Poor, poor Christianity...

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Drake

JJ,

Right. Thus far we have only covered two.

On the last statement it is a good topic. Open a new thread and I will join you there.

Drake

At some point I'll open a thread on that, Drake. But, if you don't mind I'll punt on that for now and see where you want to go with this thread. I'm working on the Myth Busters thread today.

Blessings in Jesus' name.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by JJ

At some point I'll open a thread on that, Drake. But, if you don't mind I'll punt on that for now and see where you want to go with this thread. I'm working on the Myth Busters thread today.

Blessings in Jesus' name.

Sure. Np JJ. No rush.

[Evangelical]

Unfortunately the phenomena of pop music influencing the church is not limited to the Episcopalian church or to Beyonce.

Here is a NJ church singing Adele:

https://www.christianpost.com/news/n...worship-69378/


Here is a Christian article suggesting that the church should listen to Lady Gaga:

http://www.ministrymatters.com/all/e...n-to-lady-gaga

If Paul stood on Mars Hill and used the altar to the Unknown God to lead people to Christ, can we not use Lady Gaga to do the same?


Adele's "hello" song is apparently prophetic (who knew, Adele is one of God's prophets?):

http://www.ministrymatters.com/worsh...rophetic-hello

https://www.christiantoday.com/artic...s-25/71855.htm


Based on these results, it does not seem that adoration or worship of pop idols is limited to the Episcopalian church.

These churches and individual Christians who publish webpages encouraging the church to accept or learn from worldly pop idols need to be reminded of the words of Alice Cooper, a devout Christian-

" the world doesn’t belong to us, it belongs to Satan.”

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Unfortunately the phenomena of pop music influencing the church is not limited to the Episcopalian church or to Beyonce.

Here is a NJ church singing Adele:

You're on a roll of righteous self-indignation; why stop when you get to the LC? Why the special treatment, why the respecting of persons? God is not a respecter of persons; why are you?

Witness Lee is worshipped as a God in China. Not by 900 but by 900,000. How is it that a Bible expositor comes to be worshiped as God? What happened there? Perhaps that his ministry was a cesspool of self promotion, self aggrandizement and self exaltation? And that the Bible got dumbed down to a series of slogans that were questionable at best, the incessant shouting of which drove his acolytes batty? What really happened to the baby gods in the PRC?

"With what measure you measure, will you also be measured". Ever heard that one? A guy named Jesus said it. The Local Church of Witness Lee is a poster child for poor, poor Christianity. Too poor.

How does one go from "poor" to "rich" to "degraded" anyway? Maybe it was just a poor ministry, all along. So poor it didn't know it was poor, and said it was rich. "You say you are rich, but you don't know that you are poor" also comes to mind.

If you google "rich ministry lsm" you'll be surprised how many web sites they have pushing these concepts. They're rich like the RCC in owning real estate, and the bodies and souls of men. "Truly I say to you, they have their reward."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

You're on a roll of righteous self-indignation; why stop when you get to the LC? Why the special treatment? Why the respecting of persons? God is not a respecter of persons; why are you?

Witness Lee is worshipped as a God in China. Not by 900 but by 900,000. How is it that a Bible expositor comes to be worshiped as God? What happened there? Could it be that his ministry was a cesspool of self-aggrandizement and self-exaltation?

"With what measure you measure, will you also be measured". Ever heard that one? A guy named Jesus said it. The Church of Witness Lee is a poster child for poor, poor Christianity. Too poor.

How does one go from "poor" to "rich" to "degraded" anyway? Maybe it was a poor ministry, all along. So poor it didn't know it was poor, and said it was rich. "You say you are rich, but you are poor" also comes to mind.

Aron,

You seem to making an argument against the Lords assessing, judging, and charge to His own to overcome the degradation in the churches. You teaching us that “a guy named Jesus” really meant a kind of live and let live philosophy in Revelation 2 & 3?

And yet, I am puzzled. If you believe that then why doesn’t every word in your post apply to you too? Do you meet the standard of your own posts or are you exempt?

Thanks
Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

You seem to making an argument against the Lords assessing, judging, and charge to His own to overcome the degradation in the churches. You teaching us that “a guy named Jesus” really meant a kind of live and let live philosophy in Revelation 2 & 3?

And yet, I am puzzled. If you believe that then why doesn’t every word in your post apply to you too? Do you meet the standard of your own posts or are you exempt?

Thanks
Drake

Only Jesus has passed the veil. I get along pretty well with most of the posters on this forum; it is the self- righteous that I'm calling out here. Why judge poor Christianity but not Lee? Why the live and let live with the sins of Lee, especially when you're so eager to expose them elsewhere?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Only Jesus has passed the veil. I get along pretty well with most of the posters on this forum; it is the self- righteous that I'm calling out here. Why judge poor Christianity but not Lee? Why the live and let live with the sins of Lee, especially when you're so eager to expose them elsewhere?

Aron,

Sorry. What does “only Jesus passed the veil” mean in this context? Please explain.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Only Jesus has passed the veil. I get along pretty well with most of the posters on this forum; it is the self- righteous that I'm calling out here. Why judge poor Christianity but not Lee? Why the live and let live with the sins of Lee, especially when you're so eager to expose them elsewhere?

Uh oh!

Drake gets a little cranky when you mention the sons of Lee ... I mean the sins of Lee.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

You seem to making an argument against the Lords assessing, judging, and charge to His own to overcome the degradation in the churches. You teaching us that “a guy named Jesus” really meant a kind of live and let live philosophy in Revelation 2 & 3?

And yet, I am puzzled. If you believe that then why doesn’t every word in your post apply to you too? Do you meet the standard of your own posts or are you exempt?

Thanks
Drake

And that I think is the point. How does one look at the Lord's word in Matthew to "judge not lest you be judged" with the judgements of the 7 churches in Revelation?

To me, the verses in Matthew do not apply to judging yourself. "do not judge yourself lest you be judged" is kind of a non warning.

All of those words in Revelation 2 and 3 refer to a normal experience of a Christian pilgrim.

This is why I have become far more focused on Jezebel and Balaam than in the past, I realize that it is part of the typical Christian experience to bump into these deceits, temptations, pitfalls. We should not be surprised if we see them in the locality we are in.

For example, everyone wants to claim they are in Philadelphia, but Philadelphia is composed of saints who have all, 100%, left previous churches, and not due to backsliding. The Lord says He will make them a pillar in the house of God and "they will not go out anymore". It is a prerequisite to becoming a pillar in the house of God to be kicked out by Balaam, Jezebel, to be locked out of Laodicea, etc.

Once again, this thread is defending the practice of Witness Lee by doing the same. It is akin to the religious man praying "thank God I am not like one of those wretched Beyonce fans".

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And that I think is the point. How does one look at the Lord's word in Matthew to "judge not lest you be judged" with the judgements of the 7 churches in Revelation?

To me, the verses in Matthew do not apply to judging yourself. "do not judge yourself lest you be judged" is kind of a non warning.

All of those words in Revelation 2 and 3 refer to a normal experience of a Christian pilgrim.

This is why I have become far more focused on Jezebel and Balaam than in the past, I realize that it is part of the typical Christian experience to bump into these deceits, temptations, pitfalls. We should not be surprised if we see them in the locality we are in.

For example, everyone wants to claim they are in Philadelphia, but Philadelphia is composed of saints who have all, 100%, left previous churches, and not due to backsliding. The Lord says He will make them a pillar in the house of God and "they will not go out anymore". It is a prerequisite to becoming a pillar in the house of God to be kicked out by Balaam, Jezebel, to be locked out of Laodicea, etc.

Once again, this thread is defending the practice of Witness Lee by doing the same. It is akin to the religious man praying "thank God I am not like one of those wretched Beyonce fans".

Thanks ZNP for your thoughtful post. Based on a collection of responses I have some new considerations. Here is one.

When the Lord was on the earth He said and did many things living out the divine attributes through the human virtues. By His every word and act we can see a perfect man expressing the Godhead. Yet, during His earthly sojourn He only mentioned the Church universal once ("upon this rock I will build my Church") and the local church ("tell it to the church") once. We could derive very little about Gods desire and plan for the Church universal nor the arrangement, government, beliefs, practices, or establishing of local churches from just those two verses. Those definitions He would reveal to us through His apostles but primarily through the Apostle Paul. Yet, the Lord confirmed the work of the apostles as His own by His address to the 7 churches in Revelation. In those letters to the seven churches much more is revealed about the Lord Himself. and His judgement of the works, teachings, mission, etc. of the local churches.

Probably you will not disagree with most or all of that preamble.

Now here is what I have noticed. As concerns the local churches and His assessments, judgements, commendation, condemnation, and call to individuals to overcome the shortcomings in those local churches many posters here appeal, as a counter to the Lords clear demands in the letters in Revelation, to the sayings of, as aron sums up, "a guy named Jesus" in the gospels. So "judge not lest you be judged" in the gospels is not a direct match to ""But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate." revealed in Revelation. That is because the Jesus revealed in the gospels is not complete. It is part of the story. It is only when we come to Revelation that we see our High Priest, Jesus, caring for the churches in His glorified position in the heavenly tabernacle. There we see not a lowly man on Earth. Instead we see:

Revelation 1
"12) I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,d dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.17When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades."

That Jesus, the one in Revelation, is judging, condemning, and hates some things and commends His followers who hate the same things. He condemns things in the churches. Is His condemning and hatred incompatible with love one another? incompatible with judge not? No, it is not. Does He intimate any concept close to "live and let live"? No, He does not. Does He condemn the worship of Beyonce under the banner of Christian worship? I'm certain He does. Appealing to the Jesus in the gospels while evaluating the matters He judges as the High Priest, matters that He explicitly states we are to heed, is missing the whole point of Revelation 2 & 3.

Thanks for sharing.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

You're on a roll of righteous self-indignation; why stop when you get to the LC? Why the special treatment, why the respecting of persons? God is not a respecter of persons; why are you?

Witness Lee is worshipped as a God in China. Not by 900 but by 900,000. How is it that a Bible expositor comes to be worshiped as God? What happened there? Perhaps that his ministry was a cesspool of self promotion, self aggrandizement and self exaltation? And that the Bible got dumbed down to a series of slogans that were questionable at best, the incessant shouting of which drove his acolytes batty? What really happened to the baby gods in the PRC?

"With what measure you measure, will you also be measured". Ever heard that one? A guy named Jesus said it. The Local Church of Witness Lee is a poster child for poor, poor Christianity. Too poor.

How does one go from "poor" to "rich" to "degraded" anyway? Maybe it was just a poor ministry, all along. So poor it didn't know it was poor, and said it was rich. "You say you are rich, but you don't know that you are poor" also comes to mind.

If you google "rich ministry lsm" you'll be surprised how many web sites they have pushing these concepts. They're rich like the RCC in owning real estate, and the bodies and souls of men. "Truly I say to you, they have their reward."

I stop at the LC because this forum seems to have covered it pretty well.

Regardless of the condition of the LC and Lee we can assess his statement "Christianity is poor" based on the facts of specific instances alone, as Drake and I have presented.

All we need is a hypothesis and evidence. I consider this to be a rational approach not influenced by subjective opinions of whether he or she was right or wrong.

For example, if Lee was a sinner then his sin does not negate the facts that the Anglican church allowed gay marriage in its ranks. Jesus will not conduct a relative test of merit and compare everyone to Lee, but rather an absolute test against His standard.

I believe that Drake and I or anyone can accumulate enough specific evidence that supports the hypothesis that Christianity is poor and confirm Lee's opinion.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Regardless of the condition of the LC and Lee we can assess his statement "Christianity is poor" based on the facts of specific instances alone, as Drake and I have presented.

I believe that Drake and I or anyone can accumulate enough specific evidence that supports the hypothesis that Christianity is poor and confirm Lee's opinion.

Could anything be presented that would detract from, contradict, or challenge the thinking of the great Witness Lee?

I ask this in a lighthearted, tongue in cheek way, but that aside. Is there anything associated with Lee that you'd admit to being flawed? I've shared this before in the forum, but a Full Timer and I were chatting one day (eh-hem, fellowshipping) in the "bookroom" of our fellowship hall (only Lee/Nee sold there). The sister stocking books walked into the room and I asked the full timer what he thought the sister would do if I questioned Witness Lee's teachings - right then and there. He laughed (knowingly) and said she'd probably freak out, she wouldn't be able to handle it.

Can you imagine that? I've never seen anything like that in all my days. May the name of Jesus be proclaimed above all others!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Could anything be presented that would detract from, contradict, or challenge the thinking of the great Witness Lee?

I ask this in a lighthearted, tongue in cheek way, but that aside. Is there anything associated with Lee that you'd admit to being flawed? I've shared this before in the forum, but a Full Timer and I were chatting one day (eh-hem, fellowshipping) in the "bookroom" of our fellowship hall (only Lee/Nee sold there). The sister stocking books walked into the room and I asked the full timer what he thought the sister would do if I questioned Witness Lee's teachings - right then and there. He laughed (knowingly) and said she'd probably freak out, she wouldn't be able to handle it.

Can you imagine that? I've never seen anything like that in all my days. May the name of Jesus be proclaimed above all others!

Some will criticize Lee's teachings, others won't, not caring if he is right or wrong. I have criticized Lee's teachings a number of times on this forum, and in person in the meeting, and other times I won't care if he is right or wrong. But I won't agree when Lee's teachings are mis-characterized, misinterpreted or slandered.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I stop at the LC because this forum seems to have covered it pretty well.

Regardless of the condition of the LC and Lee we can assess his statement "Christianity is poor" based on the facts of specific instances alone, as Drake and I have presented.

All we need is a hypothesis and evidence. I consider this to be a rational approach not influenced by subjective opinions of whether he or she was right or wrong.

For example, if Lee was a sinner then his sin does not negate the facts that the Anglican church allowed gay marriage in its ranks. Jesus will not conduct a relative test of merit and compare everyone to Lee, but rather an absolute test against His standard.

I believe that Drake and I or anyone can accumulate enough specific evidence that supports the hypothesis that Christianity is poor and confirm Lee's opinion.

I understand what you are saying that Lee's own condition or the local churches own condition does not have a bearing on the condition of Christianity. And if you put blinders on and restrict the parameters of the test of poorness to only that of Christianity (generally defined as non-LC gatherings of believers), I would also agree that Lee’s opinion can be confirmed.

The problem is that in the testing of Lee's opinion, it is impossible to put those blinders on in the context of Lee's speaking of his opinion. When Lee speaks of poor Christianity, the inextricable implication is that Lee’s speaking is rich and Christianity’s is not. Lee rarely puts such blinders on and states the poorness of the condition of Christianity as a standalone (or absolute) statement; it is most always in comparison to and in contrast with HIS speaking/ministry/gatherings (i.e. a relative test of merit and comparison as you described above). In pointing out poor Christianity, he is simultaneously pointing out how rich his is. Therefore, we cannot ask nor answer if half of a complete thought is correct, only if the whole thought is correct.

This is why we point to the LC when you point to Lee’s assessment of Christianity, because Lee’s opinion itself so often includes finger-pointing to both.

Example:
“While ministering in a certain place, a young man studying at a seminary came to speak to me. He asked if I believed in the Triune God. I told him that I believed more than he. Then he asked if I believed in the rapture. I asked what kind of rapture he was talking about. There is the pretribulation, posttribulation, and midtribulation rapture. Poor Christianity! There is no ministry of Christ as the rich gold. They only have the dead teachings and doctrines.” (Lee, The Wonderful Christ in the Canon of the New Testament)

Another example:
“Poor Christianity never could understand the book of Revelation, but it is so clear in the Lord's recovery.” (Lee, The Wonderful Christ in the Canon of the New Testament)

In addition, agreeing with you that there is truth to the poor Christianity statement does not automatically imply agreement with the REST of the sweeping assertions that Lee couched those statements in. To say Christianity “only [has] the dead teachings and doctrines” is absurd. If we admit there are genuine, born again believers in Christianity, how can that be so if all they hear are dead teachings? Christ must be there for someone to be saved.

It is possible to condemn one thing without lifting up another, but Lee does not do that. Therefore, it is difficult to be able to say without a qualifier that Lee was correct, when his correct statements were usually decorated with peripheral statements that were NOT correct.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I understand what you are saying that Lee's own condition or the local churches own condition does not have a bearing on the condition of Christianity. And if you put blinders on and restrict the parameters of the test of poorness to only that of Christianity (generally defined as non-LC gatherings of believers), I would also agree that Lee’s opinion can be confirmed.

In that book Lee also states how poor Christianity just follows the Jews.