I love the local church

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Cox]

Welcome to the forum,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P.C.

[TLFisher]

This first post is in response to ToGodAlone and UntoHim.

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

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

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

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

[Cal]

Welcome to the forum.

A couple of comments on your statements.

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

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

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

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

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

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Cox]

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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

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

Good point.

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

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

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

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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

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

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

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

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

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

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

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

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

[Cal]

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

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

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

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

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

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

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

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I believe being far from Anaheim helps.

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

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

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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

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

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

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

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

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

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

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

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

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

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

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

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

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

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

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

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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