Summing Up

[Cal]

It’s been a few months since I’ve posted. I hope everyone is doing well. I wanted to step away for awhile and have been busy with a new business, but I felt to come back and sum up my life experiences related to the Local Church.

Let’s start out with a good thing. The LC introduced me to a personal Christ and a life in community with other Christians. These two simple things, in their purest form, were always the best thing about the LC. I will always be grateful for that.

Unfortunately, the LC included a lot of baggage with those two things. The “experience of Christ” was warped from a simple spiritual relationship to an esoteric labyrinth of “the law of life,” “the anointing,” “the sense of life,” “intuition”, “flow”, “the enjoyment” etc, which complicated and confused. “Christ” was shifted from being a person to almost a thing, a commodity. Oddly, what was supposed to be an intensely inter-personal relationship became impersonal.

This was also true of my community relationship with others. A simple, pure brotherhood became an impersonal relationship with a movement. All that was important was how I meshed with “the cause.” My personal needs were completely discounted.

The isolation of the LC gave me a very narrow and warped view not only of Christian life, but also of earthly life. This was probably the worst thing that the LC did to me. It urged me to embrace ignorance, which had devastating effects on my life. My worldview revolved around falsehoods and cluelessness. The LC’s teachings exist in a bubble. They seem powerful as long as they are not tested in the arena of ideas and of life itself. They cannot stand up to real scrutiny, which is why the LC will not discuss their beliefs in an open honest forum. If the LC’s teachings are failing a member, the member is blamed, but the teachings are never questioned.

I never received much practical advice or instruction about life, love, sex, marriage, relationships, conflicts, work, children, extended family, hopes, dreams, doubts, fears, weaknesses, personality, temperament, gifts, skills, fun, hobbies or any of the other practical life issues we have to deal with. I look back and can only shake my head at how terribly ignorant and naive I was, really about just about everything. The LC did me a terrible disservice by suggesting that none of these things really mattered and that somehow simply reading Witness Lee, calling on the Lord and attending church meetings was all I needed and would solve everything. It only solves everything if all you ever do is read Witness Lee, call on the Lord and attend meetings. Unfortunately, God made us to deal with much more than that and the LC left me and many others horribly unequipped to do so. This cause me much so much pain and confusion I don’t even like to think about it now.

The LC’s version of oneness is divisive. I was deeply saddened to read on the website of “The Church of the Chicagoans” how they continue to use the same old reasonings and prattle to justify their divisive view of oneness. Oneness is a heart matter. Simply getting rid of a church name does not make you more inclined to be one. In fact, it’s clear in the case of the Chicagoans not having a name contributed to them being more proud and exclusive than they might have otherwise been, given how they crow about it on their website.

Receiving others does not just mean you allow them to join you. In fact, it means something quite opposite. It means you continue to view and honor them as just as much the church as you are even if they choose NOT to join you. Being the church can never mean that people need to join YOU or your little subsection of the Body of Christ. It means you are willing to join hands with them as much as possible to cooperate for God’s kingdom. And their “having a name” is a pathetic excuse to not join hands with them. The Bible in no place prohibits churches taking names; it’s simply not Biblical. Saying a church should take no name other than the Lord’s is like saying a wife should take no name other than her husbands, including his first name. So if Mary marries John, she must start calling herself John. It’s just a shallow, childish idea.

The LC’s theology is warped because Witness Lee was closed-minded. I don’t have the space or time to go into much detail, but again it goes back to his ideas not being vetted by the rest of the Body. Witness Lee decided at some point in his life that he was right and everyone else was wrong. Apparently he held onto this idea until the day he died. We all sometimes have to stand against the crowd. But the wise person always keeps the door open to being proven wrong. Witness Lee not only closed that door, he slammed it, locked it and established a culture that threatened anyone who tried to open it. There is no precedent in the Bible for such a mindset. The Bible in fact establishes a principle where many can contribute in parallel. Paul’s style and focus were very different from John’s, which were different from Peter’s. None of them attacked or compromised the others, none of them claimed to know it all, and, most importantly, none of them set themselves up as the standard by which all other teachers and teachings are judged. Lee and his followers did just that. In fact, the purpose of Living Stream’s publication Affirmation and Critique is to judge other’s teachings based on how they line up with Lee’s. I’m not sure what’s worse about this, its arrogance or its stupidity. But both are disgusting.

Lee’s attacks on “Christianity,” still preached by some in the movement, were never fair and often simply wrong. One example is the idea that Christians have no concept of being judged someday. This is simply false. The truth of judgment of Christian life and work is known and shared by almost all evangelical Christians these days. Another is the idea that Christians (Protestants) are dead. This may be true of a small minority of mostly non-practicing Christians. But I have met very, very few serious Christians in the last 20 years who seemed really dead. Life is rich and flowing in most community churches and denominations today. God is active and working. To say otherwise is to be ignorant, dishonest, or both.

Other teachings like mingling, God being wrought into our being, metabolic changes, Satan dwelling in man’s body, losing the soul, and many of the esoteric inner-life meanderings just don’t stand up to scrutiny and experience. Other teachings like localism, "the Recovery," one eldership per city, minister of the age, isolationism, one publication, etc. clearly serve to extend and support an exclusive movement rather than God’s kingdom.

Let me finish on a positive note. Many LCers are mellowing. I mean that in a good way. Though they still love their LC culture, they know in their hearts that Lee and the LC were fundamentally wrong on many counts. They have a hard time admitting it straight out, but they know it. They try to get along with outsiders. I had dinner with my old best buddy from the LC a couple of months ago. He had the patience of a saint as his listened to my objections to the LC. He admitted many mistakes were made. He even apologized. He seemed genuinely sad and sorry. This is a guy who has been an elder. One moment kind of sums it up. I mentioned the way the LC characterized the rest of Christianity as Babylon. He chuckled and said, “I don’t think I’ve heard the word ‘Babylon’ in fifteen years.” The feeling I had was that he genuinely wanted to move on from the baggage and mistakes of the past, while holding onto the things of the LC which were important to him. I feel that many LCers must hold the same conviction and aspiration quietly in their hearts. If so they will eventually win out.

Change in the LC is inevitable. It must change to survive. When the original crop of leaders pass the torch, it will change more. There may never and likely will not be a public announcement refuting prior stances; but there will be the continued inertia of members like my friend who are mature enough and wise enough to no longer deny the grave mistakes of the past. I hope the weight of their conviction wins the day sooner rather than later.


My LC experience shaped my life in many ways. It is human nature to want to think you are right, to latch onto something you think is right and enjoy the feeling of having figured it out. Add to that the peer approval that comes with agreeing with those who share your beliefs, along with the naiveté of youth and grave warnings about changing, and you have the prescription for dwelling in entrenched ignorance. This describes my LC legacy and that of many others. The good news is that God is able to save us from all that. But for that to happen we must eventually admit that “maybe, just maybe, some of my most dearly held beliefs are wrong.”


"I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly." John 10:10

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” – Matthew 7:7

[OBW]

One of the best general statements concerning the LCM in quite some time. All worthy of close consideration. But I liked this part the best.

The LC’s teachings exist in a bubble. They seem powerful as long as they are not tested in the arena of ideas and of life itself. They cannot stand up to real scrutiny, which is why the LC will not discuss their beliefs in an open honest forum.

Their ideas are not tested as long as all reading starts with Nee and Lee and only goes beyond that after those are so thoroughly ingrained in the thinking that then reading any outside scholar would only be met with disdain for not teaching what Nee and Lee taught.

They excommunicated one of their highest leaders because, among other things, he taught some to read the scriptures and a vast array of scholars and see that Nee and Lee were right. Why would they care if the teachings were actually right? The answer must be that they are not so right. That being open to try to prove them right means you have to face the evidence that they are wrong. And that cannot be allowed. So not only are the writings of other scholars (and this presumes that Nee and Lee were scholars — a highly questionable claim) allowed to come only after deep learning of Nee and Lee, they are advised strongly against. Don't even read them.

You may become confused. You might think that the scripture actually says something understandable without reference to our vast library of teachings (which can be purchased book-by-book for the reasonable sum of 9.95 per volume).

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

One of the best general statements concerning the LCM in quite some time. All worthy of close consideration. But I liked this part the best.

Their ideas are not tested as long as all reading starts with Nee and Lee and only goes beyond that after those are so thoroughly ingrained in the thinking that then reading any outside scholar would only be met with disdain for not teaching what Nee and Lee taught.

They excommunicated one of their highest leaders because, among other things, he taught some to read the scriptures and a vast array of scholars and see that Nee and Lee were right. Why would they care if the teachings were actually right? The answer must be that they are not so right. That being open to try to prove them right means you have to face the evidence that they are wrong. And that cannot be allowed. So not only are the writings of other scholars (and this presumes that Nee and Lee were scholars — a highly questionable claim) allowed to come only after deep learning of Nee and Lee, they are advised strongly against. Don't even read them.

You may become confused. You might think that the scripture actually says something understandable without reference to our vast library of teachings (which can be purchased book-by-book for the reasonable sum of 9.95 per volume).

Thanks for the response, OBW. I appreciate it.

Yes, it is extremely curious that the LCM's willingness to answer objections about Lee's teachings is inversely proportional to their professed confidence in those teachings. One would think that being so utterly convinced that Lee was right about everything would make them eager for every chance to see him proven right and his critics wrong.

If I had an argument for a minority opinion that I knew could not be refuted, I would be making it every chance I got. Certainly I would be making it to people who challenged it. While this might not be the job of the rank-and-file, it's certainly the job of the leaders. Where are they?

They are not around because the LCM has no such argument. They have their to-the-choir talking points which haven't changed much in forty years, like the stuff on "The Church of the Chicagoans" website about why they don't have a name. They are very proud of these thin and shallow reasonings, but, alas, not enough to stick their necks out in the public square to defend them.

So much for confidence.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Igzy

[B]Let me finish on a positive note. Many LCers are mellowing. I mean that in a good way. Though they still love their LC culture, they know in their hearts that Lee and the LC were fundamentally wrong on many counts. They have a hard time admitting it straight out, but they know it. They try to get along with outsiders. I had dinner with my old best buddy from the LC a couple of months ago. He had the patience of a saint as his listened to my objections to the LC. He admitted many mistakes were made. He even apologized. He seemed genuinely sad and sorry. This is a guy who has been an elder. One moment kind of sums it up. I mentioned the way the LC characterized the rest of Christianity as Babylon. He chuckled and said, “I don’t think I’ve heard the word ‘Babylon’ in fifteen years.” The feeling I had was that he genuinely wanted to move on from the baggage and mistakes of the past, while holding onto the things of the LC which were important to him. I feel that many LCers must hold the same conviction and aspiration quietly in their hearts. If so they will eventually win out.

Change in the LC is inevitable. It must change to survive. When the original crop of leaders pass the torch, it will change more. There may never and likely will not be a public announcement refuting prior stances; but there will be the continued inertia of members like my friend who are mature enough and wise enough to no longer deny the grave mistakes of the past. I hope the weight of their conviction wins the day sooner rather than later.

I don't know what the end result will be, but this is definitely true. In the LC in the USA there is already a big generation gap between leadership--most of whom came under the direct influence of Witness Lee in their youth in the 1960s and 1970s--and their children (who are now in their 20s-40s). You are just starting to see that older generation beginning to pass away. Over time, they will be replaced by younger leaders who simply can't care as much about Witness Lee and the tight ideology of the LC as their forebears have and do. Senior LC leaders already express their grave concerns about the slackening standards in "the spirit of absoluteness" and "the purity of the Lord's recovery," etc. The discrepancies will only get bigger. I believe that eventually, as the LC continues to get more and more and more institutional (all the while denying it), many younger members will be disheartened and see no reason to go along with it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I don't know what the end result will be, but this is definitely true. In the LC in the USA there is already a big generation gap between leadership--most of whom came under the direct influence of Witness Lee in their youth in the 1960s and 1970s--and their children (who are now in their 20s-40s). You are just starting to see that older generation beginning to pass away. Over time, they will be replaced by younger leaders who simply can't care as much about Witness Lee and the tight ideology of the LC as their forebears have and do. Senior LC leaders already express their grave concerns about the slackening standards in "the spirit of absoluteness" and "the purity of the Lord's recovery," etc. The discrepancies will only get bigger. I believe that eventually, as the LC continues to get more and more and more institutional (all the while denying it), many younger members will be disheartened and see no reason to go along with it.

The mellowing of LCM members is a point I really wanted to make. I've spent time with three of my old friends, all guys I had lived with at one time in the LC, two have been elders. The other a longstanding member. I noticed in all a genuine softening toward outsiders, other points of view and the reality that God is working outside the LCM. Again they have a hard time admitting certain things, but they each seemed to be in concession that the LCM is not the be all and end all.

They are cautious about what they say, either because they know they can't say certain things or because they don't want to offend. But I think in their hearts they know certain stances were wrong.

The LC mantra might still have their minds, but the Lord has their hearts, and he's working his way up, slowly but surely.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The mellowing of LCM members is a point I really wanted to make.

Great posts bro. Glad to see you again.

I think the latest round of quarantines have shaken the belief systems of many of the long time members. They remember Lee's earlier teachings about being open to receive others who ministered the word, and then compare that to the present mandate to have one publication, which eventually led to the elimination of half the Recovery.

Deep down they know that those blessed days of old will never again return due to these types of excessive and extra-Biblical demands from LSM. I believe the same heart-felt soul-searching questioning which we all passed thru on our way out the door has to be operating in them too.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I don't know what the end result will be, but this is definitely true. In the LC in the USA there is already a big generation gap between leadership--most of whom came under the direct influence of Witness Lee in their youth in the 1960s and 1970s--and their children (who are now in their 20s-40s). You are just starting to see that older generation beginning to pass away. Over time, they will be replaced by younger leaders who simply can't care as much about Witness Lee and the tight ideology of the LC as their forebears have and do. Senior LC leaders already express their grave concerns about the slackening standards in "the spirit of absoluteness" and "the purity of the Lord's recovery," etc. The discrepancies will only get bigger. I believe that eventually, as the LC continues to get more and more and more institutional (all the while denying it), many younger members will be disheartened and see no reason to go along with it.

I tend to agree with what you're saying. Holy Word For Morning Revival has become part of their religious institution. Younger generations who continue to meet with the local churches take the HWFMR as a means of placating. It's a "what we do", but not who we are. One publication (LSM) has become part of the package of what it is to meet with a local church. Younger generations just aren't absolute as the older generations would like them to be. Certainly there's some pretension for sake of the meetings and following the meetings go back to normal life.
It just isn't as the older generations would prefer (consuming the publications 24/7).

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Terry

I tend to agree with what you're saying. Holy Word For Morning Revival has become part of their religious institution. Younger generations who continue to meet with the local churches take the HWFMR as a means of placating. It's a "what we do", but not who we are. One publication (LSM) has become part of the package of what it is to meet with a local church. Younger generations just aren't absolute as the older generations would like them to be. Certainly there's some pretension for sake of the meetings and following the meetings go back to normal life.
It just isn't as the older generations would prefer (consuming the publications 24/7).

I've been wondering about the transfer of power to the next generation as well. I think most of the old guard came out of dreaded Christianity where they were originally saved, whereas the younger leaders were saved within the recovery. I don't have much hope for the recovery, I think it will become more insular and eventually implode.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

I've been wondering about the transfer of power to the next generation as well. I think most of the old guard came out of dreaded Christianity where they were originally saved, whereas the younger leaders were saved within the recovery. I don't have much hope for the recovery, I think it will become more insular and eventually implode.

I know the LC mindset is what happens in Christianity is irrelevant to the Recovery, but this haughty attitude is why the Recovery is destined to repeat history. If the leading brothers have learned anything, the fruit of division is division and that's exactly what the fruit of the Recovery is. Just like the Exclusive Brethren, history indicates there will be division after division.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

I've been wondering about the transfer of power to the next generation as well. I think most of the old guard came out of dreaded Christianity where they were originally saved, whereas the younger leaders were saved within the recovery. I don't have much hope for the recovery, I think it will become more insular and eventually implode.

The so-called "next generation" that will be entrusted with the reigns of the recovery will be limited to those who have been vetted through FTTA attendance. But maybe they will never get the chance, maybe they will become disillusioned before then. I hear that Ron says that he's "not stepping aside for anyone."

In all actuality, I think that the younger generation in the LC is not there because of any 'vision' that they think that they have. They are there because the LC is their community. I think this even holds true for those who have/are attending the FTTA. The minute that the LC ceases to meet their need of community, they will likely leave. Obviously the older generation sticks around because of heartfelt convictions about what the LC stands for. Once that generation gradually disappears, most might find the narrowness to be silly.

Just recently, I was thinking of all those that I knew in the LC who 'disappeared' over the years. I was actually shocked at how many people I could think of. Just based on my experience, I think the retention rate is nothing worth bragging about. All signs point towards a failed system. Of course, I don't think the LC will disappear any time soon, but the outlook is grim.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In all actuality, I think that the younger generation in the LC is not there because of any 'vision' that they think that they have. They are there because the LC is their community. I think this even holds true for those who have/are attending the FTTA. The minute that the LC ceases to meet their need of community, they will likely leave. Obviously the older generation sticks around because of heartfelt convictions about what the LC stands for. Once that generation gradually disappears, most might find the narrowness to be silly.

Just recently, I was thinking of all those that I knew in the LC who 'disappeared' over the years. I was actually shocked at how many people I could think of. Just based on my experience, I think the retention rate is nothing worth bragging about. All signs point towards a failed system. Of course, I don't think the LC will disappear any time soon, but the outlook is grim.

From my own experience, this analysis hits the nail right on the head. For so many of the younger generation, even the FTTA set, it's all about the community, belonging to something, being connected with others, and having a network.

But you are also right that so many leave. I've considered this before. LC leaders like to say that 50% of the young people eventually drop out and leave. However, from my own observation, I think the number is closer to 80-90%. Even FTTA graduates slowly leave over time. Most leave quietly, I think, because they do not want to deal with backlash.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

From my own experience, this analysis hits the nail right on the head. For so many of the younger generation, even the FTTA set, it's all about the community, belonging to something, being connected with others, and having a network.

But you are also right that so many leave. I've considered this before. LC leaders like to say that 50% of the young people eventually drop out and leave. However, from my own observation, I think the number is closer to 80-90%. Even FTTA graduates slowly leave over time. Most leave quietly, I think, because they do not want to deal with backlash.

People in the LC are taught that natural friendships are bad, so what are these young firebrands from the FFT getting out of their "community"? I think there could be a double standard where FTT saints have a unique "friendship" that is not shared with regular saints.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by HERn

People in the LC are taught that natural friendships are bad, so what are these young firebrands from the FFT getting out of their "community"? I think there could be a double standard where FTT saints have a unique "friendship" that is not shared with regular saints.

I think the recovery will eventually be controlled by the FTT saints, anyone else will be suspect and looked at as a second class citizen.

[HERn]

I apologize for multiple posts. I think the GLA portion of the recovery has the best chance of becoming normal, after the reign of TC. One of my close family members was with the GLA branch and they were reaching out to their communities with music and marriage conferences.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by HERn

People in the LC are taught that natural friendships are bad, so what are these young firebrands from the FFT getting out of their "community"? I think there could be a double standard where FTT saints have a unique "friendship" that is not shared with regular saints.

Do they actually still teach that friendships are bad?? It's worse than I thought. That's a doctrine of demons if there ever was one.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Do they actually still teach that friendships are bad?? It's worse than I thought. That's a doctrine of demons if there ever was one.

YES! About four years ago I went to dinner with a leadong one. I guess I was so happy with the ."fellowship" that I was gushing like a school girl, when the leading one looked at me and said "brother xxxxxxx we don't have friends in the church life". This is not a recovery, it's a man honoring sect of Christianity.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Do they actually still teach that friendships are bad?? It's worse than I thought. That's a doctrine of demons if there ever was one.

I have heard that spoken in the LC, though not in those exact words. I remember attending a semi-annual training where one of the speakers said something about honey signifying natural affection and then went on to say that we don't have natural relationships in the church life.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I have heard that spoken in the LC, though not in those exact words. I remember attending a semi-annual training where one of the speakers said something about honey signifying natural affection and then went on to say that we don't have natural relationships in the church life.

They base that teaching on some obscure verse from Leviticus, which btw serves their program rather than the God or His children. Note how this overrides the plain and obvious verses of the NT, like Rom 1.31 and 2 Tim 3.3.

I am convinced that teaching was developed in the aftermath of an exclusive Brethren division to prevent another exodus of believers. It is fear mongering at its worst, deceiving the saints into believing that loving their program and its leaders exceeded loving God or loving your brothers and sisters.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

YES! About four years ago I went to dinner with a leadong one. I guess I was so happy with the ."fellowship" that I was gushing like a school girl, when the leading one looked at me and said "brother xxxxxxx we don't have friends in the church life". This is not a recovery, it's a man honoring sect of Christianity.

In other words, you can love Witness Lee with your whole heart, your whole mind, and with all your strength, but not your wife or the brother next to you.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by HERn

I apologize for multiple posts. I think the GLA portion of the recovery has the best chance of becoming normal, after the reign of TC. One of my close family members was with the GLA branch and they were reaching out to their communities with music and marriage conferences.

What's a marriage conference?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

What's a marriage conference?

In Washington state it's a weekend conference that is basically marriage workshops. Transparency between spouses is essential to the conference being beneficial for their marriage.
I know in the local churches this would be looked down upon because focus is on marriages and not the ministry. Which is why LC couples with marriage issues are relegated to going outside the LC fellowship to get real guidance and counseling. Any attempts to be more absolute for the ministry would simply be futile in respect to marriage.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by HERn

People in the LC are taught that natural friendships are bad, so what are these young firebrands from the FFT getting out of their "community"? I think there could be a double standard where FTT saints have a unique "friendship" that is not shared with regular saints.

The way this is presented in the LC is that "natural" relationships are bad--because such relationships are a hindrance to the building up of the Body of Christ. There is something in there (it is true that we should not love only those who are somehow appealing to us), but this is taken to an extreme application that causes people to be aloof and/or feel condemned. With younger members of the LC, however, all of this (in actual practice) goes out the window. Interaction among most younger members is really just a social thing--based on a common understanding of one another having grown up in such a specific kind of environment. This is only more the case for FTTA graduates. But things can get spiritualized so easily. Pay someone a visit, and it's called "blending." Have a conversation, and it's called "fellowship." This justifies what should be perfectly normal and healthy interaction.

As an aside, I have heard the principle of only being "equally yoked" applied to the prospect of marriages between FTTA grads and non-FTTA grads. The dichotomy of FTTA vs. non-FTTA only gets stronger. It looked like this might happen at an even higher level with FTTA-XB, but, for now, that endeavor hasn't really stuck.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In other words, you can love Witness Lee with your whole heart, your whole mind, and with all your strength, but not your wife or the brother next to you.

Hi Ohio,

Like I said, discouraging friendships is a doctrine of demons.

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 1: Tim 4:1-3

...God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 1 Tim 6:17b

Surely if food and marriage are to be received with thanksgiving then friendship should be as well. Where does the Bible say that friendship is only a characteristic of the fallen (natural) man?

Actually the Bible warns that not having natural affection is bad. (Romans 1:31; 2 Tim 3:3). Scholars conjecture that this mostly refers to affection of parents for their children. But if affection for children is healthy then surely affection for other people in your life is as well.

Witness Lee condemned "affection." Maybe if he would have had a little more himself he wouldn't have viewed other human beings as so disposable. Maybe he would have thought twice before assassinating the character of so many just because they didn't genuflect to him. Condemning friendships is just a way to emotionally isolate people to make them more dependent on the movement.

I'm very grateful for my Christian friends, including those I've made on this board!

[NewManLiving]

It certainly appears that WL demanded loyalty from everyone but gave his loyalty to no one. Unfortunately his own ministry took the first place in his heart. If you were absolute for his ministry then he "considered" and "used" you, if not he "dismissed" and/or attempted to "ruin" you. No difference is seen in his disciples' behavior. They bought into that one and only Oracle nonsense hook-line-and-sinker for decades. Admitting that they were deceived by a man and his ego would cause their world to crumble. It is going to take the mercy of the Lord to break it. Perhaps it already has begun with a "Hollywood" production

[HERn]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

What's a marriage conference?

It's where I end up after my wife says "we need to talk". Pretty harmless things for the most part, except in break outs when i have to share feelings/thoughts I have about my marriage and all.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

As an aside, I have heard the principle of only being "equally yoked" applied to the prospect of marriages between FTTA grads and non-FTTA grads. The dichotomy of FTTA vs. non-FTTA only gets stronger. It looked like this might happen at an even higher level with FTTA-XB, but, for now, that endeavor hasn't really stuck.

The term "equally yoked" I have heard as a term justifying divorce because a brother and sister were deemed not equally yoked. It's not a term I would encourage using. Instead when it comes to marriage, I would give the same "fellowship" my aunt gave to me many years ago. The one you marry should be your best friend.

As for FTTA grads versus Non FTTA, I saw that in the mid 90's. Appearances and in practices creates a class system.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

As an aside, I have heard the principle of only being "equally yoked" applied to the prospect of marriages between FTTA grads and non-FTTA grads. The dichotomy of FTTA vs. non-FTTA only gets stronger. It looked like this might happen at an even higher level with FTTA-XB, but, for now, that endeavor hasn't really stuck.

What is that FTTA-XB?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What is that FTTA-XB?

Full-time training extension Boston.

Because two years of "training" isn't enough...

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Full-time training extension Boston.

Because two years of "training" isn't enough...

That's fine and dandy if trainees are guaranteed full time support indefinitely as full-timers. What if they're told, "oh you'll have to get a job because there's no support?" Not all localities have the revenue to support full timers. Maybe if those localities cut back on what LSM extorts from them, there could be more funding to support full timers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

That's fine and dandy if trainees are guaranteed full time support indefinitely as full-timers. What if they're told, "oh you'll have to get a job because there's no support?"

Kind of like what happened to most of the GLA workers.

[NewManLiving]

Originally Posted by Terry

That's fine and dandy if trainees are guaranteed full time support indefinitely as full-timers. What if they're told, "oh you'll have to get a job because there's no support?" Not all localities have the revenue to support full timers. Maybe if those localities cut back on what LSM extorts from them, there could be more funding to support full timers.

When one looks at the complete picture from the outside it becomes questionable as to how LSM can still defend their claim as A/The New Testanment church, or especially The Lord's Recovery. Apart from their thin doctrine of locality, which appears more of a control mechanism than anything else, I see little that resembles a NT assembly. The centrality of Christ may still be there on paper but the reality and fruit of the cross is lacking. If fact, it is run exactly like a for-profit corperation with stock holders and a blended CEO.
To compare themselves to Paul and his ministry is outrageous. Paul never set up his ministry as a personal business to extort profit from franchise churches. He never once cut off churches because they did not agree with him. At one point all of Asia rejected him. He never forced anyone to read only his letters. The list goes on and on

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

That's fine and dandy if trainees are guaranteed full time support indefinitely as full-timers. What if they're told, "oh you'll have to get a job because there's no support?" Not all localities have the revenue to support full timers. Maybe if those localities cut back on what LSM extorts from them, there could be more funding to support full timers.

I personally don't despise a desire to be "trained", (at least in a non-LSM sense), however, any notion that an institutionalized "training" is needed to live a "normal Christian life" is highly toxic, and indeed has discouraged many from running their own course.

Part of the problem with everyone being pushed to serve full time is just not the monetary aspect, but whether or not it was someone's own initiative in the first place.

If someone is pressured into doing so, it is not only a waste of church money, but it prevents them from doing what they were called to do, it wastes multiple years of their life and it leaves them without direction once they become disillusioned.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I personally don't despise a desire to be "trained", (at least in a non-LSM sense), however, any notion that an institutionalized "training" is needed to live a "normal Christian life" is highly toxic, and indeed has discouraged many from running their own course.

Part of the problem with everyone being pushed to serve full time is just not the monetary aspect, but whether or not it was someone's own initiative in the first place.

If someone is pressured into doing so, it is not only a waste of church money, but it prevents them from doing what they were called to do, it wastes multiple years of their life and it leaves them without direction once they become disillusioned.

A number of GLA brothers over the years have been publicly "challenged" by TC to quit their jobs and serve full time. Who knows if the Lord really called them or not. They left "the work" with little to no severance, opportunity, or healthcare.

TC often pushed the Blendeds for some long-term FTTA progress statistics, hoping to discredit the excessive hype accompanying their training programs, but how about some stats on the GLA. Nearly every brother I knew and served with in the GLA eventually faced the crisis of reentering the work force.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I personally don't despise a desire to be "trained", (at least in a non-LSM sense), however, any notion that an institutionalized "training" is needed to live a "normal Christian life" is highly toxic, and indeed has discouraged many from running their own course.

Part of the problem with everyone being pushed to serve full time is just not the monetary aspect, but whether or not it was someone's own initiative in the first place.

If someone is pressured into doing so, it is not only a waste of church money, but it prevents them from doing what they were called to do, it wastes multiple years of their life and it leaves them without direction once they become disillusioned.

A training in the non-LSM sense (Fuller, Moody, etc) would be for more comprehensive than my perspective of FTTA.
When it comes specifically to FTTA, my advice attending shouldn't be due to peer pressure. Which is what I told a son of long time family-friends. Even when I was single there was external pressure to attend FTTA. I had no interest.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

. . . however, any notion that an institutionalized "training" is needed to live a "normal Christian life" is . . .

I think that it is safe to say that for most of the Christian community, including the rank and file of the LCM, the only need for living a "normal Christian life" is instruction in righteousness. The whole idea that the "every good work" (for which we need equipping) is something outside of loving your neighbor as yourself (for the majority of the believers) is something for which I cannot find basis in the scripture.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that it is safe to say that for most of the Christian community, including the rank and file of the LCM, the only need for living a "normal Christian life" is instruction in righteousness. The whole idea that the "every good work" (for which we need equipping) is something outside of loving your neighbor as yourself (for the majority of the believers) is something for which I cannot find basis in the scripture.

Frankly, the whole idea of normality, or normalcy, as presented in the LC movement seems to have little basis in objective reality.

For example, here are two logical propositions that can be heard floating there. Try to superimpose them. And then ask yourself, how normal it looks.

1. We're the church in Dallas. We're one with all believers in Dallas, and our church is the lampstand, the testimony of Jesus in this locality.

2. We only accept one publication, to avoid confusion.

So we're to suppose that you believe it proper (i.e. 'normal') for every Christian assembly in Dallas (and Duluth, and Butte, and Minneapolis, and Iowa City, etc) to only read Witness Lee and Watchman Nee's exegeses, as published by Living Stream Ministry in Anaheim California?

Are you out of your cotton-pickin' mind? Or do you presume us all to be that stupid? The LC ultimately seems to sink into a PT Barnum act, that of finding the simple and silly and unstable, to draw them into their net of 'normality', so-called. As they say, "The Recovery isn't for everyone." No indeed; you really have to swallow some clunkers, to stay there.

But I guess mental indigestion, or simultaneously absorbing contradictory thoughts, is supposed to be normal. Probably, that's why WL told us to "Get out of your mind." Don't think. Just say, Ayyyeee - maaayyynnnnn...

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

Are you out of your cotton-pickin' mind? Or do you presume us all to be that stupid?

Both, I think.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Are you out of your cotton-pickin' mind?

In our lovely PC world under Yobama progressivism, this statement is highly provocative and horribly racist. These loaded images recall the slavery days of the deep south. You might want to reconsider your choice of words.

Unless, of course, you want to be a part of the anti-PC movement, which still holds to the 1st amendment.

[OBW]

Aron,

I see your springboard from my post into yours. It was bugging me at first that you really did not address mine.

But sometimes I wonder why it is that we are quick to point to what's wrong with them without even suggesting what might instead be right (not with them, but as opposed to them). That was the reason for my post. It was to suggest that the needs of the normal Christian population is much different from all the stuff that they (and a whole lot of others) teach us about. As if the highest theology is needed for a righteous life.

It is in this one way that I find so many of the old-line denominations, including the RCC, to be superior. They do not spend their time trying to get everyone to understand whether an "a" should or should not be implied in a particular verse and instead stick to the needs of living the Christian life. Not saying they all are safely OK on everything or doctrinally sound. But despite doctrinal errors, it may be that when you are worried about teaching every doctrine to everybody, your errors are not really of any particular consequence.

And maybe their followers are more consistently "Christian" in how they live. (I did say "maybe.")

But for all of us that spend our Sundays (and morning quiet times, or a least one bible study a week) trying to bone up on the exegesis of the hot-topic verse or passage of the week that doesn't really help us with life, just with our quota of right thinking — maybe we are all just busy in unimportant things.

Just like all the stuff the LCM constantly inundates their members with.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

For example, here are two logical propositions that can be heard floating there. Try to superimpose them. And then ask yourself, how normal it looks.

1. We're the church in Dallas. We're one with all believers in Dallas, and our church is the lampstand, the testimony of Jesus in this locality.

2. We only accept one publication, to avoid confusion.

So we're to suppose that you believe it proper (i.e. 'normal') for every Christian assembly in Dallas (and Duluth, and Butte, and Minneapolis, and Iowa City, etc) to only read Witness Lee and Watchman Nee's exegeses, as published by Living Stream Ministry in Anaheim California?

Are you out of your cotton-pickin' mind? Or do you presume us all to be that stupid? The LC ultimately seems to sink into a PT Barnum act, that of finding the simple and silly and unstable, to draw them into their net of 'normality', so-called. As they say, "The Recovery isn't for everyone." No indeed; you really have to swallow some clunkers, to stay there.

If one tries to employ logic and reason, the expected response is to get out of your mind and don't become contentious.
To make an honest statement regarding the local churches would be to say:

We're the church in Bellevue. We're one with all believers in Bellevue, (followed by the disclaimer "as long as you only accept our ministry publications as the one publication, to avoid confusion") and our church is the lampstand, the testimony of Jesus in this locality.

Reality is if you're a Christian in Bellevue, Dallas, San Bernardino, etc and you don't take the ministry publications as the one publication, there is no ground for fellowship and you will be considered as "meeting with the denominations in division".

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

Reality is if you're a Christian in Bellevue, Dallas, San Bernardino, etc and you don't take the ministry publications as the one publication, there is no ground for fellowship and you will be considered as "meeting with the denominations in division".

Imagine a world in which no Christian, anywhere, reads anything other than the ministry of Witness Lee (to avoid confusion, of course). That's the world the LC inhabits, and it has no basis in objective reality.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

seems to have little basis in objective reality...

When I say 'objective reality', as a Christian, I mean principally three things: the Bible as our written guide, or fixed canon; the larger Christian conversation as it's come down to us over the centuries; and our own experience as humans; if someone says 'dog' or 'cat' or 'he' or 'you' I'm supposed to have some experiential knowledge to fall back upon.

What's happened here is that over time WL bullied and cajoled us into dropping these safeguards and taking his personal words as "God's oracle", or present speaking. In the world of the local churches, words could change meanings, could contradict each other, and could be opposed to and by scripture, Christian consensus, and our own hard-won experiences. But if the 'oracle' said it, it was real.

So if WL taught that the Father is the Son, and a cat is a dog, and up is down, then we'd take it. Or, maybe a cat is sometimes a cat (in the gospels) but sometimes a dog (in the epistles). "You sit at My right hand" lost conventional meaning in Lee's world: "You" and "My" now represented the same thing. So my question was, what's normal in this world? The answer seemed to be, whatever God's oracle wants it to be. Subjectivity reigns. The fallen self now imagines itself: "I sit a god".

Originally Posted by OBW

Aron,

I see your springboard from my post into yours. It was bugging me at first that you really did not address mine..

I did riff off yours, true. Such is my wont.

But we were saying the same thing. You said that normality, in Christian experience, is to conjoin "love your neighbor as yourself" with real and practical expressions of love and care toward others. Not to masticate high peak theology, so-called. I didn't address your post because it stood as a self-evident statement of biblical truth.

Originally Posted by OBW

But sometimes I wonder why it is that we are quick to point to what's wrong with them without even suggesting what might instead be right (not with them, but as opposed to them)... the needs of the normal Christian population is much different from all the stuff that they (and a whole lot of others) teach us about. As if the highest theology is needed for a righteous life.

What I love about this idea is that it puts us all at square zero. If we say we've laid hold, we're exposed as frauds. If I say I'm normal, based on what? My dreams and imaginations? But conversely, if I spend my days harping about "fallen Christianity" or even bad old WL and the Blendeds, what good have I done? Nothing; I'm still at square zero.

No, our roots are in our nothingness, and in the good that God has done. Jesus destroyed the devil on the cross. What Gospel can add to that? Should I try, I'd reveal myself as a pretender and fraud. Jesus is the King. May that every "good work" (assuming that I even do any) build upon that one foundation. Not some "normal church" theology, and not on unceasing criticism of everyone and everything else. But my eyes are fixed upon Jesus alone.

[OBW]

When I say 'objective reality', as a Christian, I mean principally three things: . . . . ; the larger Christian conversation as it's come down to us over the centuries; . . . .

Reading this part hit me in a funny way. While we can complain about various parts of that larger conversation, I note that outside of a few stand-out names, between the time of the events in the NT and Martin Luther, we tend to skip right over about a millennium-and-a-half of time.

No larger Christian conversation here! Move along!

Can we really make reference to being one with all Christians and presume that the majority of Christian history was simply spiritually darkness? Not saying it was hopping with new insight. But then "new" is not always a good thing when it should have all been there by 100 AD.

I've never been involved in the local church, but have a sibling and family who have been for 40 yrs. They had just become believers right before their involvement in the LC, and had just started becoming caring, growing individuals. Upon joining the LC in WA state, I noticed that they seemed to become argumentative and condescending with little regard for extended family members, which continues to this day. They don't seem to have any concept of having concern for the well being of others. Also, I think the LC has been very detrimental to my sibling's mental health.

I've been praying that they as well as the whole LC would be delivered from deception. I'm glad to read in someone else's post that some LC members seem to be mellowing out. I hope this includes true repentance and humility. I pray that the LC and my sibling and family would be brought to true repentance before God, learn to walk in love toward others, start reading the Bible without the local church commentaries, and learn to pray - truly commune with God - without the chanting.

[Cal]

The senior pastor at our church likes to say near the end of his messages, “I’m almost done.” He then adds, “By the way, what does it mean when a pastor says he’s almost done?” To which we all answer with relish, “Nothing!” “Right," he says. "Absolutely nothing."

So it is sometimes with “summing up,” which can continue indefinitely as inspiration comes. So please forgive me.

I’d like to talk a little about this board, the history of it, and how things have progressed over the years. Sometime around 2006 I stumbled onto an LC forum site run by The Bereans, a quirky group of cult-warriors based in, of all places, the Philippines. They meant well, but they never really “got” the LC. Their analysis of the LC was superficial and rather phoned-in. One of their top dogs was always acting as if LCers weren’t true Christians because their doctrine of the Trinity was unorthodox. That was pretty much the extent of his analysis. But they did provide a forum in which some of us found refuge and comfort.

It was the Wild West back then. Feelings were raw, manners were optional, and LC loyalists were much more numerous and bold. Opinions flew like arrows at an Indian uprising. At some point the La Palma Poobahs issued a papal bull “advising” members to steer clear of places of “death” like ours, and over time their appearances dwindled.

UntoHim was a moderator there and, being frustrated with the Bereans cluelessness, got the call to start an independent LC debate forum, the result of which is where you find yourself, Local Church Discussions. At first most did not migrate to LCD. But at some point the Bereans converted to new forum software and did not bother to transfer all the old posts from the old software. This was unfortunate, but served as a catalyst for people to move to this board.

At one point UntoHim talked me into being a moderator, which I felt to do for awhile, and was probably one of the most unpopular mods ever, being, probably, too opinionated for such a job. I also helped redesign the look of the site and codify its mission statement.

Eventually, I consciously tried to distance myself from the board, feeling that doing so was a necessary growth phase for me. But I do enjoy posting and feel confident now that the Lord is generally pleased with my participation most of the time. I post with the hope that my experiences might help people and challenge the LC leadership to do better. Writing is always therapeutic, and God gave me a knack for it. Sometimes I think one reason he did was just so I would post here.

One thing I’ve witnessed is how mellower we’ve all grown over time. Of course, we are all older, but also I feel we’ve each in his or her own way learned to listen to the Lord more and participate here as a service to him. I think most of us “get” now that people are watching, that we post for others as well as ourselves, and that rancor is usually unproductive anyway. Posting here has over time become a serious, though still informal, ministry for many of us. We have no leader, really, except the Holy Spirit, but he has slowly made us one. We still sometimes disagree, but less frequently make issues of it. I’ve never met anyone face-to-face, except Jane Anderson, though I’ve spoken with several brothers on the phone. I recommend getting in contact with each other. I always understand where people are coming from better when I’ve heard them speak.

If you are new here, realize that this place took time to build. Some planted, some watered, but God made it grow. The Blendeds may still view it as a devil’s lair, but it’s really just a place without which many would still be struggling on their own to find peace and clarity about their LC experiences. And take it from someone who knows, that’s a lonely place to exist.

I’m almost done. By the way, what does that mean? Right. Absolutely nothing.

So nearing the tenth anniversary of my first encounter with the Bereans site let me say this. I do not know what my state of mind would be if some of you had not had the courage to start conversing online with one another years ago, and if UntoHim had not been willing to stick his neck out and start this site. Not only do I not know, it's hard to imagine, because I just don't think the way I used to. Still, I remember enough to know I should be grateful for the peace and clarity the Lord has seen fit to grant me with your help.

To LCers, I hold no grudge, and appreciate your love for the Lord. To LC leaders, that little voice inside just might be the Lord telling you something. Try to listen to it and may you have the courage to obey it.

It is my hope and prayer that each of you know the peace, hope and purpose of God’s true plan for you; that you buy the field of obedience to get the treasure hidden there; that you learn to discern the Shepherd's voice. I know this forum can help. Just try not to mind the occasional arrow.

Thanks,

Igzy

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I’d like to talk a little about this board, the history of it, and how things have progressed over the years.

Thanks for sharing. I wondered what the history of the forum was.

[micah6v8]

Hi Igzy

Thanks for sharing on the history of the forum. I have found the forum helpful at times. I like to express my thanks to the founders of the forum and those who helped kept it alive. May God work through this forum.