!

Your explanation of how you came to this conclusion is really off. You're basically saying that because one definition of "denomination" is "to name," accompanied with a generalized and agreed-upon thought that denominations are divisive- this CLEARLY MEANS that the NAME a denomination has is a factor in making that denomination divisive (yikes). Do you realize that if "A" plus "B" equals "C"...that doesn't mean "A" or "B" equals "C?" Denominations are divisive due to doctrinal differences and practices. With this logic, even though the leaders of CoC are full-timers employed by the LC, and EVERY CoC worker (paid or unpaid) is a LC member recruiting for the LC, under the authority of the elders in the LC- IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE because they have two different names and are automatically labeled divisive due to their name difference! I really don't think you should stick to your method of logic, it's not doing you any favors-sorry. You can't combine the divisive characteristics a denomination might have and then combine it with ONE definition of "denomination" meaning "to name," - then, conclude that the name is what makes denominations divisive. I really felt the need to clear that up, for you, and hopefully anyone who read your post that may have taken what you said at face-value.

I agree the 2nd definition you posted is interesting. You've probably noticed by now that I do feel that denominations promote division among Christians. While I think it's fine to meet with people that share similar practices (with Biblical justification), I feel the judgement Christians have for each other isn't what the Lord wants us to have. There are 3 main issues of the faith that are unquestionable and must be accepted by all believers. A very simplified version of that is (bc each encompasses so much) 1) Omnipotent Triune God 2) Jesus work on the cross as a ransom for our sins 3) The Resurrection resulting in the veil being torn, and Holy Spirit available, giving us direct access to God, receive his divine life for our salvation, healing, and transformation into obedient servants of Him, which would be impossible to do on our own accord. I know that's really simplified, sorry about that- this is already very long! My point is, aside from the key issues of the faith... who are we to be so critical of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ- beyond that? I get it, I believed the lie that the Lord NEEDED the Lord's Recovery to "carry out His eternal purpose for His expression on the earth, blah blah blah" and that God had "always had a group of people" and now the Lord's Recovery were His people! How lucky for us, right?! The problem is, THE WORK HAS BEEN DONE! Remember when Jesus said, "It is finished?" Maybe the local church members should pray-read that verse a little more!! The work is done, the veil was broken, this is the Age of Grace! (hope I'm not butchering this too bad- I'm no preacher but I know the basics!) And as far as the idea that God has "always had a called out group of people" goes...yes, he did and he does. Before his resurrection, they were the Jews. But after his death and resurrection, salvation and eternal life became available to everyone- Jews and Gentiles too! His "people" now are just His church- His bride! Not the local church!! It's so ridiculous I'm embarrassed that I didn't see it for so long. Still, the fact that my family- TRUE AND GENUINE BELIEVERS IN CHRIST, along with so many others, are being CONTROLLED, MANIPULATED, and EXPLOITED to the fullest extent by this disillusioned, sectarian, divisive group that employs so many cult tactics that have resulted in so much pain and destruction, and brands people I love as being a "Christian cult member," is something that I'm personally not OK with. No Christian who isn't indoctrinated with LSM thought reform should accept it. It's an abuse on the Body of Christ, so- here I am, speaking (or typing) out against it.

In response to your last point, are we just all supposed to take your word on this? It seems you might consider everything LSM publishes as unquestionable truth- just like the Bible. But not everyone agrees (myself included) that LSM publishes accurate teachings so please only use the Bible to justify this statement...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Bible reveals the "proper name" of the church - the city name."

I really would be interested in what you can come up with to PROVE that the city name is the "proper name" to use in this day and age. I don't remember any teachings in the Bible about how important it is for the original church's names to be modeled in future centuries, regardless of drastic changes to city structure and society in general. Where is it said in the Bible that city boundaries must be the basis for all Christians assembling together for the Lord's table, worship, or fellowship? We have the 10 commandments but it seems that due to the LC's stress of this issue- maybe they believe their version of the "ground of one-ness" and complete submission to LSM should have been an 11th commandment! That would make a lot of sense given their behavior! On the flip side, maybe these requirements aren't spelled out in the Bible because they inevitably lead to RELIGIOUS LEGALISM that limits the power of the Holy Spirit to work out His body, how HE sees fit- not how LSM sees fit (I know, shocking concept). Even WL teaches this is "THE AGE OF GRACE." Grace- pure and simple GRACE! Praise God His grace is sufficient. Especially now, when you are really wearing me out.

Look, I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm in the process of trying to "un-indoctrinate" myself and I actually know where you're coming from. Maybe I made better arguments, but I still spent over 20 (combined) years of my life in the local church. You should read about other perspectives than the one you hold so tightly to and try to consider the criticism Christian scholars and apologetics have about the concept of "recovering the Church." Look at REAL church history (not the laughable excuse of "church history" LSM doles out with their lineage of "MOTA's") and read MULTIPLE personal accounts the people close to WL, who saw first-hand how WL decided to "execute" his "Recovery" and verify each other's testimonies. Read about the scandals followed cover-ups/attacks and listen to the audio between WL and the elder in Boston, where WL admits to mixing his personal business into church affairs and exploiting the saints. Read ELDEN1971's testimony on this site, an elder who literally started a locality after years of being involved in WL and the church's finances, only to be excommunicated bc he couldn't bring himself to tell an elder that confronted him that WL was innocent of illegal acts- even though he still believed in the vision of the local church and had given an enormous amount of grace to WL! Still, he was unable to say that WL was innocent of illegal activity without lying- so he was excommunicated. This is just one of hundreds, if not thousands of stories of abuse in the LC. Their requirement for complete submission to LSM, the BB's and elders, has created a breeding group for spiritual abuse.

Have you prayed for the Lord to reveal to you whether or not the criticism towards the Lord's Recovery is legitimate? What have you heard or read about the movement other than what LSM has provided you? Feel free to message me privately or start a new thread (if you can agree to try to be logical now) and if I feel peace about it-I'll respond (no promises based on your track record), just not on this thread (feel bad for clever sister).

Until then, this comes to mind. It's an excellent overview of the LC written by a former elder. I realize the name will offend you but if you can get past that- you'll actually learn a lot.

www.assemblylife.com

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by kumbaya

I'm sorry, but this is why I have to stop wasting my time here. I just had to respond bc I didn't want some poor soul to read your logic and be misguided.

Kumbaya, if people want LSM/LC "logic," there is plenty of that on LSM's "vast online library."

Long ago I stopped trying to persuade LSMers who come here to dismiss, dissuade, and debate your experiences in the LC.

Save yourself lots of time by only posting your own stories and viewpoints -- they are really helpful to others who read -- just not to ones like Evangelical.

[Intothewind]

Do those people at the Lords table suddenly transmorph into people who have nothing to do with the local church, that is rich. And they have no desire to bring unwitting students into that fold known as FTTA


Evangelical: Your statements only prove the deception(lies) of campus groups. You should be ashamed.

Do not pretend to be ignorant to the stated goals of the campua work.

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Kumbaya, if people want LSM/LC "logic," there is plenty of that on LSM's "vast online library."
Long ago I stopped trying to persuade LSMers who come here to dismiss, dissuade, and debate your experiences in the LC.
Save yourself lots of time by only posting your own stories and viewpoints -- they are really helpful to others who read -- just not to ones like Evangelical.

I know, thank you. I couldn't help myself- still in the healing process and realizing how much that LSM junk has affected me. I think it's somewhat validating to type out my new found mentality- I'm sure it's just a phase!

I actually edited that quote out bc I felt bad about it

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by kumbaya

I know, thank you. I couldn't help myself- still in the healing process and realizing how much that LSM junk has affected me. I think it's somewhat validating to type out my new found mentality- I'm sure it's just a phase!

I actually edited that quote out bc I felt bad about it

Great! Writing is a wonderful way to "validate your new found mentality." I do this all the time. I often use comments here to go digging in the word, and then post the results. It's all part of our de-leavening process, actually quite therapeutic.

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great! Writing is a wonderful way to "validate your new found mentality." I do this all the time. I often use comments here to go digging in the word, and then post the results. It's all part of our de-leavening process, actually quite therapeutic.

De-leavening! Love it- new word I’ll use!

[clever sister]

Originally Posted by kumbaya

I know, thank you. I couldn't help myself- still in the healing process and realizing how much that LSM junk has affected me. I think it's somewhat validating to type out my new found mentality- I'm sure it's just a phase!

I actually edited that quote out bc I felt bad about it

Glad you are getting something out of it.

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by clever sister

Glad you are getting something out of it.

That’s all- promise. Sorry for temporarily monopolizing your thread. I resigned myself to just let it all out then- and not respond again

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by kumbaya

In an effort to make this shorter, I'm just responding to new points....

I read your whole post but only want to address one point about names, because it is most related to this thread topic.

Why can't "the local church in" be both a name and a descriptor?

The surname Smith for example is a name today, but it once meant someone who worked with metal. It was once both a name, and a descriptor.

I believe Witness Lee emphasized that "the local church" is not a name because he did not want it to become merely a name, and lose its meaning as a description. But it can be used as a name (e.g. legally), and if so, then it is the only name allowed. I don't think Lee was contradicting Nee, who said:

"A church can only be named after its locality. It cannot have any other name." ~ Watchman Nee.

A denomination is not just "having a name", it is to have a name which is not a "proper name". For example, the proper name for a wife is the name of her husband, but her taking the name of her dog or any other name is not the proper name.

A suitable candidate for a proper name for the church, is the only name which the Bible uses for churches. The only name which the bible uses for churches, is the locality. "the church in ... etc". Some people argue that this is only descriptive and therefore doesn't have to be followed.

These same people probably believe in baptizing by immersion only (if they are baptists, for example, or influenced by that teaching) - these things are also only descriptive. Many Christians also believe that a person must speak in tongues - again, speaking in tongues is descriptive, not prescriptive. There are many things in Christianity which are descriptive, not prescriptive. If we were to follow only the clear prescriptive commands of the bible, much of Christianity would not exist. Another example is that there is no prescriptive command to meet on a Sunday every week for church. But Christians do that because the bible describes (not prescribes) people meeting on "the Lord's day".