Regarding the Ground of Locality - David Canfield

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The next hurdle Nee faced was "who gets to appoint the elders in your new THE CHURCH is a particular city". In the NT elders are appointed by apostles, and Nee had previously denied that he, or any of the Local Church movement pioneers with him, were apostles. So he had to do a double-take and boldly declare "ok, ok, I guess we are apostles after all!"

The LRC logic says the following: Our leader was the apostle and he appointed our elders therefore they are the correct elders in the city therefore ours is the correct church in the city.

Leaving alone for the moment the completely unsupportable presumption that their leader was indeed an apostle with the authority to appoint elders, the idea that they are the correct church in the city because of their presumed apostolic elder appointment emphasizes the fact that their whole claim to church legitimacy is based on the so-called apostle, not on Christ or even the church.

Nowhere does the Bible claim that church legitimacy is based on who appointed the elders in a city. Apostles never got to decide what was the church and what wasn't. Furthermore, elders, whether appointed by the apostle or not, never got to make this distinction either.

Ultimately, then, the LRC oneness is not based on the oneness of the Body, but rather on who is the apostle. This is a false oneness.

[hosepipe]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LRC logic says the following: Our leader was the apostle and he appointed our elders therefore they are the correct elders in the city therefore ours is the correct church in the city.

Leaving alone for the moment the completely unsupportable presumption that their leader was indeed an apostle with the authority to appoint elders, the idea that they are the correct church in the city because of their presumed apostolic elder appointment emphasizes the fact that their whole claim to church legitimacy is based on the so-called apostle, not on Christ or even the church.

Nowhere does the Bible claim that church legitimacy is based on who appointed the elders in a city. Apostles never got to decide what was the church and what wasn't. Furthermore, elders, whether appointed by the apostle or not, never got to make this distinction either.

Ultimately, then, the LRC oneness is not based on the oneness of the Body, but rather on who is the apostle. This is a false oneness.

--------------------------------------------------

Good discussion.. you pretty much nailed it...
Is the Bride of Christ "groinal" and the Body of Christ as well?..
Or are they metaphorical references speaking of "the spirit"..

The Roman Catholic Church(RCC) has gone pretty much gone "groinal" with
Pope's, Bishops, Cardinals flamboyant clothing, jewelery and statues of
every size and shape.. and the fleshly host to feed the flesh of every
congregant for fleshly means.. by a fleshly priest.. They have gone
"groinal" to the Nines.. The rest of christianty has gone groinal to the
eights, sevens an sixes.. The local church surely has..

Is the Body of Christ "male flesh" or "spirit"?.. Is the Bride of Christ a woman or a spirit?.. When you take a metaphor and morph it into "skin and bones" the metaphor can be "cartoonized".. Making a deep spiritual truth a cartoon..

Elders, bishops, oracles, deacons and apostles can "groinize" the church..
As they have in many places.. How can you make a Sheep Pen other than
a Synagogue?.. So many options have been tried.. in Church history..

I have forgiven the Local Church for "groinizing" the church...
The RCC is one of many doing the same thing.. Does God have the body parts to sit on a throne?.. I suspect there are many things we as humans cannot conceive of yet.. So, we "groinize" many things.. Could be when we look into a mirror we are beholding "the devil"...

Interesting dialog.. and meme.. thanks...

[OBW]

Some interesting questions.

Lee and Nee seem to say that the "apostle" that establishes a church is the one who appoints the elders there. I don't know about mainland China or Taiwan, but in the US, now many churches did Lee establish? Even if you say that churches were established by the discovery of Lee's teachings by some locals, did Lee actually do anything to establish any of them?

And if not, then how is he claiming authority to name elders?

If 30 people (or more or less) leave the church in Dallas (or a collection of churches in Texas) to establish a church in OKC, or Alexandria, LA, or to join with those who are already followers in Shreveport, how is Lee involved other than possibly being asked for an opinion on the venture (often referred to as "fellowship")? On what basis does he claim authority to appoint the elders for any of those places?

And it would seem that in those places where Paul made mention of appointing elders, it seems that it is always the appointment of locals after some observation. He seems to have left Timothy for that purpose in at least one case, and instructed Titus to do it in another. He did not send Titus to be the lead elder, nor Timothy.

There is no example in scripture of a whole collection of Christians moving from one city to another and simply declaring themselves to be the church, naming those among them as the elders, and expecting to then begin to add to their transplanted numbers from the locals (who are not considered for eldership).

Where did Lee (and Nee) get this stuff?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

Some interesting questions.

If 30 people (or more or less) leave the church in Dallas (or a collection of churches in Texas) to establish a church in OKC, or Alexandria, LA, or to join with those who are already followers in Shreveport, how is Lee involved other than possibly being asked for an opinion on the venture (often referred to as "fellowship")? On what basis does he claim authority to appoint the elders for any of those places?

There is no example in scripture of a whole collection of Christians moving from one city to another and simply declaring themselves to be the church, naming those among them as the elders, and expecting to then begin to add to their transplanted numbers from the locals (who are not considered for eldership).

OBW, along the lines of what you've posted. Not pertaining to eldership, but the claim of standing on the local ground. It's been spoken, but yet brothers and sisters will travel beyond their own city in order to meet with the nearest Local church which is after all not quote local to their own residence.
Example: Suppose prior to this past summer you lived in Vancouver, Washington. Since there was no Local Church, you had to drive across the Columbia River to Portland in order to meet with the Church in Portland. All the while there are local churches in Vancouver or different varieties. Once it had been decided Vancouver was going to "take the ground", only then could you meet in Vancouver on the ground of oneness. What oneness is there with other Christians in Vancouver, WA?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

Example: Suppose prior to this past summer you lived in Vancouver, Washington. Since there was no Local Church, you had to drive across the Columbia River to Portland in order to meet with the Church in Portland.

Interesting choice of locations. My son lives in Vancouver, WA. But his only contact with the local church has been through his cousins who were always so haughty about the LRC or being at my parent's house and going with them to some meeting.That's been many years ago.

And I expect it will stay that way. He is part of a church in Vancouver. He has no reason to consider the Church in Portland. And some reason not to.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

Interesting choice of locations. My son lives in Vancouver, WA. But his only contact with the local church has been through his cousins who were always so haughty about the LRC or being at my parent's house and going with them to some meeting.That's been many years ago.

And I expect it will stay that way. He is part of a church in Vancouver. He has no reason to consider the Church in Portland. And some reason not to.

Choice due for several reasons:
1. Vancouver became a Local Church this past summer.
2. Back in the mid-ninties when I was a single brother, I attended a home meeting in Vancouver with the family I was visiting in SE Portland.
3. I do have a sister living in a Portland suburb with her family. Like me, she was raised in the local churches. Now, no need to meet with the Church in Portland, when she and her husband are very active with the Christians in their community. It comes down to choice. Why make a lengthy drive where the Church of Portland meets, when there are many Christian gatherings in west of Portland where my sister lives?

From Post 66: Thankful Jane >>

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

In the Bible, I cannot find that “oneness” is what is most important to God with respect to His people and His habitation. Rather, I find that His emphasis is on their holiness, in both Old and New Testaments.

The argument presented by this poster is flawed. It is a fallacy of instances argument. There are more instances of the word "holiness" than there are "oneness" therefore God cares more about holiness than oneness so the argument hinges. The poster concludes that we should take care of holiness and relegates oneness to a lower tier of importance to the point of dismissing it..

There is no basis to apply that kind of "statistical" logic to the Bible. we know holiness, oneness, godliness, righteousness, mercy, kindness, grace, etc. are all mentioned by the Bible and we don't rank them by instances to determine what is more important than another. All are important, relevant, desirable, and applicable in the christian life.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The argument presented by this poster is flawed. It is a fallacy of instances argument. There are more instances of the word "holiness" than there are "oneness" therefore God cares more about holiness than oneness so the argument hinges. The poster concludes that we should take care of holiness and relegates oneness to a lower tier of importance to the point of dismissing it..
There is no basis to apply that kind of "statistical" logic to the Bible. we know holiness, oneness, godliness, righteousness, mercy, kindness, grace, etc. are all mentioned by the Bible and we don't rank them by instances to determine what is more important than another. All are important, relevant, desirable, and applicable in the Christian life.

I will admit that reading scripture is not an effort in statistics. But there is a difference between commands and prayers. Between numerous commands concerning righteousness and holiness, and a prayer concerning oneness.

And when coupled with the way that oneness is mentioned in the indirect speaking (in the epistles), it should be clear that whatever oneness is, it comes out of righteousness. As we grow in obedience, we will "arrive" at the unity of the faith. We don't dictate the terms of oneness and then righteousness will follow. You obey in righteousness and discover that you are becoming one with others who are doing the same.

Let's put it another way. Majoring on righteousness will result in oneness. Majoring on oneness will not necessarily result in righteousness. The proof is somewhat anecdotal. But very real. While far from complete, the numbers of those in Christianity that are focused on righteousness rather than some kind of oneness/unity are becoming more one. Not necessarily in terms of just dropping everything and meeting together, but in realizing that they can meet together because those other things are not the main thing. In the mean time, those who focus on oneness/unity are busy defining the basis of their unity more narrowly (and differently) than Jesus did. And becoming what Paul chastised the Corinthians for in their divisions.

Originally Posted by OBW

I will admit that reading scripture is not an effort in statistics. But there is a difference between commands and prayers. Between numerous commands concerning righteousness and holiness, and a prayer concerning oneness.

And when coupled with the way that oneness is mentioned in the indirect speaking (in the epistles), it should be clear that whatever oneness is, it comes out of righteousness. As we grow in obedience, we will "arrive" at the unity of the faith. We don't dictate the terms of oneness and then righteousness will follow. You obey in righteousness and discover that you are becoming one with others who are doing the same.

Let's put it another way. Majoring on righteousness will result in oneness. Majoring on oneness will not necessarily result in righteousness. The proof is somewhat anecdotal. But very real. While far from complete, the numbers of those in Christianity that are focused on righteousness rather than some kind of oneness/unity are becoming more one. Not necessarily in terms of just dropping everything and meeting together, but in realizing that they can meet together because those other things are not the main thing. In the mean time, those who focus on oneness/unity are busy defining the basis of their unity more narrowly (and differently) than Jesus did. And becoming what Paul chastised the Corinthians for in their divisions.

I am quite uneasy with the whole "majoring on righteousness will result in oneness" theory because so many divisions within the body are justified with a self serving pseudo righteousness.

I would look at this differently. If I was going to start a vineyard I might spend a lot of time discussing which type of seed to use, what are the merits, why is this the best choice for my vineyard. This would be based on the nature of the seed, how hardy it is, what soil, what climate, etc. You might consider all of that discussion to be analogous to a discussion of holiness in the Bible (assuming you like the definition of holiness to be the nature of God). However, once that seed is planted the discussion on choosing the which seed to go with is no longer of primary importance. Now the issue becomes how to help my vineyard thrive, how to fight the pests, how to irrigate, harvest and prune. At this point my focus would be on the production of the vineyard and how to maximize quality and quantity. Now if I prune a branch from the vine tree that is not because it was not "holy" (that branch had the same nature as the rest of the vine tree) it is because the vine tree does not assume it will have a husbandman taking care of its every need, so it's focus is not aligned with mine.

Now if you were in the LRC you know that brothers and sisters who no longer meet with the LRC are equated with backsliders. They go back to sin, they dry up, etc.

However the real question is not about sin, or holiness, or righteousness. The real question, according to John 15, is "fruitfulness". Since leaving the LRC have you become more fruitful? If so the husbandman cut off the LRC so that you could be more fruitful. Since leaving the LRC has the LRC become more fruitful now that you are gone?

But if you are a fruitful member then there will be a oneness in that. This is why the export of wine and spirits are so easy to cross cultures and borders.

So in this sense the oneness is the expression of the final product. Holiness would be a critical discussion for the husbandman prior to planting his vineyard, oneness would be a critical discussion for the wine critic after tasting the final product, and righteousness would be the path that we walk from start to finish.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Unregistered 2

I am quite uneasy with the whole "majoring on righteousness will result in oneness" theory because so many divisions within the body are justified with a self serving pseudo righteousness.

Most divisions in the body that stand willfully apart from the rest are not about righteousness, but about doctrine. And the doctrine of the LRC is pseudo oneness. A kind of cookie-cutter oneness married to an open meeting style that looks enticing, but allows believers to ignore righteousness by diminishing its importance in favor of something called "the spirit."

Originally Posted by Unregistered 2

Now if you were in the LRC you know that brothers and sisters who no longer meet with the LRC are equated with backsliders. They go back to sin, they dry up, etc.

That is a presumption of unparalleled ignorance and arrogance. To declare that everyone who is not of your sect to be a "sinner" and "dried up" cannot be consistent with any kind of claim of oneness.

Originally Posted by Unregistered 2

However the real question is not about sin, or holiness, or righteousness. The real question, according to John 15, is "fruitfulness". Since leaving the LRC have you become more fruitful? If so the husbandman cut off the LRC so that you could be more fruitful. Since leaving the LRC has the LRC become more fruitful now that you are gone?

It would appear that the LRC is not particularly fruitful. Neither before nor after my departure.

The real question is whether you have the liberty to assess people and organizations based on how they appear (to you) to be before and after certain events. Does the condition of the LRC before or after me, or John Ingalls, or anyone else necessarily compare to the thrust of Jesus' speaking on the vine and the branches? The fact that you can presume to see a parallel does not make it so.

And the "real question" is not just any one thing. It is a further presumption to assume that the discussion of the vine and the branches, the pruning, the abiding, etc., is the only really important thing in scripture. In fact, taking some of Lee's own formula for importance, it would seem that this one is not preeminent. It is really only mentioned this once.

But righteousness, obedience, and holiness are mentioned over and over, even in the NT. And in the middle of Lee's "Kingdom Constitution" Jesus declares that anyone who teaches contrary to the righteousness found in the law (and the enhancements that Jesus gives) is the least in the kingdom. Based on that, it would seem that rather than learning from an apostle, an oracle, or an "acting god," the LRC has been following the teachings of one who is condemned (not in eternal terms) for teaching against the holiness and righteousness of God.

Just as Jane pointed out, oneness and unity are mentioned very few times. The one place that is most pointed on it was not a teaching or a command, but a prayer that it would come to be. And when Paul talked about it, his speaking was of something that would arise from growth, not something that would be the source of growth. It would arise from the focus on the faith. "Until we all arrive at the unity of the faith." Not the unity of the ministry, the unity of the ground, or the unity of the doctrine. We will likely continue to have honest disagreement over doctrines. And have debates about what is the best understanding. And the point of those is to spur one another on to a better understanding. But the LRC will be stuck arguing about unity with their dirt, with their so-called apostle-appointed elders, with their administration, and with the ministry of Lee as being "the ministry of the age."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered 2

I am quite uneasy with the whole "majoring on righteousness will result in oneness" theory because so many divisions within the body are justified with a self serving pseudo righteousness.

Let's look at this another way ...

I left the Recovery after 30 odd years mostly because the "majoring in oneness theory" resulted in so many excommunications and divisions, and because so much unrighteousness within the Recovery was "justified with a self-serving pseudo-oneness."

The Catholic Church should have proven to us once and for all that pseudo-oneness, or as I prefer to say, distorted oneness can be used by evil leaders to accomplish the most horrific of evils upon the children of God. Pseudo-oneness is a fake oneness, a oneness in appearance only, a man-made uniformity, a pretense of the real thing. Distorted oneness is far worse. It is used by men corrupt in conscience as a tool to silence the concerns of godly men crying out for righteousness. LSM is guilty of both forms of fake oneness.

Real oneness can never be orchestrated by a ministry headquarters. Real oneness is not even "of the body," as LSM loves to say, but real oneness is only "of the Spirit." The Lord prayed for this real oneness saying "as the Father and the Son are one." Thus real oneness is built upon a relationship with the Father and the Son. This relationship requires obedience, which is the foundation of righteousness.

It's amazing now for me to see LSM's supporters condemn "so many divisions within the body," when there are now "so many divisions" in the Recovery itself. Isn't there a name for that? Something like hypocrisy?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered 2

Now if you were in the LRC you know that brothers and sisters who no longer meet with the LRC are equated with backsliders. They go back to sin, they dry up, etc.

Question I raise, just because one may meet in the LRC does not mean you're immune to backsliding.
I do suggest it is possible to mask backsliding in the LRC. Just come to the LT meeting and perform by re-speaking the Holy Word for Morning Revival. I'm not saying everyone is performing, but the possibility exists. However, in each of our heart's we know whether we're backsliding or not. How much time is spent in the Word? What is our living?

Originally Posted by OBW

I will admit that reading scripture is not an effort in statistics. But there is a difference between commands and prayers. Between numerous commands concerning righteousness and holiness, and a prayer concerning oneness.

And when coupled with the way that oneness is mentioned in the indirect speaking (in the epistles), it should be clear that whatever oneness is, it comes out of righteousness. As we grow in obedience, we will "arrive" at the unity of the faith. We don't dictate the terms of oneness and then righteousness will follow. You obey in righteousness and discover that you are becoming one with others who are doing the same.

Let's put it another way. Majoring on righteousness will result in oneness. Majoring on oneness will not necessarily result in righteousness. The proof is somewhat anecdotal. But very real. While far from complete, the numbers of those in Christianity that are focused on righteousness rather than some kind of oneness/unity are becoming more one. Not necessarily in terms of just dropping everything and meeting together, but in realizing that they can meet together because those other things are not the main thing. In the mean time, those who focus on oneness/unity are busy defining the basis of their unity more narrowly (and differently) than Jesus did. And becoming what Paul chastised the Corinthians for in their divisions.

OBW,

Your logic is that a Catholic, a Baptist, a Church of Christ member, and an Episcopal who practice righteousness are becoming more one for example than a Catholic, a Baptist, a Church of Christ member, and an Episcopal who decide to meet together by dropping all those things that previously separated them to pray and fellowship in Christ.

I disagree because the testimony of scripture (Acts 2) says:

"1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

The promise of the Holy Spirit was poured out when a number of the disciples of the Lord Jesus in Jerusalem were all with one accord in one place. There is no indication that when they were all "righteous" and had become righteous enough then the Spirit came as a mighty rushing wind.

OBW, There is no disagreement that we are called to live a righteous life and have a righteous living, and we are called to be holy as our Father is Holy. In addition, the Lord's prayer in John 17 that we would become one as He and the Father are one must be taken no less seriously just because it was a prayer and not a command per se.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Your logic is that a Catholic, a Baptist, a Church of Christ member, and an Episcopal who practice righteousness are becoming more one for example than a Catholic, a Baptist, a Church of Christ member, and an Episcopal who decide to meet together by dropping all those things that previously separated them to pray and fellowship in Christ.

The issue is not how one they are with each other within their assembly, but how one they are with those of all assemblies. Your solution requires that others be abandoned and there be no oneness with them because they will not drop the differences and agree on so much.

I know that you will claim that the agreement is only on the essentials, but the practice would make that claim a lie. Disagreement with nonessential teachings of Lee, or the BBs, and anything published by the LSM is grounds for excommunication. Where is the oneness in that?

And once within the confines of the LRC, you can be one with others in the LRC, but not really with any others because they are declared to be "not one" by your very stance. Where is the oneness in that?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I disagree because the testimony of scripture (Acts 2) says:

"1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place . . . ."

The promise of the Holy Spirit was poured out when a number of the disciples of the Lord Jesus in Jerusalem were all with one accord in one place.

This is the creation of formula by observation. An anecdote becomes the reason for the outpouring of the Spirit. Yes, "they" were all there. At least all that were there. Those that weren't there were not there. That is the place that the Spirit was poured out. Those that were there were there. So they were all there.

Find for me the "clear" inference that one of them being missing would deny the outpouring. The point was not particularly where they were. It was that they had done as they were told and it was the day of Pentecost. They were told to wait in Jerusalem. And they obeyed. And those that were there were there. The Spirit was going to be poured out there. That does not mean that you have to know the right place after that time.

This is where Harold's "cargo cult" comments are actually very appropriate. Because Jesus commanded that they wait in Jerusalem and that is where the Holy Spirit first out-poured, then we have to define our meetings in such a way that we can replicate those conditions to get it again. (Now why is it that Lee was not charismatic/Pentecostal?) There is no ongoing command to meet together in one place. But on that day "they" were in one place. And they were in one accord.

I do not diminish the significance of that time. Of their obedience. But the command was to wait there for the Spirit. And he came. We are no longer waiting on the Spirit in that way. We are going out. We have had our huddle. It is time to execute the plays.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

Let's put it another way. Majoring on righteousness will result in oneness. Majoring on oneness will not necessarily result in righteousness.

I would take it one step further and say that neither righteousness nor holiness should ever be sacrificed for the sake of oneness. Unfortunately, the history of the Local Church is replete with examples where righteousness and holiness were sacrificed to maintain and enforce a man-made oneness. As a matter of fact, this became a kind of culture in the movement, so much so that I don't think they even realize it.

It's sort of like how the temple and the rituals became more important to the people than the glory of the Lord that was supposed to fill it. Likewise, the outward, physical “oneness” and the rituals surrounding it have become more important than the righteousness and holiness of the very God who is supposed to be the basis of their oneness.

Even more dangerous, even more hideous is the fact that the oneness has become based upon the person and work of a man and his ministry. All things are to be sacrificed at the altar of being one with this ministry, including righteousness and holiness. May God have mercy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I would take it one step further and say that neither righteousness nor holiness should ever be sacrificed for the sake of oneness. Unfortunately, the history of the Local Church is replete with examples where righteousness and holiness were sacrificed to maintain and enforce a man-made oneness. As a matter of fact, this became a kind of culture in the movement, so much so that I don't think they even realize it.

It's sort of like how the temple and the rituals became more important to the people than the glory of the Lord that was supposed to fill it. Likewise, the outward, physical “oneness” and the rituals surrounding it have become more important than the righteousness and holiness of the very God who is supposed to be the basis of their oneness.

Even more dangerous, even more hideous is the fact that the oneness has become based upon the person and work of a man and his ministry. All things are to be sacrificed at the altar of being one with this ministry, including righteousness and holiness. May God have mercy.

Church history shows us that when we obsess with oneness, beyond the commands of scripture, we end up with a distorted man-made oneness which requires corruption and unrighteousness for its maintenance. This form of distorted oneness gets used by corrupt men to lord it over the flock and build their own empires.

The early days of the Recovery in the US did enjoy oneness as a blessing of the Spirit. The move of the Spirit during the so-called "Jesus movement," with the focus on the Person and the work of Christ in our lives, and a return to the pure word of God all facilitated this blessing, which included a blessed oneness among many saints. WL used his association with WN to grab hold of a segment of that movement for his own gains.

WL with his cadre of lackeys corrupted that simplicity which we once enjoyed. He and his ministry became the focus of the saints. Recovery "oneness" became based solely on one's relationship with WL. The oneness of the Spirit was transformed into the oneness of WL and his ministry. Instead of treasuring the word of God, they now treasure the "interpreted word" of the teachings of the ministry.

Look at how this distorted oneness is maintained in the Recovery. Not by love and prayer and the arbitration of the indwelling Spirit, but by political backbiting, lawsuits, and man-pleasing hypocrisy. This is why many of us who have left the Recovery no longer focus on some contrived exhibition of uniformity, but on the reality of kingdom of God, which is based on His righteousness and holiness.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I would take it one step further and say that neither righteousness nor holiness should ever be sacrificed for the sake of oneness. Unfortunately, the history of the Local Church is replete with examples where righteousness and holiness were sacrificed to maintain and enforce a man-made oneness. As a matter of fact, this became a kind of culture in the movement, so much so that I don't think they even realize it.

It's sort of like how the temple and the rituals became more important to the people than the glory of the Lord that was supposed to fill it. Likewise, the outward, physical “oneness” and the rituals surrounding it have become more important than the righteousness and holiness of the very God who is supposed to be the basis of their oneness.

Even more dangerous, even more hideous is the fact that the oneness has become based upon the person and work of a man and his ministry. All things are to be sacrificed at the altar of being one with this ministry, including righteousness and holiness. May God have mercy.

Cover-ups in the Penn State scandal have backlashed; truth and justice are beginning to prevail in that college town. Not so in the churches of the blending brothers where truth remains pressed down and injustice continues to prevail.

http://www.hidinghistoryinthelordsre...Government.pdf

The Record
Witness Lee’s hiring of his own non-spiritual son and his reluctance to fire him amid growing confirmed reports of his moral violations and his interferences in the churches was both bizarre and inexplicable. It also had an impure element related to nepotism. It was a catastrophic mistake to make him the LSM manager. Philip Lee brought immorality into the office, chaos into the church in Anaheim, corruption into the churches, and major division into the recovery (with help).

Andrew Yu on Witness Lee
“There has never been a case, either in the Scriptures or in church history, where a servant of God has been found to be perfect. A perfect person does not exist. None of us can claim to be perfect.” (p. 5 An Affirmation of the Proper Authority in the Body of Christ)

Witness Lee on Philip
John Ingalls reports, “after the board meeting was adjourned, Sister Lee and Philip Lee left the room, and Brother Lee continued to talk at length with Francis Ball and myself [John Ingalls] about the current situation. I just listened, saying very little. He said how much he and Philip Lee and their families had suffered through all the talk about them. He then stated, “Philip, of course, is not perfect; nobody is perfect!” It shocked me that he would make such an inappropriate statement as that after all that had been said and done. _ John Ingalls

John Ingalls on Philip Lee - Philip Lee’s name is mentioned 51 times with grave concern about him revealed throughout John Ingalls’ book, Speaking the Truth in Love, related to events and concerns of the late eighties turmoil.

Bill Mallon on Philip Lee – 50 times in an 8-page letter to Witness Lee, Philip or the office is referred to with great consternation over interferences from Philip, Benson, and Ray Graver in the Southeastern churches.

John So on Philip Lee – 49 times in his address in Manila, John So referred to Philip Lee or the office as the source of major grief and despair for the brothers in Europe.

LC history book The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion on Witness Lee - Not a contrary word said about him. He was depicted as a perfect God-man.

LC history book The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion on Philip Lee - No mention of his name in the book. He is referred to as “the office” or “the Living Stream manager”, and only in a positive sense.

Yet, voices of truth do speak. John So and the brothers in Europe sent a letter to Brother Lee announcing their disassociation with Witness Lee and his work due to the divisive behavior and moral misconduct of Philip Lee while employed as LSM office manager.

http://www.unfaithfulwitness.org/Eur...Depart1989.pdf

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The argument presented by this poster is flawed. It is a fallacy of instances argument. There are more instances of the word "holiness" than there are "oneness" therefore God cares more about holiness than oneness so the argument hinges. The poster concludes that we should take care of holiness and relegates oneness to a lower tier of importance to the point of dismissing it..

There is no basis to apply that kind of "statistical" logic to the Bible. we know holiness, oneness, godliness, righteousness, mercy, kindness, grace, etc. are all mentioned by the Bible and we don't rank them by instances to determine what is more important than another. All are important, relevant, desirable, and applicable in the christian life.

I disagree. Thankful Jane is not using statistics, i.e. "the fallacy of instances," to determine her faith or to interpret scripture. Neither is she dismissing oneness from from the Bible. Please go back and reread her post.

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The argument presented by this poster is flawed. It is a fallacy of instances argument. There are more instances of the word "holiness" than there are "oneness" therefore God cares more about holiness than oneness so the argument hinges. The poster concludes that we should take care of holiness and relegates oneness to a lower tier of importance to the point of dismissing it..

There is no basis to apply that kind of "statistical" logic to the Bible. we know holiness, oneness, godliness, righteousness, mercy, kindness, grace, etc. are all mentioned by the Bible and we don't rank them by instances to determine what is more important than another. All are important, relevant, desirable, and applicable in the christian life.

Well if all your arguments are based on who follows proper college debating rules...I guess. Sort of reminds me of someone from another forum.

Anyway, one thing is indisputable. The Catholic Church decided to forego righteousness in favor of their brand of oneness. We know how that works out. In fact, when their clergy circles the wagons around someone accused of pedophilia today they are favoring "oneness" over righteousness. Also, we know that the LSM brothers (who are today's "Blendeds") forfeited the righteousness of God in favor of sticking up for a man and his ministry (Oneness). Look how horribly that has worked out for them. They are becoming every bit the overgrown tree that they accuse the Catholic Church of being.

But I will not totally give up the point that frequency of word usage in the Bible caries some weight. Especially when you have a sect like the LSM Church which will interject words that don't even appear in the Bible (Triiiiiune God), and wear them out, while giving relatively little importance to the ones that do (Father, Son, Spirit).

P.C.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

Anyway, one thing is indisputable. The Catholic Church decided to forgo righteousness in favor of their brand of oneness. We know how that works out. In fact, when their clergy circles the wagons around someone accused of pedophilia today they are favoring "oneness" over righteousness.

The current scandal at Penn State is another example of how powerful men forgo the matter of righteousness and place their program, their own futures, their university, their own reputations, and the so-called "greater good" first and foremost. It may sound good for a season, but that is not the Lord's way.

Wouldn't it have been far better for the nation of Israel not to have known about the death of some insignificant Hittite soldier named Uriah? For goodness sake, he was not even a full-blooded Hebrew. Why all the commotion? Why did Nathan the prophet have to make such a big deal about the king's "personal life?" Were not David's job approval "ratings" at an all time high?

But those are exactly the things that our God cares about. He takes keen interest in all the minor matters of righteousness, and appears little concerned for most of our "loftier" goals, such as our success, our reputation, and our financial gain. Our God cares far more about the details of righteousness than we could ever imagine. Though He loved David immensely, He could not allow the "privileges" of earthly kings to contaminate David with unrighteousness.

Think about it. God could have made sure that no one ever found out David's sin. Neither did he discipline David privately. The whole nation knew and also suffered the consequences. The story has been told and retold for 3,000 years.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The current scandal at Penn State is another example of how powerful men forgo the matter of righteousness and place their program, their own futures, their university, their own reputations, and the so-called "greater good" first and foremost. It may sound good for a season, but that is not the Lord's way.

Nor can you manuever out of an unrighteous situation by saying "it's not about right or wrong, but about life". As Ohio has pointed out through David, there are many instances in the Bible about unrighteous situations. None I read are being covered over.