I love the local church

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

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

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

[Paul Cox]

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

P.C.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

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

P.C.

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

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

[rayliotta]

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

The guy in plaid gets it.

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

[Cal]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

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

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

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

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

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

[Cal]

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

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

Originally Posted by Igzy

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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

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

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

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

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

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

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

WL was a very minor part of my LRC experience.

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

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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

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

WL was a very minor part of my LRC experience.

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

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

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

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

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

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

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

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

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

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

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

In a recent post SavedByGrace noted the following:

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

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


What saith thee?

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

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


What saith thee?

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

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

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

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

SavedbyGrace, two questions here ...

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

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

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

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


What saith thee?

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

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

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

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

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

A fellow member of the faith.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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

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

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

A fellow member of the faith.

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Ohio.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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

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

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

A fellow member of the faith.

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

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

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

[UntoHim]

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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

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

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

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

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

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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

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

and then select this file:

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

Originally Posted by Terry

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

and then select this file:

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

Thanks Terry

[UntoHim]

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

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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

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

THE problem, obviously, is sin.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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

THE problem, obviously, is sin.

Igzy, exactly.

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

Talk about hypocritical stereotypical prejudice!

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

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

[Cal]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I already said that my Leader is perfect.

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

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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I already said that my Leader is perfect.

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

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

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

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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

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