LSM's Sacrament - the "Ground of the Local Church" NIGEL TOMES

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

But I was not required to do that. I was not excluded. I was warmly welcomed in all the churches I listed in my previous email and partook of the Lord's Table with them. That is my experience.

Same here with the exception the only requirement was being a member of the Body of Christ.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

Same here with the exception the only requirement was being a member of the Body of Christ.

The Lord gave us two ordinances to keep in the NT.

Baptism and the Lord's Table. Both support the oneness with all believers.

If a group requires more than Baptism to becoming a member of the Body of Christ those additional requirements are symptoms of a lack of oneness.

Likewise the Lord's table promotes the oneness in several ways.

1. We are required to welcome all genuine believers without prejudice or additional requirements.
2. We are charged that taking the Lord's table is a proclamation that you have no issue with any other believers, if you do you are to first reconcile those issues before taking the table.

The "ground of oneness" doctrine violates this in several ways. In addition to requiring you to be a genuine believer they also require that you "are on the proper ground". The commandment was to "do this in remembrance of Me". Christ in the proper ground for the table, teaching any other ground is contrary to the commandments given to us by the Lord Jesus and the Apostles. We are required to welcome all genuine believers, putting the requirement that they accept some arbitrary eldership is another commandment other than that given to us by the Lord and the apostles. Proclaiming that all other Christians are reprobate for taking the table on the wrong ground is clearly an example of something that should be reconciled prior to taking the Lord's table. In three ways this teaching teaches the believers to break one of the most important commandments given to us by the Lord Jesus.

5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The "ground of oneness" doctrine violates this in several ways. In addition to requiring you to be a genuine believer they also require that you "are on the proper ground".

Proclaiming that all other Christians are reprobate for taking the table on the wrong ground is clearly an example of something that should be reconciled prior to taking the Lord's table.

According to WL and the Blindeds, the "true" remembrance of the Lord at His table can only be legitimately celebrated by churches on "the proper ground" of oneness. There is not a single Table meeting or Communion service in all of Christendom which they would recognize as licit and scriptural.

Actually their hypocrisy has been exposed on countless occasions that the "true" standard of their approval, getting past all the hype and jive so characteristic with LSM, is not the "ground of oneness" per se, but it is your relationship with LSM. As we have seen with the quarantine of GLA churches, adherence to proper Lee and Nee teachings on the subject are grossly inadequate. Only the president at LSM, Benson Philips himself, can properly determine who has the correct interpretation of the teachings of Lee and Nee.

Even though Titus Chu and the rest of the Great Lakes Area churches had all the proper teachings concerning the "ground of oneness," and many in fact had been practicing this way for decades, they were not willing to comply with the growing list of requirements which accompany local church legitimacy, without which their Table must be considered just another division in the body of Christ.

Some of these mandates have been made public by LSM in their "afaithfulword.com" website: rejection of drums, daily use of The Holy Word for Morning Revival, weekly prophecying meetings using the same, attendance at LSM's 7 annual "Feasts," etc. In other words, your Table meeting can be completely invalidated if one of your members plays an electric guitar.

Funny thing is the exclusive Darby Brethren taught that Table legitimacy was voided by using a piano. John Nelson Darby, the supposed Minister of the Age directly preceding Watchman Nee taught that musical accompaniment from a piano was "sensual" and not spiritual. The standards he imposed on churches still exist today.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

According to WL and the Blindeds, the "true" remembrance of the Lord at His table can only be legitimately celebrated by churches on "the proper ground" of oneness. There is not a single Table meeting or Communion service in all of Christendom which they would recognize as licit and scriptural.

That is an excellent point. If you claim that the ground of the church has nothing to do with the relationship with LSM, then where is the example of a church that adheres to this doctrine, that does not follow LSM, but is still considered a proper church? If you cannot point to a single church then clearly the "ground of the church" is really a matter of a relationship with LSM.

Oneness is a matter of a relationship with Christ

whereas the "ground of the church" is a matter of a relationship with LSM.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is an excellent point. If you claim that the ground of the church has nothing to do with the relationship with LSM, then where is the example of a church that adheres to this doctrine, that does not follow LSM, but is still considered a proper church? If you cannot point to a single church then clearly the "ground of the church" is really a matter of a relationship with LSM.

Oneness is a matter of a relationship with Christ

whereas the "ground of the church" is a matter of a relationship with LSM.

That is why I concluded that Lee and the Blendeds, by demanding an unwavering allegiance, have usurped the Head's rightful place in the body.

To the vast majority of unsuspecting members, like myself, in the LC's, this was subtly done unawares even as Jude warned us --

For certain persons have crept in unawares, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.-- Jude 4 NASB

The Local Church reader might initially find this verse to be entirely unsuited to those at LSM, but which old-timer would deny that something had crept into the LC's unawares so that what we have today is a far cry from those early days. Do not the words of the Lord Jesus and the Apostles condemn the exclusive teachings and practices of LSM? Was not the ungodly and licentious Philip Lee promoted to be Witness Lee's "most trusted co-worker" to the perversion and destruction of many a brother and sister? Did not the demands of absolute, unwavering loyalty to Lee and his ministry violate the conscience of many a brother and the rightful place of God's Son in our hearts, as our only Lord and Master?

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Actually their hypocrisy has been exposed on countless occasions that the "true" standard of their approval, getting past all the hype and jive so characteristic with LSM, is not the "ground of oneness" per se, but it is your relationship with LSM.

Indeed! The ground of oneness teaching is fraught with several problems not least of which is the lack of practice thereof by those who proclaim it the loudest!

Originally Posted by Ohio

Even though Titus Chu and the rest of the Great Lakes Area churches had all the proper teachings concerning the "ground of oneness," and many in fact had been practicing this way for decades, they were not willing to comply with the growing list of requirements which accompany local church legitimacy, without which their Table must be considered just another division in the body of Christ.

And so the likes of Ray Graver can declare with boldness that there are no more lampstands in the GLA and get a ready consensus of this view among his fellow LSMites. A notion that suggests he is the one walking in the midst of the churches and thus gets to decide who is a lampstand and who isn't.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

And so the likes of Ray Graver can declare with boldness that there are no more lampstands in the GLA and get a ready consensus of this view among his fellow LSMites. A notion that suggests he is the one walking in the midst of the churches and thus gets to decide who is a lampstand and who isn't.

What is the basis? Is it based on which localities are generating revenue for LSM?
If the basis is upon Witness Lee's ministry, our late brother Lee himself said a local church doesn't have to take his ministry to be a genuine local church (1986). Or so to say. Naturally the faithful editors probably saw to it those words never made it into the printed version though I could be wrong.

However alwayslearning what you have posted is thought provoking and likely to initiate a new topic.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

What is the basis? Is it based on which localities are generating revenue for LSM?

If the basis is upon Witness Lee's ministry, our late brother Lee himself said a local church doesn't have to take his ministry to be a genuine local church (1986). Or so to say. Naturally the faithful editors probably saw to it those words never made it into the printed version though I could be wrong.

The years 1997, when Lee passed away, thru 2005, when LSM first decided to quarantine Titus Chu, could be described as an exploration into "What did Witness really say." Titus Chu had all his workers going back to read all the books by Lee and cull all pertinent quotes concerning multiple "hot topics" in the Recovery such as the leadership, the work, the oneness, the church, etc. Titus Chu would then visit Anaheim during the trainings and purposely take copies of these well-documented quotations to Andrew Yu, Ron Kangas, and other Blendeds. At one point Titus commented that he "doubted that any body even looked at them."

The point of the story is this. The Blendeds response to endless man-hours of work by dozens of GLA workers was this -- "how dare you tell us what Brother Lee said?!? We were with him day in and day out. We know what he said! Who are you to pick quotes 'out of context' and attempt to teach us?"

Thus there were two distinct versions of Witness Lee. One from his numerous books and one from his personal assistants. The growing body of documentation, taken from Lee's own messages spanning half a century, indicting the Blended's current teachings and attitudes was far too dangerous to ignore. They had no choice but to eliminate Titus Chu, and so they quarantined him.

Getting back to Terry's post about what Lee said about being a genuine local church. Witness Lee's polished writings and actual in person communiques are full of contradictions. Each can be used to say anything one pleases. Early on Lee was far more scriptural, but as time passed, he became far more exclusive. Witness Lee changed!

At this point I care little for what he said. The Bible is our only standard. And that is not just a cliche or some building plaque in Taiwan, that must be the actual practice of every child of God in order to really keep the oneness of the faith. Building on the ever-changing teachings of Witness Lee is like re-building your home on the sinking sand of the Jersey shore.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Getting back to Terry's post about what Lee said about being a genuine local church. Witness Lee's polished writings and actual in person communiques are full of contradictions. Each can be used to say anything one pleases. Early on Lee was far more scriptural, but as time passed, he became far more exclusive. Witness Lee changed!

At this point I care little for what he said. The Bible is our only standard. And that is not just a cliche or some building plaque in Taiwan, that must be the actual practice of every child of God in order to really keep the oneness of the faith. Building on the ever-changing teachings of Witness Lee is like re-building your home on the sinking sand of the Jersey shore.

For sake of discussion on this forum what WL said has relevance.

• Lee's ministry is considered more weighty than the Word
  Among LC circles, LSM promoters prefer Lee's ministry parroted than speaking directly from the Word.
• Doublespeak
  If you listen to Lee's messages, you will find Lee's speaking is contradicting his actions and in some cases contradicting what he already said.
• Editing
  LSM editors have heavily edited Lee's messages to make them palatable for consumption and for his image, pristine.

Speaking about sinking sand, WL spend an inordinate amount of time at the 86 Elders conference talking about Linko.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The years 1997, when Lee passed away, thru 2005, when LSM first decided to quarantine Titus Chu, could be described as an exploration into "What did Witness really say." Titus Chu had all his workers going back to read all the books by Lee and cull all pertinent quotes concerning multiple "hot topics" in the Recovery such as the leadership, the work, the oneness, the church, etc. Titus Chu would then visit Anaheim during the trainings and purposely take copies of these well-documented quotations to Andrew Yu, Ron Kangas, and other Blendeds. At one point Titus commented that he "doubted that any body even looked at them."

The point of the story is this. The Blendeds response to endless man-hours of work by dozens of GLA workers was this -- "how dare you tell us what Brother Lee said?!? We were with him day in and day out. We know what he said! Who are you to pick quotes 'out of context' and attempt to teach us?"

The leadership being occupied with this kind of activity speaks volumes. It exposes what the LC system is really all about.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thus there were two distinct versions of Witness Lee.

And this is really the basis of the division that occurred. Who are the real authorized official interpreters of Witness Lee and bearers of the Witness Lee "trademark"? In essence it was a "trademark" infringement dispute. Nothing at all to do with the Bible. Zero to do with the Bible. And nothing to do with the church. They could couldn't care less about the impact of their stupid decisions on the churches, families, etc.

But since it wasn't legally a trademark dispute there are now at least 2 versions of Witness Lee in the U.S. and one in Brazil and who knows how many more are out there.

WITNESS LEE! WITNESS LEE! WITNESS LEE!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thus there were two distinct versions of Witness Lee. One from his numerous books and one from his personal assistants.

This, by definition, is a hypocrite. This is why the Lord said "woe unto you".

1. They have sold their soul for their reward, hence "they have their reward"
2. They can discern the face of the sky, but not the sign of the times.
3. They worship the Lord in vain.
4. They make the word of God of none effect through their traditions which they teach men to do.

as a result the Lord compares hypocrites to plants that His Father has not planted and which will be rooted up.

They heap up woe to themselves

1. They shut up the kingdom of men, forbidding them to enter and neither do they enter.
2. Devour widow's houses
3. They compass land and sea to make a proselyte and then make him twofold the son of gehenna.
4. They have have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith
5. They make clean the cup and platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
6. They appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness
7. They are children of those that killed the prophets.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

And so the likes of Ray Graver can declare with boldness that there are no more lampstands in the GLA and get a ready consensus of this view among his fellow LSMites. A notion that suggests he is the one walking in the midst of the churches and thus gets to decide who is a lampstand and who isn't.

I think the basic issue is the misuse of the metaphor of the church being the Temple. Yes, the church is the Temple, and yes as a result there is a ground on which the church is built. However this is a type, the church is not so one dimensional. The church is also the Body of Christ. A Body is a building. So then the ground of the church does not refer to a plot of land or a cities dimensions. Man is made of dust. The Lord's blood covers the entire earth and covers all mankind. However, when God builds the church as the one new man, He is not referring to just any man. There is only one man that has the proper stand to meet with God, and that man is Jesus Christ. So, just as the temple could only be built in one spot, the church as the one new man can also only be built in one spot, that spot is "in Christ". If you are in yourself or in any other man, including Witness Lee, then you are not on the proper ground to build the church. When you participate in the Lord's table your testimony is:

11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

We were all included in that death.

Is the ground of the church crucial? Yes. Is it decided by city councilmen in NY in the 1800s? No. It was decided by God when Jesus rose from the dead.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. We are required to welcome all genuine believers without prejudice or additional requirements.
2. We are charged that taking the Lord's table is a proclamation that you have no issue with any other believers, if you do you are to first reconcile those issues before taking the table.

The "ground of oneness" doctrine violates this in several ways. In addition to requiring you to be a genuine believer they also require that you "are on the proper ground". The commandment was to "do this in remembrance of Me". Christ in the proper ground for the table, teaching any other ground is contrary to the commandments given to us by the Lord Jesus and the Apostles. We are required to welcome all genuine believers, putting the requirement that they accept some arbitrary eldership is another commandment other than that given to us by the Lord and the apostles. Proclaiming that all other Christians are reprobate for taking the table on the wrong ground is clearly an example of something that should be reconciled prior to taking the Lord's table. In three ways this teaching teaches the believers to break one of the most important commandments given to us by the Lord Jesus.

5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

This is key ZNP. IMHO many saints ingrained with the ground of locality doctrine have difficulty meeting anywhere else because of the matter of communion. To meet apart from a LSM sanctioned local church is considered to be meeting in division. Thus to take communion apart from a LSM local church is to take communion divisely.
Which leads to another question what consititutes division? Is it to teach heresy, to form a party or to have a contrary opinion. Say when you were in Houston and you're speaking according to the Word instead of parroting Lee's ministry. Those partial to Lee's ministry could make the claim you're a divisive brother. That's another topic.
The preferred option I have heard from LC saints when meeting with a non-LSM assembly will simply refuse to partake in communion.