The LCS Factor

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Finally, Witness Lee taught that Silas, Timothy and Titus were "apostles" but the Bible apparently doesn't actually say that. So, consider that some doctrines about who are "apostles" and what those people do may be derived from Rome and also influenced by Lee's own flavor of hierarchy which he laid out fairly clearly in his 1988 booklet "A Timely Trumpeting and the Present Need."

I've often thought about someting. According to Lee's "Deputy Authority" teaching, Timothy should have succeeded Paul. In his two letters to Timothy it would seem that Paul was indeed grooming Timothy to at least carry out his burden. But does church history give any indication of Timothy doing anything? Or, maybe he just dropped the ball...oops...I mean "mantle."

Roger

[Matt Anderson]

I took a break for a few days on posting while continuing to follow along. I just went back to my last post and read forward from there to here.

From the start, I have to apologize to the BlessD's of the forum who don't care for all the intellectualism. You're right, we tend to get stuck in it. I'm one of those analytical types that easily gets into it. Sorry. I think it was Igzy who noted that we need to get some of this straightened out in our heads with some more clarity.

About the forums: I've actually been happy that this forum came about and that I am not bearing all the weight of the past environment. I am very thankful for this forum and have felt no rejection by the departure from the other forum. In my mind, I've called this forum, Safe Harbor.

Maybe it's Safe Harbor except for me on this thread!!!

I have felt only to contribute to ONE topic on this forum. The topic is a kind of amalgamation (look it up, www.dictionary.com) of several things and thus it is somewhat confusing. I honestly believe we need light (God's light) on this thread. I don't have the utterance for what needs to be said here, but I have a portion of it.

Without names here are some positions I've seen:
View A - there are some 'holism's' (alcoholism, etc.) that many current and ex-LC are addicted to and this has impacted families.
View B - the leadership is a problem and committed the errors of the LC, but the regular folk are fine.
View C - there is a "good" LC and/or Witness Lee and a "bad" LC and/or Witness Lee and we saw these two things evolve over time.
View D - let's look at all this in concrete terms, but not use the words 'demons', 'idolatry', etc
View E - there is idolatry present that had a pervasive effect on individuals and families.

I believe that View A and View E are effectively one in the same.

When something is amalgamated it can be somewhat difficult to extract into it's respective elements.

I'm going to take a particular approach. I'm going to try to present some of this from God's perspective based on the substance of the OT. I'm not going to twist God's language to make modernists happy. I'm going to stick with His language and His perspective. I believe it is essential to tune into His perspective to understand idolatry, because the subject really is all about Him and His point of view. Idolatry is set in opposition to Love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind.

Idolatry is the single most prevalent topic related to disobedience and sin in the entire OT. If we don't know how to map it forward with a sober mind to the current day, then something is wrong. We are told to 'guard' ourselves against idols. If we are ignorant of what they are and how they come into our lives, then we are not on 'guard'. To the frightened, I say what Jesus said, "Fear not". Jesus said that a lot. For now, just learn knowing that God is full of mercy for you in anything you have erred if you are willing to repent of it.

More later...

Matt

P.S. I continue to believe that the consequences of idolatry are much of what we have witnessed across many families in the LC and therefore I continue to address it within this thread.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Matt

I'm going to take a particular approach. I'm going to try to present some of this from God's perspective based on the substance of the OT. I'm not going to twist God's language to make modernists happy. I'm going to stick with His language and His perspective.

Matt, if we can evaluate all Christianity to the same standard, and not "raise the bar" when critiquing all the things of the LC's, then that's great. There's no perfect church. All the warnings of the Bible can speak to all our hearts. I do hope your analysis can be tempered by the substance of the N.T. Perhaps the "wildly speculative O.T. interpretations" I have heard from "the ministry" have spooked me.

You have enumerated some viewpoints that the posters have. I could relate to all of them, because each view has merit, with each of us shaped by our own particular upbringings, experiences with local saints, differences with regional leadership, and times and lengths of times, etc.

I'm sorry you feel that this forum is a "safe harbor" for all but you on this thread. I don't think any of the posters intended that. I seem to have a "knee-jerk" reaction to what I perceive as "extremes." Perhaps I was trying to make it too "safe" for others. I'll do my best to let you develop your thoughts here without unnecessary interruptions. Peace in Christ Jesus.

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm sorry you feel that this forum is a "safe harbor" for all but you on this thread.

My comment about being the exception to the 'safe harbor' of this forum was intended to lighten the air. Truly, I am not offended with your attempts to balance out what I am saying which is admittedly extreme. If it is extreme, but true, then I am personally okay with it. I may not be able to communicate it properly to others, but I do know that there are quite a few on this forum who can hear and understand the substance of what I mean. Maybe my 'extremeness' in this area can be tempered by others to something that is more easily digested by those who need help.

For now, let's just see if the substance of what I am saying holds any water or not. I believe it does.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Matt, if we can evaluate all Christianity to the same standard, and not "raise the bar" when critiquing all the things of the LC's, then that's great.

I'm not here to play the game of equity on this particular subject. I think the LC has done all the 'beating up' of Christianity needed. I don't need to add to that side of the scale.

In my view, let's start with our own house. That's what my family has had to do. We are not done with this process, but God has been good to us in all these things even when it comes to judging us. It starts at home or else it is not a fair game. This was one of the core issues with the LC. It was always pointing at poor, poor Christianity. Well, let's start with the LC (homebase) and focus on it. If we don't get past that, then we don't have to worry about everybody else. I take the reverse view on this point from others. I do so intentionally at this time.

If you point to others, then it's easy to make and keep friends. If you point to your own home it gets a bit more difficult. Judgment begins at the House of God. Let's let God judge us first. He promises to judge us unto mercy if we are faithful to repent. But, He definitely promises to judge. If you fall on this rock, you will be broken. If it falls on you, you will be crushed.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I do hope your analysis can be tempered by the substance of the N.T. Perhaps the "wildly speculative O.T. interpretations" I have heard from "the ministry" have spooked me.

As for the O.T. view of things versus the N.T. view of things I would like to add one point. Nothing in the N.T. has overriden anything in the O.T. Jesus Christ is the fulness of the Law and the Prophets. At one point in my life the Lord impressed an important fact upon me. Paul could write the N.T. because he knew and understood the O.T. so well. In my reading of Paul, I have found that the O.T. is the key to understanding what Paul says.

Let me solidify what I mean by means of the N.T. and Paul's express statements.

Gal 3:22-25
But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (23) But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. (24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (25) But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The law is still a schoolmaster. We are not 'under' it, but we still need it's instruction.

1Co 10:1-14
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; (2) And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; (3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat; (4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (5) But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. (6) Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. (7) Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. (8) Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. (9) Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. (10) Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. (11) Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. (12) Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. (13) There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. (14) Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

Paul writes to Timothy, whom Paul discipled in the Lord.

2Ti 3:15-17
And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (16) All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (17) That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The holy scriptures that Paul is referring to when he speaks to Timothy are the O.T., not the N.T. The O.T. is able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is to furnish you unto all good works.

Don't leave behind the instruction of the O.T.. I believe it is folly to do so. Sometimes the O.T. is harder to swallow and sometimes men (me included) allegorize it too much. The N.T. changes some things for our benefit, but not God. God does not change. The O.T. gives us more of a window into the full character of God with many object lessons and examples. Without that context, the full meaning and reality of 'Christ in you, the hope of glory' cannot be understood and you can become prey to the evil one.

It has been my study of the O.T. that continues to make the N.T. a more fabulous part of the Bible. The N.T. does not exist without the O.T.

Matt

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Matt, if we can evaluate all Christianity to the same standard, and not "raise the bar" when critiquing all the things of the LC's, then that's great. There's no perfect church.

Sorry, Ohio, I had been writing another post when I saw yours. I responded to it first, but it included a perfect lead-in to what I was writing.

You're right. There is no perfect church. In fact, the Lord was very clear about this in Revelation 2-3.

TJ brought the Church in Pergamos into focus. Pergamos is from the N.T. and points to the O.T. for supporting the Lord's message.

I want to follow-up on it with some information about Rev 2:14 and the doctrine of Balaam.

This will only take care of half of the equation on Pergamos. The other half is in the doctrine of the Nicolaitans.

Revelation 2:14
But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

There are parts of this verse that are a bit of a puzzle. You cannot find a verse in the OT that points to the fact that Balaam "taught" Balak the particular thing that Balak learned and used to 'cast a stumblingblock' in front of the children of Israel.

You can find a verse that shows that Balaam 'counseled' Balak (Numbers 31:16), but if you read through the entire account of Balaam (Numbers 22-25) you don't find him telling Balak how to cause the children of Israel to fall. Balaam works for personal profit (aka filthy lucre and selfish gain). Balaam even has direct contact with the Lord and speaks the Word that the Lord gives to Balaam. He was a prophet of God and spoke the words that the Lord gave him to speak to Balak, but he did it for his own (Balaam's) sake.

Balaam is asked 3 times to curse the children of Israel and 3 times he ends up blessing them. Balak finally gets disgusted with it and Balak and Balaam part ways. Balaam doesn't "teach" Balak anything in the typical sense we think of "teaching". But Numbers 31:16 says:

Num 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against Jehovah in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of Jehovah.

The word "counsel" is H1697 / dabar which means speaking or words. It doesn't mean "teach". It basically means talking.

I can't find anything else in the OT that indicates that Balaam was "teaching".

But the Spirit expressly says in Revelation 2:14 that Balaam "taught". The word in Greek is didaskos, which is used in many other places as "teach", "taught", etc.

So, what did Balaam "teach"?

He taught him this: If you can't beat them, entice them by means of wile and join them in 'friendship'.

This is exactly what Balak did. Balak didn't come out to go to war with the children of Israel. No, he went out with the enticements.

Num 25:1-2 And Israel abode in Sittim; and the people began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab: (2) for they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods; and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.

If you have forgotten or I haven't said it, both 'meat' and 'women' were an enticement at this time. The children of Israel had already tested the Lord for want of meat. They complained about only having manna from heaven. They wanted meat to eat. So, yes, an invitation to sit at the table with Balak and eat meat was truly an enticement. (I don't have to explain the other one!)

It should be noted that God saw this coming. Read what he said in Exodus 34 very closely. Okay, okay I'll bold it for you.

Exo 34:14-16 for thou shalt worship no other god: for Jehovah, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: (15) lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they play the harlot after their gods, and sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee and thou eat of his sacrifice; (16) and thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters play the harlot after their gods, and make thy sons play the harlot after their gods.

So back to what it says in Revelation 2:14. He says that some hold the 'doctrine of Balaam', who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication.

The call to Pergamos is this: Repent or else the Lord will come quickly and make war with the sword of His mouth.

Connecting the Dots?

Is anybody starting to connect the dots here? If not, I'll take a stab at it pretty soon, but I think we should get a reminder of the 'doctrines of the Nicolaitans'.

What were the 'children (young people in the Lord in the 60's/70's) of the LC' enticed with?

Matt

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Ohio I suggest that most Christians I know would conclude at least one of the following if they visited the LCS:

1. it's cultic
2. it idolizes Witness Lee
3. it has addictive behavior patterns in relation to Lee

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Matt

The call to Pergamos is this: Repent or else the Lord will come quickly and make war with the sword of His mouth.

Connecting the Dots?

Is anybody starting to connect the dots here? If not, I'll take a stab at it pretty soon, but I think we should get a reminder of the 'doctrines of the Nicolaitans'.

What were the 'children (young people in the Lord in the 60's/70's) of the LC' enticed with?

Matt

Matt:

I don't have any dot-connecting to do just yet, but I do have a preliminary question regarding Revelation 2.

I find it interesting that in the letter to Pergamos, the Spirit holds the entire church accountable even though it is only "some who hold to the doctrine of Balaam" and only "some who in the same way hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans." The call, nevertheless, is for the whole church to repent for the beliefs of the some.

But even more interesting is the contrast with the letter to Thyatira. I really don't know why Thyatira is said to "tolerate" Jezabell - rather than accusing them of the same thing as Pergamos - holding to the teaching of Nicolaitans. It seems their error is identical: eating things sacrificed to idols and committing act of immorality. Yet the "source" or reason for each is different: teaching of Balaam in Pergamos and Jezabel in Thyatira.

And even yet more interesting, in Thyatira, it is not the whole church which is held accountable for the acts of the few. Verse 24: 'But I say to you, the rest who are in (BK)Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not known the deep things of Satan, as they call them--I place no other burden on you.

Why is the whole church responsible for the beliefs of some in Pergamos, but not in Thyatira? And why is one said to hold to the teachings of Balaam and the other said to be enticed by Jezabel, when their outward acts are the same? Unless their beliefs are literally based on Balaam/Nicolaitans and Jezable, respectively - why use one analogy for one and another analogy for the other, when their error seems the same? And why the different consequences for the churches?

Peter

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I find it interesting that in the letter to Pergamos, the Spirit holds the entire church accountable even though it is only "some who hold to the doctrine of Balaam" and only "some who in the same way hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans." The call, nevertheless, is for the whole church to repent for the beliefs of the some.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

But even more interesting is the contrast with the letter to Thyatira. I really don't know why Thyatira is said to "tolerate" Jezabell - rather than accusing them of the same thing as Pergamos - holding to the teaching of Nicolaitans. It seems their error is identical: eating things sacrificed to idols and committing act of immorality. Yet the "source" or reason for each is different: teaching of Balaam in Pergamos and Jezabel in Thyatira.

And even yet more interesting, in Thyatira, it is not the whole church which is held accountable for the acts of the few. Verse 24: 'But I say to you, the rest who are in (BK)Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not known the deep things of Satan, as they call them--I place no other burden on you.

Why is the whole church responsible for the beliefs of some in Pergamos, but not in Thyatira? And why is one said to hold to the teachings of Balaam and the other said to be enticed by Jezabel, when their outward acts are the same? Unless their beliefs are literally based on Balaam/Nicolaitans and Jezable, respectively - why use one analogy for one and another analogy for the other, when their error seems the same? And why the different consequences for the churches?

Peter

Hi Peter,

Here are two possibilities I see for the difference in the scope of accountability:

1) In Thyatira it is clear that only some were holding the teachings of the prophetess Jezebel and practicing what she taught. Thus only those were accountable. What God had against the others was that they “suffered” her or let her be. This was bad but not as bad as those who practiced what she taught.

In the letter to Pergamos, it says “thou hast there them that hold the doctrine....” The Greek word “hast” means “to hold” and implies accompanying and following. The whole church was holding to these men and their teachings, so they were all implicated.

2) The church in Thyatira was told that they had not known the depths of Satan. "Depths" here in Greek is “profundity” or "mystery." This could be referring to the “mystery” of the Babylonian religion that eventually infiltrated the church. Deeper initiation into the "mysteries" of the Babylonian religion was directly tied to advancement in the priestly class system or hierarchy--a system that was used to control the common people.

This was was not present in Thyatira, but it seems that it was present in Pergamos through the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes which produces a system used to conquer or control the people. Apparently, those who were “conquered” or “subdued” were guilty because they believed this teaching and practiced accordingly, allowing themselves to be subdued and brought into bondage.

As believers we are to stand fast in the liberty we have in Christ and not be brought into bondage. When there is hierarchical control (where people are fully submitted to others because of their rank or class) a situation of bondage or servitude is produced. God hates this because His people are not to be in bondage. “I am the Lord thy God that brought the up out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” He brought them out of bondage to be free to serve Him. Serving others than God Himself brings bondage. The principal of idolatry was serving other gods. This is why God hated it so.

Another thing -- in Ephesus there were “deeds” of the Nicolaitanes, but this was not as harshly spoken of as it was in Pergamos. (God only said he hated it.) In Pergamos the situation was much more serious because they held the the “doctrine” of the Nicolaitanes. Maybe God holds us more accountable for accepting false teachings, because we are responsible for what we believe and are supposed to examine teachings for their truth in the light of the Scriptures.

In the Local Churches, we had the deeds of the Nicolaitanes before the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes reached the common saints. The doctrine of the Nicolaitanes was given to prospective members of the “governing” class in secret (like the mysteries?) in Texas as early as 1965; it was the early 1970s before it started to be taught openly among us. So, as in Pergamos, we all have to repent for this.

And one more thought--there is no such thing as group repentance whereby a representive repents for a group. The Spirit's call was to individuals to repent. When all the individuals in a group repent, then you could say there has been group repentance.

Thankful Jane

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Hi Peter,

Here are two possibilities I see for the difference in the scope of accountability:


In the letter to Pergamos, it says “thou hast there them that hold the doctrine....” The Greek word “hast” means “to hold” and implies accompanying and following. The whole church was holding to these men and their teachings, so they were all implicated.

Thankful Jane

Jane:

I will ponder further your second point and respond soon. I just don't see the first point. I don't think a translation of "to hold" enables the distinction between the situation of the two churches. I don't see the implications you do. It says "thou has there them that hold the doctrine..." Other translations say, "there are some who hold..." and still others, "you have there those who hold..."

Why not just say, "I have a few things against you: that you hold to the doctrine..." - similar to the construction and broad scope of the admonition to the Ephesions: "You [all of them - the whole church] have left your first love..." The constrcution of "you have some/those/ones..." doesn't carry the same scope - i.e. that they all - each and every one - held to the doctrine.

Nevertheless, the Spirit held them accountable. Thus, I think the distinction is more about the nature of the doctrine versus the enticing of Jezabel in Thyatira.

Still, I just don't see the distinction, yet. I found Matt's description of the teaching of Balaam compelling. But it could be condensed down to: the teaching was something that enticed the children of Israel. But put that way, I have an even harder time distinguishing it from the enticing of Jezabel.

Thoughts?

Peter

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Matt

Idolatry is the single most prevalent topic related to disobedience and sin in the entire OT. If we don't know how to map it forward with a sober mind to the current day, then something is wrong. We are told to 'guard' ourselves against idols. If we are ignorant of what they are and how they come into our lives, then we are not on 'guard'. To the frightened, I say what Jesus said, "Fear not". Jesus said that a lot. For now, just learn knowing that God is full of mercy for you in anything you have erred if you are willing to repent of it.

Matt,

If you do a simple word study of the usage of idolatry in the New Testament it's pretty clear that it is associated with many of the baser works of the flesh. E.g.

"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like..."
(Gal 5:19-22).

"For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." (Eph 5:5)

"For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry." (1 Pet 4:3)

What I'm saying is that these verses suggest that idolatry isn't something that nuanced. It's a gross manifestation of the flesh that is accompanied by other gross manifestations of the flesh. That's one side of it, at least.

I'm not so sure idolatry is the problem in the LC so much as gross deceptions based on warped visions of oneness, accord, leadership, one ministry, God's move, etc, etc. Once they are brainwashed into buying into the premises of their particular vision of oneness, the behavior they manifest is the logical result. They get locked in.

LCers are no more idolators of Lee's teachings than fanatical Calvinists are idolators of Calvin's teachings. Then again, fanatical Calvinists are kind of idolators of Calvin's teachings.

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not so sure idolatry is the problem in the LC so much as gross deceptions based on warped visions of oneness, accord, leadership, one ministry, God's move, etc, etc. Once they are brainwashed into buying into the premises of their particular vision of oneness, the behavior they manifest is the logical result. They get locked in.

To try and convince anyone in the Living Stream Church that they are guilty of idolatry in an exercise in futility. It's not a matter of being bold to do so.

We've all had our moments of "boldness" when in our foolish youth we were willing to blow somebody away with all our acquired knowledge on any one subject. I can remember standing on my dad's toes, when I was fresh in the Lord, and telling him he was destined for hell without Christ.

Inaccurate information? Probably not. Foolish presentation? Absolutely.

Eventually my Father was led to the Lord in the most tender way, when he was open, and it was done with much prayer, discernment, understanding, and care.

It's been my experience that the greatest success comes while discerningly showing them how they have been deceived. This hasn’t been an easy lesson for me to learn. But I know it is the way.

Blowing people away with extreme terms and labels? We learned that in the Local Church. It's one of those residucal LSM traits that the Lord has to deal with in us.

Roger

[Matt Anderson]

So we don't like the word idolatry. That's fine. So it is a strong label like the word 'cult'. Okay. As I said, I am going to stick with God's words on this subject because it has been one of the key things that has helped me see the light.

So, what's the message that underlies idolatry and how does it really apply to the LC and to today? The message and the meaning are still valid and relevant.

In the list of base sinful acts that Igzy quoted, I believe that we have all read (or at least some of us) about the following ones present with or supported by Lee.

sexual immorality,
hatred,
discord,
jealousy,
fits of rage,
selfish ambition,
dissensions,
factions and envy.

and yes

idolatry,

So, yes, idolatry is aligned with the more obvious stuff. We have examples of a number of these more obvious things in the LC.

I'm not talking about something nuanced here. We've all been in the garlic room too long. As djohnson has said and my wife experienced when we went to an LC meeting. It appears:

1. cultic
2. idolizes Lee

These two are more obvious to the human perception if you aren't initiated in the group already.

If anyone thinks I am being extreme just to be extreme, I'm not. I'm just keeping this subject on the table for everyone to continue to consider. If God says nothing to you through it, then fine.

I'm working on an exposition of 1 Corinthians 10 to help demonstrate from a NT point of view what Paul was saying about idolatry and the "table of the Lord" versus the "table of demons".

The main substantive questions are really related to whether idolatry can take a form that does not include physical idols and/or meats offered to physical idols among believers in a christian setting?

For example, when someone, in reverence, says "Brother Lee says..." and then offers up words from HWMR to others at the Lord's table is this something that is idolatrous?

As Paul says, the OT children of Israel were given manna from heaven which he equated with "spiritual food" that was Christ. Christ says I am the bread of life and that his words (I believe rhema) were spirit and were life. The words that the Lord Jesus Christ speaks to you are spirit and life to you. He provides them on a daily basis (Give us this day our daily bread) and puts them in our heart. If another man comes along through a system of Christianity and replaces the Word of God with things like HWMR and begins to provide you your daily bread is this not replacing your attention on the Lord with something else? Is this not idolatry?

If you choke on the word, idolatry, I am sorry. It's not my word. I'm just trying to pay attention to God for what God says the way He says it. I know this isn't very modern of me.

Most of those listening here are not inexperienced in the Word of God. You should be able to eat meat. There is no control here that forces you to believe one thing or another, so there is no real parallel to the LC. If you can discredit what I say and go on your way then more power to you.

Matt

P.S. One of the points that Paul makes in 1 Cor 10 is for the Corinthians to "judge for themselves". He's basically saying, listen to what I have to say on this subject and then decide for yourselves. I agree with Paul.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Roger

To try and convince anyone in the Living Stream Church that they are guilty of idolatry in an exercise in futility. It's not a matter of being bold to do so.

Originally Posted by Roger

We've all had our moments of "boldness" when in our foolish youth we were willing to blow somebody away with all our acquired knowledge on any one subject. I can remember standing on my dad's toes, when I was fresh in the Lord, and telling him he was destined for hell without Christ.

Inaccurate information? Probably not. Foolish presentation? Absolutely.

Eventually my Father was led to the Lord in the most tender way, when he was open, and it was done with much prayer, discernment, understanding, and care.

It's been my experience that the greatest success comes while discerningly showing them how they have been deceived. This hasn’t been an easy lesson for me to learn. But I know it is the way.

Blowing people away with extreme terms and labels? We learned that in the Local Church. It's one of those residucal LSM traits that the Lord has to deal with in us.

Roger

I may be wrong, but this thread is not about persuading the LSM folks about anything. They are like the "them" in Rev. 2. They aren't listening. If we are closely related to any of them and might be able to help them, I totally agree with the approach you've described--persuasion in love over time as God leads.

I believe this thread is primarily about understanding what happened to so many of us who were there, but are no longer. What went wrong to produce such evil fruit?

This understanding can help all categories of survivors: abused, abusers, and assentors. Why were we abused? Because we willingly submitted to the control of men more than the control of God. Why did we submit like this? We were taught to do so with leavened teachings. Why did we abuse? Because we coveted something other than God. We were enticed by the devil to be "someone." Why were we silent? Because we feared men more than God. Why did we fear? We were taught unhealthy fear through leavened teachings.

Abusive situations thrive in silence and in fear where the selfishness of the abuser can continue unchecked. In the case of God's family, to end silence, to face our unhealty fears in God's light, to purge out the leaven, and to say no to the selfishness of evil men is to end disobedience to God. We are told to expose evil deeds, not put on blinders and hope they go away. We are told to communicate in the light of God's truth, not in the hide in dark perversions of it.

We need to learn from what we have passed through so we don't repeat it in some other form, one that looks better. If we still have the basic building blocks of hierarchy in place and hold vestiges of deputy authority teachings which we may believe are the correct "cleaned up" version, it is only a matter of time before there will be bad fruit again. If we don't understand what it means for a Christian to "eat things sacrificed to idols" we'll be found chowiing down again on adulderated and leavened words of God.

We need to reach correct conclusions about the lessons God wants us to learn, with His help and light from His Word. So, what we are doing here is a worthy endeavor.

My husband and I are in contact with a number of people in the latest "home" church movement. These people are waking up to the evils and deadness in so many churches today and are wanting to come back to Jesus only. I think we have been able to help in some way with some of them as a voice of warning about the danger of making their focus "doing church right." We have been able to share some about how this seemingly good purpose can be used by the enemy to cause us to miss aim from our high calling to know Him. We've been able to warn them about wolves who come clothed in sheep's clothing as angels of light who intend to lord it over God's seeking sheep. Any "together" experience is about helping each other know Him and follow Him as the pre-eminent one, not about building a new and better church expression or offering selfish men a platform for their ambition and becoming objects of their abuse.

I am thankful for their sake that God has spent (and is still spending) a lot of time clearing up our minds by light and truth from the pure Word of God which sets free from deception. Otherwise, we might find ourselves spending more time in the wilderness trying again, with them, to do church right. We might even find ourselves as know-it-all wolves who come like angels of light to them but end up lording it over and abusing them.

Lord have mercy on us. Send your Word and heal our diseases. (Psa. 107:20)

Thankful Jane

[Paul Cox]

One thing that became very clear on the other forum was that there were many current LSM Church members who were lurkers, and were indeed affected by the tone of the forum. Several people made this clear to us. Several members pleaded with us to to change the tone for their sake, lest they go away confirmed in the things that the "Blendeds" were saying about us. I remember this because I was one the chief offenders in this area.

If memory serves me well, "kisstheson" was one who became enlightened because of the Berean Forum. Thank God the tone didn't turn him away. But I believe that many were turned away.

If we look at things from the Local Church perspective: Back in the day they were very fond of blasting everyone with the words, "Christianity is Babylon." Some were attracted by that, because it appealed to their radical personality. Many were turned away (although, we thank God for that). So, it's not just a matter of being doctrinally right. Even the matter of being doctrinally right is in the eyes of the one on the soap box.

Whether or not idolatry is rampant in the Living Stream Church is arguable. Personally, I don't have a problem with the concept, because I believe there is much truth there. But we must be considerate of those who are teetering on the brink.

Let's take the word "cult," for example. I learned the hard way that many Living Stream Church members, and many in break away Local Churches are very, very sensitive to this word. Originally, I thought it my mission to convince them that the word does indeed apply to the LSM Church. The evidence was clear, I thought.

But what was the result of my insistence? Bottom line? It made ME feel good to be on the soap box, displaying all I knew about the subject; and it might have made some who have the same ideas feel good ("yeah, that's it, get 'em"). But that was, I think, all there was it it.

Of course, we can do whatever we want, and it is certainly the prerogative of the one paying for all this to steer things the way they want it to go. The request for being considerate of those who might still come out of the organization is just that, a request.

But I think it behooves us to consider such a thing. It is easy to vent. Believe me, I know, because I've done a lot of it. But regardless of how much we like to think this is just a private room where like minded people can vent and agree, the fact is that it is on the World Wide Web. Every eye can see it. We should remember this. Current Local Church Members who are seeking and are still at varying stages of enlightenment, so far as the error of LSM is concerned, are watching with genuine interest.

But that's just my opinion. It's not my dime.

Roger

[Thankful Jane]

Hi Peter,

I think the statement that the teaching of Jezebel was not held by everyone in Thyatira was made because this was the case. This can be construed to mean that if there had been some in Pergamos that didn't subscribe to the doctrines of the Niolaitanes and of Balaam, the Spirit would have told us so. He didn't, so I don't believe there were such ones.

I don’t agree that Thyatira is arguably closer to idolatry than Pergamos. That statement is dependent on your definition of idolatry. I am not defining evidence of idolatry as only eating things sacrificed to idols and committing fornication. I am also defining it as an idolatrous hierarchical system of worship with one at the top dictating the beliefs and practices of all. This is systematized idolatry, clearly seen in the fulfillment of Mystery Babylon the Great. She is the queen of abuse, carried out through men in her hierarchical structure. She is drunk on the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.

The Babylonian religion was is a system of worship which was designed to bring worship to the one behind the idol. The N.T. makes it clear that the Gentiles were sacrificing to devils. Satan, in his quest for being like God, wants to be worshipped by the people of God. Mystery Babylon the Great is a religious system of his creation to cause God's people to serve him instead of God. It is filled with filth.

That is the the purpose of idolatry. Satan still wants to be number uno with all others bowing to him and under his control.

I think that the doctrines of Balaam, the Nicolaitanes and Jezebel all are applicable to the LC in varying degrees. We certainly had the teaching of the Nicolaitanes (just open the book Spiritual Authority by W. Nee and start reading and you’ll find hierarchical teaching leaven imbedded everywhere.) I started writing down some of the statements that are false last night. I kept writing in the margin ... where is support for this statement in the Bible? There is clearly the practice of the Nicolaitanes.

As for Balaam, no question about that. We had a prophet of God who was clearly all about his ministry and his interests and pursued this goal even if it brought harm to others. This was due to his covetousness to be the top ministry. He actually took from others and then shaped it to be his own and claimed his teaching was the high peak of the divine revelation. This behavior shows him to be a false prophet. True men of God receive all others and receive other ministries. He led other men into this error and a hierarchy of Blendeds, elders, and fulltimers carry on proclaiming the name of Lee and feeding people the leavened HWMR. To teach people to read only the HWMR instead of sending them to the pure unleavened Word of God, is to feed people leavened bread and to have them eat things sacrificed to idols. Lee offered up his leavened teachings to the idol of his covetousness, and now the exalted One Publication is systematically fed to his followers.

As for Jezebel, there is actually teaching in the Local Churches today that supports fornication and adultery. In one place a brother asked one of the leaders about why brothers who were adulterers and fornicators were tolerated in the church and the answer was to just love them and set an example of good behavior for them. This teaching supports the committing of fornication.

It is not a pretty picture.

Thankful Jane