How Much To Throw Out?

Responding to aron's "right-on" list above, I would add the following:

1) "Our group is special". The Word says clearly that God is does not show favoritism. (Romans) There is also an old saying that goes something like "humility leaves when it sees its own face". Therefore, as soon as you think you are special, you are not. Of course, the Word also says that ALL of us have received favor from God--reinforcing the fact that we are all the same before Him. No one is "extra-special".

2) "Our leader was raised up by God in these last days to restore the church..." If this were, indeed, true, would He not have mentioned it in Scripture so that everyone would know that they were to come? Would He want anyone to "miss the boat"? Shouldn't there be a verse that says somewhere: "Behold, there shall come forth from the land of the Dragon two last great witnesses?" But no--"only" the two great witnesses during the time of Jacob's sorrow are mentioned and their ancestry is Jewish or, at the least, directly in the ancestral line of Jacob.

3) "Our leadership is always right. Never question them, because this is rebellion against God's anointed." So, then, our beloved Paul was in rebellion when he "withstood Peter to his face" about separating from the Gentiles? After all, wasn't Peter a "super-apostle", while Paul was sort of "second generation-afterthought"? And when the Bereans "searched the scriptures to find out if these things are so"--would they have remained silent if they had found it not to be or would they have spoken? You catch my drift, I am sure.

And on another page, another posting, someone mentioned how they claim not to have a formal seminary. "A rose by any other name" is still a rose. Full-time training followed by more full-time training is a seminary--even if you play the semantics game and say it is not. No one is fooled.

A LC member who no longer meets with the LC shared that once it was declared in a meeting that they were going to hold an "Advance" at a local denominational church camp. (They don't mind using their "degraded" facilities.) Others, it was shared, may have "retreats", but not the LC--they had "Advances"! Ha!

I believe it was Freedom that pointed out elsewhere that the members really do not function but, rather, read from the HWFMR, thereby just re-speaking what Lee said. True. One has only to go to a meeting or two before this is clearly seen. To leave the script is dangerous. So, in effect, they do not share what God has surely given them (because we ARE assured that "each man HAS"--present tense), but what one man said years and years ago. Only Lee is functioning, really.

Finally, the Word is not read (except, perhaps, very rarely) unless the footnotes are then consulted. (THE HWFMR is actually the Recovery Version verses with footnote materials expanded into full pages.) These "footnotes" are actually a complete Bible commentary, which anyone is entitled to write and publish if they so choose. These, however, are inserted into the pages of this version itself and treated as part and parcel of the Holy Word. How embarrassing it is to open a page of the Recovery Version and see just one or two small verses at the top with Lee's footnotes filling the entire rest of the length of the page! When visitors come to the church and try to read or share from their version of the Bible, much effort is made to thrust this "Recovery Version" into their hands and get them to read, instead, from it. By the way, I find this version to be clumsy and difficult to understand in many places. (By "understand", I mean the difficulty in following a sentence that is a looping of one clumsy phrase to another to try to stay in "word for word" translation.) It lacks the beauty and rhythm of the KJV and certainly the clarity of the NIV or ASV, among many others. This is just my own opinion, however.

UnregisteredSO

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

... the members really do not function but, rather, read from the HWFMR, thereby just re-speaking what Lee said. True. One has only to go to a meeting or two before this is clearly seen. To leave the script is dangerous. So, in effect, they do not share what God has surely given them (because we ARE assured that "each man HAS"--present tense), but what one man said years and years ago. Only Lee is functioning, really.

In order to understand the LC experience, I think that you have to understand the historical/cultural matrix that gave it birth.

Just as Marxism was born out of a critique of capitalism's ills (which were, and remain, many), so did Watchman Nee's "normal" christian church life arise as a response to the dormancy and stagnation he saw in the Western clergy/laity model.

But in Nee's and later Lee's Asian-influenced mindset, any functioning organizational model needed strong central leadership. Therefore ideas like "deputy God", "Authority and Submission", etc were promoted as necessary. Therefore the original thought of every member functioning became sublimated to the idea of every member being in harmony with the center, which ultimately reduced the notion of 'functioning' to every member standing up, one by one, and declaring, "Gee, Chief, what a great idea!!" and then sitting down. Because of their cultural lens they can't see the absurdity of it. And their cultural lens is threatened by any give-and-take as disorder, chaos, disharmony. Order must prevail. Freedom is secondary.

By contrast, if you look at the "normal" christian experience in the Book of Acts, on Pentecost each one declared in a unique tongue the glory of God. Yet there was harmony.

And there was "much discussion" in Acts 15 at the conference in Jerusalem, on what to do about the Gentiles flooding the church. (see e.g. v. 7). Yet it wasn't disorder. On the contrary, disorder was temporarily allowed, to find the true order, i.e. God's will for the group at that moment.

The LC attempt to externally impose "oneness" or "harmony" or "coordination" or "blending" or however they put it, looks an awful lot to me like the oneness imposed by Babylon - "And whoever didn't have the mark was not permitted to buy or sell", etc. That is the "oneness" that says, "If everybody did exactly as I say, then there would be peace." Well, duh.

[HERn]

Well, I learned something interesting about my new community church (E-Free) last weekend. They had home coming and invited an Episcopalian priest to speak. He got saved in college and attended our church and was sponsored by the church to attend Reformed Theological Seminary, his tuition and expenses were paid. What's amazing to me was that there was never any expectation that after graduation he would serve in our church or even be a minister in the E-Free denomination. While in seminary events and a burden led him to consider serving in the Episcopal Church. When he told Dr. Sproul (a bigwig in evangelicalism) at the seminary his response was something like "leave it alone and let it die" regarding the Episcopal Church. This priest preaches the gospel in this very liberal denomination. His sermon on Sunday was a very simple and clear presentation of the gospel I have heard in a long time. Compare this to the FTTA where students are expected to serve only in the small narrow sect of Christianity known as the Lord's Recovery.

[HERn]

Well, I'm hesitant to write about this, but as a family we're facing our first conflict in our new church. Our slightly mentally handicapped daughter has been attending the high school youth group and was hoping to attend the upcoming high school retreat. The youth workers said she was to immature and would not accept the registration fees from my wife. When my wife offered to drive our SUV and chaperone our daughter she was told by the youth workers that they did not want to put my wife out. I wrote an email to our senior pastor and we have a meeting with him on Monday. We did not ask him to change the decision, but let him know that we are offended, hurt and angry. My wife spent an hour on the phone talking to the youth worker in tears. I know that people have different capacities when it comes to accommodating mentally handicapped people, but for God's sake this is the body of Christ where we are supposed to care the weaker members, right? Sorry for the dirty laundry, but this is where we are at. I don't think we will leave, but our hearts are sad.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

...this is the body of Christ where we are supposed to care the weaker members, right? Sorry for the dirty laundry, but this is where we are at. I don't think we will leave, but our hearts are sad.

I am sad to hear your testimony. The only thing that I can think of to tell the pastor at the meeting on Monday is this: 1 Cor 12:22,23 "On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable,…"

If this member seems "less presentable" then the body should redouble itself to accomodate, and cover with honor. Not for some politically-correct "human rights" stuff but because this will please God. God loves every human being. We should not exclude, based on human frailty or slow development.

This is basic stuff, folks; what are we showing our high school members if we haven't figured out the ABCs of Christian living?

And no, I wouldn't leave, either: it seems that this group needs your input. There is spiritual labor to do. God bless your efforts, and give you and your wife compassion and endurance, until the others find it as well.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by HERn

Well, I'm hesitant to write about this, but as a family we're facing our first conflict in our new church. Our slightly mentally handicapped daughter has been attending the high school youth group and was hoping to attend the upcoming high school retreat. The youth workers said she was to immature and would not accept the registration fees from my wife. When my wife offered to drive our SUV and chaperone our daughter she was told by the youth workers that they did not want to put my wife out. I wrote an email to our senior pastor and we have a meeting with him on Monday. We did not ask him to change the decision, but let him know that we are offended, hurt and angry. My wife spent an hour on the phone talking to the youth worker in tears. I know that people have different capacities when it comes to accommodating mentally handicapped people, but for God's sake this is the body of Christ where we are supposed to care the weaker members, right? Sorry for the dirty laundry, but this is where we are at. I don't think we will leave, but our hearts are sad.

Hi HERn

Thanks for sharing your situation with us. It is not easy to share personal stuff.

I can't offer any specific advice and I don't think you are asking for any advice anyway. I do like to say that in this age, while sin is present, we cannot expect any churches to be perfect. However there are model churches (1 Thessalonians 1:7). (Not easy to tell whether one church is a model church)

Similarly marriage and working life will not be perfect:- we will experience conflicts. We do not divorce our spouses simply because of our first argument nor do we quit our jobs simply because of one bad colleague.

May God guide your family and may all parties grow spiritually through this matter.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Hi HERn

Thanks for sharing your situation with us. It is not easy to share personal stuff.

I can't offer any specific advice and I don't think you are asking for any advice anyway. I do like to say that in this age, while sin is present, we cannot expect any churches to be perfect. However there are model churches (1 Thessalonians 1:7). (Not easy to tell whether one church is a model church)

Similarly marriage and working life will not be perfect:- we will experience conflicts. We do not divorce our spouses simply because of our first argument nor do we quit our jobs simply because of one bad colleague.

May God guide your family and may all parties grow spiritually through this matter.

I'm ok with receiving advice from those comfortable giving it. For the most part the folks who post here have been through the "clothes ringer of life" and are very measured and thoughtful...except for me when I get on an anti-LSM rant!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Well, I'm hesitant to write about this, but as a family we're facing our first conflict in our new church. Our slightly mentally handicapped daughter has been attending the high school youth group and was hoping to attend the upcoming high school retreat. The youth workers said she was to immature and would not accept the registration fees from my wife. When my wife offered to drive our SUV and chaperone our daughter she was told by the youth workers that they did not want to put my wife out. I wrote an email to our senior pastor and we have a meeting with him on Monday. We did not ask him to change the decision, but let him know that we are offended, hurt and angry. My wife spent an hour on the phone talking to the youth worker in tears. I know that people have different capacities when it comes to accommodating mentally handicapped people, but for God's sake this is the body of Christ where we are supposed to care the weaker members, right? Sorry for the dirty laundry, but this is where we are at. I don't think we will leave, but our hearts are sad.

I too have been in your situation, and unless your daughter has a history of disturbances, there is no way any church should reject her when Mom is there as a chaperone / driver.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I too have been in your situation, and unless your daughter has a history of disturbances, there is no way any church should reject her when Mom is there as a chaperone / driver.

Not disruptive at all. She's about 3-4 years behind her peers in emotional development, but can sit through sermons and such. She was home schooled until this year and has been doing great in public school (non-diploma track) and is even on the soccer team (as a freshman not much playing time but she loves being part of the team). She makes cookies for the team and for her church friends. She has sometimes gone overboard on asking girls to text her and has pestered some girls to the point where she was asked to not contact them. She's working with a counselor on interpersonal communication skills. Other than that she is a normal teenage girl trying to figure life out. She came to us as a foster child one month old and we were very blessed to be able to adopt her at 2-years old.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

She came to us as a foster child one month old and we were very blessed to be able to adopt her at 2-years old.

Bless you and your wife being able to adopt her. I know foster children tend to be bounced from home to home with no real sense of love from their foster parents.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by HERn

Well, I'm hesitant to write about this, but as a family we're facing our first conflict in our new church. Our slightly mentally handicapped daughter has been attending the high school youth group and was hoping to attend the upcoming high school retreat. The youth workers said she was to immature and would not accept the registration fees from my wife. When my wife offered to drive our SUV and chaperone our daughter she was told by the youth workers that they did not want to put my wife out. I wrote an email to our senior pastor and we have a meeting with him on Monday. We did not ask him to change the decision, but let him know that we are offended, hurt and angry. My wife spent an hour on the phone talking to the youth worker in tears. I know that people have different capacities when it comes to accommodating mentally handicapped people, but for God's sake this is the body of Christ where we are supposed to care the weaker members, right? Sorry for the dirty laundry, but this is where we are at. I don't think we will leave, but our hearts are sad.

We had a good meeting. Kind and loving, but their capacity is limited. We will be working with the the youth minister to help her prepare for for next year's retreat. She can't go this year even with her mother as a chaperone. We are worried that if we tell her that if she improves next year she can go, but does not make it she will feel like a failure. Her soccer coach invited the girls to her church youth group, so she will visit. In coordination with her councilor we have restricted her to only 10 unsolicited phone texts per day. This will help her from pestering her church friends. We will not force her to continue in her current youth group if she feels rejected and like "she's a project". There is an Assembly of God church who's youth group she may visit because when she was home schooled where one of the moms was a youth pastor there. One comment that hurt was that there was a senior girl who we were told wanted her last year in the group not to be negatively affected by our daughter's needs. We just went to a ballet were two of the senior girls were performing and several families were there, but we felt ignored. This rejection of our daughter will probably factor in to me taking early retirement and moving in with my wife's widowed father. Our daughter has a dear disabled friend in his church that we really like.

[Lisbon]

Isn't it strange that the last conference and so present HWfmr is "the crucial points of the major items of the Lords Recovery. They have little desire for the truth.

Lisbon

[HERn]

Things are going well. Our daughter is loved by the youth group and I've been asked to serve as a deacon in our elder, deacon format church. I served as a deacon back in the '80s before we moved away. I am very much enjoying the worship even more than when I was in the LSM LC. I attended a work day this weekend and drank from the fellowship of Christian brothers. I am so happy to have escaped the religious superstition of the LSM LC. A dear sister in our real local church is going to serve as a nurse practioner to nomad Muslims in Africa and we are supporting her. The Spirit is so much greater than the narrow sect known as TLR.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UnregisteredSO

Finally, the Word is not read (except, perhaps, very rarely) unless the footnotes are then consulted. (THE HWFMR is actually the Recovery Version verses with footnote materials expanded into full pages.) These "footnotes" are actually a complete Bible commentary... inserted into the pages of this version itself and treated as part and parcel of the Holy Word. How embarrassing it is to open a page of the Recovery Version and see just one or two small verses at the top with footnotes filling the entire rest of the length of the page!

Psalm 109 "Mem" says

Originally Posted by Psalm 109 Mem

97 Oh, how I love your law!
I meditate on it all day long.

98 Your commands are always with me
and make me wiser than my enemies.

99 I have more insight than all my teachers,
for I meditate on your statutes.

100 I have more understanding than the elders,
for I obey your precepts.

101 I have kept my feet from every evil path
so that I might obey your word.

102 I have not departed from your laws,
for you yourself have taught me.

103 How sweet are your words to my taste,
sweeter than honey to my mouth!

104 I gain understanding from your precepts;
therefore I hate every wrong path.

"How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth"

Which words, I ask, the words of "law" or words of "grace"? The words which are revelatory of Jesus Christ, or the words which are natural, soulish, and derived from fallen human concepts? WL's scriptural exegeses clearly divided the word of God into these two classes. See his commentary throughout the Psalms, and in Job, and in James' epistle. Etc. Words which were "sweet" to WL got reams of footnotes. As UnregisteredSO says above, you can open the RecV and get 2 verses of scripture and the rest of the page is 15 or 20 paragraphs of small-print commentary. But open a page in Psalms and you might get one dismissive comment for 30 verses of scripture, or maybe no footnote, just 2 or 3 cross-references for an entire page! Where does Paul or another NT writer receive scriptures thus? Or suggest that we do so? I'd say, on the contrary.

I propose an alternative to Recovery Version footnotes: Who kept His feet from every evil path in v 101, in order to obey God's word? Who didn't depart from God's laws in v 102? Who hated every wrong path in v 104? I propose that it was Jesus who fulfilled these declarations. Jesus was the Promised Seed who truly tasted the sweetness of God's word, as verse 103 says. Our faith is in this Jesus, who delights to obey the Father's word (expressed will, or law, or precept, etc), and thus tastes sweetly. See e.g. "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me". Our faith is not in Paul, not in David, not in WL, and certainly not in ourselves. No; it's "this Jesus" whom we see and believe into. (See Acts 2:32; cf Heb 2:9) It's "this Jesus", revealed in Scripture, whom we follow. And I ask, How can we follow, or obey this Jesus, if we don't see Him? How can His sheep move to greener pasture, and still waters, without hearing their Shepherd's voice?

WL's footnotes present a nearly violent and schizophrenic treatment, where he'd say, "natural, natural, natural" in covering the text, then suddenly he'd see a verse like 103 where the word was called "sweet" and suddenly declare "Revelation!! A revelation from God!!" And a long footnote would ensue (of course tied to some LC practice like "eating the word" - i.e. pray-reading). Then it was back to "natural, natural, fallen, natural". Strange and disjointed stuff; wrenching a so-called revelation totally out of context from the surrounding narrative. WL's pet verses got reams of ink, and the rest were relegated to silence, or outright dismissal, as vain words of men. Again, where's the precedent for this sort of exegesis?

But look at Peter's treatment of Psalmic text on Pentecost. Peter didn't say that David was ignorant, and natural, and that suddenly David had a "squirrel" moment in the midst of his natural and vain philosophizing. No, Peter said that David was a prophet and knew what, or more specifically, 'Who' was coming after him, fulfilling God's promise of an eternally reigning Seed. Or should we reject Peter's interpretive approach in favor of WL's? (See Acts 2:30; also Jesus' 'David was in spirit' of Matt 22:23). Or is Peter's interpretation limited to a few verses from Psalm 16, after which we're invited to form our own personal, subjective (and with WL, clearly disjointed) hermeneutical treatment elsewhere?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Psalm 109 "Mem" says..

Sorry, that was Psalm 119, not 109. I admit to being a hasty writer, and not a careful or systematic thinker. But even a rank and unschooled layperson can see that WL treated the Bible differently than the Bible treated itself. The reception and use of OT scripture in the NT gives a pattern, and WL abandoned this pattern in adhering to his "NT economy" exposition.

In a sense, WL fell into the pit that he dug, and was ensnared by a net of his own creation (Psa 57:6). His teachings were to promote his ministry, and his ministry was to become the centerpiece of the Lord's recovery. But when scripture couldn't be conformed to his teachings, he was forced to abandon scripture as "low" and without merit. Instead we were expected to conform to the "high peak" theology of men.

Again I ask, Which words were sweet to WL's taste - merely the ones that could be lined up with his "economy" metric? Then why does it say, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God"? In order to preserve his theology and ministry, WL was forced to jettison this. His inability to find the Christ in scripture suggests his inability to find the Christ of scripture. He'd essentially invented his own; one that didn't need to be reconciled with the word of God. Yet clearly, Christ is the Word of God.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Words which were "sweet" to WL got reams of footnotes... open the RecV and get 2 verses of scripture and the rest of the page is 15 or 20 paragraphs of small-print commentary. But open a page in Psalms and get one dismissive comment for 30 verses of scripture, or maybe no footnote...

I checked a RecV and in four pages of verses from Psalm 119 (vv 65-144), there's only one footnote, consisting of a sentence on "the unfolding of God's word" in v 130. That's it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Finally, the Word is not read (except, perhaps, very rarely) unless the footnotes are then consulted. (THE HWFMR is actually the Recovery Version verses with footnote materials expanded into full pages.) -- UnregisteredSO

I grew up in the Catholic Church: baptized, confirmed, altar boy, choir boy, 12 years parochial education, named after my uncle who was ordained Franciscan OFM, etc.

They constantly promoted the instruction to their people that the laity could not read the scriptures alone without the proper and official interpretations. Every week our church service was based on the Catholic Missal.

The LCM has become exactly the same. Their members must read from the "Interpreted Word" from the footnotes, the Life-Studies, and the HWfMR lest they "misinterpret" God's word. The HWfMR has become their "Recovery Missal."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They constantly promoted the instruction to their people that the laity could not read the scriptures alone without the proper and official interpretations.

While that is beyond what either the RCC or the LCM should claim concerning their interpretations of scripture, there actually is some level of safety in the idea that I should generally remain within standard interpretations and understandings except when there are a number of people truly willing and able to take on hashing through ideas that might not square with what was otherwise held. In other words, I am much better off sticking to what I know rather than what I think that is different from anything I knew before.

Besides, while the claim of 33,000 truly different sects is far from real, at some level, the opening of the idea of personal study and revelation over the past 100 to 200 year has resulted in a plethora of novel ideas. In some arenas you can find that the number of different opinions on certain subjects is as great as the number of people there. I'm not talking about minor nuances, but significant differences. Of course, as long as it is just about the peripheral stuff, it really doesn't matter — at least until someone speaks from their idea and it somehow insults someone with a different idea and a sort of small schism erupts.