I love the local church

Most messages on these forums are anti-local churches. For more than 10 years, I am a member of the local church in a non-US, non-Chinese country. And, my experience in the local church is certainly different from the negative, suspicious experiences mentioned here.

There is some truth to some of the allegations, esp. the control and the attempt to fit the church into a particular pattern. But, it is true for most denominations. Every denomination has its own ways and you are supposed to conform. Try preaching in a Pentecostal church and the pastor would try his best to get you to stop.

I was born in an conservative Pentecostal family. My parents came in touch with Br. Lee's writings moves to the local church. I followed my parents to the local church. But, once I reached the local church, I fell in love with it.

The teaching, the hymns, the atmosphere in the local churches were so much different from the Pentecostal churches. A simple example is that I began to appreciate the book Song of Songs after I came to the Lord's recovery. Till then, it was considered a book that had to be ignored. Similarly, I never heard about the Lord becoming the life-giving Spirit till I came to the local churches. Neither did I know that Rom 5:10 is so rich and talks about the complete salvation of God. And, so many more things.

I also appreciate how the local churches encourage all saints to prophesy. Even today, I attended a meeting where one of the elders gave a long boring message. But, the prophesying after the message was so rich. I wish all churches (non-local churches) would stop the one man speaking and let every member function.

Also, the HWMR explains the Bible so well. Recently, we have been pursuing Psalms and you realize that the riches in Psalms are so vast. Similar to the experience with earlier HWMR on Song of Songs or Isaiah or all the other books.

And, the Hymns are so wonderful. They are not only about salvation or going to heaven or working for the Lord or being comforted. Right now, I am listening to hymn # 509 - God is in Christ to be my supply....

Like I said earlier, there are some flaws in the local churches. And, there certainly would be flaws or else we would be raptured. But, I have not seen any other church/denomination where I have seen a richer enjoyment of Christ.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Most messages on these forums are anti-local churches. For more than 10 years, I am a member of the local church in a non-US, non-Chinese country. And, my experience in the local church is certainly different from the negative, suspicious experiences mentioned here.

There is some truth to some of the allegations, esp. the control and the attempt to fit the church into a particular pattern. But, it is true for most denominations. Every denomination has its own ways and you are supposed to conform. Try preaching in a Pentecostal church and the pastor would try his best to get you to stop.

Like I said earlier, there are some flaws in the local churches. And, there certainly would be flaws or else we would be raptured. But, I have not seen any other church/denomination where I have seen a richer enjoyment of Christ.

Welcome to the forum. Please stick around and pick a name and register.

Sounds like you missed out on the recent round of quarantines, which seemed to bring out the worst in many saints and leaders.

I too miss many of the positive features in the LC's, like the ones you mentioned, and that's why I was there so long.

[UntoHim]

Yes, "unregistered", please feel free to register, it makes the process of posting a lot easier and faster.

Your point about "Most messages on these forums are anti-local churches" is well taken, at least by me. One thing I can tell you is that the reason for this problem is that most of the registered members are former members, and so this accounts for the lopsided number of "anti-local church" postings. There is a "cure" for this problem however - when more current members register and post we will see that lopsided number come closer together, and this would be a good thing. One of the major problems between current and former members is COMMUNICATION. And this is one of the major reasons for this forum, two way, back and forth communication! So please, take advantage of this venue, it is here for current members as well as former members. As the administrator of this forum, I will do my best to see that you are treated with the courtesy and respect you deserve.

[ToGodAlone]

I too welcome you to the forum and encourage you to register.

I just wanted to address one of your points regarding all members prophesying. You said

I wish all churches (non-local churches) would stop the one man speaking and let every member function.

This is something that I believe is a misconception of non LRC churches by those who have spent a considerable amount of time in the LRC context. I have been a member of several churches (all non LRC) in my short lifetime, and all of these churches did use the pastoral/elder/whatever else system and thus had the "one man speaking" every week. However, what I think some people fail to recognize (or perhaps are not even aware of) is that although there is a speaker every week, there are smaller group contexts in which every person has the opportunity to share (ie prophesy). And everyone is encouraged to attend these small groups so there is in fact no true "suppression" of each individual member's ability to speak about God's Word.

That being said, the reason for having the pastor speak every week is so that everyone has the opportunity to hear the Word preached by one who has been trained in Biblical study and who would therefore have a deeper insight into the Word of God than those who didn't have such extensive study. This actually happens in the LRC context as well, although it probably isn't as obvious. Are not the main speakers at trainings and conferences, and even those that "lead" or "facilitate" the Lord's day meetings those who have attended the FTT, the LRC version of seminary? Going back to the reason for the pastoral system, the Bible says that there are those who have been gifted with the ability to speak or teach and for some, their calling is into full time ministry as a pastor. The main function of the pastor is not only just to speak, but to help guide (or shepard, going along with the connotation of pastor) the members of the church. They are not necessarily above any other member of the church (although they probably have more administrative power, it is far from absolute), but rather are serving as any other member would in their own way. Not everyone is called to such things.

I guess in summary of this long rant, there is no reason to stop using this system because it is more beneficial for the church as a whole to have someone (or people) to guide them. In the case of churches who do not use this system, what happens? It pops up anyway. WL was essentially the head pastor and all the FTT graduates are the elders/pastors in today's LRC. What do they do? They guide everyone so that they conform to the ministry. You say something that conflicts with the ministry, you can bet that they'll be the first to let you know. In my opinion, the difference between a pastor (though they are far from perfect, like anyone else, let's consider the normal case where they're not corrupt ) and a FTT graduate is that the pastor helps the church conform to the Bible and the Gospel message and the FTT graduate helps conform the church to the LRC interpretation of the Bible. I realize what I have said will probably spark discussion about denominations and whatnot, but this is not my point.

[ToGodAlone]

Also I feel semi obligated to note your prior experience with the Pentecostal church. It's very possible that this being your only other church experience other than the LRC could have shaped much of your views on other groups "enjoying Christ" and whatnot. I've attended LRC meetings and those of denominational and non denominational churches. I can safely say that the LRC does not have a richer enjoyment of Christ than anyone else. Also regarding the HWMR, I have never needed such books to enjoy books like Psalms or Isaiah or whatever else there's a HWMR on. Perhaps I am a bit biased in this opinion, but to me it seems as though the HWMR teaches members of the LRC to focus only on the things that they want you to focus on. I think there's a topic on here regarding the HWMR on the Psalms and how there was one Psalm where half the passage was ignored because it did not agree with the LSM teaching. Now, I have not read the entirety of any HWMR so I could be wrong on some things, but if that was actually the case, isn't there something wrong there? There's also much talk about how the LRC discounts the book of James and to me, any group that discounts a part of the Bible is in some serious error. There is much I can say on these topics (and I'm sure many on this forum can say far more) but that's not really relevant right now.

I apologize if I seem that I'm attacking you in any way, I just get a bit perturbed when anyone mentions the idea of the LRC doing anything better than a non LRC church. Perhaps it's defensiveness on my part, but all the same I say all these things out of genuine love and respect. So hopefully no offense.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

WL was essentially the head pastor and all the FTT graduates are the elders/pastors in today's LRC. What do they do? They guide everyone so that they conform to the ministry.

I agree that there are many benefits to having the opportunity for all to share. WL and the Blendeds have sold their brand of meeting for decades. If it was just an alternative style of Christian meeting, then it wouldn't be so obnoxious, but prophecying supposedly is the only proper way to meet, and the weekly speaking of some pastor is supposedly proof that all Christianity is pitiful and degraded. So I was taught for many years.

The down side of the prophecying meeting is the tasteless, doctrinal and uninspirational monotone that often accompanies it. There are lots of people who should not be given the microphone on a weekly basis. They are just not gifted to share with a larger audience than the dining room table. Many cannot hold a coherent thought, and many others get sidetracked by meany things. But more importantly, how can Anaheim know the spiritual needs of any church. If systematic, one-size-fits-all teaching was never used by the Apostles, then why should it work for us today.

With every upside is an accompanying downside. There is just no perfect, God-ordained way, contrary to the LC belief system. Jesus is our unique way, and the Spirit of the Lord can use an endless number of diverse ways to meet the needs of God's children. I don't believe that any way can ever be THE way, and I do believe that any way can be abused by those who are hungry for power.

The bigger question, in my mind, is -- what is the reason for promoting this method of meeting. Is it protection or is it control? We were told for years that prophecying will protect us from all the inherent dangers of the clergy-laity system. I bought into that reasoning, as did all of my colleagues. But who protects us from the inherent dangers of having only one man --WL -- teach? The Bible never promoted the ministry of just one man. Who protects us from the errors that WL introduced?

I have concluded that the real reasoning for WL/LSM's method of prophecying is control. What they are doing, in essence, is little different than the missals of Rome which I grew up on. Any Sunday of the year, I could go to any Catholic church in the English world, and basically get the same church service. By eliminating the speaking of local leader/teachers, and demanding that all the LC's use the same materials, the same format, and the same hymnal, Anaheim has effectively usurped control of all their member churches. That, my dear friends, is the very definition of a denomination.

Another important matter to weigh in on is the fate of all those gifted men of God who have come and gone over the years. Some were forced out via quarantines, some were shamed into obscurity, some refused to be bullied into submission, and others just left. Their voices are no longer heard in the LC's. How convenient! Nearly all of them left because they were silenced by headquarters. Ask them. It was WL's way or the highway! Our God, however, delights in diversity, and that is one ingredient sorely lacking in the Recovery. Our God also desires to raise up shepherds to tend to the local flocks, but so many dear saints have departed because the program structured by LSM did not help them at all.

The one common denominator of all those who remain is this -- they all are sold out for the ministry of a man. His own unique ministry is what holds them together, and builds the wall around them.

[Paul Cox]

Welcome to the forum,

It would hardly make sense for any of us to argue with you on the bases of your liking the Local Church.

"No, don't like it! Stop liking it! I don't like it, so neither should you!" LOL

I was recently in Taiwan and listened intently to one of my nephews tell me how crazy he is about the Catholic Church. It turns out to be the best thing that ever happened to him. Now I was raised in that system from Childhood to adult. I was very active in it. But when I got saved I came out of it like a bolt of lightening. I could have had a lot to say to him. But my days of trying to talk someone out of Catholicism are long gone.

However, for those who are zealots for Catholicism, and have nothing better to do but tell me that it is the original church, to which the Lord will be eternally devoted...well, then we can go to town.

If you like the Living Stream Church; if you are having the time of your life, then please go in peace. But none of your experience changes the boastful arrogance of the Living Stream Church, and certainly none of your experience in the Local Church changes their dark history, nor their blatant hypocrisy.

Having a wonderful time at a Catholic youth event does not change the historical fact of illegitimate sons following their papal fathers' footsteps into the Papacy. Neither does it change the fact that they still wrongfully believe that the Pope is the sole vicar of Christ on the Earth, and that they alone are the only church which has the Lord's full blessing.

So, "O Lord, Amen, Hallelujah" all you want. But that doesn't change any of the facts that have been brought out about Witness Lee, his dark deeds, and the Laodicean nature of the Living Stream Church.

P.C.

[TLFisher]

This first post is in response to ToGodAlone and UntoHim.

"I have been a member of several churches (all non LRC) in my short lifetime, and all of these churches did use the pastoral/elder/whatever else system and thus had the "one man speaking" every week. However, what I think some people fail to recognize (or perhaps are not even aware of) is that although there is a speaker every week, there are smaller group contexts in which every person has the opportunity to share (ie prophesy). And everyone is encouraged to attend these small groups so there is in fact no true "suppression" of each individual member's ability to speak about God's Word. " ToGodAlone

Yes, this has been my experience also. Presently meeting with a community church that encourages small group meetings. This is ideal for everyone to function and everyone can.
Is this much different from the local churches? Many either don't feel comfortable functioning in a large meeting or feel constricted by HWFMR to speak according to their daily walk with the Lord.

"One of the major problems between current and former members is COMMUNICATION. And this is one of the major reasons for this forum, two way, back and forth communication! " UntoHim

Yes, this is accurate UntoHim. For concerned brothers and sisters who want to communicate their concerns, there is no ear to hear by the Blended brothers and by many local elders. Those who do have an ear to listen is few and far between.
You can write emails as I have to several blended co-workers and due to the nature of issues at hand, those emails have gone unresponded to.
It's due to forums such as this, I do not feel alone nor isolated in my concerns. Imagine from 1990-2003 I thought I was the only who had issues with quarantines of specific brothers and whether there was merit for such actions.
Without having such forums, how can there be honest dialogue between former and current members of the local churches? I do believe there are current members who do have concerns, but there's the trust factor. How do you as a current member express concerns without bringing youself into the crosshairs?

[Cal]

Welcome to the forum.

A couple of comments on your statements.

First, contrary to your implication, the word is not interpreted that well in the LC. There is some good and some bad. Some is really bad. The minister of the age stuff is off-the-charts bad. If you are getting all your Bible insight from Lee and Nee, you are getting a very distorted view of the truth.

Your statements about one man speaking in other churches versus many speaking in the LC is an example of the way things get twisted around in the minds of LCers. If many people are simply repeating one man's ministry, how many men are speaking? Just one. And if his speaking is getting so amplified while all other ministers are getting silenced then his speaking has more influence than is appropriate.

At least in other churches people are allowed, even encouraged, to get and share speaking directly from the Lord, even if in their large services there is only one speaker. I'll take the latter over the former any day.

Frankly, large meetings with public testimony are unwieldy. Most people understand that. They only worked in the LC because everyone knew not to contradict "THE MINISTRY," (plus the churches are relatively small.) So everyone effectively became Lee's personal megaphones. That's nothing to brag about.

Finally, if you are truly enjoying Christ then there will be fruit in your life. One major fruit is loving and receiving all believers. Claiming to be the one true move of God is contradictory to that fruit.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The down side of the prophecying meeting is the tasteless, doctrinal and uninspirational monotone that often accompanies it. There are lots of people who should not be given the microphone on a weekly basis.

The bigger question, in my mind, is -- what is the reason for promoting this method of meeting. Is it protection or is it control? We were told for years that prophecying will protect us from all the inherent dangers of the clergy-laity system. I bought into that reasoning, as did all of my colleagues. But who protects us from the inherent dangers of having only one man --WL -- teach? The Bible never promoted the ministry of just one man. Who protects us from the errors that WL introduced?

I have concluded that the real reasoning for WL/LSM's method of prophecying is control.

First on prophesying. I can't begin to tell how many times I've heard prophesying that ridicules non-LSM Christianity and goes un-checked. How I see it is putting down Christians outside the LSM fellowship in order to build themselves up. This is not edifying. This type of speaking does nothing to build up the Body. Rather this is an example of risks non-pastoral churches take of opening up the floor without oversight.
Prior to 1987 I liked the format of prophesying which was basically testifying of your walk with Christ during the week. It had nothing to do with the ministry and much more about your Christian experience. The format change to HWFMR I can see merit to Ohio's post. When your speaking is according to a ministry, if there's a point the ministry is in error, then your speaking will be in error. That's the risk being taken.
The problems that have taken place in Great Lakes Area in the last decade, it's about control. Churches that deem it's not profitable for their locality were considered in rebellion thus needing replastered. Control in this indicates churches exist for the ministry and not the ministry existing for the churches.

I made the last post because I could not find any positive thing about the local churches in this forum. Anyone who came to this forum would be influenced to avoid the local church, which I don't think is fair. Each local church is unique with only the teachings being common. The practices will be different and based on the leading brothers' understanding of the word. So, unless you taste and see each local church, you cannot know whether it is good.

As for the experiences some of you have had, it is unfortunate. But, since I am not part of the local churches you were in, I do not see any reason to hate local church in my locality. There are external influences but nothing that cannot be accepted and nothing that does not occur in other denominations. From my experiences, the local churches are similar to most denominations with an organisational set-up.

[Paul Cox]

Excuse me, but did somebody here tell you that you need to hate the Local Church in your locality?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I made the last post because I could not find any positive thing about the local churches in this forum. Anyone who came to this forum would be influenced to avoid the local church, which I don't think is fair. Each local church is unique with only the teachings being common. The practices will be different and based on the leading brothers' understanding of the word. So, unless you taste and see each local church, you cannot know whether it is good.

As for the experiences some of you have had, it is unfortunate. But, since I am not part of the local churches you were in, I do not see any reason to hate local church in my locality. There are external influences but nothing that cannot be accepted and nothing that does not occur in other denominations. From my experiences, the local churches are similar to most denominations with an organisational set-up.

Good point.

I try to differentiate between the bad leaders in the Recovery and the many precious saints. Many local leaders have learned how to cultivate the local saints and keep the mandates from LSM at an arm's length. Unfortunately, I have been too often connected with too many brothers who understood God's high calling to be how absolutely one we were with ministry leaders.

Dear unregistered guest, I don't believe any of the posters here would question your experience inside your local church. Even on this thread I cited some positive things about the way we met in the Recovery. I have numerous posts over time appreciating the positive that I came away with. If nothing more, file away what you have read here on the forum as a warning for the next "storm" that blows through.

You said that you have been a part of the LC's for 10 years, so obviously you have heard about the recent and past quarantines of certain brothers once serving in the recovery. I can tell you, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that what you were told by LSM and your local leaders does not match what really happened.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Each local church is unique with only the teachings being common. The practices will be different and based on the leading brothers' understanding of the word. So, unless you taste and see each local church, you cannot know whether it is good.

What you have stated here is a bit of an contradiction. You see one of the major teachings of Witness Lee is that EVERY Local Church should be exactly the same in teaching and practice. Lee taught that the only differences between local churches in the bible are negative things (supposedly such as we see in Revelation 3). Of course he totally ignored the rest of the New Testament, which clearly shows that there were differences between the churches, even between regions.

I don't know what part of the world (or universe) you are in, but in the churches under the Living Stream Ministry, leading brothers are forbidden to lead their churches in teachings OR practices that are not in total alignment with the spoken and written ministry of Witness Lee. This mandate has apparently been extended to include the interpretations of Witness Lee via the Blended Brothers. Those who deviate are first warned, (strongly) and then those who do not fall into line are "quarantined", which is nothing more then a mealy-mouthed way of saying ex-communicated or dis-fellowshiped.

However, maybe you are so far from Anaheim that the leading brothers in your local church have taken some liberties...if this is the case I think it is a very positive development. Without disclosing your location, please feel free to let us know about these "different practices" in your local church. I am genuinely interested to know.

Also, please take to heart what Paul Cox just posted. This forum is a place for dialogue and communication. We are not here to express hatred for the Local Church, Witness Lee or Watchman Nee. Disagreement does not equal hatred. However, if you see something posted that you believe expresses hatred than you can point that out to me and we can talk about it.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

However, maybe you are so far from Anaheim that the leading brothers in your local church have taken some liberties...if this is the case I think it is a very positive development. Without disclosing your location, please feel free to let us know about these "different practices" in your local church. I am genuinely interested to know.

Also, please take to heart what Paul Cox just posted. This forum is a place for dialogue and communication. We are not here to express hatred for the Local Church, Witness Lee or Watchman Nee. Disagreement does not equal hatred. However, if you see something posted that you believe expresses hatred than you can point that out to me and we can talk about it.

Amen! Yes UntoHim, key word is disagreement. The may be mistrust, but not hatred. To the contrary, it's because of love for the brothers and sisters we know in the local churches there is groaning for change. A change to local churches which is general in it's receiving. A change that is impartial to whoever walk throught the meeting hall doors. A change in forgiving one another. I would love to see localities such as Moses Lake, Rosemead, etc be received and acknowledged as a local church without fellowship with LSM being a prerequisite.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Amen! Yes UntoHim, key word is disagreement. The may be mistrust, but not hatred. To the contrary, it's because of love for the brothers and sisters we know in the local churches there is groaning for change. A change to local churches which is general in it's receiving. A change that is impartial to whoever walk throught the meeting hall doors. A change in forgiving one another. I would love to see localities such as Moses Lake, Rosemead, etc be received and acknowledged as a local church without fellowship with LSM being a prerequisite.

Why is it that no brother and no church can amiably part ways with LSM? Any disagreement or correcting words from brothers are not taken to the Lord for healthy consideration, rather they are firstly tagged as opinionated, and if others agree, these ones are labeled as rebellious.

LSM is an absolutely closed "society" which answers to no one. They have zero accountability to member churches. How can LSM supposedly "serve" the churches yet these same churches have no say? Numerous concerned brothers (and sisters) over the period of many decades have brought serious issues to light at LSM, all with the same result -- expulsion. Why is that? Should not all ministries be open to examination? The apostles walked in the light of day, but LSM operates with impunity.

[Cal]

Fact: The health of any local church is directly proportional to its independence from LSM and the Blending Brothers, or for that matter any other "work" which presumes that churches should follow it.

Unregistered, you probably have a nice church-life, and that's great. But however much you choose to remain ignorant of the history of the LC movement to that same extent you are hurting yourself, your family and anyone you might influence.

The Local Church movement has an unrepentant history of abusing members and former members based on an indefensible doctrine of narrow and exclusive spiritual authority. The extensive damage done by this system is not made up by the pleasant experiences you are having out in the hinterland.

Until your movement repents of its abuses and makes public apologies, you are going to see, and you should see, information sources like this website.

Shame on LC members for cooperating with any cover-up of their movement's abuses.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why is it that no brother and no church can amiably part ways with LSM?

LSM is an absolutely closed "society" which answers to no one. They have zero accountability to member churches. How can LSM supposedly "serve" the churches yet these same churches have no say?

Hello Ohio. In response to your question which I wish readers of this forum to consider is the matter of grace. When a brother or sister ceases to meet with a locality, why cannot he or she be extended grace? I've brought before on this forum the community church where I've been meeting for the past year. A teaching brother/elder chose to leave. What I did not know until last week, is after every sermon he would affirm or critique the pastor's sermon to the pastor. So when this teaching brother choose to leave, I thought it was very telling in hindsight when the pastor called all the elders forward to pray for and give grace to this teaching brother in his last meeting with East Renton Community Church. By comparison the Church in Moses Lake parted ways with LSM in April 1986. Sometime after I had been meeting with the Church in Bellevue, I raised a question to one of the elders/deacons. What about Moses Lake. Paraphrased response given, they're a rebel church. Some response when visiting the Church in Spokane. Oh, Lord Jesus! What has our receiving been reduced to?
Ohio, time has proved LSM doesn't serve the churches, it's the churches that serve LSM. If LSM did serve the churches, what happened in the Great Lakes area would be a non-issue as the churches are local in administration. I think it's telling when a brother in their localities have been received. However when a blended brother speaks a word to the localities' elders about that brother, that changes everything. If you had the notion to press a question to a blended brother/co-worker, don't expect a response. There's accountability to no one.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

There are external influences but nothing that cannot be accepted and nothing that does not occur in other denominations. From my experiences, the local churches are similar to most denominations with an organisational set-up.

Sir, thank you for your candor. However, do you know what the Minister of the Age taught about denominations? Do you know what the Minister of the Age taught about organisations?

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

However, maybe you are so far from Anaheim that the leading brothers in your local church have taken some liberties...if this is the case I think it is a very positive development. Without disclosing your location, please feel free to let us know about these "different practices" in your local church. I am genuinely interested to know.

Like I said in my first post, I am far from Anaheim and Taipei. And, from what I have read on the internet, I think not being close to Anaheim, location-wise is better. But, at the same time, I want to clarify that we do not have any 'different practices'. What we have is some leading brothers who are tolerant. It is fine even if you do not agree with every word by Br. Witness Lee, as long as you do not create divisions.

For instance, if you want to speak from your reading of the Bible, you are free to do so. But, most of the saints use the HWMR. Similarly, I know brothers who have not understood some of the teachings (like Jesus is the Father and he is also the Spirit) but can co-exist with me, who understands most of the writings of Brother Lee.

I love the local churches and almost all the writings. My major disagreement, if any, is regarding the practices.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I don't know what part of the world (or universe) you are in, but in the churches under the Living Stream Ministry, leading brothers are forbidden to lead their churches in teachings OR practices that are not in total alignment with the spoken and written ministry of Witness Lee. This mandate has apparently been extended to include the interpretations of Witness Lee via the Blended Brothers.

I believe being far from Anaheim helps. At the same time, I also know of local churches in my country where leading brothers are more intolerant than the leading brothers in my local church.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Sir, thank you for your candor. However, do you know what the Minister of the Age taught about denominations? Do you know what the Minister of the Age taught about organisations?

I'd much rather people call the local church an organisation than a cult. Most lay people do not have any idea what 'cult' means. They just know that it has bad connotations and refuse to give it a chance.

And, I do not subscribe to everything that Brother Lee says nor do I accept that he is 'the' minister of the age. I do not see the Bible having one minister. Paul worked along with Peter, John, James and other Apostles.

I agree with brother Lee that denominations are bad. But, it seems that it cannot be helped. The good thing, IMHO, is that the local churches have a rich word, though others in this forum may not agree.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I agree with brother Lee that denominations are bad. But, it seems that it cannot be helped. The good thing, IMHO, is that the local churches have a rich word, though others in this forum may not agree.

I agree with what you said in a previous post....about practices. Having said that, it is because of practices the local churches exemplify if not denominational characteristics, then sectarian characteristics. For the most part, yes there is a rich word being spoken. Problem is the rich word doesn't carry over into local church practices.
A prime example is what afaithfulword.org published about quarantines.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I agree with brother Lee that denominations are bad. But, it seems that it cannot be helped. The good thing, IMHO, is that the local churches have a rich word, though others in this forum may not agree.

If denominations are bad then the LRC has much to improve upon. To me it seems like they are no more than the denominations they themselves claim to reject.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I'd much rather people call the local church an organisation than a cult. Most lay people do not have any idea what 'cult' means. They just know that it has bad connotations and refuse to give it a chance.

And, I do not subscribe to everything that Brother Lee says nor do I accept that he is 'the' minister of the age. I do not see the Bible having one minister. Paul worked along with Peter, John, James and other Apostles.

I agree with brother Lee that denominations are bad. But, it seems that it cannot be helped. The good thing, IMHO, is that the local churches have a rich word, though others in this forum may not agree.

I would rather call the Recovery just another denomination, because it fits the description of a denomination in every way. The most outstanding characteristic of a denomination is its controlling headquarters. In this regard, I agree with Brother Lee that denominations are bad. The Recovery has just become one of the more obnoxious denominations, condemning all other Christians, and boasting in all their own "riches."

Having an abundance of deep-sounding doctrines, however, does not provide the local churches with a "rich word."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I believe being far from Anaheim helps.

At the same time, I also know of local churches in my country where leading brothers are more intolerant than the leading brothers in my local church.

I could say the same thing about the Great Lakes Area. Being far from Cleveland helps, and I do know of some local churches where the leading brothers are more tolerant than the leading brothers in my local church.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Ohio, time has proved LSM doesn't serve the churches, it's the churches that serve LSM.

Very true.

LSM has no basis for their very existence. LSM has no scriptural mandate to even exist, let alone lord it over the churches.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Very true.

LSM has no basis for their very existence. LSM has no scriptural mandate to even exist, let alone lord it over the churches.

LSM may have its flaws (though I would like to hear the major issues anyone has with it).
But, LSM does a job too. There are many good teachers of the word out there. It is only LSM that ensured that the word spoken by Br. Lee reached many of the countries, including mine and help people like me know that there is more to the word than 'God so loved the world that he gave his only Begotten Son...'

Like LSM, there are other publications which print exclusively for certain authors. For instance, Christian Fellowship Publishers print only books by Br. Nee and Br. Kuang. If you take a magnifying glass to CFP, you may finds flaws there as well. But, since the CFP remains very low-key, it manages to not be scrutinized in its dealings (just as no one bother Herman Cain till he ran for President). If and when CFP becomes aggressive in marketing their books and they get a lot of readers, they 'may' also have complaints being raised against them.

[Paul Cox]

One big difference. Nobody from CFP has ever declared that Stephen Kaung is the Minister of the Age, God's Oracle on the earth, or the Acting God. None of the groups getting help from Stephen Kaung, neither individually, nor collectively have ever called themselves 'The Lord's Recovery,' or 'God's Move on the Earth,' while at the time taking every opportunity to demean and find fault with everything that is not them. No one person or group of people who stopped fellowshiping with the Assemblies were said to have left God's Best, and no one who ever dared to speak contrary to them has been called inspired by Satan, rebellious or any such thing.

P.C.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I'd much rather people call the local church an organisation than a cult. Most lay people do not have any idea what 'cult' means. They just know that it has bad connotations and refuse to give it a chance.

And, I do not subscribe to everything that Brother Lee says nor do I accept that he is 'the' minister of the age. I do not see the Bible having one minister. Paul worked along with Peter, John, James and other Apostles.

I agree with brother Lee that denominations are bad. But, it seems that it cannot be helped. The good thing, IMHO, is that the local churches have a rich word, though others in this forum may not agree.

I'm glad you don't buy into the idea that Witness Lee succeeded Watchman Nee as the "minister of the age", and that you feel the freedom to say this.

I'll let you know a little about where I'm coming from on this, I grew up learning about the "minister of the age", the "ministry of the age", the "apostles' teaching", etc. Ron Kangas and others told us that we can't "pick and choose" from the ministry of the age. They spoke about the importance of using the "proper utterance", which I believe has to do with using the same vocabulary the man Witness Lee used.

But more than this, I grew up in a church that claimed to be separate from what it called "Christianity". We were us, and words like "Christianity", "the denominations", "Christendom", all referred to the big, bad religious system -- them. Even local "non-denominational" and "community churches" were labeled as "denominational" -- the minister of the age devoted messages to explaining how "non-denominational" churches are really "denominations"!

But I think you know all this. To me, this attitude is a big problem. For me personally, it really disgusts me that I spent most of my life buying into this kind of attitude.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

One big difference. Nobody from CFP has ever declared that Stephen Kaung is the Minister of the Age, God's Oracle on the earth, or the Acting God. None of the groups getting help from Stephen Kaung, neither individually, nor collectively have ever called themselves 'The Lord's Recovery,' or 'God's Move on the Earth,' while at the time taking every opportunity to demean and find fault with everything that is not them. No one person or group of people who stopped fellowshiping with the Assemblies were said to have left God's Best, and no one who ever dared to speak contrary to them has been called inspired by Satan, rebellious or any such thing.

P.C.

Absolutely. I would ask two questions about CFP. Are there any churches, anywhere in the world, with book stores, excuse me, book rooms, that only sell books published by CFP?

Is there any kind of two-year school, excuse me, training, where all course materials are published by CFP?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

LSM may have its flaws (though I would like to hear the major issues anyone has with it).

SavedbyGrace, I do have major issues with both the behaviors of LSM leaders and their teachings. I actively served in the churches for close to 30 years, from the mid-70's to the mid 00's, then the quarantines of the Great Lakes Area caused me to research and evaluate, in the light of scripture and church history, both current and past activities of WL/LSM, especially related to the many so-called "storms" in the Recovery in which former leaders were publicly "quarantined" following a time of so-called "rebellion."

What I learned disgusted me. They could not be considered merely as "flaws."

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

But, LSM does a job too.

This is part of the hypocrisy which is so disturbing. LSM claims to be only "little brothers" desiring only to be "faithful" to the Lord's charge to "serve" all the churches in the Lord's "body," when in truth they are often like despotic dictators lording it over churches and her leaders. Those who resist LSM's advances are shamed and bullied into submission, or publicly smeared and slandered into departure.

Since I knew many of the so-called "rebels," and then after many years, read their personal accounts of why they actually departed, I was able to discern for myself the true facts of history, and not just buy into LSM's distorted record of history. LSM has a seasoned team of wordsmiths at their disposal who have learned to spin all events according to their own self-serving interests, and not according to truth and righteousness.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

LSM may have its flaws (though I would like to hear the major issues anyone has with it).

1. The discrepancy what www.afaithfulword.org presents in Quarantine in the Bible and in Practice is a good word, but is not indicative of the Recovery practices of quarantines. Pertaining to the late 80's quarantine is not giving grace to those saints who left, but rather discounting them as rebellious. In regard to the late 80's quarantine, nothing by LSM is ever acknowledged about Phillip Lee's role. Specifically brothers who reacted to Phillip's ethics and morals, were very ones who became quarantined.

2. LSM's extra-local interferences with a local church's administration. You can be an elder in a locality, once a blended co-worker speaks a word whom not to receive, you as the elder will "take heed" from the blended co-worker's fellowship not to receive that brother or that sister.....even if you as the elder has had a positive history with that brother or sister.
A phrase from hymn 824 in the 6th stanza

Administration local,
Each answ'ring to the Lord;

Generally this is not the case. Those who follow through with each administration local, each answering to the Lord generally find themselves out of fellowship with LSM. Such localities are Moses Lake, Rosemead, Goshen, Detroit, Columbus, etc.

[Cal]

If LCers are expert at anything, it is at being content with being ignorant.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If LCers are expert at anything, it is at being content with being ignorant.

RE: My last post.

I did not mean to be insulting. I did mean to be terse, but I realize what I wrote can sound like an insult.

It wasn't. It's just my observation from watching every single pro-LSM poster on this board. That they are massively uninformed and seemingly content to be so.

Think about it. These people are devoting their lives, and severely restricting their lives, in service of a movement they haven't even done their homework on.

Does that make any sense?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If LCers are expert at anything, it is at being content with being ignorant.

For the most part, this is a survival skill for those under oppressive regimes.

Those who have lived in communist countries have learned that certain knowledge about their leaders is dangerous because what one knows might be accidentally spoken. Hence, for the most part, they choose to survive by living in a type of contented ignorance.

The more I studied my past in the Recovery, the more I noticed the evidences of Chinese culture in the form of "contented submission." We in the US confused this with being "spiritual," since they do look somewhat similar to Americans. For example, TC and other LC Chinese leaders lived by the saying that "my father's failures are none of my business." This principle was taken to the extreme, providing WL and his Blendeds unlimited license without accountability for their actions. Hence the saying, "even if Bro Lee is wrong, he is still right."

Case in point: When John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon, and numerous other godly men were slanderously and unrighteously quarantined, TC signed his name on the dotted line, and agreed with that condemnation, all the while he knew better. He and the entire GLA thus entered into a period of contented ignorance, only to be interrupted by his own quarantine.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

RE: My last post.

I did not mean to be insulting. I did mean to be terse, but I realize what I wrote can sound like an insult.

It wasn't. It's just my observation from watching every single pro-LSM poster on this board. That they are massively uninformed and seemingly content to be so.

Think about it. These people are devoting their lives, and severely restricting their lives, in service of a movement they haven't even done their homework on.

Does that make any sense?

Having the internet at one's disposal, this today seems almost absurd, but ......

When I devoted my life to "Christ and the church," in a sense, I did my homework! I was with these brothers day-in and day-out. I saw the godly manner of life of many brother and sister, including our leaders.

What was never really investigated was WL/LSM. We took the recommendations of local leaders, and kind of like a snowball rolling down the hill, each new brother in the church began to sing the praises of the ministry of WL, and attend trainings in Anaheim.

[Cal]

To me the internet has meant... ignorance is no longer ever an excuse on any subject.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What was never really investigated was WL/LSM. We took the recommendations of local leaders,

Ohio, for years I have wondered, what if?
What if for some of the local leaders the recommendations was lip service?
These local leaders having concerns of their own, but didn't want to make waves with the work or workers of Living Stream Ministry?
Outwardly recommending and exhorting the saints to get into the ministry, attend the annual feasts, tithe for the latest LSM/DCP project, etc. All the while being conflicted inwardly.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Like I said earlier, there are some flaws in the local churches. And, there certainly would be flaws or else we would be raptured. But, I have not seen any other church/denomination where I have seen a richer enjoyment of Christ.

Here's the problem I have with your testimony, SbG. It's all about you feeling good and warm and fuzzy. There's nothing in it about God changing you or anyone else.

Let me ask you something. How are you with people who are different than you? Can you spend time with them? Can you see them as people the Lord loves? Do you love them? How has the Lord changed your heart in regards to people?

From what I've seen of LRCers, they are quite happy with each other. Why? Because everyone thinks and believes the same thing. No one rocks the boat. There are few challenges to your reality. It's all in a bubble, and when someone threatens the bubble, you all just retreat further into it, and boot out "dissenters."

The Lord didn't approach things that way at all. He was able to mingle with just about everyone. He was out in the community. He didn't see us and them. Can you make the same claim?

I don't see how, when your whole claim to fame is that you are unlike anyone else. Except when you want to gloss over your failings. Then you are (aw shucks) just like everyone else.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's just my observation from watching every single pro-LSM poster on this board. That they are massively uninformed and seemingly content to be so.
Think about it. These people are devoting their lives, and severely restricting their lives, in service of a movement they haven't even done their homework on.

Trying to immerse myself in a pro-LSM point of view, you're going on positively and there hasn't been much spoken by the brothers to doubt them. Plus even if you have a concern, you don't want to ask any questions that might risk your standing with the brothers.
From my point of view, I can accept that point of view from someone who came into the recovery post 1990. They simply don't know the history. There is no track record to be skeptical of LSM.

From those dear brothers and sisters who were present prior to 1990, I cannot. Truth and righteousness has been forsaken by being man-honoring. They've heard the words spoken of brothers no longer meeting in the LSM local churches. Yet choose not to learn the other side of the story. LSM presented a side of the story beneficial to LSM. The side of the story not beneficial to LSM has beeen withheld. That is where pro-LSM saints need to do their homework.

Here's an analogy to consider:
When you rent out rental property, you're not going to take prospective renters at face value. By due duiligence, you're going to do a background check. You're going to make sure, they as the prospective renter are not withholding anything that could be a risk to your investement.

[Cal]

Let me reiterate. The Christian life is all about how you treat God and how you treat people. That's it. There is nothing else. (Luke 10:27). LRCers lose sight of that, so caught up are they in all their high-sounding "rich" experiences. How they treat others is not that high on their radar. Case in point: lawsuits, quarantines, character assassinations, lies, callousness, treating people as means to an end, etc.

But with the Lord, the question comes down to, how do you treat other people, especially those who are different that you?

And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. Luke 6:33

Like I said, LRCers are great at doing good to each other. They certainly love their own. But show yourself a little different than them, become a little unlovable to them, and you become to them a persona non grata.

Even the sinners do that.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For the most part, this is a survival skill for those under oppressive regimes.

Those who have lived in communist countries have learned that certain knowledge about their leaders is dangerous because what one knows might be accidentally spoken. Hence, for the most part, they choose to survive by living in a type of contented ignorance.

The more I studied my past in the Recovery, the more I noticed the evidences of Chinese culture in the form of "contented submission." We in the US confused this with being "spiritual," since they do look somewhat similar to Americans. For example, TC and other LC Chinese leaders lived by the saying that "my father's failures are none of my business." This principle was taken to the extreme, providing WL and his Blendeds unlimited license without accountability for their actions. Hence the saying, "even if Bro Lee is wrong, he is still right."

Case in point: When John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon, and numerous other godly men were slanderously and unrighteously quarantined, TC signed his name on the dotted line, and agreed with that condemnation, all the while he knew better. He and the entire GLA thus entered into a period of contented ignorance, only to be interrupted by his own quarantine.

As much as we confused Chinese culture with "spirituality", you don't have to be Chinese to understand this --

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

As much as we confused Chinese culture with "spirituality", you don't have to be Chinese to understand this --

I guess I don't understand.

3 Monkeys or 3 Monkees?

Is that what's left of the band?

[Cal]

SbG, I want to applaud you for coming on this forum and speaking your mind.

But the real issue isn't that the LRC has some good teachings, or good Christians, or nice hymns. Everyone knows there are some good things in the LRC. That's not the issue.

The issue is the severe damage the movement has done to the lives of many through its heavy-handed wielding of self-assumed "spiritual authority."

This legacy is inexcusable and no amount of "rich enjoyment" on your part makes up for the pain it has caused. And it really is quite bizarre that you might think it would.

This, as far as I can tell, is something the members of the movement really don't discuss or take issue with. They hide from it, and pretend it's not there, like a wife turning a blind eye to a husband who abuses his kids.

Until you do something about it, until members take back the movement from the hands of the self-assumed few, you are going to carry in your consciences the guilt of being enablers of abuse. It's your dirty little secret that this forum is making not so secret.

That is the issue. Talking about your "rich enjoyment" is avoiding this issue.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

Nobody from CFP has ever declared that Stephen Kaung is the Minister of the Age, God's Oracle on the earth, or the Acting God.

Is your problem the few phrases? If it is, blame the speaker of the word, not the publisher? LSM publishes everything spoken by a few brothers. So, it has to publish everything spoken, irrespective of whether it is right or wrong.

Just because LSM publishes something or Br. Lee speaks something does not make it divine or infallible. We all have our spirits to discern right and wrong. I have a spirit which lets me know what to accept and reject. So, I accept the many, many publications by LSM which I feel is good. If there are any publications I cannot agree with or I think are incorrect, I reject it.
[Solomon wrote the Song of Songs and went astray. But, that does not mean the Song of Songs is bad. Similarly, Peter disowned the Lord and separated himself from Gentiles when the Jews arrived. But, I cannot reject the books of Peter.]

And, if you want my views on the phrases, 'The Minister of the Age' is something I do not agree with. No one can be uniquely ministering, esp. when even the apostles had to work together.
'God's oracle' does not bother me because I understand oracle to mean someone who speaks/communicates God's word. So, most teachers of the Bible are oracles of God. Even when I prophesy, if I am speaking Christ, I am an oracle of God.
I have not heard the phrase 'acting God' directly though I had heard about it. So, I read the context in which it was said.
In my opinion, Br. Ron could have avoided the phrase to avoid offending others. But, I am personally not offended because I understand the context of the usage very well. Acting God means acting for God just as Paul was acting/speaking for God in 1 Cor 7:10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord)

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

None of the groups getting help from Stephen Kaung, neither individually, nor collectively have ever called themselves 'The Lord's Recovery,' or 'God's Move on the Earth,' ...

Is your problem with the terms 'Lord's Recovery' or 'Lord's Move'?
How is it worser than 'Assembly of God', 'Church of God', or the so many other names?

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

... while at the time taking every opportunity to demean and find fault with everything that is not them. No one person or group of people who stopped fellowshiping with the Assemblies were said to have left God's Best, and no one who ever dared to speak contrary to them has been called inspired by Satan, rebellious or any such thing.

And, regarding people who are not in the Lord's Recovery, I defer to Br. Lee's word in LIFE-STUDY OF MARK MESSAGE TWENTY-NINE(not because Br. Lee's words are divine but because I felt that Br. Lee has explained it well)
In 9:38 John said to the Lord Jesus, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name who does not follow us, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.” The remainder of this chapter is given over to the Lord’s teaching concerning tolerance for the sake of unity, a teaching given in response to John’s statement in verse 38.We need to see that if we forbid others in the way John did in verse 38, this indicates that we consider ourselves greater than others. Furthermore, when we forbid others, thinking ourselves to be greater, we also cause others to stumble. While we are causing others to stumble, we are also causing ourselves to stumble. The evil one may use the members of our body—the hand, the foot, or the eye—to express lust and cause us to stumble. We need to be very careful regarding this.
We should not consider ourselves great. Instead, we need to realize that we are nobody and nothing. If we have this realization, we shall pray. For us to pray indicates that we realize that we are nothing and that we can do nothing. We need another One—Christ Himself—to replace us.
If we do not consider ourselves to be someone great, someone greater than others, we shall not cause others to stumble. But if we think that we are great, we shall cause others to stumble. At the same time, we shall open the gate for the enemy to use the lust in our members to cause us to stumble.
The members of our body, especially the eyes, are lustful. If we cause others to stumble by considering ourselves greater than they are, we may have a wicked eye. Then the way will be open for the enemy to utilize the lust in our members to cause us to stumble.

[SavedbyGrace]

@ rayliotta

I understand the background and agree you may be right in your beliefs because of your experiences. My experience from reading Br. Lee's writings is not same as yours and I am happy.

And, I oppose Christianity as a system too. It is the same as the Pharisees turning the commandments into a 'system'. If you want to argue even the Lord's Recovery has become a system, I would agree that it may be true in some local churches (but not everywhere). But, I also agree with Br. Lee that the 'system'/'religion' of Christianity is incorrect.

Similarly, I agree that the Lord's Recovery is unfortunately, becoming a denomination. But, I also agree with Br. Lee that denominations are bad.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Absolutely. I would ask two questions about CFP. Are there any churches, anywhere in the world, with book stores, excuse me, book rooms, that only sell books published by CFP?

Is there any kind of two-year school, excuse me, training, where all course materials are published by CFP?

How does having book rooms or training centres make a difference? There are so many Bible Colleges out there. Are they 'all' bad?

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Ohio

SavedbyGrace, I do have major issues with both the behaviors of LSM leaders and their teachings. I actively served in the churches for close to 30 years, from the mid-70's to the mid 00's, then the quarantines of the Great Lakes Area caused me to research and evaluate, in the light of scripture and church history, both current and past activities of WL/LSM, especially related to the many so-called "storms" in the Recovery in which former leaders were publicly "quarantined" following a time of so-called "rebellion."

What I learned disgusted me. They could not be considered merely as "flaws."



This is part of the hypocrisy which is so disturbing. LSM claims to be only "little brothers" desiring only to be "faithful" to the Lord's charge to "serve" all the churches in the Lord's "body," when in truth they are often like despotic dictators lording it over churches and her leaders. Those who resist LSM's advances are shamed and bullied into submission, or publicly smeared and slandered into departure.

Since I knew many of the so-called "rebels," and then after many years, read their personal accounts of why they actually departed, I was able to discern for myself the true facts of history, and not just buy into LSM's distorted record of history. LSM has a seasoned team of wordsmiths at their disposal who have learned to spin all events according to their own self-serving interests, and not according to truth and righteousness.

1. By definition, organizations are a group of like-minded people. When a person of a different views/opinions joins the organization, the peace is lost. So, it is better for the dissenter to go on his/her separate way.

2. Quarantines happen in most organizations. I personally know someone (let us call him Mr. X) who was quarantined by a Christian organization. The members of the organization were sent a letter asking them not to entertain Mr. X.
After a few years gap, Mr. and Mrs. X, visited one of his old friends from the organization. Mr. X was allowed to enter but was informed that the friend's family was not comfortable entertaining Mr. X because they were afraid someone would squeal on them.
Ironically, Mr. X is not boycotted by the person who sent out the letter asking people to boycott Mr. X.

3. Are the saints who left the local churches welcoming everyone? Do ex-members of local churches allow everyone to speak whatever they think is the revelation that each of them have received? Doesn't anyone try to control the teachings in the churches where the ex-members of the local churches meet?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

And, I oppose Christianity as a system too. It is the same as the Pharisees turning the commandments into a 'system'. If you want to argue even the Lord's Recovery has become a system, I would agree that it may be true in some local churches (but not everywhere). But, I also agree with Br. Lee that the 'system'/'religion' of Christianity is incorrect.

Nowhere does the Bible condemn systems per se. Everything is a system. LSM is a system, your local church is a system. Even the Body of Christ is a system. It's just the Lord's system. If I study the Bible systematically, that's a system. Since when is that a bad thing?

"System" is one of those bugaboo words that Lee set us against. The question is not whether something is a system, because everything is. The question is what kind of system is it and is it compatible with the Holy Spirit.

Being against "systems" allows you to condemn Christianity as a system, but exempt your own movement from being one, even though both are.

Like I said, the Bible doesn't condemn systems. Ephesians 4:14 condemns a "system of error," but that's "of error."

Condemning systems for being systems is just sloppy thinking.

[Cal]

Every Christian movement and group is some kind of system. They just have different rules and expected behaviors. But the LRC is no different than any other Christian organization in that respect. Just because a group has the Holy Spirit doesn't mean it is not a system. And just because it's a system does not exempt the Holy Spirit. God made us with a tendency to develop systems. That's how we stay organized and know, more or less, what to expect from day to day. What, are we supposed to be utterly spontaneous in every respect? You have scheduled meeting times, right? That's a system. You organize your day, correct? That's a system, too.

I could go on, but I hope I've made my point.

[Ohio]

... while at the time taking every opportunity to demean and find fault with everything that is not them. No one person or group of people who stopped fellowshipping with the Assemblies were said to have left God's Best, and no one who ever dared to speak contrary to them has been called inspired by Satan, rebellious or any such thing.

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

And, regarding people who are not in the Lord's Recovery, I defer to Br. Lee's word in LIFE-STUDY OF MARK MESSAGE TWENTY-NINE.

In 9:38 John said to the Lord Jesus, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name who does not follow us, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.” The remainder of this chapter is given over to the Lord’s teaching concerning tolerance for the sake of unity, a teaching given in response to John’s statement in verse 38. We need to see that if we forbid others in the way John did in verse 38, this indicates that we consider ourselves greater than others. Furthermore, when we forbid others, thinking ourselves to be greater, we also cause others to stumble. While we are causing others to stumble, we are also causing ourselves to stumble. The evil one may use the members of our body—the hand, the foot, or the eye—to express lust and cause us to stumble. We need to be very careful regarding this.

We should not consider ourselves great. Instead, we need to realize that we are nobody and nothing. If we have this realization, we shall pray. For us to pray indicates that we realize that we are nothing and that we can do nothing. We need another One—Christ Himself—to replace us.

If we do not consider ourselves to be someone great, someone greater than others, we shall not cause others to stumble. But if we think that we are great, we shall cause others to stumble. At the same time, we shall open the gate for the enemy to use the lust in our members to cause us to stumble.

The members of our body, especially the eyes, are lustful. If we cause others to stumble by considering ourselves greater than they are, we may have a wicked eye. Then the way will be open for the enemy to utilize the lust in our members to cause us to stumble.

SavedbyGrace, in response to Paul Cox's post, you did not address his complaint at all. You quoted a section by WL about "considering ourselves to be great." That may be somewhat related, but it misses the mark. WL's commentary misses the mark also.

Paul Cox mentioned how LC leaders condemn outsiders and former members. It is this derogatory speech and recorded condemnations which he referred to, not the inner attitude of the leaders. In Mark 8.39, Jesus never addressed the attitude of the disciple, probably John, the son of thunder, but his actions in forbidding others who were not with "following us." Jesus then commented on his reasons for forbidding -- that they will not speak evil of the Lord, and thus are really "for us."

WL apparently skipped this matter and brought in his own agenda. Your post does the same.

I prefer not to assume what people think about themselves. I have no way to know. That is between them and the Lord. Jesus alone is the Knower of hearts and the judge of all. I prefer only to discuss what LC leaders do and say, and what they do and say to those outside their circle of fellowship is truly atrocious.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

1. By definition, organizations are a group of like-minded people. When a person of a different views/opinions joins the organization, the peace is lost. So, it is better for the dissenter to go on his/her separate way.

2. Quarantines happen in most organizations. I personally know someone (let us call him Mr. X) who was quarantined by a Christian organization. The members of the organization were sent a letter asking them not to entertain Mr. X.
After a few years gap, Mr. and Mrs. X, visited one of his old friends from the organization. Mr. X was allowed to enter but was informed that the friend's family was not comfortable entertaining Mr. X because they were afraid someone would squeal on them.
Ironically, Mr. X is not boycotted by the person who sent out the letter asking people to boycott Mr. X.

3. Are the saints who left the local churches welcoming everyone? Do ex-members of local churches allow everyone to speak whatever they think is the revelation that each of them have received? Doesn't anyone try to control the teachings in the churches where the ex-members of the local churches meet?

You left out the part where your leaders claim that anyone who leaves your movement will not be able to go on with the Lord and will stop the process of sanctification and will likely miss the kingdom reward.

Why did you not address this point?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

1. By definition, organizations are a group of like-minded people. When a person of a different views/opinions joins the organization, the peace is lost. So, it is better for the dissenter to go on his/her separate way.

2. Quarantines happen in most organizations.

3. Are the saints who left the local churches welcoming everyone? Do ex-members of local churches allow everyone to speak whatever they think is the revelation that each of them have received? Doesn't anyone try to control the teachings in the churches where the ex-members of the local churches meet?

I'm not buying your argument of "every body's doing it, so it's OK."

Your reasoning therefore condones all manner of unrighteousness. If I witness things like theft, corruption, manipulation, abuse, error, etc. and I am brave enough to call this to others' attention, and then I am publicly shamed and quarantined as a rebellious leper, that's apparently just fine with you.

Besides ... every denomination has an occasional quarantine or two.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

1. By definition, organizations are a group of like-minded people. When a person of a different views/opinions joins the organization, the peace is lost. So, it is better for the dissenter to go on his/her separate way.

2. Quarantines happen in most organizations. I personally know someone (let us call him Mr. X) who was quarantined by a Christian organization. The members of the organization were sent a letter asking them not to entertain Mr. X.
After a few years gap, Mr. and Mrs. X, visited one of his old friends from the organization. Mr. X was allowed to enter but was informed that the friend's family was not comfortable entertaining Mr. X because they were afraid someone would squeal on them.
Ironically, Mr. X is not boycotted by the person who sent out the letter asking people to boycott Mr. X.

3. Are the saints who left the local churches welcoming everyone? Do ex-members of local churches allow everyone to speak whatever they think is the revelation that each of them have received? Doesn't anyone try to control the teachings in the churches where the ex-members of the local churches meet?

Your generalized statements are covering up the extremity of the LRC's dealings in these matters.

Groups have the right to protect themselves. But the public also has the right to make assessments about a group based on how the group handles situations involving alleged problem members and dissenters.

I doubt there are many people who, being objectively informed about how the LRC has dealt with problems of dissent, would agree that the group has been reasonable in its dealings. I believe that most people would feel that the LRC's dealings have been extreme, arrogant, paranoid and abusive. I have little doubt of that.

[UntoHim]

To All (and SavedbyGrace "SbG")

First of all we've thrown a LOT of stuff at our new friend, SavedbyGrace. I haven't seen the kitchen sink yet, but hey, the day's not over SbG has been very gracious and responsive thus far, but I don't want to over-load him. You never know, maybe unlike some of us he has a real life.

So, let's give him a chance to absorb some of the blows, and maybe throw back a few at us.

I think he may be in a far away timezone than most of us as well, so let's keep that in mind too.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Ohio

SavedbyGrace, I do have major issues with both the behaviors of LSM leaders and their teachings. I actively served in the churches for close to 30 years, from the mid-70's to the mid 00's, then the quarantines of the Great Lakes Area caused me to research and evaluate, in the light of scripture and church history, both current and past activities of WL/LSM, especially related to the many so-called "storms" in the Recovery in which former leaders were publicly "quarantined" following a time of so-called "rebellion."

What I learned disgusted me. They could not be considered merely as "flaws."



This is part of the hypocrisy which is so disturbing. LSM claims to be only "little brothers" desiring only to be "faithful" to the Lord's charge to "serve" all the churches in the Lord's "body," when in truth they are often like despotic dictators lording it over churches and her leaders. Those who resist LSM's advances are shamed and bullied into submission, or publicly smeared and slandered into departure.

Since I knew many of the so-called "rebels," and then after many years, read their personal accounts of why they actually departed, I was able to discern for myself the true facts of history, and not just buy into LSM's distorted record of history. LSM has a seasoned team of wordsmiths at their disposal who have learned to spin all events according to their own self-serving interests, and not according to truth and righteousness.

From the post above, I felt that your concern was that brothers working in LSM are often like despotic dictators lording it over churches and her leaders.

Since I do not know the brothers working at LSM, I do not have an opinion about them. You have an opinion about the brothers in LSM because you interacted with them or know people who interacted with them.

But, I never read the books published by LSM because the brothers working in LSM were more spiritual than me. I read the books because the books helped me enjoy the Lord. And, I would continue to refer to the books as long as I benefit from it.
(Balaam's donkey spoke to Balaam. Balaam could either listen to the donkey or tell the donkey that the donkey had not been the bestest of donkeys all these years.)

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

To All (and SavedbyGrace "SbG")

First of all we've thrown a LOT of stuff at our new friend, SavedbyGrace. I haven't seen the kitchen sink yet, but hey, the day's not over SbG has been very gracious and responsive thus far, but I don't want to over-load him. You never know, maybe unlike some of us he has a real life.

So, let's give him a chance to absorb some of the blows, and maybe throw back a few at us.

I think he may be in a far away timezone than most of us as well, so let's keep that in mind too.

Thanks UntoHim

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

But, I never read the books published by LSM because the brothers working in LSM were more spiritual than me. I read the books because the books helped me enjoy the Lord. And, I would continue to refer to the books as long as I benefit from it.

The problem I have with LSM books is that they slant your view of Christianity in such a way that you can't help but agree with what LSM wants you to agree with. I think someone said that every loves everyone in the LRC because everyone thinks the same way. I've found that is very true. They love each other to death. But when I came in and revealed myself to be outside the LRC, I was treated somewhat less warmly than others, if you know what I mean. I wasn't flat out treated rudely, but I could tell the older members did not approve of me or were wary or whatnot. Not to discount the books you read entirely or anything like that, but that doesn't mean everything in them is all truth either.

[Paul Cox]

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

P.C.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

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

P.C.

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

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

[rayliotta]

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

The guy in plaid gets it.

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

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

How does having book rooms or training centres make a difference? There are so many Bible Colleges out there. Are they 'all' bad?

It's not about being "bad". It's about a network of hundreds of churches -- or is it thousands? -- around the world, each with its own tidy bookroom devoted entirely to the publications of one particular publishing company. Exclusive of any other publishing companies.

And, the publishing company runs a school, which uses exclusively its own publications for all courses. And actively seeks to establish new training centers around the world, to use solely their own materials.

I would like to know of any other Christian publishing company that is supported by an exclusive network of franchise churches. Seriously, can someone tell us of even one other?

There is one that comes to mind, the initials of the group are JW. And I'm pretty sure they ain't a member of the "Evangelical Christian Publishers Association"...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

From the post above, I felt that your concern was that brothers working in LSM are often like despotic dictators lording it over churches and her leaders.

Since I do not know the brothers working at LSM, I do not have an opinion about them. You have an opinion about the brothers in LSM because you interacted with them or know people who interacted with them.

But, I never read the books published by LSM because the brothers working in LSM were more spiritual than me. I read the books because the books helped me enjoy the Lord. And, I would continue to refer to the books as long as I benefit from it.

This post brings up the difficult question, "Is the character of the minister at all important, or should I ask, how important is it?" SavedByGrace's point of view is that the character of the minister is secondary, as long as he personally is helped to "enjoy the Lord" with the other saints.

Perhaps this speaks to the heart of the matter. How crucial is the moral character of our leaders/ministers? When do their personal failures become cause for alarm? How much "perfection" should the church demand from them? SavedByGrace is definitely not alone in his point of view. I'm still surprised to see certain televangelists back on TV after shameful failures.

In a recent post SavedByGrace noted the following:

Solomon wrote the Song of Songs and went astray. But, that does not mean the Song of Songs is bad. Similarly, Peter disowned the Lord and separated himself from Gentiles when the Jews arrived. But, I cannot reject the books of Peter.

These are pertinent examples. Solomon has great and wise proverbs on marriage to teach us all, yet none of us would recommend or condone 700 wives and 300 mistresses. Apostle Peter also had a few notable failures, yet none of us would recommend that his books be purged from scripture. Yet ... what do we do with all those scripture which stress the character of the Lord's servants, how they should be above reproach, so that they can be patterns to the Lord's children, and not bring shame to His name?


What saith thee?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

From the post above, I felt that your concern was that brothers working in LSM are often like despotic dictators lording it over churches and her leaders.

Since I do not know the brothers working at LSM, I do not have an opinion about them. You have an opinion about the brothers in LSM because you interacted with them or know people who interacted with them.

But, I never read the books published by LSM because the brothers working in LSM were more spiritual than me. I read the books because the books helped me enjoy the Lord. And, I would continue to refer to the books as long as I benefit from it.
(Balaam's donkey spoke to Balaam. Balaam could either listen to the donkey or tell the donkey that the donkey had not been the bestest of donkeys all these years.)

As long as you read other sources, you can read Lee. The danger, as far as your leaders are concerned, is if you do read other sources you'll start seeing that Lee made some big errors, and they don't want you to see that.

I honestly wish there was a way to get the good stuff Lee shared without the chaff, because I think he has some good things to offer.

The problem is when he slipped into chaff, it was really nasty chaff. Stuff like his movement being the only true move of God, only city churches (and only his) being true churches, implying that separation from him and his movement was rebellion against God, and so forth. Basically stuff that attempted to imprison believers in his movement. And you never knew when you were going to stumble upon it. This stuff has done a lot of damage, I can testify personally. Who is responsible for this damage? Who is accountable?

Ask yourself, what authorizes a man to claim his work is the only legitimate work of God on earth?!

And it's flat inexcusable. It's not just unfortunate, it's something that needs to be refuted and repented from. LSM and the BBs have yet to separate themselves from these type teachings. If they did, then perhaps they could begin the process putting Lee's ministry in proper perspective

Christian theologians aren't stupid. Many have read Lee's writings. If they really struck a chord with them eventually they would be rediscovered. But it hasn't happened yet because, I think, of the really questionable stuff that is mixed in. Lee basically attempted to invalidate any work other than his own. He believed everything flowed through him. It's hard to take someone like that seriously unless he's all you know, which is why the BBs want you to just know him.

I don't know of any true theologians who have come around to Lee.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

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

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

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

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

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

[Cal]

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

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

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

1. By definition, organizations are a group of like-minded people. When a person of a different views/opinions joins the organization, the peace is lost. So, it is better for the dissenter to go on his/her separate way.

2. Quarantines happen in most organizations. I personally know someone (let us call him Mr. X) who was quarantined by a Christian organization. The members of the organization were sent a letter asking them not to entertain Mr. X.
After a few years gap, Mr. and Mrs. X, visited one of his old friends from the organization. Mr. X was allowed to enter but was informed that the friend's family was not comfortable entertaining Mr. X because they were afraid someone would squeal on them.
Ironically, Mr. X is not boycotted by the person who sent out the letter asking people to boycott Mr. X.

3. Are the saints who left the local churches welcoming everyone? Do ex-members of local churches allow everyone to speak whatever they think is the revelation that each of them have received? Doesn't anyone try to control the teachings in the churches where the ex-members of the local churches meet?

If I'm reading your post correctly, your implication is the LSM local churches are an organization. I'm inclined to agree however many in it's leadership would disagree. They would say they are not an organization, but an organism.

On point 3, this is where the Lord touched me. If I as one who left the local churches isn't welcoming everyone (including those who meet in the local churches), then I am hypocritical for doing what I have objected to while in the local churches. Thus, I must welcome everyone.
The times I have hosted home meetings, everyone is welcome to speak...even when quoting Witness Lee's ministry. Than in itself requires caution. Some Christians object to pointing to a specific minister. However if you speak without pointing to a specific minister, the content is much better received.
Where ex-members of the local churches meet is different for each. For myself I meet with a community church. Others I know of meet in homes. Others still meet as a local church, but unrecognized by LSM.

Originally Posted by Igzy

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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

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

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

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

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

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

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

WL was a very minor part of my LRC experience.

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

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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

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

WL was a very minor part of my LRC experience.

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

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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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

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

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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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

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

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

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tough words, but they are facts.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You said "silent majorities rarely get anything done". What do you want them to "get done"?

Isn't it obvious from what I wrote?

Two points have been established. One by SbG, one by you.

SbG established that to his observation, he didn't appreciate the negative reputation that LSM and the BBs, and by association the LRCs, had here. He also noted that, even so, he did not agree with some of the more extreme views of these leaders.

My answer was that reputation was LSM's and the BB's fault. So if SbG wants to be freed from that reputation, he ought to either free himself from the BBs, or get them to reform.

You on the other hand established that to most LRCers, WL was not that big a deal.

My answer was that to LSM and the BBs he IS a big deal. So, again, the solution is to either free themselves from the BBs, or reform them.

But in general it doesn't make sense to expect a movement of churches to submit to spiritual leadership that doesn't reflect their core beliefs. Believers ought to be able to walk away from that, but stay intact as churches.

I disagree with your passive spirituality. It sounds noble, but I think it's wrongheaded. It's just the kind of passivity that the BBs count on. And nowhere does the NT suggest we should remain silent about bad leaders and let the Lord sort it out when he returns. In fact, the strongest VERBAL rebukes in the NT are reserved for corrupt and abusive spiritual leaders.

The LSM rank and file need to speak out and demand LSM and the BBs reform. Telling LRCers to wait till the Lord returns for things to get better is horrible advice, IMHO.

[UntoHim]

Some recent posts have been moved.

Our new friend, SavedbyGrace, has come to us with a very legitimate concern regarding the postings on this forum. He has shown us that he is more than willing to dialog with any and all regarding this.

What he does not deserve is for any of us to highjack the thread for our own purposes. Upon further review, I'm probably going to move/delete some other posts in this thread...probably starting with mine.

Let's give the new guy a chance, shall we?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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

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

For the most part, the only "commoners" whom I ever saw "speak their heart" out loud to LC leaders were the wives of the elders. Some of them just let their husbands have it. I was not an elder, but I "got it good" many, many times at home. One of the most common themes of such "dress downs" was the resistance to church programs which upset the sisters' households.

One of our young married sisters got to watch a Cleveland elder's wife explode in public when informed that elder-husband had just agreed to hospitality without consulting her. What a nasty scene to observe, and one which taught all the wrong lessons, but one that was descriptive of the movement, especially in those early years. She is a precious sister for sure, but unfortunately, that was the only way her voice was being heard. I don't condone the outburst, but I sure understand it.

Originally Posted by Igzy

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

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

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

Because ... they are the leaders! ... and all the "abuse, intolerance and exclusivity" is spun in a different light.

This is why I have repeatedly differentiated the leaders from the common members.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So, again, the solution is to either free themselves from the BBs, or reform them. But in general it doesn't make sense to expect a movement of churches to submit to spiritual leadership that doesn't reflect their core beliefs. Believers ought to be able to walk away from that, but stay intact as churches.

How true. Looking back, many things just don't make sense.

Before the New Way was unleashed upon us, I was part of a LC that was flourishing and fruitful. The Lord's blessing was upon us. Our elders were instructed by TC to follow closely to WL and LSM. Changes upon changes swept thru town. How sad it is to be wrapped up in religious movements, counterfeiting the real thing, and not being aware of what was happening until it was too late. Both WL and TC were, behind the scenes, fighting to control where our lead elder would live.

Religious zeal does not listen to the voice of reason nor the plain words of scripture.

But there is no way "Believers ought to be able to walk away from that, but stay intact as churches." History has proven that. The LRC won't let that happen.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

Too funny!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Because ... they are the leaders! ... and all the "abuse, intolerance and exclusivity" is spun in a different light.

This is why I have repeatedly differentiated the leaders from the common members.

Right, and the followers have been trained to not think for themselves.

I can hear some now, pulling out that Laodicea means "rule of the people."

Ooooh. Better shut up for the rest of your life because of that one word.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Right, and the followers have been trained to not think for themselves.

I can hear some now, pulling out that Laodicea means "rule of the people."

Ooooh. Better shut up for the rest of your life because of that one word.

Those followers who "began to think for themselves" concluded that there was nothing they could do to change things.

So I left.

My last fellowship with the leaders was to cry out for the situation of my LC, imploring the elders to be elders, and not merely employees of Cleveland. I also exposed a lie of our new leader related to the pending conference in Cleveland. I was told that this was a "strong accusation," and instructed to apologize to the brothers who were also there. On my way out the door, I did this. I apologized to the four (deacon) brothers who were there.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My last fellowship with the leaders was to cry out for the situation of my LC, imploring the elders to be elders, and not merely employees of and instructed to apologize to the brothers who were also there.

Responsible brothers who listened to what I have said, yes there is not only something to apologize for; but a repentance too.
I repent for fearing man when I should have been fearing God. I apologize for my years of silence when a rebuke was in order.

[rayliotta]

I understand that we try to separate the "leadership" from the "common members". What I think is interesting is just how hard it is for us to agree on what that means.

I think you have to spend some time, go through the "Letters of Affirmation" on afaithfulword.com. Letter after letter, region after region, locality after locality, elder after elder. This isn't just about the big dogs in Anaheim. And it's not just about a few regional big dogs, sitting atop a congregation of 400. Most Recovery churches are a lot smaller than that.

What about so many localities of 100 or so people, with 3 or 4 elders signing onto the solemn edict out of Anaheim? 3 or 4 out of 100 might sound small, but many times you're talking about 3 or 4 of the "core" families in the group, everyone's a big part of the "day-to-day church life", in each other's homes, sharing meals together, they're part of each other's lives.

None of this is a "bad thing". It's just the reality. How do you, really, separate the "leadership" from the "members"? I don't think it's so simple.

Maybe in 1980, back before there were the footnotes, maybe it was possible to treat the Anaheim leadership simply as a footnote. I don't know. But however it was back then, I don't believe that is the prevailing culture of the Recovery today. At least not in North America.

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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

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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Most messages on these forums are anti-local churches. For more than 10 years, I am a member of the local church in a non-US, non-Chinese country. And, my experience in the local church is certainly different from the negative, suspicious experiences mentioned here.

There is some truth to some of the allegations, esp. the control and the attempt to fit the church into a particular pattern. But, it is true for most denominations. Every denomination has its own ways and you are supposed to conform. Try preaching in a Pentecostal church and the pastor would try his best to get you to stop.

I was born in an conservative Pentecostal family. My parents came in touch with Br. Lee's writings moves to the local church. I followed my parents to the local church. But, once I reached the local church, I fell in love with it.

The teaching, the hymns, the atmosphere in the local churches were so much different from the Pentecostal churches. A simple example is that I began to appreciate the book Song of Songs after I came to the Lord's recovery. Till then, it was considered a book that had to be ignored. Similarly, I never heard about the Lord becoming the life-giving Spirit till I came to the local churches. Neither did I know that Rom 5:10 is so rich and talks about the complete salvation of God. And, so many more things.

I also appreciate how the local churches encourage all saints to prophesy. Even today, I attended a meeting where one of the elders gave a long boring message. But, the prophesying after the message was so rich. I wish all churches (non-local churches) would stop the one man speaking and let every member function.

Also, the HWMR explains the Bible so well. Recently, we have been pursuing Psalms and you realize that the riches in Psalms are so vast. Similar to the experience with earlier HWMR on Song of Songs or Isaiah or all the other books.

And, the Hymns are so wonderful. They are not only about salvation or going to heaven or working for the Lord or being comforted. Right now, I am listening to hymn # 509 - God is in Christ to be my supply....

Like I said earlier, there are some flaws in the local churches. And, there certainly would be flaws or else we would be raptured. But, I have not seen any other church/denomination where I have seen a richer enjoyment of Christ.

Sorry for not addressing your post directly.

1. I loved my time in the LRC (I am an ex member) mostly because of the fellowship and hospitality. I was raised as a Christian, saved when I was twelve and have met with various Christians to this day (I am in my fifties) but I have never seen or experienced the level of hospitality, both giving and receiving, that I experienced for 20+ years in the LRC. This, to me is what made the LRC my family.
2. Along these same lines I loved the fellowship. I have had many positive experiences of fellowship with Christians, both in and out of the LRC, but because of corporate living and because we used to drive to trainings and conferences, sometimes on trips longer than 24 hours, the memories are particularly memorable from the LRC. This to me is where I feel I was really mentored.
3. I loved the gospel work that I was involved in while in the LRC. I was very active for most of my 20 years, both in college, in Irving, in Odessa and later in Taiwan with the FTTT. Some have complained on this site of the FTTT and the lame materials that LSM produced, to me it was no big deal to discard them and use the Bible. This is where I had some of my most memorable and awesome experiences of the Lord.
4. I also loved the fact that the testimonies of the saints were such an important part of the meetings. This is what I came for. Often I enjoyed the message, other times I slept through them, but to my mind the testimonies were what made the LRC home. You felt you knew so many saints who you might otherwise not have known.

That said, the constant promotion of all things LSM was not something I enjoyed. Also some of the teachings were absurd or at the very least obnoxiously arrogant.

As for the negative things: I never learned the details of Daystar until after leaving the LRC, I don't think it had any influence on my personal experience. I did learn of PL while in NY, I was eating with some elders and leading ones who were discussing a visit to the church by the LSM. They were all in disgust with PL and I felt I should be the one to speak openly about it to the LSM reps during the meeting. After all I had served in the LSM for many years. I didn't learn of the details about JI and others until coming on this site. I was in Taiwan when he left. I don't think any of those things mentioned about the church in the US during the 80s had any influence on my own experience.

However, I am an ex member and I left specifically because when I did return to the US I felt the church was very exclusive and contrary to the truth.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I did learn of PL while in NY, I was eating with some elders and leading ones who were discussing a visit to the church by the LSM. They were all in disgust with PL and I felt I should be the one to speak openly about it to the LSM reps during the meeting. After all I had served in the LSM for many years.

Did you do that? Did BC agree to that? What happened?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I understand that we try to separate the "leadership" from the "common members". What I think is interesting is just how hard it is for us to agree on what that means.

None of this is a "bad thing". It's just the reality. How do you, really, separate the "leadership" from the "members"? I don't think it's so simple.

ray, you do have good points. Over the years, LSM's teachings and practices have actively diminished the roles of elders shepherding a local flock. Constant talk of "the oneness of the body" creates an unhealthy collective with LSM at the helm. Numerous factors at work perpetuate a condition of dependence on a remote ministry.

Things were not always that way, and one only needs to observe the Exclusive Brethren history to see where they are heading.

[Cal]

I realize this is easy to say, but the rock-hard truth is that no changes will take place in the LRCs until the saints demand them.

Unfortunately, the members have been indoctrinated to believe "oneness" is more important than anything, even their spiritual and moral condition.

That kind of mentality is hard to overcome. Nigh impossible, because it's self-reinforcing.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did you do that? Did BC agree to that? What happened?

BC was not at the lunch I was referring to. I spoke during a public meeting with several hundred saints. I sat on the back row, this way when I stood up I could see the entire congregation. I likened WL and PL to Eli and the sons of Eli. By standing up from the last row it also sent a message that everyone in the church was aware of this behavior, though I did cover my testimony with a very small fig leaf in case there were new ones or others that didn't have to know everything.

Shortly after that BC gathered the other two elders together and told me I had to move out of Dunton House. A few months later I learned a trap was being set to create a scene that could be used to excommunicate me. From that day on I met regularly with the group I now meet with and only went to LRC meetings irregularly. After about a year I stopped altogether, except for a few odd meetings for my children and the funeral.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I realize this is easy to say, but the rock-hard truth is that no changes will take place in the LRCs until the saints demand them.

Unfortunately, the members have been indoctrinated to believe "oneness" is more important than anything, even their spiritual and moral condition.

That kind of mentality is hard to overcome. Nigh impossible, because it's self-reinforcing.

You're right about that Igzy, but the overwhelming number of personal situations and testimonies (including brother ZNP's next post) have proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that this kind of change is really impossible. Numerous factors are at work here, including the over-elevation of the teaching of oneness, (look what that enabled the Catholic Church to become) as you mentioned.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

BC was not at the lunch I was referring to. I spoke during a public meeting with several hundred saints. I sat on the back row, this way when I stood up I could see the entire congregation. I likened WL and PL to Eli and the sons of Eli. By standing up from the last row it also sent a message that everyone in the church was aware of this behavior, though I did cover my testimony with a very small fig leaf in case there were new ones or others that didn't have to know everything.

Shortly after that BC gathered the other two elders together and told me I had to move out of Dunton House. A few months later I learned a trap was being set to create a scene that could be used to excommunicate me.

"If we say that we have fellowship with Him and walk in the darkness, we lie and are not practicing the truth... If we say that we do not have sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us... If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I realize this is easy to say, but the rock-hard truth is that no changes will take place in the LRCs until the saints demand them.

Unfortunately, the members have been indoctrinated to believe "oneness" is more important than anything, even their spiritual and moral condition.

Igzy, this ties into what SavedByGrace spoke in post #48

"By definition, organizations are a group of like-minded people. When a person of a different views/opinions joins the organization, the peace is lost. So, it is better for the dissenter to go on his/her separate way."

In other words in order to keep the oneness (aka like-minded), you might need to bury your head in the sand, look the other way, etc even if the outcome is to sacrifice your "spiritual and moral condition".

So if you are not one willing to sacrifice what you believe in, your core values, your integrity, you've become a dissenter for your unwillingness to remain like-minded. As SavedByGrace said, "it is better for the dissenter to go on his/her separate way." It's because of my love for the saints in the local churches, I cannot forget what I left behind. Practically there is the need to press on, but still loving the brothers and sisters we once fellowshipped with.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Terry

Igzy, this ties into what SavedByGrace spoke in post #48

"By definition, organizations are a group of like-minded people. When a person of a different views/opinions joins the organization, the peace is lost. So, it is better for the dissenter to go on his/her separate way."

In other words in order to keep the oneness (aka like-minded), you might need to bury your head in the sand, look the other way, etc even if the outcome is to sacrifice your "spiritual and moral condition".

So if you are not one willing to sacrifice what you believe in, your core values, your integrity, you've become a dissenter for your unwillingness to remain like-minded. As SavedByGrace said, "it is better for the dissenter to go on his/her separate way." It's because of my love for the saints in the local churches, I cannot forget what I left behind. Practically there is the need to press on, but still loving the brothers and sisters we once fellowshipped with.

I have no problem with what SbG said. But it's only part of the story.

What he left out is how the LRC kicks people when they leave. And how the members there have trouble having relationships with former members (or any other non-LRC Christians). It's black and white with them. Either you are with them, or you are against them. Either you are with them, or you are some kind of reprobate.

That kind of mentality is inexcusable, and I'm not surprised SbG avoided talking about it, because it's also indefensible. Unless he wants to say they are the only true churches, and then it's don the tinfoil hat time.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Igzy, this ties into what SavedByGrace spoke in post #48

"By definition, organizations are a group of like-minded people. When a person of a different views/opinions joins the organization, the peace is lost. So, it is better for the dissenter to go on his/her separate way."

In principle, I agree with this statement by SavedbyGrace. It's true. The Recovery is not for everyone. For 30 years I operated this way too, telling others that we had a certain commitment, and our own particular ways of doing things, and, though we welcomed everyone, we realized that not everyone would (or could) take the same way.

Every collection of believers and churches could say the same thing about themselves. What changed it all was all those "hidden things" which leaders kept secret. I'm not talking about leaders who took vacations on the sly, but the multitude of unrighteousness by LC leaders which have damaged the children of God. We all have to tolerate a little hypocrisy at times, but not crimes against the people of God. That was the game changer for me and for many others.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In principle, I agree with this statement by SavedbyGrace. It's true. The Recovery is not for everyone. For 30 years I operated this way too, telling others that we had a certain commitment, and our own particular ways of doing things, and, though we welcomed everyone, we realized that not everyone would (or could) take the same way.

Every collection of believers and churches could say the same thing about themselves. What changed it all was all those "hidden things" which leaders kept secret. I'm not talking about leaders who took vacations on the sly, but the multitude of unrighteousness by LC leaders which have damaged the children of God. We all have to tolerate a little hypocrisy at times, but not crimes against the people of God. That was the game changer for me and for many others.

Imo any church that treats people with different opinions the way the LRC does is more than not for everyone...it is really not for anyone. That kind of behavior is detrimental to the church and the body of Christ as a whole. How can you preach oneness when you slam all of Christianity and "organized religion" as Babylon? I've been on the receiving end of this rejection, and let me tell you it's just baffling sometimes, and hurtful in others. There are churches that aren't for everyone because of their particular practices and whatnot, but the LRC is a step beyond that.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

Imo any church that treats people with different opinions the way the LRC does is more than not for everyone...it is really not for anyone. That kind of behavior is detrimental to the church and the body of Christ as a whole. How can you preach oneness when you slam all of Christianity and "organized religion" as Babylon? I've been on the receiving end of this rejection, and let me tell you it's just baffling sometimes, and hurtful in others. There are churches that aren't for everyone because of their particular practices and whatnot, but the LRC is a step beyond that.

Absolutely, the "step beyond" is that they claim to be the location of something called "God's present move on the earth today". They claim to have the "one flow", the "oracle", the "minister of the age with the ministry of the age", etc., etc.

So when they then turn around and say, the Recovery isn't for everybody, what is it that they're really saying?

________________

And then they go to a meeting and sing songs about "grace"!!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

1. By definition, organizations are a group of like-minded people. When a person of a different views/opinions joins the organization, the peace is lost. So, it is better for the dissenter to go on his/her separate way.

1. Being like minded with the church is to be like minded with the apostle's teachings and is described by Paul as "having the mind of Christ".

So for example, JI was labeled as a "dissenter" because he stood up to PL. That action to my mind was being one with the apostles teaching. JS agreed, so did BM, so did Godfried, etc., etc. BP and RG felt that "this was a local matter". In other words, it was something under the jurisdiction of the local elders in Anaheim. One would have expected that they also would have stood with the decision of the elders based on this word. But they didn't. Had they been one with the apostle's teaching and like minded with JI, JS, BM, Godfried, etc., etc., then the dissenter, PL, would have had to go on his own way. Instead BP, RG, KR, and EM chose to be like minded with a sexual predator contrary to the apostles teaching.

2. The church is not only a "organization", it is by definition "the family of God". Families are composed of all those who are related by birth. Having "a different view or opinion" is not a justification to "go on his or her separate way". Rather it is better that the issue be resolved.

3. The church is also by definition "the bride of Christ". By definition therefore the church must submit to the will of Christ. Is it the will of Christ that a sexual predator should be apologized to and given free reign to bully the saints and churches? Isn't it the will of Christ that when a wolf enters the congregation that those who have been set up as leaders stand up to the wolf?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

Imo any church that treats people with different opinions the way the LRC does is more than not for everyone...it is really not for anyone. That kind of behavior is detrimental to the church and the body of Christ as a whole.

During the "new way" movement, one particularly obnoxious by-product of the many "flows" that blew thru the Recovery was the way people were treated. New members were "love-bombed" with all the care and attention of a new born babe, while the established members were taken for granted and often treated with disrespect. I believe this started at the very top with WL firing established elders and condemning all "resistance" from the mature saints. There was a general state of disrespect with all the LSM'ers and trainees towards all the elders of the churches. There were running jokes about leaders like TC needing to "humble himself" and serve kitchens and bathrooms in Taipei.

Both WL and PL portrayed all church leaders outside of their own LSM as proud pompous arrogants requiring humbling submissions, and only they were humbly and faithfully serving the Lord to evangelize the whole earth according to the Great Commission. This attitude quickly spread everywhere via the trainees. Things eventually calmed down, but it seems LSM can't do a positive work for the Lord unless they got scapegoats to regularly condemn, and thus maintain their own puffed-up egos.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If LCers are expert at anything, it is at being content with being ignorant.

Originally Posted by Igzy

RE: My last post.

I did not mean to be insulting. I did mean to be terse, but I realize what I wrote can sound like an insult.

It wasn't. It's just my observation from watching every single pro-LSM poster on this board. That they are massively uninformed and seemingly content to be so.

Think about it. These people are devoting their lives, and severely restricting their lives, in service of a movement they haven't even done their homework on.

Does that make any sense?

Originally Posted by Ohio

For the most part, this is a survival skill for those under oppressive regimes.

Those who have lived in communist countries have learned that certain knowledge about their leaders is dangerous because what one knows might be accidentally spoken. Hence, for the most part, they choose to survive by living in a type of contented ignorance.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Having the internet at one's disposal, this today seems almost absurd, but ......

Originally Posted by Igzy

To me the internet has meant... ignorance is no longer ever an excuse on any subject.

One person makes a statement and another person reinforces it. Then it is accepted as fact.

How do you define ignorant? Do you know everything about everyone whose messages you read? Can I infer from your statement that all members of the Pentecostal churches are ignorant if they do not know the life history of Agnes Ozman or Charles Parham or many of the other early members in Pentecostal churches? Does everyone who hear a song by Hillsong know the story of all people involved in Hillsong?

Anyways, none of this matters because each local church is administered locally, each answering to the Lord. I do not wish to nor should interfere in the other local churches.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When I devoted my life to "Christ and the church," in a sense, I did my homework! I was with these brothers day-in and day-out. I saw the godly manner of life of many brother and sister, including our leaders.

What was never really investigated was WL/LSM. We took the recommendations of local leaders, and kind of like a snowball rolling down the hill, each new brother in the church began to sing the praises of the ministry of WL, and attend trainings in Anaheim.

If I understand correctly, you enjoyed fellowship with brothers in your locality, all of whom were faithful Christians and led lives above reproach. Then, you heard about certain incidents related to brothers in another locality, who you may or may not have met. So, you do your research about the brothers in the other locality and decide to leave the church in your locality.

I would not do this, esp. if I argue that each local church is administered locally, answering to the Lord. My being a part of the local church will not be dependent on incidents/elders/leading brothers in another locality. I am not saying that you are wrong. This is just my understanding.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Like I said earlier, there are some flaws in the local churches. And, there certainly would be flaws or else we would be raptured. But, I have not seen any other church/denomination where I have seen a richer enjoyment of Christ.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Here's the problem I have with your testimony, SbG. It's all about you feeling good and warm and fuzzy. There's nothing in it about God changing you or anyone else.

If feeling good and warm and fuzzy equals enjoyment of Christ, you do not need anything else.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me ask you something. How are you with people who are different than you? Can you spend time with them? Can you see them as people the Lord loves? Do you love them? How has the Lord changed your heart in regards to people?

I do not know about saints in the local churches in the US. But, in my country, you cannot live an isolated life interacting only with members of local churches. I spend more time with unbelievers (at work) during my usual day than even with my family members. If I can co-exist with unbelievers, why can't I co-exist with believers who are not from local churches?
Few of my relatives are in the denominations and most of the other relatives are from Catholic or other such churches. I love them all. How can you stop loving someone just because they do not come to the local church?

But, if we discussed teachings/beliefs, there are differences.
If someone argues that one man leading the church is fine, I would tell him that I don't agree.
If someone tells me that the churches should have a name, I cannot agree.

Originally Posted by Igzy

From what I've seen of LRCers, they are quite happy with each other. Why? Because everyone thinks and believes the same thing. No one rocks the boat. There are few challenges to your reality. It's all in a bubble, and when someone threatens the bubble, you all just retreat further into it, and boot out "dissenters."

The Lord didn't approach things that way at all. He was able to mingle with just about everyone. He was out in the community. He didn't see us and them. Can you make the same claim?

I don't see how, when your whole claim to fame is that you are unlike anyone else. Except when you want to gloss over your failings. Then you are (aw shucks) just like everyone else.

I don't know whether all saints in all local churches are as happy as you make them out to be. I wish I could say you were right but unfortunately, you are not. I know that many local churches have issues. And, I am not surprised either because as long as we remain in our human bodies, we will have issues.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't see how, when your whole claim to fame is that you are unlike anyone else. Except when you want to gloss over your failings. Then you are (aw shucks) just like everyone else.

Once I went to the house of a couple who come to my local church. I was accompanied by a full time serving brother. The full time serving brother was from Taiwan and had completed his FTTT.

The brother from the local church asked the Taiwanese brother whether only saints from the local churches were going to be with the Lord at his return. And, the full time serving Taiwanese brother replied that it was not true. Just because you were in the local churches does not guarantee anything. It is all about your enjoyment and growth in the Lord.
The brother from the local church had another question, 'then why should we be in the local church?' And, the Taiwanese brother replied that in the local church, you have more opportunity to be perfected.

So, I know for a fact that in my local church, we do not teach that the local church is issuing visas to New Jerusalem. And, this is true even for the one brothers who had completed the FTT from Taiwan. I cannot talk for the other saints in the other local churches.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me reiterate. The Christian life is all about how you treat God and how you treat people. That's it. There is nothing else. (Luke 10:27). LRCers lose sight of that, so caught up are they in all their high-sounding "rich" experiences. How they treat others is not that high on their radar. Case in point: lawsuits, quarantines, character assassinations, lies, callousness, treating people as means to an end, etc.

But with the Lord, the question comes down to, how do you treat other people, especially those who are different that you?

And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. Luke 6:33

Like I said, LRCers are great at doing good to each other. They certainly love their own. But show yourself a little different than them, become a little unlovable to them, and you become to them a persona non grata.

Even the sinners do that.

1. This happens everywhere. That is the only way to run an organisation. Even on this forum, if I start posting spam or do not stick to the rules, I will be quarantined.

2. You are making general statements about the local churches across the world based on your experiences or based on hearsay in a few local churches in a particular region. There are local churches across the world and every local church has its own administration. And, the elders/leading ones in each local church takes decisions based on different parameters.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The issue is the severe damage the movement has done to the lives of many through its heavy-handed wielding of self-assumed "spiritual authority."

This legacy is inexcusable and no amount of "rich enjoyment" on your part makes up for the pain it has caused. And it really is quite bizarre that you might think it would.

This, as far as I can tell, is something the members of the movement really don't discuss or take issue with. They hide from it, and pretend it's not there, like a wife turning a blind eye to a husband who abuses his kids.

Until you do something about it, until members take back the movement from the hands of the self-assumed few, you are going to carry in your consciences the guilt of being enablers of abuse. It's your dirty little secret that this forum is making not so secret.

That is the issue. Talking about your "rich enjoyment" is avoiding this issue.

I am not avoiding any issue and I do not carry any guilt about some brothers in some locality. As I said earlier, each local church is locally administered.

And, I do not understand about 'severe damage'. The worst thing that certain local churches in certain localities have been said to have done is quarantine people. How does it damage people?

Let me come back to Mr. X.
He was a senior pastor in a church and had members in the church he was responsible for. While he was in the denomination, the members of his church supported him financially. But, when he felt that some of the teachings in the denomination (clergy-laity, spiritual gifts) were not according to the Bible, he wrote a letter to the regional head of the denomination informing him that he could not continue in the organization and asked to be relieved of his responsibilities. The head of the organization accepted the letter and Mr. X left the organization. Within a month, the head of the denomination issued a letter to all churches under the organization asking them not to allow Mr. X to visit any of their houses nor attend any of the meetings.
Though Mr. X did not agree with the teachings in the denomination, he never preached about them while he was in the denomination. So, when he left the denomination, not a single member from the denominations came with him. He was alone and had to start from scratch. He had to struggle financially as well as he had no source of income. Today, he is still happy about the whole thing. And, I am sure he would take the same action again.

There are two things I want to highlight.
1. Mr. X does not regret the whole incident because he left the denomination willingly. He was willing to suffer hardships because of his conviction.
2. When Mr. X realized that he did not agree with the denomination, he did not try to create a confrontation. If he had preached against the organization while staying in the organization, it would have created a lot of bad blood with the organization and they may have had to expel him. But, since he left amicably, Mr. X has a good relation with the head of the organization till date.

So, I cannot understand how anyone can inflict 'severe damage' on someone.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Nowhere does the Bible condemn systems per se. Everything is a system. LSM is a system, your local church is a system. Even the Body of Christ is a system. It's just the Lord's system. If I study the Bible systematically, that's a system. Since when is that a bad thing?

"System" is one of those bugaboo words that Lee set us against. The question is not whether something is a system, because everything is. The question is what kind of system is it and is it compatible with the Holy Spirit.

Being against "systems" allows you to condemn Christianity as a system, but exempt your own movement from being one, even though both are.

Like I said, the Bible doesn't condemn systems. Ephesians 4:14 condemns a "system of error," but that's "of error."

Condemning systems for being systems is just sloppy thinking.

Ok. I have to accept that all local churches are systems. But, that does not make it good. I know Br. Lee has spoken against the system. But I do not remember any particular message in which he says anything about systems.

When I read your post, I was reminded of 1 Samuel 7:8 where the Lord says that the people asking for a King were rejecting the Lord. From that verse, I understand that the Lord wanted the people to walk as per the Lord's speaking (through prophets). When the people wanted a king, the Lord saw it as a rejection of the Lord. The king creates a system, instead of letting the Lord lead the people.

Today, the Lord is not speaking through old testament prophets, but through the Son (Heb 1:1, 2) who was the Word (John 1:1) and became the life-giving Spirit (1 Cor 15:45) and dwells in us (Rom 8:11). So, we need to walk by the Spirit (Gal 5:16, 18, 25, ...). And, if we walk by the Spirit, we will not need systems.
In a perfect world, we would not need apostles or teachers either because the Spirit would be sufficient (Heb 8;11, Jer 31:34, 1 John 2:27, ).
Unfortunately, We have systems because we still have the flesh in us.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Ohio

SavedbyGrace, in response to Paul Cox's post, you did not address his complaint at all. You quoted a section by WL about "considering ourselves to be great." That may be somewhat related, but it misses the mark. WL's commentary misses the mark also.

Paul Cox mentioned how LC leaders condemn outsiders and former members. It is this derogatory speech and recorded condemnations which he referred to, not the inner attitude of the leaders. In Mark 8.39, Jesus never addressed the attitude of the disciple, probably John, the son of thunder, but his actions in forbidding others who were not with "following us." Jesus then commented on his reasons for forbidding -- that they will not speak evil of the Lord, and thus are really "for us."

WL apparently skipped this matter and brought in his own agenda. Your post does the same.

I prefer not to assume what people think about themselves. I have no way to know. That is between them and the Lord. Jesus alone is the Knower of hearts and the judge of all. I prefer only to discuss what LC leaders do and say, and what they do and say to those outside their circle of fellowship is truly atrocious.

I don't know what agenda you are talking about. In the portion I quoted from Life Study of Mark Chapter 29, Br. Lee asks the readers not to consider themselves greater than other believers. So, as per Br. Lee, we should not consider ourselves greater than others. If we do, we will stumble and cause others to stumble.

I cannot worry about what brothers do in some locality I am not in. Those brothers have to answer to the Lord if they do something which is against the Lord's will. I can just point you to what I believe is the correct approach.

Below is some portion from Life Study of Mark Chapter 28.

We have pointed out that in 9:38 John told the Lord Jesus that they saw someone casting out demons in His name who did not follow them, and they forbade him, because he was not following them. It seems that John was saying, “This man was casting out demons in Your name, Lord. Yet, he would not follow us. He is divisive, sectarian. Because he causes trouble, we forbade him to cast out demons in Your name. I told him that either he should come along with us, or he should stop casting out demons in Your name.”

In this situation could John say that he was living Christ, that now it was no longer he, but Christ? Certainly not. Had John been terminated by Christ’s death, and had His resurrection been wrought into him? Not at all! In 9:38 John was still a natural son of thunder. He was still in himself, even in an enlarged self. When the Lord was speaking to the disciples concerning humility, John even went on in verse 38 to change the subject.

The Lord’s reply in verse 39 must have come as a great surprise to John: “Do not forbid him, for there is no one who shall do a work of power in My name and be able soon to speak evil of Me.” Here the Lord Jesus was saying to John, “You should not forbid him. He is not against Me; rather, he is for Me. All the believers are mine.”

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You left out the part where your leaders claim that anyone who leaves your movement will not be able to go on with the Lord and will stop the process of sanctification and will likely miss the kingdom reward.

Why did you not address this point?

I have only one Leader, the Author and Perfecter of my faith who is leading me into glory.

And, regarding the process of sanctification, I repeat something I posted in # 101.

Once I went to the house of a couple who come to my local church. I was accompanied by a full time serving brother. The full time serving brother was from Taiwan and had completed his FTTT.

The brother from the local church asked the Taiwanese brother whether only saints from the local churches were going to be with the Lord at his return. And, the full time serving Taiwanese brother replied that it was not true. Just because you were in the local churches does not guarantee anything. It is all about your enjoyment and growth in the Lord.
The brother from the local church had another question, 'then why should we be in the local church?' And, the Taiwanese brother replied that in the local church, you have more opportunity to be perfected.

So, I know for a fact that in my local church, we do not teach that the local church is exclusively issuing visas to New Jerusalem. And, this is true even for the one brother who had completed the FTT from Taiwan. I cannot talk for the other saints in the other local churches.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

each local church is administered locally, each answering to the Lord.

In the past, but not presently.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not buying your argument of "every body's doing it, so it's OK."

Your reasoning therefore condones all manner of unrighteousness. If I witness things like theft, corruption, manipulation, abuse, error, etc. and I am brave enough to call this to others' attention, and then I am publicly shamed and quarantined as a rebellious leper, that's apparently just fine with you.

Besides ... every denomination has an occasional quarantine or two.

I did not condone any unrighteousness. If possible, quarantines should be avoided. But, in any organization, quarantines occur. Can you tell me of any church anywhere where you are sure there would be no quarantines?

As a practical activity, go to a church led by a pastor and preach daily that clergy laity is unbiblical. Else, go to a Brethren church and tell the members daily that unless the members speak in tongues, they do not have the spirit. I would be very surprised if a quarantine does not follow.

If you are expecting the local church to be the 'perfect' church, you will be disappointed. And, that is what seems to have happened.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When I devoted my life to "Christ and the church," in a sense, I did my homework! I was with these brothers day-in and day-out. I saw the godly manner of life of many brother and sister, including our leaders.

What was never really investigated was WL/LSM. We took the recommendations of local leaders, and kind of like a snowball rolling down the hill, each new brother in the church began to sing the praises of the ministry of WL, and attend trainings in Anaheim.

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

If I understand correctly, you enjoyed fellowship with brothers in your locality, all of whom were faithful Christians and led lives above reproach. Then, you heard about certain incidents related to brothers in another locality, who you may or may not have met. So, you do your research about the brothers in the other locality and decide to leave the church in your locality.

I would not do this, esp. if I argue that each local church is administered locally, answering to the Lord. My being a part of the local church will not be dependent on incidents/elders/leading brothers in another locality. I am not saying that you are wrong. This is just my understanding.

SavedByGrace, these ones were not just "brothers in another locality," they were WL and PL who ran the ministry which was beginning to invade every part of the local church life back in the 80's. Behind the scenes WL and TC were struggling as to "who had the rights" to our eldest brother, and shepherd in the Lord. I could go on for hours how damaging and disrupting LSM and ministry leaders have been to the local churches I have been a part of, but I'm not sure you would like to hear that.

You have been in the Recovery about 10 years. Several years ago LSM and its affiliate DCP sent operatives into Midwest churches to "train" them how to bring lawsuits against their elders in order to capture church properties and assets. LSM sponsored lawsuits occurred in Toronto, Mansfield, and Columbus. Other churches faced the risk of lawsuits. Many churches were torn in half with conflicts dividing families in half. Does this qualify as something that would upset you if it happened in your place?

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Your generalized statements are covering up the extremity of the LRC's dealings in these matters.

Groups have the right to protect themselves. But the public also has the right to make assessments about a group based on how the group handles situations involving alleged problem members and dissenters.

I doubt there are many people who, being objectively informed about how the LRC has dealt with problems of dissent, would agree that the group has been reasonable in its dealings. I believe that most people would feel that the LRC's dealings have been extreme, arrogant, paranoid and abusive. I have little doubt of that.

1. I do not have to cover for anything as I supposed to be bothered only about my local church

2. There is no unique way of dealing with dissent. Each local church chooses its own way. There are local churches where elders overlook disagreements which are minor. I know saints who have completed the full time training and refer to books written by other authors (esp. TAS).

3. Is there an ideal way to deal with dissent? Everyone has a different opinion on how to deal with problems.
It is the similar to hitting kids. In the western countries, hitting a kid is 'abuse'. In the eastern countries, not hitting a kid is equivalent to spoiling the child.

So, how can anyone define the non-extreme, non-arrogant, non-paranoid, non-abusive way of dealing with dissent?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

Below is some portion from Life Study of Mark Chapter 28.

We have pointed out that in 9:38 John told the Lord Jesus that they saw someone casting out demons in His name who did not follow them, and they forbade him, because he was not following them. It seems that John was saying, “This man was casting out demons in Your name, Lord. Yet, he would not follow us. He is divisive, sectarian. Because he causes trouble, we forbade him to cast out demons in Your name. I told him that either he should come along with us, or he should stop casting out demons in Your name.”

In this situation could John say that he was living Christ, that now it was no longer he, but Christ? Certainly not. Had John been terminated by Christ’s death, and had His resurrection been wrought into him? Not at all! In 9:38 John was still a natural son of thunder. He was still in himself, even in an enlarged self. When the Lord was speaking to the disciples concerning humility, John even went on in verse 38 to change the subject.

The Lord’s reply in verse 39 must have come as a great surprise to John: “Do not forbid him, for there is no one who shall do a work of power in My name and be able soon to speak evil of Me.” Here the Lord Jesus was saying to John, “You should not forbid him. He is not against Me; rather, he is for Me. All the believers are mine.”

SavedByGrace, when WL and today's Blendeds repeatedly condemn all of "poor, poor Christianity" as being hopelessly and helplessly degraded, does any brother stand up and repeat WL's harsh criticism of the Apostle John back at him? ...

"In this situation could Witness Lee say that he was living Christ, that now it was no longer he, but Christ? Certainly not. Had Witness Lee been terminated by Christ’s death, and had His resurrection been wrought into him? Not at all! Here Witness Lee is still a natural son of thunder. He was still in himself, even in an enlarged self. When the Lord was speaking to the disciples concerning humility, Witness Lee even went on to change the subject."

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

The problem I have with LSM books is that they slant your view of Christianity in such a way that you can't help but agree with what LSM wants you to agree with.

I did not find my view slant by any book.
For instance, there are portions about the interpretation of Revelation which I am not sure I agree with. I am not saying that I have a better explanation than that given in the books. It is just that I do not agree with the interpretation in the books printed by LSM. So, I just overlook it.

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

I think someone said that every loves everyone in the LRC because everyone thinks the same way. I've found that is very true. They love each other to death. But when I came in and revealed myself to be outside the LRC, I was treated somewhat less warmly than others, if you know what I mean. I wasn't flat out treated rudely, but I could tell the older members did not approve of me or were wary or whatnot. Not to discount the books you read entirely or anything like that, but that doesn't mean everything in them is all truth either.

Many people here talk about the love in the local churches. I do not find it so great. I feel that my family loves me more than the saints in the local churches.
It is true that if you come to the meetings and say that you are not going to be part of the meeting, you just want to be an observer, there would be some change in attitude.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

It's not about being "bad". It's about a network of hundreds of churches -- or is it thousands? -- around the world, each with its own tidy bookroom devoted entirely to the publications of one particular publishing company. Exclusive of any other publishing companies.

And, the publishing company runs a school, which uses exclusively its own publications for all courses. And actively seeks to establish new training centers around the world, to use solely their own materials.

I would like to know of any other Christian publishing company that is supported by an exclusive network of franchise churches. Seriously, can someone tell us of even one other?

There is one that comes to mind, the initials of the group are JW. And I'm pretty sure they ain't a member of the "Evangelical Christian Publishers Association"...

The Gospel Book Room was started by Br. Nee, though I understand it published books by various authors. But, the Gospel Book Room extablished by Br. Nee was supposed to be in sync with the local churches.
Anyways, the content is what should matter.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I did not condone any unrighteousness. If possible, quarantines should be avoided. But, in any organization, quarantines occur. Can you tell me of any church anywhere where you are sure there would be no quarantines?

As a practical activity, go to a church led by a pastor and preach daily that clergy laity is unbiblical. Else, go to a Brethren church and tell the members daily that unless the members speak in tongues, they do not have the spirit. I would be very surprised if a quarantine does not follow.

If you are expecting the local church to be the 'perfect' church, you will be disappointed. And, that is what seems to have happened.

Dear SavedbyGrace, you keep trying to justify the use of quarantines by denominational leaders. The Bible, as in I Cor 5, spells out conditions for such action. But i am not talking about anything of the kind. Not one single person was quarantined for immoral or unrighteous activity (sin.) Each brother was quarantined by LSM leaders in order to silence them from exposing sin, immorality, and unrighteousness at LSM.

Is that too hard to understand? Why else would so many of us leave? I am not talking about minor matters here. I was in church responsibility for many years. I was involved in hundreds of sad cases of the believers failures. I am the last person to be disappointed by naive concepts of expected "perfection" in God's children. We are all a work in progress. But LSM operates under a horrible double standard.

Let me use a simple example here to make the situation "perfectly clear." What if I was a gifted, but abusive, leader whose son ran my ministry and got caught for molesting ministry employees. In order to protect my reputation and my ministry, I literally destroyed the reputations of all my assistants who threatened to go public with this information.
SavedbyGrace, what would you think of me or my ministry?

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This post brings up the difficult question, "Is the character of the minister at all important, or should I ask, how important is it?" SavedByGrace's point of view is that the character of the minister is secondary, as long as he personally is helped to "enjoy the Lord" with the other saints.

Perhaps this speaks to the heart of the matter. How crucial is the moral character of our leaders/ministers? When do their personal failures become cause for alarm? How much "perfection" should the church demand from them? SavedByGrace is definitely not alone in his point of view. I'm still surprised to see certain televangelists back on TV after shameful failures.

In a recent post SavedByGrace noted the following:
These are pertinent examples. Solomon has great and wise proverbs on marriage to teach us all, yet none of us would recommend or condone 700 wives and 300 mistresses. Apostle Peter also had a few notable failures, yet none of us would recommend that his books be purged from scripture. Yet ... what do we do with all those scripture which stress the character of the Lord's servants, how they should be above reproach, so that they can be patterns to the Lord's children, and not bring shame to His name?


What saith thee?

God can use anyone to move on earth. He used Pharaoh to bring up Moses. In Acts 5:34, God used Gamaliel to protect the lives of his disciples.
In my opinion, as long as you receive Christ through someone's ministry, you should accept Christ.
But, practically, if I begin to dislike someone or my respect for a person reduces, I may not pay attention to what he is saying, however spiritual his words are.

This is just my opinion/understanding. You are free to disagree.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Igzy

As long as you read other sources, you can read Lee. The danger, as far as your leaders are concerned, is if you do read other sources you'll start seeing that Lee made some big errors, and they don't want you to see that.

I honestly wish there was a way to get the good stuff Lee shared without the chaff, because I think he has some good things to offer.

The problem is when he slipped into chaff, it was really nasty chaff. Stuff like his movement being the only true move of God, only city churches (and only his) being true churches, implying that separation from him and his movement was rebellion against God, and so forth. Basically stuff that attempted to imprison believers in his movement. And you never knew when you were going to stumble upon it. This stuff has done a lot of damage, I can testify personally. Who is responsible for this damage? Who is accountable?

Ask yourself, what authorizes a man to claim his work is the only legitimate work of God on earth?!

And it's flat inexcusable. It's not just unfortunate, it's something that needs to be refuted and repented from. LSM and the BBs have yet to separate themselves from these type teachings. If they did, then perhaps they could begin the process putting Lee's ministry in proper perspective

Christian theologians aren't stupid. Many have read Lee's writings. If they really struck a chord with them eventually they would be rediscovered. But it hasn't happened yet because, I think, of the really questionable stuff that is mixed in. Lee basically attempted to invalidate any work other than his own. He believed everything flowed through him. It's hard to take someone like that seriously unless he's all you know, which is why the BBs want you to just know him.

I don't know of any true theologians who have come around to Lee.

I already said that my Leader is perfect.

Br. Lee is supposed to have shortcomings, given the fact that he died and was buried.

For me, Br. Lee is only a brother whose writings helped reveal many things in the Bible. My relation with the Lord is not dependent on Br. Lee or LSM or anyone else.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Terry

If I'm reading your post correctly, your implication is the LSM local churches are an organization. I'm inclined to agree however many in it's leadership would disagree. They would say they are not an organization, but an organism.

I wish it were an organism. But, I would call it an organization given the fact that there is a group called Blended Brothers.
Also, there is some external influence exerted on local churches though from what I understand, the extent of influence is dependent on the leading brothers in each locality.

Originally Posted by Terry

Some Christians object to pointing to a specific minister. However if you speak without pointing to a specific minister, the content is much better received.

Agreed

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

God can use anyone to move on earth. He used Pharaoh to bring up Moses. In Acts 5:34, God used Gamaliel to protect the lives of his disciples.
In my opinion, as long as you receive Christ through someone's ministry, you should accept Christ.
But, practically, if I begin to dislike someone or my respect for a person reduces, I may not pay attention to what he is saying, however spiritual his words are.

This is just my opinion/understanding. You are free to disagree.

Paul confronted the "super apostles" in his battle for the truth. They had a form of godliness but denied its power. Huge sections of the writings of Paul address this very matter of the "character of God's workers." Watchman Nee even has a book with this title.

SavedbyGrace, two questions here ...

1. If the character of the minister is so insignificant, and we in the local churches only care to "enjoy the Lord," as LSM is want to say, why didn't WL apply that standard to all the believers outside of the recovery?

2. If the character of the minister is so insignificant, why did the Apostles spend so much time writing the New Testament to expose these ones?

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

each local church is administered locally, answering to the Lord.

Originally Posted by Terry

In the past, but not presently.

I admit there is influence, But, from what I have seen, the leading brothers have to manage it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I already said that my Leader is perfect.

Br. Lee is supposed to have shortcomings, given the fact that he died and was buried.

For me, Br. Lee is only a brother whose writings helped reveal many things in the Bible. My relation with the Lord is not dependent on Br. Lee or LSM or anyone else.

I agree with you completely on this point. In fact I went through the math to describe WL's influence on my experience in the LC as being between 1-5% depending on which equation you wish to use. However, the moderator felt that could not possibly be true and deleted/moved that post.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I admit there is influence, But, from what I have seen, the leading brothers have to manage it.

Good point. The best way to manage the pressure is to have a thriving ministry. I was once in the FTTT, we were on a campus in Taipei (near Tai Da, it was a graduate school for engineers). In the course of a few months we brought in many brothers from the campus to the local meeting hall. We had the best success in getting "abiding fruit" of the training. LSM wanted me to use their publications in my bible studies, I ignored them, they did nothing.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dear SavedbyGrace, you keep trying to justify the use of quarantines by denominational leaders. The Bible, as in I Cor 5, spells out conditions for such action. But i am not talking about anything of the kind. Not one single person was quarantined for immoral or unrighteous activity (sin.) Each brother was quarantined by LSM leaders in order to silence them from exposing sin, immorality, and unrighteousness at LSM.

Is that too hard to understand? Why else would so many of us leave? I am not talking about minor matters here. I was in church responsibility for many years. I was involved in hundreds of sad cases of the believers failures. I am the last person to be disappointed by naive concepts of expected "perfection" in God's children. We are all a work in progress. But LSM operates under a horrible double standard.

Let me use a simple example here to make the situation "perfectly clear." What if I was a gifted, but abusive, leader whose son ran my ministry and got caught for molesting ministry employees. In order to protect my reputation and my ministry, I literally destroyed the reputations of all my assistants who threatened to go public with this information.
SavedbyGrace, what would you think of me or my ministry?

If I was in a local church where a sin occurs and the elders are prevented from taking the right decision, I do not have a choice but to leave the local church.

And, to answer your example, I would have a low opinion about anyone who misuses his office. Practically speaking, I would stop listening to the person who misuses his office, irrespective of how wonderful his ministry is.

But, since I am in a different local church which is not affected by this incident, I would not be leaving my local church just based on this incident. I have been enjoying the fellowship with the brothers for some time and I enjoy it. As long as my local church is administered without any issues, I would like to continue there.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

The Gospel Book Room was started by Br. Nee, though I understand it published books by various authors. But, the Gospel Book Room extablished by Br. Nee was supposed to be in sync with the local churches.
Anyways, the content is what should matter.

One issue we used to have with the book room is that saints felt pressured to buy their books there instead of other book stores. Now with the internet and ebooks I find this concern to be very overblown.

A second issue was that churches were pressured into having large standing orders for books that no one would buy, they would stack up in boxes, and then every year they would clear out the store room with a sale, book for 0.99, 0.25, etc. Once you do that once no one wants to pay full price anymore. The elders chose to go with the standing order lest the church lose standing among other churches. I feel this was the result of having spineless elders.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

If I was in a local church where a sin occurs and the elders are prevented from taking the right decision, I do not have a choice but to leave the local church.

And, to answer your example, I would have a low opinion about anyone who misuses his office. Practically speaking, I would stop listening to the person who misuses his office, irrespective of how wonderful his ministry is.

But, since I am in a different local church which is not affected by this incident, I would not be leaving my local church just based on this incident. I have been enjoying the fellowship with the brothers for some time and I enjoy it. As long as my local church is administered without any issues, I would like to continue there.

I think there is merit to this view. However, I would point out that since most saints subscribe to this view it enables the LSM to bully churches.

However, let's discuss the example that Ohio has been giving of the quarantine of TC. The BBs sent out a letter explaining their basis for the quarantine and then expected all the churches and saints to stand with them. Therefore, unless your church "quarantines" those saints, there would be no quarantine. So I read the letter and I felt the letter was sin. The NT gives very clear guidelines as to what would constitute grounds for quarantine and the letter didn't present any evidence of any of these grounds. Instead I felt the letter did much to condemn the BBs who signed it.

Now you can no longer say that "this doesn't affect my locality". Either you stand with the quarantine or you don't.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree with you completely on this point. In fact I went through the math to describe WL's influence on my experience in the LC as being between 1-5% depending on which equation you wish to use. However, the moderator felt that could not possibly be true and deleted/moved that post.

This is unfortunate, ZNP. Though I realize your experience is unique.

I just do not understand why UntoHim takes offense at certain of your posts.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I did not condone any unrighteousness. If possible, quarantines should be avoided. But, in any organization, quarantines occur. Can you tell me of any church anywhere where you are sure there would be no quarantines?

I don't think you understand the issue here. No one disputes that the NT teaches about quarantines and excommunication. The issue I and others have is that the NT teaches very specifically about how and why this should be done. I feel, after looking carefully at the story, that the BB's pretended to be following the "how" in a way similar to what we refer to covering up sin with a fig leaf. But the why was the most heinous, it was bogus without any of what the NT requires.

My point is that if the LRC is going to quarantine saints they must do it according to the teaching of the Apostles in the NT. They didn't do this and the churches and saints (for the most part) did nothing. I wrote a response, a brother ran a website in which many others commented on it as well.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is unfortunate, ZNP. Though I realize your experience is unique.

I just do not understand why UntoHim takes offense at certain of your posts.

No big deal, I just reworded it in the post about the things I loved about the LRC.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Ohio

SavedByGrace, these ones were not just "brothers in another locality," they were WL and PL who ran the ministry which was beginning to invade every part of the local church life back in the 80's. Behind the scenes WL and TC were struggling as to "who had the rights" to our eldest brother, and shepherd in the Lord. I could go on for hours how damaging and disrupting LSM and ministry leaders have been to the local churches I have been a part of, but I'm not sure you would like to hear that.

Apologies for my statement 'If you are expecting the local church to be the 'perfect' church, you will be disappointed. And, that is what seems to have happened.'.
If I am in a local church where there is huge influence from external agents (without the permission of the local administration), I would be forced to leave the local church.
You believe you had valid reasons to leave the local church and I accept it. But, I do not accept that those reasons apply to all local churches nor do I agree that everyone should avoid the local churches.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You have been in the Recovery about 10 years. Several years ago LSM and its affiliate DCP sent operatives into Midwest churches to "train" them how to bring lawsuits against their elders in order to capture church properties and assets. LSM sponsored lawsuits occurred in Toronto, Mansfield, and Columbus. Other churches faced the risk of lawsuits. Many churches were torn in half with conflicts dividing families in half. Does this qualify as something that would upset you if it happened in your place?

I don't think law suits would work in my country. Anyways, most of the saints are poor. So, most of the churches cannot afford property.

It would upset me if the local church divided my family. But, I doubt my family would be divided by the local church. Most of my immediate family members are in the local church. But, if they decide to join another denomination tomorrow, I will not hate them.
Some of my immediate family members and most of my extended family members are from different denominations including Catholic and I am close to all of them. Personally (i.e. in non-spiritual matter), we do not have any issues at all with my relatives. Regarding spiritual matters, we believe we are on the better track but they do not think so. And, both of us are fine with it. It is not something we fight over.
When I go to their house, if they are praying, I join them. If I am asked to pray, I pray the way I usually pray in the local churches. When they pray, they pray the way they pray in their churches (some of which is recitation of prayers from the prayer book or the Lord's prayer).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

If I was in a local church where a sin occurs and the elders are prevented from taking the right decision, I do not have a choice but to leave the local church.

And, to answer your example, I would have a low opinion about anyone who misuses his office. Practically speaking, I would stop listening to the person who misuses his office, irrespective of how wonderful his ministry is.

But, since I am in a different local church which is not affected by this incident, I would not be leaving my local church just based on this incident. I have been enjoying the fellowship with the brothers for some time and I enjoy it. As long as my local church is administered without any issues, I would like to continue there.

I wish you only the best.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

One issue we used to have with the book room is that saints felt pressured to buy their books there instead of other book stores. Now with the internet and ebooks I find this concern to be very overblown.

A second issue was that churches were pressured into having large standing orders for books that no one would buy, they would stack up in boxes, and then every year they would clear out the store room with a sale, book for 0.99, 0.25, etc. Once you do that once no one wants to pay full price anymore. The elders chose to go with the standing order lest the church lose standing among other churches. I feel this was the result of having spineless elders.

The saints in my local church regularly subscribe for the HWMR. For the rest of the books, they either borrow from each other or use the soft copy which available without paying any money

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I am not avoiding any issue and I do not carry any guilt about some brothers in some locality. As I said earlier, each local church is locally administered.

And, I do not understand about 'severe damage'. The worst thing that certain local churches in certain localities have been said to have done is quarantine people. How does it damage people?

Well, imagine if you were a young, single brother. You got married in the LRC, your family and your wife's family are in the LRC. Your kids are raised in the LRC. Your friends and the ones you have known for 20 years are also in the LRC, meeting in different churches. Now you get "quarantined". Well if this is for sin or acts of the flesh you should repent and confess your sins and deal with them. But what if it is because you objected to PL abusing sisters while running the LSM. Are you supposed to apologize for that like the spineless elders in Anaheim did? So the damage is that they don't just say "you can't buy books from LSM anymore" that would be funny. No, they take your family and friends away from you. That is the cost you take for following your conscience.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think there is merit to this view. However, I would point out that since most saints subscribe to this view it enables the LSM to bully churches.

However, let's discuss the example that Ohio has been giving of the quarantine of TC. The BBs sent out a letter explaining their basis for the quarantine and then expected all the churches and saints to stand with them. Therefore, unless your church "quarantines" those saints, there would be no quarantine. So I read the letter and I felt the letter was sin. The NT gives very clear guidelines as to what would constitute grounds for quarantine and the letter didn't present any evidence of any of these grounds. Instead I felt the letter did much to condemn the BBs who signed it.

Now you can no longer say that "this doesn't affect my locality". Either you stand with the quarantine or you don't.

We received the letter about Br. Titus but I do not think it was officially read.
I don't think anyone in my local church would know Br. Titus Chu if he were to walk into our meeting tomorrow and introduce himself as Br. Titus Chu, And, I came to know about the group called Blended Brothers recently.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I am not avoiding any issue and I do not carry any guilt about some brothers in some locality. As I said earlier, each local church is locally administered.

And, I do not understand about 'severe damage'. The worst thing that certain local churches in certain localities have been said to have done is quarantine people. How does it damage people?

One brother who served the church and lived in church housing was condemned as a conspirator and evicted from his home. He was living by faith. Now he and his wife became homeless.

Local church people are not permitted to visit quarantined brothers, listen to their fellowship, or even shake their hand as a brother in Christ.

Many families who were Christians in the Recovery can not talk to each other any more.

None of these "condemned criminals" did anything more than stand up for righteousness' sake. Who would think that Matt 5.11-12 would refer to the way LSM treated these brothers.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I am not avoiding any issue and I do not carry any guilt about some brothers in some locality. As I said earlier, each local church is locally administered.
And, I do not understand about 'severe damage'. The worst thing that certain local churches in certain localities have been said to have done is quarantine people. How does it damage people?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well, imagine if you were a young, single brother. You got married in the LRC, your family and your wife's family are in the LRC. Your kids are raised in the LRC. Your friends and the ones you have known for 20 years are also in the LRC, meeting in different churches. Now you get "quarantined". Well if this is for sin or acts of the flesh you should repent and confess your sins and deal with them. But what if it is because you objected to PL abusing sisters while running the LSM. Are you supposed to apologize for that like the spineless elders in Anaheim did? So the damage is that they don't just say "you can't buy books from LSM anymore" that would be funny. No, they take your family and friends away from you. That is the cost you take for following your conscience.

I can't imagine my wife going against me, esp. when I am opposing someone who is involved in sin. Similarly, if any of my family members are quarantined for opposing a sinful person, I don't understand why I would stay behind in the local church.
But, I see where you are coming from. And, I accept that it would be painful.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well, imagine if you were a young, single brother. You got married in the LRC, your family and your wife's family are in the LRC. Your kids are raised in the LRC. Your friends and the ones you have known for 20 years are also in the LRC, meeting in different churches. Now you get "quarantined". Well if this is for sin or acts of the flesh you should repent and confess your sins and deal with them. But what if it is because you objected to PL abusing sisters while running the LSM. Are you supposed to apologize for that like the spineless elders in Anaheim did? So the damage is that they don't just say "you can't buy books from LSM anymore" that would be funny. No, they take your family and friends away from you. That is the cost you take for following your conscience.

Brother ZNP --

10 “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.

12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

[Abounding]

Quarantining is only the tip of the iceberg! Yes, it would be understandable to quarantine someone because of ongoing sin. I have not found that to be the case in my research. It is because brothers or sisters have not recognized the global authority. It is because brothers have written their own books, held their own conferences. Have you read these books? Is the speaking unchristian? unbiblical? What is it different from? It is different from the WL and LSM. How is this not different than a denomination with a headquarters, specific doctrine, a bishop, a laity? What quarantining shows us is there is a religion with a name, a leader that is not Christ, and it is hurting people. I only did this research after my eyes were opened to all of the other things in my locality. What LC members say and what is really practiced and believed is not the same. If I came to the meeting every Lord's day and spoke of my enjoyment from one of the popular Christain writters today, It would be frowned upon. If I shared how I enjoyed that all Christains would be raptured before the tribulation; what would be the local brothers reaction? If I said that I never want to go to any trainings or conferences would I be thought less of? Brothers might say, "no", but that isn't true. Quarantining is only one topic. How are you supposed to fellowship with a Catholic or anyone else if you have no grace or humility to other people's spiritual experiences? The LC is exclusive and seperate from the body of Christ. If you love the local church how much more you could love the whole body of Christ, the whole local church. (Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her) I did not see the love for her by the LC. They may say they did but actions speak louder than words. I never saw them joining with another group to help or even evangelize and I do see that in other christians.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I admit there is influence, But, from what I have seen, the leading brothers have to manage it.

I have seen it from afar and up close. From afar where a couple is refused to be received in their locality where they live because of a blended brothers word to the leading elder.
To a wide-spread degree was regarding Titus Chu. Many localities signed off on his quarantine. Some of whom I have met with at one time or another. How many times have these localities received Titus Chu's ministering? One locality in particular was never ministered by Titus, but choose affirm his quarantine.

Up close where I had asked a hypothetical question on receiving to an elder in my locality. The response was needing to get approval from the blended brothers before the hypothetical individual could be received.

[Cal]

Well, enjoy your church life, SbG. Just don't drink the Kool-Aid. That's all I can say.

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by Terry

Administration local,
Each answ'ring to the Lord;

Each answering to the Lord as to what color wallpaper to use in the ladies restroom.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

Each answering to the Lord as to what color wallpaper to use in the ladies restroom.

"Wise" elders would let the ladies select their own. Just sayin' ...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

Each answering to the Lord as to what color wallpaper to use in the ladies restroom.

Great point. LSM could buy wallpaper for the entire LC in bulk at a discount and then sell it to the individual LC's for a profit. Paul you are a genius.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Great point. LSM could buy wallpaper for the entire LC in bulk at a discount and then sell it to the individual LC's for a profit. Paul you are a genius.

That's what they did with those cheap "gold" chairs.

WL told TC that "you just bought a thousand."

TC told us in Columbus, "you just bought a hundred."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

Each answering to the Lord......

Just like Blended brother JL telling a SoCal local elder....don't receive so and so. Of course passing it off as "fellowship".
Would you call that each answering to the Lord?

Originally Posted by Ohio

This post brings up the difficult question, "Is the character of the minister at all important, or should I ask, how important is it?" SavedByGrace's point of view is that the character of the minister is secondary, as long as he personally is helped to "enjoy the Lord" with the other saints.

Perhaps this speaks to the heart of the matter. How crucial is the moral character of our leaders/ministers? When do their personal failures become cause for alarm? How much "perfection" should the church demand from them? SavedByGrace is definitely not alone in his point of view. I'm still surprised to see certain televangelists back on TV after shameful failures.

In a recent post SavedByGrace noted the following:
These are pertinent examples. Solomon has great and wise proverbs on marriage to teach us all, yet none of us would recommend or condone 700 wives and 300 mistresses. Apostle Peter also had a few notable failures, yet none of us would recommend that his books be purged from scripture. Yet ... what do we do with all those scripture which stress the character of the Lord's servants, how they should be above reproach, so that they can be patterns to the Lord's children, and not bring shame to His name?


What saith thee?

Ohio, you ask some very good questions to which I would like to make an attempt to reply.

Generally, the problem among Christians today is a lack of balance; they go to extremes. Believers either place certain ones above reproach or they criticize endlessly without properly investigating. Should apostles, workers, or ministers out in the field be given honor? Yes, they should. And what of apostles/workers/ministers that are found to be in sin or cause division among the believers? Here we can take our cue from the Scriptures.

First, in the church in Ephesus, the Lord commended the Ephesian believers of their ability to discern the false apostles (Rev. 2:2). It is interesting to note that this was done by the church and not by representative group within the church. This is made evidently clear as the letter was written to the assembly, and not a specific representative group. Second, we can learn from Paul's treatment and correction of Peter in the book of Galatians. Paul, seeing that Peter did not walk according to truth, rebuked Peter to his face before all (Galations 2: 11-14).

Now, here is a case where an apostle was rebuking and correcting another apostle. All one has to pay attention to here was the reason why Paul took action...because Paul "saw that they [Peter and those with him] do not walk straightforwardly, according to the truth of the glad tidings (Gal. 2:14)." So Paul's motivation was to stand for the truth, and not, as some may argue or reason, because he was ahead in line of Peter. To say this would be in direct contradiction to the Lord's answer to the question of who is greatest among the disciples (Mark 9:33-35). Further, this example goes hand-in-hand with with the words of exhortation given to Timothy by Paul in the treatment of elders in a church. First Timothy, chapter 5, verses 19 to 21 say, "Against an elder receive not an accusation unless where there are two or three witnesses. Those that sin convict before all, that the rest also may have fear. I testify before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, that thou keep these things without prejudice, doing nothing by favour."

Note the manner in which an accusation against an elder is dealt with - without partiality and with the cooperation with other members of the church (two or three witnesses). There is much to learned here in these verses. Personally, what I see is that the church (all members) are its protectors. There is no one that is beyond reproach and consequently, every member is accountable to every other member, regardless their measure of operation and faith in the church.

A fellow member of the faith.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Ohio, you ask some very good questions to which I would like to make an attempt to reply.

Generally, the problem among Christians today is a lack of balance; they go to extremes. Believers either place certain ones above reproach or they criticize endlessly without properly investigating. Should apostles, workers, or ministers out in the field be given honor? Yes, they should. And what of apostles/workers/ministers that are found to be in sin or cause division among the believers?

Here we can take our cue from the Scriptures. First, in the church in Ephesus, the Lord commended the Ephesian believers of their ability to discern the false apostles (Rev. 2:2). It is interesting to note that this was done by the church and not by representative group within the church. This is made evidently clear as the letter was written to the assembly, and not a specific representative group.

A fellow member of the faith.

Fellow member of the faith, you make some good points here, and I definitely agree that many today "go to extremes." Can you clarify for me how you would distinguish between "the church" (referred to in the Lord's word to Ephesus) and a "representative group within the church"? The church, of course, is composed of Christians, so this point can be used, or misused, by some who are motivated by self-interests.

For example, and this example is a very real one, let's say that the leading minister has been charged with egregious failures. Being a dominant personality, and knowing that the other elders are also "paid staff," he is able to silence their concerns, and focus only on the "good fruit" of the ministry. He has been effectively doing this for years. Many saints, however, have been hurt by these "failures," and begin to cry out for justice. Consequently certain notable men within the congregation, a "representative group," call attention to these failures.

Which voice is really the voice of the church? Is it the dominant leader or the congregation? In this environment how can they "try those who call themselves apostles?" Are there not dangers here by not listening to the congregation. If we don't allow "representative groups" to speak out for righteousness and truth, then we may just give license to evil leaders. Was this not the plight of the Reformers? Did not the recognized church always attempt to silence those who would speak up, even at the risk of their own life?

I hate to nit-pick your first point, but since you made it, it must be important to you, and worthy of further clarification.

Thanks, Ohio.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Generally, the problem among Christians today is a lack of balance; they go to extremes. Believers either place certain ones above reproach or they criticize endlessly without properly investigating. Should apostles, workers, or ministers out in the field be given honor? Yes, they should. And what of apostles/workers/ministers that are found to be in sin or cause division among the believers? Here we can take our cue from the Scriptures.

Further, this example goes hand-in-hand with with the words of exhortation given to Timothy by Paul in the treatment of elders in a church. First Timothy, chapter 5, verses 19 to 21 say, "Against an elder receive not an accusation unless where there are two or three witnesses. Those that sin convict before all, that the rest also may have fear. I testify before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, that thou keep these things without prejudice, doing nothing by favour."

Note the manner in which an accusation against an elder is dealt with - without partiality and with the cooperation with other members of the church (two or three witnesses). There is much to learned here in these verses. Personally, what I see is that the church (all members) are its protectors. There is no one that is beyond reproach and consequently, every member is accountable to every other member, regardless their measure of operation and faith in the church.

A fellow member of the faith.

I hear what you're saying, but in the local churches the system is too much man-honoring. For example some may have heard what Ron Kangas spoke in Ecuador over four years ago. In attendance was likely several hundred wintesses not to mentioned the number the audio reached. Yet brother Ron is above reproach for what he spoke. Why? R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Brother Ron is respected which gives him a free pass among his peers.
The systems Anaheim and Cleveland promote are a man-honoring systems where an apostle, a minister, a teacher etc is subject to partiality.

You spoke, "Believers either place certain ones above reproach or they criticize endlessly without properly investigating." I feel this is what has happened in the so-called recovery. For example brothers and sisters who faithfully endorse the blended brothers unconditionally have placed the blended brothers above reproach while criticizing forums such as this and/or criticizing responsible brothers (of function) who have left the recovery. All the while "without properly investigating".

Working link to what was said in Ecuador??
Thanks...

[UntoHim]

Can somebody please point unregistered guest to the thread in which this is discussed? Thanks

[UntoHim]

I think that the "the problem among Christians today" (as if any one person is qualified to actually know this) is that too many Christians spend too much precious time talking about what is "the problem among Christians today", and not enough time preaching and teaching the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think that the "the problem among Christians today" (as if any one person is qualified to actually know this) is that too many Christians spend too much precious time talking about what is "the problem among Christians today", and not enough time preaching and teaching the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I don't think pointing out problems with Christians is always a bad thing. What's a mistake here is the use of the word "the," as in "the problem today...." It implies that the problem being discussed is the main or primary problem, or the problem that causes all other problems. This is the way Lee talked and we all picked it up. Better just to say "one problem..." or "a problem."

THE problem, obviously, is sin.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Working link to what was said in Ecuador??
Thanks...

Steve Isitt can help here, since what was said in Ecuador was spoken about him, but here are some of his pdf's ...

http://www.hidinghistoryinthelordsre...sinEcuador.pdf

http://www.twoturmoils.com/EvilSpeaking.pdf

http://www.hidinghistoryinthelordsre...terOct2009.pdf

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't think pointing out problems with Christians is always a bad thing. What's a mistake here is the use of the word "the," as in "the problem today...." It implies that the problem being discussed is the main or primary problem, or the problem that causes all other problems. This is the way Lee talked and we all picked it up. Better just to say "one problem..." or "a problem."

THE problem, obviously, is sin.

Igzy, exactly.

It is WL himself who conditioned us all to speak in generalities about "the problem with Christians today."

Talk about hypocritical stereotypical prejudice!

WL in his spoken ministry constantly condemned the whole of the body of Christ, "poor, poor, Christianity, hopelessly degraded and divided," yet when it came to specific, finite and legitimate complaints about immorality and unrighteousness in his own publishing house called LSM, always deflected responsibility and retaliated with baseless attacks on these ones.

Hide from the light by condemning all others. Sounds just like the Daystar Lucifer, God's enemy.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Working link to what was said in Ecuador??
Thanks...

For the audio go to this web address.
http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audi...to-enero.2008/

and then select this file:

comunion.para.hnos.responsables.y.servidores.mp3

Originally Posted by Terry

For the audio go to this web address.
http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audi...to-enero.2008/

and then select this file:

comunion.para.hnos.responsables.y.servidores.mp3

Thanks Terry