Comparing & Contrasting Lee,LC,LSM with Other Ministries

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Zee Topic Natzi, is not Joyce Meyer "off-topic?" We talk about money issues with WL, but doesn't Meyer rake in about $100 million/year? At least WL and company never had "love offerings." Doesn't JM's husband drives $150K cars, and each child have a lucrative ministerial position, and an estate on the family compound? etc. etc.

At least the old Bereans forum set guidelines on how posters treated each other, but now I have no idea what constitutes "off-topic" deletion of posts. One man's "topic" is another's "off-topic." Even the OP has been cited on his own thread.

Wealth is not a sin. What is a sin is preaching austerity and indulging in wealth yourself, or saying that your ministry is that "of the age," thus compelling people to pony up their hard-earned cash to avoid "outer darkness."

Meyer didn't set out to be wealthy. She is just very popular. That is no sin.

[UntoHim]

Simply mentioning a book in passing is not the same as posting paragraph after paragraph of stuff that is IRRELEVANT to the topic at hand. It is a matter of degree.

If Joyce Meyer rakes in 100 BILLION...SO WHAT? What does this have to do with the concerns of current and former members of the Local Church? Does she teach that she is the one minister with the one ministry for the age? Does she teach only her teachings are recovered truth? As far as I know she is just another one of these prosperity, wealth and health peddlers. So what? As far as I know this was not one of the things Witness Lee was flat wrong about.

Lets move on.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

As far as I know she is just another one of these prosperity, wealth and health peddlers.

Let me just say that I disagree. I have several of her books and that is not her schtick at all. I've gotten great help from her ministry. As far as I'm concerned, she is the real deal.

But, yes, let's move on.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Wealth is not a sin. What is a sin is preaching austerity and indulging in wealth yourself, or saying that your ministry is that "of the age," thus compelling people to pony up their hard-earned cash to avoid "outer darkness."

Meyer didn't set out to be wealthy. She is just very popular. That is no sin.

There's more similarity than you are willing to admit ... did you see today's headline news?

Joyce Meyer's Ex-Bodyguard Convicted of Murder

http://www.christianpost.com/news/jo...-murder-50138/

This one is even more concerning ...

http://www.christianpost.com/news/jo...c-death-49055/

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There's more similarity than you are willing to admit ... did you see today's headline news?

Joyce Meyer's Ex-Bodyguard Convicted of Murder

http://www.christianpost.com/news/jo...-murder-50138/

This one is even more concerning ...

http://www.christianpost.com/news/jo...c-death-49055/

Why would you say I'm not willing to admit anything? What is it I'm not willing to admit? In the first place, to admit something you have to know about it. I didn't know of either of these two things.

And even if I did, the story about the bodyguard is no reflection on Meyer. I'm not sure what point you are making from that.

In the second, she used her brother in a message as an example of making bad choices. I think her point is the difference between them was only choices, since they had the same upbringing. It might seem a little callous to you that she used her brother's story in the way, but I don't see it as something that indicts Meyer in any serious way.

What is it exactly you have against her? You keep suggesting there is something wrong with her.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Why would you say I'm not willing to admit anything? What is it I'm not willing to admit? In the first place, to admit something you have to know about it. I didn't know of either of these two things.

And even if I did, the story about the bodyguard is no reflection on Meyer. I'm not sure what point you are making from that.

In the second, she used her brother in a message as an example of making bad choices. I think her point is the difference between them was only choices, since they had the same upbringing. It might seem a little callous to you that she used her brother's story in the way, but I don't see it as something that indicts Meyer in any serious way.

What is it exactly you have against her? You keep suggesting there is something wrong with her.

Nothing discredits the forum more than unbalanced judgment upon Christian ministers. Should we not place the same standards upon all? How can we discuss WL splinters and pass over JM beams? That's not to say that this forum should be centered on JM failures, but how can we promote her ministry without applying the same standards?

You said, "Meyer didn't set out to be wealthy. She is just very popular. That is no sin." WL didn't set out to be wealthy either, but that is not the point. What is the point, and a crucial point, is how her ministry handles the success. In this regard, like WL, she does not bring glory to the Lord. All the same mechanisms that brought about failure to the ministry of WL, are set in place with JM too, and more so.

Is this not the complaint of many a LC brother or sister? Unless we evaluate all ministers by the same standards, don't we just appear to be grinding our axes on their beloved movement?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nothing discredits the forum more than unbalanced judgment upon Christian ministers. Should we not place the same standards upon all? How can we discuss WL splinters and pass over JM beams? That's not to say that this forum should be centered on JM failures, but how can we promote her ministry without applying the same standards?

You said, "Meyer didn't set out to be wealthy. She is just very popular. That is no sin." WL didn't set out to be wealthy either, but that is not the point. What is the point, and a crucial point, is how her ministry handles the success. In this regard, like WL, she does not bring glory to the Lord. All the same mechanisms that brought about failure to the ministry of WL, are set in place with JM too, and more so.

Is this not the complaint of many a LC brother or sister? Unless we evaluate all ministers by the same standards, don't we just appear to be grinding our axes on their beloved movement?

How Witness Lee handled success is something I've never made issue with, so I don't think I can be guilty of not holding Meyer to the same standard.

Lee's problem was claiming to be the MOTA, and all the authority abuses that sprang from that. Meyer hasn't done that.

If Lee and Meyer both mishandled success, they mishandled it in different ways. I don't see a parallel, though, other than they are both successful ministers who some people have a problem with it.

I have a problem with Lee, not Meyer. I still don't see how you think she hasn't brought glory to the Lord. You haven't made that case. I'll ask again, what exactly are you talking about? Are you holding onto the notion that poverty is a virtue? I don't believe that myself. Maybe that's our difference.

What exactly has Meyer done that parallels Lee? Please be specific.

[Cal]

Let me say that I have no problem with a minister getting wealthy.

What I do have a problem with is a minister getting wealthy by putting fear in people that not reading his ministry is missing out on the "ministry of the age." That's what Lee did. Joyce Meyer hasn't done that. Neither has Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, or anyone else you probably want to consider.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me say that I have no problem with a minister getting wealthy. What I do have a problem with is a minister getting wealthy by putting fear in people ...

Two issues here. First is being wealthy. Second is putting fear in people to enhance wealth. I have a problem with both.

First, being wealthy. People think they are giving their money to the Lord and His servants, and that money becomes used for their own personal pleasures. JM boasts how much she does and tithes, yet lavishes herself and her family like no minister in history. Proper ministers must be right with the Lord's money, befitting the gospel.

Second, she uses guilt to promote giving, by distorting and exaggerating the matters of "sowing seeds." She is a powerful manipulator with a trail of damaged followers. The Bible speaks harshly of these ones. Those who merchandise the word of God for personal benefit.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Two issues here. First is being wealthy. Second is putting fear in people to enhance wealth. I have a problem with both.

First, being wealthy. People think they are giving their money to the Lord and His servants, and that money becomes used for their own personal pleasures. JM boasts how much she does and tithes, yet lavishes herself and her family like no minister in history. Proper ministers must be right with the Lord's money, befitting the gospel.

Second, she uses guilt to promote giving, by distorting and exaggerating the matters of "sowing seeds." She is a powerful manipulator with a trail of damaged followers. The Bible speaks harshly of these ones. Those who merchandise the word of God for personal benefit.

IMHO, If you have a problem with wealth then I think that's your own problem. I don't see a solid scriptural basis for that. So that's probably the root of all this.

Now you may have a problem with how Meyers got her wealth. Well, she sells books (at market price) and gives seminars (likely also a market price). If she asks for contributions then perhaps she should consider doing that less, because obviously her books sales are very lucrative. But that's not my call.

What's the evidence you have of a trail of damaged followers? Who has she manipulated and how? I've read her books and watched her shows and gotten great help from her. I've heard her ask for contributions. So what? All ministers do that. I've haven't seen her twist anyone's arm at all. If someone can't say no to her then he or she probably can't say no to any minister asking for contributions.

[Cal]

Joyce Meyers is an author. She sells books. I'm sure her book contracts are standard. Authors actually make a small percentage of the book price, about 15% at best. So if a Meyer's book sells for $20, she makes $3 at best. Maybe she could cut that to a third, but then book would still sell for $18. Do you think that would make much of a difference to the buyer?

It's the nature of our economic world now. People can make a lot of money by reaching a large audience. Meyer has sold about 20 million books (without once claiming to be the minister of the age!). That probably makes a lot of people jealous. Should she attempt to get less people to buy her books? Should she write less? Give it all away and live in a two-bedroom home in the suburbs?

I've never heard Meyer make any claim about her ministry coming close to what Witness Lee claimed about his. I don't see the comparison at all. Meyer's popularity is voluntary. Lee's was compulsory.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nothing discredits the forum more than unbalanced judgment upon Christian ministers. Should we not place the same standards upon all?

Let me just repeat.

I do hold people to the same standard. I've never begrudged Lee about any money issues, except money gained by scaring people into buying his ministry.

He's the only one I know that does this.

I've been very consistent with this standard. I've never joined in the discussions about any of Lee's other money-making ventures.

I'd appreciate your recognizing this, and please don't accuse me of offering a double-standard when I haven't. Thanks.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

IMHO, If you have a problem with wealth then I think that's your own problem. I don't see a solid scriptural basis for that. So that's probably the root of all this.

Now you may have a problem with how Meyers got her wealth. Well, she sells books (at market price) and gives seminars (likely also a market price). If she asks for contributions then perhaps she should consider doing that less, because obviously her books sales are very lucrative. But that's not my call.

My point has been that we should apply the same standards to all ministers and not condemn WL for which we give others a free pass. It is so easy for the children of God to be partial to their own favorites, winking at their improprieties, yet nit-picking others. I did this for years while I was supporting WL, and that was wrong, so I don't like to go to the other extreme.

I have no problem with wealth, as many of the Lord's children are very successful in their enterprises, and this is actually a source of blessing for the many disadvantaged. I DO have a problem with ministers of the gospel becoming wealthy, and I will readily admit that. I see no justification in the New Testament for this, and those wealthy ministers must distort O.T. passages spoken to Israel to justify their wealthy lifestyle. Neither do I need to post evidences here of her numerous extravagances, the internet is filled with these reports.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My point has been that we should apply the same standards to all ministers and not condemn WL for which we give others a free pass. It is so easy for the children of God to be partial to their own favorites, winking at their improprieties, yet nit-picking others. I did this for years while I was supporting WL, and that was wrong, so I don't like to go to the other extreme.

As I've stated several times, I'm not accusing Lee of anything I've given others a pass on.

I have no problem with wealth, as many of the Lord's children are very successful in their enterprises, and this is actually a source of blessing for the many disadvantaged. I DO have a problem with ministers of the gospel becoming wealthy, and I will readily admit that. I see no justification in the New Testament for this, and those wealthy ministers must distort O.T. passages spoken to Israel to justify their wealthy lifestyle. Neither do I need to post evidences here of her numerous extravagances, the internet is filled with these reports.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, of course.

But look at it this way. The Bible says a laborer is worthy of his wages (1 Tim 5:18). Paul was talking about ministers. So if a minister sells millions of books, that is potentially helping millions of people. Now what is that worth?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But look at it this way. The Bible says a laborer is worthy of his wages (1 Tim 5:18). Paul was talking about ministers. So if a minister sells millions of books, that is potentially helping millions of people. Now what is that worth?

I know nothing about Joyce Meyers, so I don't want any part of that discussion.

However, I think you are both talking past each other. The laborer is worthy of his wages, in that respect I agree with you Igzy that the Bible doesn't say anything against laboring or earning a fair wage for your labor. Also, I see no reason why an author shouldn't get the market price just because they are Christian.

But, I don't think that is what Ohio is talking about when he refers to wealthy, I think he is referring to a lavish lifestyle. That is something different and I think the NT does speak in several places about that.

Sam Walton was one of the richest men on Earth, if not the richest and yet still drove the same old pickup truck and ate at the same diner he always had long before becoming rich. Therefore I think it is quite easy to distinguish between being wealthy, being a laborer that is worthy of his wages, and of being fleshly and living a lavish lifestyle.

And to be fair to WL I don't think he ever adopted anything that could remotely be considered a lavish lifestyle.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I know nothing about Joyce Meyers, so I don't want any part of that discussion.

However, I think you are both talking past each other. The laborer is worthy of his wages, in that respect I agree with you Igzy that the Bible doesn't say anything against laboring or earning a fair wage for your labor. Also, I see no reason why an author shouldn't get the market price just because they are Christian.

But, I don't think that is what Ohio is talking about when he refers to wealthy, I think he is referring to a lavish lifestyle. That is something different and I think the NT does speak in several places about that.

Sam Walton was one of the richest men on Earth, if not the richest and yet still drove the same old pickup truck and ate at the same diner he always had long before becoming rich. Therefore I think it is quite easy to distinguish between being wealthy, being a laborer that is worthy of his wages, and of being fleshly and living a lavish lifestyle.

And to be fair to WL I don't think he ever adopted anything that could remotely be considered a lavish lifestyle.

I understand the objection to some of Meyer's perceived extravagances. But I think you have to take what you read in the media with a grain of salt.

For example, they talk about the $2 million "complex" she lives in. Well, $2 million is really not that much anymore. There are some houses around me near that range and though very nice, are not mansions. Meyer has a status approaching a rock star. She just couldn't live in any old place and have any kind of privacy at all.

Another issue was her private jet. But she said there is no way she could travel commercial at her age (68) to minister, and she feels the Lord want's her to travel and minister.

She had a face lift. She said she prayed for a long, long time about it and she felt God finally said, "It's your face. Do what you want." I had some cosmetic surgery myself and felt exactly the same thing.

How about her husband's $150,000 car? That one I can't justify. Hopefully, he drove it for a while, dealt with his mid-life crisis, and sold it and moved on.

But, regardless, I don't think any of that is a major sin. And I don't think pointing to Old Testament blessing is twisting. I think we got injected with a bias from Lee's Brethren background and I'm not sure it's close to being valid. Lee taught in his book Character that Christians should embrace poverty. I don't see the scriptural justification for that, and anyway, he didn't do it himself.

Honestly, I think some people who object to wealthy ministers are just jealous.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Honestly, I think some people who object to wealthy ministers are just jealous.

And ... of course ... you are entitled to your opinion.

But ... to believe that she is simply a very successful author, selling books at fair market value, is a little naive. She repeatedly calls for offerings to "sow seeds" into her ministry, that God may also bless them too.

Look at James Dobson. He takes no salary, rather has income from the sale of books. A very successful and helpful Christian author, for sure, yet no one has ever accused him of being extravagant. He even helped his children to write. Dobson, however, has in place numerous guidelines concerning money which have preserved him and his ministry. He could be extremely wealthy, yet has lived according to a higher calling. He should be our pattern, not JM.

I'm not jealous of their wealth, because I know the dangers that accompany that kind of success. Look at how many ministers have started out sincere and zealous to serve the Lord, accompanied with numerous God-given talents to become quite successful, yet indulged in fleshly extravagances and eventually their ministry came to nothing. Too many precious brothers have taken this wrong course, not listening to the warnings shouted out by others in the body of Christ. And thus more shame was heaped upon the glorious name of our Savior.

Does not the Bible speak of our ministers being "above reproach?" In many regards JM has been reproached by unbelievers concerning her finances. This should not be so! Concerning money, Paul taught us to take forethought concerning things honorable. The Bible clearly says that Christian leaders and ministers should be proper examples to the flock. JM may have a helpful ministry to many, yet too many things she does should not be repeated.

[Cal]

Well, I think it's overblown. Being beyond reproach means not deserving reproach. It does not mean that if someone reproaches you then you are not beyond it. Joel Osteen gets reproached for smiling too much. Does that mean he should stop smiling? The world is going to find fault even if it's not there.

Still, that's really a side issue to your original point. You haven't made the case that "we" haven't held Meyer to the same standard as Lee. I never held Lee to that standard of which you claim Meyer falls short. So you were mistaken to call me on it.

[Cal]

See, my problem is not that Lee made money. I couldn't care less about that.

My problem is that he threatened people with outer darkness for not following his ministry. Meyer's "sowing seeds" comments are just not even in that league.

I don't a have a bit of a problem with ministers making money. I have a problem with them teaching things that screws with people's heads. That's what Lee did.

Meyer on the other hand has helped fix my head. (Please ignore the leftover twitch.)

[rayliotta]

I know nothing about Joyce Meyer. So based only on what you guys have been saying here, there's one simple question that comes to my mind.

Since she is already a multi-millionaire author -- 20 million books, even at just a couple bucks per copy, do the math -- the question is ...

why ... is ... she ... still ... asking ... for ... charity?

[UntoHim]

The fact that you don't know anything about Joyce Meyer is the reason she still solicits donations. She wants to be the most known preacher in America. She wants to spread her ministry far and wide. It costs millions of dollars a year to be on television. It also costs mucho dinero to operate a first class website.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The fact that you don't know anything about Joyce Meyer is the reason she still solicits donations. She wants to be the most known preacher in America. She wants to spread her ministry far and wide. It costs millions of dollars a year to be on television. It also costs mucho dinero to operate a first class website.

It's television. She cannot afford to be on television without contributions. She has said that herself.

You might ask, why doesn't she use some of her millions to pay for the TV expenses. That would be a legitimate question. But don't assume you know the answer already.

The answer is probably because if she did that she'd go broke in short time.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, I think it's overblown. Being beyond reproach means not deserving reproach. It does not mean that if someone reproaches you then you are not beyond it. Joel Osteen gets reproached for smiling too much. Does that mean he should stop smiling? The world is going to find fault even if it's not there.

Still, that's really a side issue to your original point. You haven't made the case that "we" haven't held Meyer to the same standard as Lee. I never held Lee to that standard of which you claim Meyer falls short. So you were mistaken to call me on it.

I agree that "being beyond reproach" does not mean that you will not be reproached. Jesus said if they treated him disrespectfully then surely they will do likewise with His disciples.

But I think what Ohio is saying is that we are to be "examples to the flock" and he doesn't think this is a godly example. The same can be said of WL and has been said by most people on this forum and I am pretty sure that includes you. Some of his behavior may not have been on the level of sinful, but it was a poor example to the flock.

In fact, I thought I recalled some posts on this forum that said a Godly example should be a prerequisite to receiving a ministry. Perhaps my memory is faulty but didn't you share that?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree that "being beyond reproach" does not mean that you will not be reproached. Jesus said if they treated him disrespectfully then surely they will do likewise with His disciples.

But I think what Ohio is saying is that we are to be "examples to the flock" and he doesn't think this is a godly example. The same can be said of WL and has been said by most people on this forum and I am pretty sure that includes you. Some of his behavior may not have been on the level of sinful, but it was a poor example to the flock.

In fact, I thought I recalled some posts on this forum that said a Godly example should be a prerequisite to receiving a ministry. Perhaps my memory is faulty but didn't you share that?

I respect Ohio's opinion and I can see his point. I understand where he is coming from.

I just don't think if someone is a little too extravagant that is a fatal flaw. God wants us to enjoy life.

Meyer worked hard to get where she is. She really is an amazing story. She clipped coupons for years to make ends meet while the Lord was preparing her for ministry. She raised something like four kids. Her stories of the tough times I can really relate to. They are hilarious and inspiring.

She talks about being all uptight and crabby about money and getting upset because her husband wouldn't join in her anxiety. They'd go to WalMart and he'd do things like playfully throw rolls of toilet paper from the next aisle over the racks at her to loosen her up. She would just fume. But the Lord finally taught her to let things go, relax and enjoy life.


Our LRC legacy built into us a certain world view that is very suspicious of material enjoyment. Nee was way overboard that way. I just don't believe that stuff anymore.

Now I think fleecing the sheep is as wrong as it gets, but I don't think Meyer does that. Lee did it, but I don't think he meant to. He really believed he was the MOTA. But saints were fleeced for it nonetheless.

But the fact is we all have the right and responsibility to decide for ourselves which ministers to support and which to pass on. Hallelujah for that! God is so wise.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree that "being beyond reproach" does not mean that you will not be reproached. Jesus said if they treated him disrespectfully then surely they will do likewise with His disciples.

But I think what Ohio is saying is that we are to be "examples to the flock" and he doesn't think this is a godly example. The same can be said of WL and has been said by most people on this forum and I am pretty sure that includes you. Some of his behavior may not have been on the level of sinful, but it was a poor example to the flock.

In fact, I thought I recalled some posts on this forum that said a Godly example should be a prerequisite to receiving a ministry. Perhaps my memory is faulty but didn't you share that?

I don't recall. But my problems with Lee go beyond him being a poor example. If he was just a poor example, I wouldn't be here. He hurt people severely and directly through his misspeaking and abusive power plays.

Actually, I'm thankful he was not perfect and in some ways a poor example. Because for some people it takes seeing his flaws to finally realize he wasn't super apostle, MOTA, Acting God and all that silly nonsense.

[Cal]

I think requests for money should be broached this way:

"If you are helped by this ministry and think it could help others, please consider giving."

Not:

"If you fail to support this ministry, God's move on the earth will be hindered."

In other words, do not use guilt and conviction to try to get someone to give directly to you. That's wrong, because it's an abuse of power.

Now, any minister who is worth a dime is going to believe his or her ministry is doing God's work. Otherwise, why are they involved in it?! So, of course they'd think they are worthy of contributions, and will ask for them. Nothing wrong with that.

But when you start working on people's guilt, or worse claim only your ministry can do the work that needs to be done, then you are in the area of abuse. And that's what Lee did.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The fact that you don't know anything about Joyce Meyer is the reason she still solicits donations. She wants to be the most known preacher in America. She wants to spread her ministry far and wide. It costs millions of dollars a year to be on television. It also costs mucho dinero to operate a first class website.

But you have never solicited funds for operating a first class website!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

See, my problem is not that Lee made money. I couldn't care less about that.

My problem is that he threatened people with outer darkness for not following his ministry. Meyer's "sowing seeds" comments are just not even in that league.

I don't a have a bit of a problem with ministers making money. I have a problem with them teaching things that screws with people's heads. That's what Lee did.

Then perhaps you have not seen these damaging effects on people's lives, and only can relate to those that have affected you first hand. My observation is that the abuse of "sowing seeds teachings" preys on the most vulnerable of the members of the body of Christ. It grips them in the exact same fear. The Bible speaks of those who "rob widows," and these false preachers can enter the living rooms of ailing widows around the globe and extract their last farthing promising them health, and holding them in morbid fear that God has withheld their healing because their "sowing" has come up short. They definitely "screw with people's heads," and that the most vulnerable of the flock.

So my issue with JM is not the sales of a few books, but that $37,000 piece of art paid for with many a widow's pension, ones who never did receive their "promised healing."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I respect Ohio's opinion and I can see his point. I understand where he is coming from.

I just don't think if someone is a little too extravagant that is a fatal flaw. God wants us to enjoy life.

Meyer worked hard to get where she is. She really is an amazing story. She clipped coupons for years to make ends meet while the Lord was preparing her for ministry. She raised something like four kids. Her stories of the tough times I can really relate to. They are hilarious and inspiring.

She talks about being all uptight and crabby about money and getting upset because her husband wouldn't join in her anxiety. They'd go to WalMart and he'd do things like playfully throw rolls of toilet paper from the next aisle over the racks at her to loosen her up. She would just fume. But the Lord finally taught her to let things go, relax and enjoy life.


Our LRC legacy built into us a certain world view that is very suspicious of material enjoyment. Nee was way overboard that way. I just don't believe that stuff anymore.

Now I think fleecing the sheep is as wrong as it gets, but I don't think Meyer does that. Lee did it, but I don't think he meant to. He really believed he was the MOTA. But saints were fleeced for it nonetheless.

But the fact is we all have the right and responsibility to decide for ourselves which ministers to support and which to pass on. Hallelujah for that! God is so wise.

Dear Igzy, this post surprises me on many fronts. To use JM's tragic upbringing to justify extravagances, formerly enjoyed by only the sheiks and caesars, has nothing to do with the skewed views of another poster marinated in LRC legacy. Should not any justification come from scripture?

JM is not in business. She is not a successful business person. She is a minister. She has tax-free status, along with all the benefits that affords. She solicits offerings in exchange for broken promises. The givers became convinced by her ministry that they were really giving to God.

Meyer is fleecing the sheep.

On the one hand, you praise God that He is so wise that His children can support which ever minister they chose, yet you have never expressed that appreciation in context of the Recovery. That is the double standard I initially addressed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think requests for money should be broached this way:

"If you are helped by this ministry and think it could help others, please consider giving."

Not:

"If you fail to support this ministry, God's move on the earth will be hindered."

In other words, do not use guilt and conviction to try to get someone to give directly to you. That's wrong, because it's an abuse of power.

Igzy, think the root of our disagreement is best summarized is this sentence of yours. You do not believe that JM uses guilt and coercion to extract money from her followers. I believe she does in the worst way. I also believe her way is much more effective than WL's way ever was, but both are an abuse of power, and both extract money and vain-glory from the children of God.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So my issue with JM is not the sales of a few books, but that $37,000 piece of art paid for with many a widow's pension, ones who never did receive their "promised healing."

"many a widow's pension"? Do you have some inside information you want to share with us? Seriously though, has Meyer solicited donations with the promise of physical healing? If so that is pretty low. My understanding is that Meyer did submit her ministry finances to a thorough investigation by the IRS and they found no misuse of funds or anything that would disqualify the ministry's tax exempt status. While this does not mean that she is a biblically sound teacher, it does show some measure of financial integrity in my view.

[Cal]

On the one hand, you praise God that He is so wise that His children can support which ever minister they chose, yet you have never expressed that appreciation in context of the Recovery. That is the double standard I initially addressed.

Ohio, I've addressed it so many times I'm blue in the face. I said Lee stated his ministry was irreplaceable. He claimed to be the MOTA. He removed choice for all realistic purposes.

Lee basically said, either you follow me or you are shipwrecked.

Meyer has done nothing of the sort.

If you can't get this point you miss my point.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"many a widow's pension"? Do you have some inside information you want to share with us? Seriously though, has Meyer solicited donations with the promise of physical healing? If so that is pretty low. My understanding is that Meyer did submit her ministry finances to a thorough investigation by the IRS and they found no misuse of funds or anything that would disqualify the ministry's tax exempt status. While this does not mean that she is a biblically sound teacher, it does show some measure of financial integrity in my view.

Really. Let's hear some specifics.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dear Igzy, this post surprises me on many fronts. To use JM's tragic upbringing to justify extravagances, formerly enjoyed by only the sheiks and caesars, has nothing to do with the skewed views of another poster marinated in LRC legacy. Should not any justification come from scripture?

I already used scripture. In the first place, there is no commandment that ministers should be poor or middle-class.

Secondly, 1 Tim 5:18 says a worker is worthy of his wage. I asked you what helping millions and millions of people was worth. You never answered.

Tell me, what does 1 Tim 5:18 mean?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ohio, I've addressed it so many times I'm blue in the face. I said Lee stated his ministry was irreplaceable. He claimed to be the MOTA. He removed choice for all realistic purposes.

Lee basically said, either you follow me or you are shipwrecked.

Meyer has done nothing of the sort.

If you can't get this point you miss my point.

I am not familiar where Lee stated that his ministry was irreplaceable or that if you don't follow him you are shipwrecked, can you give me a reference?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I already used scripture. In the first place, there is no commandment that ministers should be poor or middle-class.

Secondly, 1 Tim 5:18 says a worker is worthy of his wage. I asked you what helping millions and millions of people was worth. You never answered.

Tell me, what does 1 Tim 5:18 mean?

The word "extravagances" in Ohio's post should not be understood to contrast with being poor. It has to do with the vanity of this life, and Ohio gave the example of a $37,000 piece of art.

The Bible can be read to strongly imply that this kind of extravagance is forbidden, perhaps even in the 10 commandments.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ohio, I've addressed it so many times I'm blue in the face. I said Lee stated his ministry was irreplaceable. He claimed to be the MOTA. He removed choice for all realistic purposes.

Lee basically said, either you follow me or you are shipwrecked.

Meyer has done nothing of the sort.

If you can't get this point you miss my point.

I understand your point. I was there. I had to work thru these matters in order to extricate myself from that system. For sure, JM has never claimed to be today's MOTA, or some such thing. Neither has she told stories of those who have left, and suffered untold calamities. In this regard she is not exclusive, as the Recovery or the Brethren were.

Yet she does manipulate her followers into enormous offerings, well beyond their means, as an abuse of power, thinking that "sowing of seeds" will bring them blessing. In this regard, both are the same. They abuse their gifts to take advantage of the flock of God. To his credit, WL lived an austere lifestyle. JM, however, boasts in her extravagant "blessings."

I may be "blue in the face" also, but I think my points are valid and easily understandable. You are looking at the differences between WL and JM, while I am looking at their similarities. Both have taken advantage of their God-given talents and experiences to build an empire for themselves. Yes, they both have helped numerous believers along the way, as their followers would testify, but both have also misused their power and position. The Lord has told us repeatedly that leaders who follow Him should not be as the Gentiles ruling over the flock, but should be servants as He was. There is not another minister in church history who has spent as lavishly as she has, and survived.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I already used scripture. In the first place, there is no commandment that ministers should be poor or middle-class.

Secondly, 1 Tim 5:18 says a worker is worthy of his wage. I asked you what helping millions and millions of people was worth. You never answered.

Tell me, what does 1 Tim 5:18 mean?

1 Tim 5:18 is fanciful justification for the extravagances of JM. I have said repeatedly that she is not just selling books, she also solicits offerings with the implied promise that her many hearers will receive the same "blessings" she has. But, let's look at what that verse says.

Apostle Paul says in I Tim 5.18, "For the Scripture says, You shall not muzzle the threshing ox, and, The workman is worthy of his wages." To understand what Paul is saying, we must go back to find out "what the scripture says," and the context of what Paul was quoting.

The first similar mention is Lev 19.13 which speaks of keeping the wages of a hired servant overnight in the context of "thou shall not steal." Commentators here are mixed in opinion because this quote in I Timothy has no direct O.T. source, so it must reference our Lord's words in Matt 10.10 and Luke 10.7 as the scripture.

Matt 10.10 says, "Nor a bag for the way, nor even two tunics, nor even two sandals, nor even a staff, for the worker is worthy of his food." Here the Lord speaks of having only the most basic of essentials, a level of austerity few would espouse today. The Lord only promises sufficient food for his servants. That is what they are "worth" here on earth serving Him. This verse actually does more to expose JM's extravagances than perhaps any other verse in the Bible. I can find absolutely no support in this scripture as justification that JM is "worth" more than the Lord's other servants, just because she has supposedly helped more.

Luke 10.7 says, "And remain in the same house, eating and drinking the things from them; for the worker is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house." Here our Lord expands on His message in Matthew to include hospitality, both room and board, as worthy payment for His faithful servants. I doubt that the Lord had in mind the $2,000 per night luxury accommodations that JM normally enjoys.

Igzy, when commenting on posts from many LSM supporters, you have often used the phrase "defending the indefensible." I believe this surely applies to the extravagant lifestyle of JM and her staff. I really think you should have chosen another verse. This one has kind of backfired on your cause.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"many a widow's pension"? Do you have some inside information you want to share with us? Seriously though, has Meyer solicited donations with the promise of physical healing? If so that is pretty low. My understanding is that Meyer did submit her ministry finances to a thorough investigation by the IRS and they found no misuse of funds or anything that would disqualify the ministry's tax exempt status. While this does not mean that she is a biblically sound teacher, it does show some measure of financial integrity in my view.

I have no "insider information" beyond what has been written and made available on the net. Years ago, when she became all the rage, I read some investigatory research published by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on her ministry. It was disappointing to say the least.

Numerous articles are available. Read this one ...

http://www.gospelassemblyfree.com/fa...seprophets.htm

[UntoHim]

Sorry, where's the part about "many a widow's pension"? Lot's of stuff about the IRS on her case....9 years ago. My understanding is that she has since gotten a clean bill of health from the IRS.

I don't see a lot of similarities with Witness Lee, other than the fact that neither one was formerly educated. I don't know if Meyer ended up going to a seminary or not.

I'd like to hear a comparison of the teachings. Igzy might be the best one to come up with something along these lines. All this stuff about big salaries and fancy houses is a dead end as far as I'm concerned. Remember my little parable about the house with the bad foundation

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'd like to hear a comparison of the teachings. Igzy might be the best one to come up with something along these lines. All this stuff about big salaries and fancy houses is a dead end as far as I'm concerned. Remember my little parable about the house with the bad foundation

Yes, and I think it would be a great addition to this website and forum if we had a top ten list of the most egregious quotes from WL.

Certainly if we say he claimed to be the MOTA we should have one or two quotes in which he did this.

If he claimed that leaving his ministry would be equivalent to being shipwrecked then certainly that would be a great quote for this forum. I assume that would have been spoken during the Timothy training.

It would have a lot more force and power if we actually used WL's words and it would be more scriptural.

Likewise if "Lee stated that his ministry was irreplaceable" then that also would be a very helpful quote in opening people's eyes.

[Cal]

Matt 10.10 says, "Nor a bag for the way, nor even two tunics, nor even two sandals, nor even a staff, for the worker is worthy of his food."

Matthew 10:10 could just as easily be interpreted to say the worker need not take his own things because he should expect to be supported by those his ministers to. Otherwise, why did the Lord tack on "for the worker is worthy of his food." In your interpretation, that phrase doesn't fit, except to say that the worker isn't worth much.

To me these verses have nothing to do with austerity. To me they are saying that a worker should expect the Lord to provide his needs as he ministers, through the people he ministers to.


The fact is, Ohio, you have a bias. I think it goes back to Nee and Lee and the LC and you have never reconsidered it. You see these verses and interpret them through a particular prism, and you have no interest in questioning the prism.

Some people believe the prosperity gospel, some the austerity gospel. I think you are in the latter category.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Igzy, when commenting on posts from many LSM supporters, you have often used the phrase "defending the indefensible." I believe this surely applies to the extravagant lifestyle of JM and her staff. I really think you should have chosen another verse. This one has kind of backfired on your cause.

I think it actually backfired on you. I don't think you are interpreting these verses correctly. As I said, I don't think they are about austerity. I think they are about depending on the Lord for your support.

The Lord is saying, If you serve me in ministry, you are worthy of support. You don't need to bring your own things because I'm going to be supporting you.

Do you really think the Lord is saying his servants are only worthy of scant necessities?? In some cases, as Paul said, we should be content with them. But that's a far cry from saying that's all we're worth. I just don't think that's what Matthew 10:10 means at all. I think you've got it all wrong.

Ball backfired back into your court.

[Cal]

I have another question, Ohio. Why did you imply that because Joyce Meyer's ex-bodyguard was convicted of murder that was somehow a refection on her? If that wasn't what you were doing, why did you point us to that article?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Matthew 10:10 could just as easily be interpreted to say the worker need not take his own things because he should expect to be supported by those his ministers to. Otherwise, why did the Lord tack on "for the worker is worthy of his food." In your interpretation, that phrase doesn't fit, except to say that the worker isn't worth much.

To me these verses have nothing to do with austerity. To me they are saying that a worker should expect the Lord to provide his needs as he ministers through the people he ministers to.

Maybe it would help you if you pray-read these verses again.

Igzy, you used I Tim 5.18 to support JM's many entitlements, and I went thru the Bible exploring where this thought was used. You called me biased for my simple reading of the scripture. Never once have I mandated that all ministers of the Lord live an austere life. I only exposed JM's numerous extravagances as being contrary to the way of the Lord, and have no support in the New Testament.

You are free to interpret the Bible as you choose. You are free to follow any minister you choose. We will just have to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Igzy

The fact is, Ohio, you have a bias. I think it goes back to Nee and Lee and the LC and you have never reconsidered it. You see these verses and interpret them through a particular prism, and you have no interest in questioning the prism.

Some people believe the prosperity gospel, some the austerity gospel. I think you are in the latter category.

I have 2,000 years of church history composed of millions of faithful brothers and sisters who are with me in the latter category.

You have Joyce Meyer with her entourage of stylists, valets, designers, and concierges. And let's not forget her team of PR lawyers to maintain her best "Christian" image.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I have another question, Ohio. Why did you imply that because Joyce Meyer's ex-bodyguard was convicted of murder that was somehow a refection on her? If that wasn't what you were doing, why did you point us to that article?

Her extremely poor judgment of character, and subsequent coverup of immorality, closely paralleled a story I once read about LSM.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Maybe it would help you if you pray-read these verses again.

Igzy, you used I Tim 5.18 to support JM's many entitlements, and I went thru the Bible exploring where this thought was used. You called me biased for my simple reading of the scripture. Never once have I mandated that all ministers of the Lord live an austere life.

I didn't call you biased for your simple reading of scripture. (Actually, my reading was simpler than yours.) I called you biased because you can only see things one way. You get like this sometimes. You act like you know more than you do.

I understand your point of view, but you haven't tried to understand what I'm saying.

That shows me you have a bias. You haven't given my points fair consideration.

But you seem to think you know what is the acceptable lifestyle a minister should have. Have you ever considered that you really don't? That's part of my point.

My wife made a statement about you. She said, I'll bet if he got blessed like Meyer did, he'd be buying some nice things for his family, too.

Think about it. God gives you a $40-$60 million windfall from books that you wrote. Don't you think you'd think God wants you to be rich?

[Ohio]

Of course I understand your point of view. I'm married too. Every woman likes "nice" things, but there are "nice" things and then again there are "nice" extravagances that are strictly out-of-bounds in my book.

I have not pigeon-holed any minister of God into some miserly life of poverty, but are there not also numerous warnings in the Bible? Have we not seen numerous other ministers in our lifetime fail in like manner? Many Christian leaders have also called on JM to "clean house."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

To me these verses have nothing to do with austerity. To me they are saying that a worker should expect the Lord to provide his needs as he ministers, through the people he ministers to... Some people believe the prosperity gospel, some the austerity gospel.

Yes, no doubt some are reacting to the Lord's word that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom. I think the relevant verses would be as follows:

Bondage and Pollution of the World
2 Pet 2:18-20 More
2:18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

Within the world what brings more people into bondage and is more polluting than idolatry? The chief idols of the world are molten images and graven images – money. But of course, one reason people pay great sums of money for “art” is that they trust the art will also act like money, except that it gains “value” with time.

Excess
1Pet 4:4 -- Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you:

1Pet 4:8 -- And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

Matt 23:25 -- Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

The word “excess” particularly the phrase “excess of riot” refers to a lack of restraint.

Ravening
Luke 11:39 -- 11:39 And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.

Ravening is “to devour greedily”.

Greediness, covetousness, and deceit
Eph 4:19 -- 4:19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

Mark 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

1Thess 2:5 -- For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloke of covetousness; God is witness:

(a cloak of covetousness can refer to soliciting donations to a ministry under the pretext of “sowing to the kingdom” or of being one with God’s unique ministry. In the NT we see that some contributed to the Lord’s ministry, but we never see anyone solicit donations. It is true that Paul asked for money to be laid up, but that was not a “donation to his ministry”, rather it was to be carried to Jerusalem to help the saints who were in financial hardship. I think that most of us would agree that giving money to LSM so that they can fund lawsuits against other Christians under the covering of “sowing to the kingdom” is a cloak of covetousness).

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have 2,000 years of church history composed of millions of faithful brothers and sisters who are with me in the latter category.

I think James chapter one if very relevant. James begins by saying that we should pray and that when we pray we should have faith that we will receive and that we will receive. He then discusses why this doesn't happen, saying a double minded man is unstable in all his ways. Instead of being "doubleminded" he says that the brother of low degree should glory in his high standing in the Lord, and the rich should glory in the fact that he is brought low. The reason that the rich is brought low is that his glory is as the grass of the field that withers and dries up under the scorching sun.

Now either James is incredibly random in his writing or he is saying that many saints are praying to get rich, and that is to be "doubleminded" and that is why their prayers are not answered.

To me, this is what shoots the biggest hole in the prosperity gospel. First they get saints to focus on vain wealth which is likened to the flowers of the field, one day it is here, the next it is cast into the fire. The second problem is they misdirect the prayers. Instead of teaching that those who are of low degree should glory in their high standing in the Lord, they say that their high standing in the Lord is proof that they shouldn't be of low degree in this age, and the fact that they are is due to their not being true to the Biblical principles, and the key principle they have ignored is "sowing to the kingdom". So they make saints feel guilty for being of low degree, and the only way to deal with that guilt is to give to the kingdom and by extension to donate to their ministry.

[Cal]

The Bible clearly warns us about a greedy desire to gain and consume. But that doesn't translate into a commandment to be poor, or even of modest means. I think the Lord really wants to bless us all materially. But many can't handle it because they would "consume it on their lusts" as James says.

I don't have any indication that is what is happening with Meyer. Her standard of living is commensurate with her income.

All of us, compared to people in Africa, are extremely extravagant. But our standard of living is commensurate with our income.

The Old Testament models are relevant. If material blessings are categorically bad, then God would have never blessed people like Abraham and Job and Solomon. All these men were his ministers in those days in some way. Yet, they received great material blessing.

What has changed fundamentally in the NT? Did money suddenly become worse because we have the Spirit dwelling in us now? Jesus did not preach against wealth, but he did warn that if handled incorrectly it could be a hindrance to the kingdom.

Jesus himself was chided for not living with enough austerity, by the Jewish religionists.

Jesus wore a seamless coat, which was the "expensive suit" of the day. So he would likely wear a costly tailored suit if he was here today.

Most Christians have never figured out what our relationship with money is supposed to be, and so end up having mixed and confusing feelings about it. This is neither healthy, nor efficient. I think it's time for a re-thinking of some of these things we've believed.

My point is not to completely defend everything Meyer does with her money. My point is that I'm not qualified to condemn her, given what I know for sure.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am not familiar where Lee stated that his ministry was irreplaceable or that if you don't follow him you are shipwrecked, can you give me a reference?

Once it's established that there is such a thing as "the ministry of the age", and that you are the one bringing it to God's people "in this age" .... doesn't that kinda imply that your ministry is irreplaceable?

I'm sure there are many relevant references. This might not be a bad place to start --

http://www.lsm.org/uniqueNTministry/remaining7.html

I was going to include some excerpts, but I know that LSM has a rather ungracious copyright policy. So I'm going to err on the side of, er, paranoia, until maybe UntoHim will comment on quoting LSM pubs here in the forum.

I'm mostly looking at the last 3-4 sections. Witness Lee threads the needle so smoothly, all the way right up to the present leadership. He says all the churches are supposed to be identical. Now how could they be identical unless they line themselves up with the ordained ministry?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Once it's established that there is such a thing as "the ministry of the age", and that you are the one bringing it to God's people "in this age" .... doesn't that kinda imply that your ministry is irreplaceable?

I'm sure there are many relevant references. This might not be a bad place to start --

http://www.lsm.org/uniqueNTministry/remaining7.html

I was going to include some excerpts, but I know that LSM has a rather ungracious copyright policy. So I'm going to err on the side of, er, paranoia, until maybe UntoHim will comment on quoting LSM pubs here in the forum.

I'm mostly looking at the last 3-4 sections. Witness Lee threads the needle so smoothly, all the way right up to the present leadership. He says all the churches are supposed to be identical. Now how could they be identical unless they line themselves up with the ordained ministry?

LSM does not write copyright law. The purpose for copyright law is to protect the rights of those who publish to encourage them to publish while allowing their work to be quoted.

Under the "fair use" rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism.

I understand "limited use" in this case to be around 500 words. I would think anything less than 100 words is clearly "limited use" whereas anything over 500 could be seen differently by a jury. 200-500 words is a grey area in my opinion. Likewise percent of the thread would be relevant. So if a thread were say 2,000 words and only 200 were a quote from WL that also would be, in my mind, "limited use".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Once it's established that there is such a thing as "the ministry of the age", and that you are the one bringing it to God's people "in this age" .... doesn't that kinda imply that your ministry is irreplaceable?

Assuming is bad scholarship. His words have been published and made available for all to read. What I am asking for is that when someone says that WL said something as blatantly offensive as "if you don't follow me you are ship wrecked" then that should be supported with a reference. Likewise, saying that WL said "my ministry is irreplaceable" should also be supported with a reference.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I'm sure there are many relevant references. This might not be a bad place to start --

http://www.lsm.org/uniqueNTministry/remaining7.html

It probably is a good place to start, but it is not my job to provide supporting references for someone else's statement. No doubt anyone who knows of a quote that supports these statements could provide them, but ultimately the responsibility is on Igzy.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Bible clearly warns us about a greedy desire to gain and consume. But that doesn't translate into a commandment to be poor, or even of modest means.

I think we all agree with this, I haven't seen any posts that could be construed to say otherwise. However, this is why I quoted 1 Pet 4:4 and 8. 1 Pet 4:4 makes it clear that there are Christians who are or might be carried away in the "same excess of riot".

It is difficult to draw the line, what is "excess" and what isn't? Shaker furniture is a prime example.

But then Peter adds verse 8, "charity covers a multitude of sins". Is it a sin to spend $37,000 on a piece of art when that same money could have been the difference between life and death for a thousand people? I don't know. Fortunately it is not for me to judge. It just seems to me that if I was spending thousands on art I would also want to make sure I was giving much more than that to charity.

I do not know anything about JM to discuss her personal situation. But I think these are the relevant principles.

However, I do think the prosperity gospel is bunk and that James makes this very clear, as do the other apostles. On the other hand I don't think there is any NT basis to feel that a "vow of poverty" is unscriptural. To me that is every bit as much between you and the Lord as spending $37,000 on a piece of art. Yes, we have been called to freedom, but that should not be an excuse for sin.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

However, I do think the prosperity gospel is bunk and that James makes this very clear, as do the other apostles. On the other hand I don't think there is any NT basis to feel that a "vow of poverty" is unscriptural. To me that is every bit as much between you and the Lord as spending $37,000 on a piece of art. Yes, we have been called to freedom, but that should not be an excuse for sin.

Recently I made the observation that the evangelical Christian community is roughly divided into two equally sized camps, split right down the middle over the matter of tongues and the gifts of the Spirit. Since I have spent some time meeting with a "moderate" pentecostal community church since I left the LRC, I have been on both sides of the "divide." Since the early part of the 20th century, the number of pentecostals has grown steadily, presently at roughly 50%, and soon to surpass the fundamentals in sheer number. Please grant me a little liberty here to speak in generalities and provide a little testimony.

One feature that is more characteristic of the pentecostal side of the "divide," is the prosperity gospel. Since the pentecostal theology includes the O.T. promises to Israel, it is understandable that differences in teaching would produce differences in practices, priorities, and viewpoints towards money. For someone like me to be so steeped in fundamentalist LRC theology, this new emphasis on money was sometimes difficult to swallow.

During the recent recession, the pastor taught that there was "no recession in the kingdom of God" and continued to exhort the congregation to tithe, make offerings, special pledges, building funds, love offerings, etc. etc. Despite layoffs, business failures, and collapses in portfolios, the requests for money only ratcheted up. Coupled with this was pastor's TV ministry and participation with Christian TV fundraising events, aka "begathons." Since I forced myself to keep an "open mind" through the whole ordeal, looking only for the positive things of the Lord, even pastor's new Lexus was just fine by me. Eventually, however, things became more than even my wife could bear.

Unfortunately all the families we had become close to in the church had left. One dear brother and neighbor of mine, a member of the church for ~30 years, was forced into bankruptcy, still believing "there was no recession in the kingdom of God." Another friend, struggling to make his little business stay afloat, got tired of personal phone calls from pastor to sow thousand dollar "seeds" into the kingdom of God. Recently we visited that church again, in the aftermath of the "storm," and just about everyone I had known was gone. So was the worship leader and the youth minister. So many seats were vacant.

Now I'm not connecting this dear pastor with other ministers spoken of here, just trying to show how errant teachings, like prosperity, can build up some empires and destroy others. I believe there are far too many children of God who become victims and stumbled by these teachings. Earthly blessings should not be the goal of God's children! What brother ZNP recently posted is applicable, and quite helpful to me ...

a cloak of covetousness can refer to soliciting donations to a ministry under the pretext of “sowing to the kingdom” or of being one with God’s unique ministry.

[ZNPaaneah]

I had a very different experience. There was a time in my life when I was completely broke. I could only afford to put $1 into the offering bucket and I was thrilled to do so, I felt it was the best bargain there was. There were many activities taking place at the church I was meeting at (this was after the LRC), lots of meetings and things to do. I felt that with the church I had a real life while I put my financial house in order. Without the church what would I have been able to do for the year or 18 months it took to get myself back on solid financial ground?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I'm sure there are many relevant references. This might not be a bad place to start --
http://www.lsm.org/uniqueNTministry remaining7.html
I was going to include some excerpts, but I know that LSM has a rather ungracious copyright policy. So I'm going to err on the side of, er, paranoia, until maybe UntoHim will comment on quoting LSM pubs here in the forum.

Here is one excerpt ray may have had in mind:
"All the churches should be identical, and those who can render the leading to all the churches are the ones who have the adequate knowledge of the teaching of God’s New Testament economy and who would pass on these teachings to the whole earth. We follow the one who is teaching and following this all-inclusive, incarnated, crucified, resurrected, and ascended Christ who is still ministering in the heavenlies for the carrying out of God’s New Testament economy. We have to follow such persons and we have to take their leading. Their leading is the proper leading for all the churches." (Elders’ Training, Book 7: One Accord for the Lord’s Move, pp. 69-70, 74, Witness Lee)
(Quote is posted under the "Fair Use" guidelines - If any representative of the LSM feels this one paragraph quote is a violation of the Fair Use guidelines, they are free to contact the administrator of this website)

"All the churches should be identical"...to what? To the teaching and practices established by ONE MAN? This sounds and smells a lot like a personality cult. "We have to follow such persons"? What Lee meant here was A PARTICULAR PERSON...HIMSELF. One area where Witness Lee was flat wrong was that any churches should be identical. This is the very definition of a personality cult, and this was pointed out to Lee and his followers way back in the 70s and 80s. What was the reaction.... Sue! Sue! Sue! No thought of actually reconsidering, repenting or rethinking about saying these kind of crazy and cultish things. Just SUE! Thankfully this kind of litigious nonsense was finally put to rest when Lee and company got spanked by the Texas Supreme court. (and confirmed by the U.S. Supreme court, but not before wasting MILLIONS of dollars of the Local Church saints hard earned money)

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"All the churches should be identical"...to what? To the teaching and practices established by ONE MAN? What was the reaction.... Sue! Sue! Sue! No thought of actually reconsidering, repenting or rethinking about saying these kind of crazy and cultish things. Just SUE!

Our brothers and sisters from the Great Lakes Area have testified this is what has transpired when their localities aren't identical in LSM publications only. Here in Washington state for years Spokane was one locality far from being identical. Since brother ST is now with the Lord, will Spokane be brought to lineup?
A rhetorical question, why is it so imperative churches should be identical in relation to LSM? My response for consideration is LSM is more interested in maintaining and growing their little kingdom than they are in bng "Body conscious". Think about it, if there was concern about being Body conscious, the walls would not exist as it currently does.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[COLOR="Navy"]
Here is one excerpt ray may have had in mind:
"All the churches should be identical, and those who can render the leading to all the churches are the ones who have the adequate knowledge of the teaching of God’s New Testament economy and who would pass on these teachings to the whole earth. We follow the one who is teaching and following this all-inclusive, incarnated, crucified, resurrected, and ascended Christ who is still ministering in the heavenlies for the carrying out of God’s New Testament economy. We have to follow such persons and we have to take their leading. Their leading is the proper leading for all the churches." (Elders’ Training, Book 7: One Accord for the Lord’s Move, pp. 69-70, 74, Witness Lee)
(Quote is posted under the "Fair Use" guidelines - If any representative of the LSM feels this one paragraph quote is a violation of the Fair Use guidelines, they are free to contact the administrator of this website)

At the very least this can be interpreted to be identical to what other denominations do. The idea that "churches have to be identical" is very tenuous. It is based on the the fact that the golden lampstands are "identical". But by who's standard? No doubt, the golden lampstands in revelation were identical in God's eyes, not according to the dictates of a publishing house. Surely the letters to all of the various churches in the NT indicate that in many ways the churches were not identical.

Define identical. Does it mean their meeting hall is identical? Does it mean they all have the same number or elders? Does it mean they all have the identical meeting schedule? McDonald's does something along those lines so that customers feel they know the restaurant where ever they go. Is McDonald's the standard that the LRC is trying to achieve?

Does identical mean they "all speak the same thing". That sounds scriptural. But can anyone seriously say that Paul meant that everyone parrots the same teaching? If you want everyone reading from the same script, parroting the same words, then say so. If that is not what you mean why does every church have to receive and order books from LSM? If buying books from LSM is a requirement to be part of the LRC then the LRC by definition is a book club.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

At the very least this can be interpreted to be identical to what other denominations do.

ZNP, your post highlights the kind of doublespeak which has existed for decades at LSM. Ask a Blended, "who are the Blendeds?", and he will tell you, "those brothers who are being blended." Yet inside their little club of Blendeds, everyone knows full well who is the most blended, who is partially blended, and who is not blended at all.

Brothers in the GLA tried for years to get clarification on these issues. What do you mean to "all speak the same thing?" What does it mean that "all the churches must be identical?" I concluded long ago that these teachings, which seemed almost Biblical, actually were coded words which were used to control, manipulate, and intimidate the hearers. Long gone are the days when LC leaders look to the Lord for their flocks, what to teach and what to speak, what direction to lead. LSM has done that all for them.

On the surface, it would seem that LSM has created "book clubs" or fast food "franchises" with their unique brand of Christianity, but control has always been their goal. They insist that every LC must use HWFMR as their daily source book and content of all their sharing. LSM sows seeds of suspicion concerning any brother or LC that would elevate the Bible above their publications. Their adherents are willing to sue elders who dared to free them from this bondage, thinking that they do service to God.

LSM has long promoted a kind of mixed dialect. On the one hand, they have polished PR men who can speak to outsiders neutralizing their concerns about the LC's being different from the orthodoxy. On the other hand, they can use coded words to force members into complete submission or face the dangers of public shaming. They see no contradiction here. WL taught them that this dichotomy of dialect is perfectly "normal." Jesus called it hypocrisy.

[rayliotta]

Witness Lee, at the end of his ministry, specifically promoted the idea of a "new language" with a "new culture" for the Recovery. The leadership that succeeded him in Anaheim has done an excellent job in fostering this language and culture.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

ZNP, your post highlights the kind of doublespeak which has existed for decades at LSM.

Yes, let's dissect the doublespeak. In the book of Revelation WL points out that it is not what makes the churches different that makes them golden lamp stands but the things they have in common. These are the same 7 things that are listed as the 7 ones in Ephesians. So far so good.

However, inherent in this teaching is the admission that the 7 churches in the book of Revelation were in fact different. So this contradicts the teaching that they all should be "identical". This cannot be deduced from the revelation, on the contrary that could refer to God's viewpoint, or the viewpoint of eternity, etc. Still at this point it is not so bad, perhaps it could be understood that the differences are not the things that make the churches glorious.

But, if you then take this teaching that "they should be identical" to impose some means of doing that, say by making everyone use LSM materials in meetings and for Bible study then you have clearly crossed a line into twisting the word. According to Ephesians the 7 things that make us one are not one publisher, or one teaching or even one "unique ministry". If this teaching is used to coerce and intimidate churches into all buying into this then you have twisted the Apostle's teaching.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, let's dissect the doublespeak.

Concerning the 7 churches in Rev 2-3, it was repeatedly said in the Recovery that their "differences were all negative," and on the positive side, they were identical. But even this was not a true observation. Ephesus was commended for their works, labor, endurance, proving the apostles, have not grown weary, and hate the works of the Nicolaitans. Smyrna was praised for enduring tribulation, poverty, and slander. Pergamos was praised for holding His name and not denying His faith. Thyatira, Sardis, and Philadelphia each received unique praises. It seems only Laodicea was not commended for anything. The Lord also reveals Himself uniquely to each church. These were not random revelations of the Son of Man. Each church also had special promises extended to them for overcoming their own unique set of trials. None of these were just indiscriminate blessings from the Lord.

How then can LSM vainly believe that their weekly message from HWFMR can meet the special conditions and trials of all the LC's? No wonder these messages have become so stale and uninspired. It would be pure coincidence if this week's message actually DID meet the need of one LC! This is why the Lord sent each church epistle to the specific elders of each church.

LSM's daily system of messages to ensure "the oneness" and uniformity of churches is not too dissimilar from the Vatican's. I grew up in Catholicism, and was named after my uncle, my father's youngest brother, who was ordained a Catholic priest about the time of my birth. He later was ordained into the Order of Franciscans, OFM, which is from the Latin "Ordo Fratrum Minorum," the Order of Friars Minor. As a young boy in parochial school, I was a choir boy and altar boy fluent in the old Latin mass liturgy.

The Catholic goal for centuries was to be able to go to any Catholic church in any city in any state in any country on any continent and hear the exact same mass spoken in Latin. As a young altar boy I could have gone to any city of the world and properly assisted the local parish priest for mass in Latin, even though I could not speak a single word in his vernacular. This was the Vatican's twisted interpretation of "speak the same thing, think the same thing, all churches must be identical, etc." The mass also consisted of responses by all the participants, and was so much "better" than the protestant churches whose members sat silently listening to "one man speaking."

[Cal]

The NT does tell us to be one and "think the same thing."

It just never commands any apostles, elders or any other heirarchy to presume authorization to enforce such unity. This is wise because things like "think the same thing" can be interpreted in all kinds of ways.

The LRC missed that memo, apparently.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Concerning the 7 churches in Rev 2-3, it was repeatedly said in the Recovery that their "differences were all negative," and on the positive side, they were identical..

This strikes to the heart of the issue which is "are they short circuiting the speaking of the Lord?" Creating this uniform speaking is a way to short circuit the Lord's speaking. There are many examples in the OT of the "false prophets" all saying the same thing only to have a real prophet walk in and ruin the whole sham. Requiring that the speaking come out of a LSM publication is a non scriptural requirement. If someone tried to speak in a meeting and was told that they were out of order solely because they are not quoting from a particular LSM publication then that would be a non scriptural requirement on the saints.

From my own experience I witnesses meetings in which quoting WL was encouraged, promoted and applauded. However, it was never required and most saints, the overwhelming majority of those that spoke (based on numbers of testimonies, not numbers of minutes) did not quote WL. Of course I am not talking about the test during a training I figure that is clearly a different situation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The NT does tell us to be one and "think the same thing."

It just never commands any apostles, elders or any other heirarchy to presume authorization to enforce such unity. This is wise because things like "think the same thing" can be interpreted in all kinds of ways.

The LRC missed that memo, apparently.

They missed a whole lot more too. There is no way we can understand this admonition to "think the same thing," apart from verses like Col 3.1-4 ....

1 If then ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on the right hand of God. 2 Set your mind on the things that are above, not on the things that are upon the earth. 3 For ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is our life, shall be manifested, then shall ye also with him be manifested in glory.

There is no ministry on earth which can be inserted into these verses. These verses are completely heavenly and spiritual, and any kind of ministry must be considered as "things that are upon the earth."

[UntoHim]

The members don't need to actually use Witness Lee's name. The entire language structure and vocabulary is from "the ministry". This dynamic was already fully in place by the mid 1970s when I came into the Local Church, and I suspect it was so long, long before then.

"Think the same thing" was translated into "speak the same thing" which was nothing more then regurgitating the ministry of Witness Lee, preferably word-for-word. It was true back in the 70s (and 60s I'm sure) and it is true today. As recently as the last training the speakers, for the most part, simply read through an outline/message of Lee's from 25-40 years ago. Then these "messages" are reprinted as "The Holy Word for Morning Revival" which is what is used for the next 6 months by all the Local Churches in their meetings. All the "thinking the same thing" in the Local Church revolves around the words printed in these publications.

And they wonder why their little religious sect is dying right before their eyes.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

And they wonder why their little religious sect is dying right before their eyes.

It's dying? Really? That's news to me...

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by JorgeP

So the first thing for which I give credit to the brothers of the recovery ministry, for this work of literature that inspires to study the Bible in a serious and sincere way. I am also grateful that I have learned how to connect the divine revelation of Scripture book by book and not take one verse in isolation to draw isolated conclusions or use that verse to justify an argument.

The Recovery quite often takes one verse, out of context and in isolation to justify their doctrines.