The Unique Move of God

[ZNPaaneah]

So then, it seems to me the burden that Jesus had was that we could keep this oneness, and the burden Paul had was that we could keep this oneness.

I don't see John having a different burden in Rev 2&3. Jesus was Lord and was speaking to all of his believers in each city. The word was for all of them. (In 1Corinthians we learn that christians were already grouping themselves by claiming they are of Peter, Paul, Apollos, Christ, etc. It is reasonable to think this included the cities referred to Revelation, yet the way it was written it was written to all of them regardless of which apostle they preferred). If you were to fast forward to the year 2017 and John was writing to all the believers in Houston would he address the letter to a small percentage of them meeting on Windswept lane? It seems to me the lesson from Revelation is not that "the church in Houston" is the proper name, but rather the burden to include all the believers is the burden.

If the name points to the fact that this group is very concerned with the Lord's burden in Jn 17, Paul's burden in Eph 4 and is aligned with Rev 2&3 that suggests to me they would completely deemphasize their name and focus instead on what unites them with all the christians in their city, the name of Jesus. However, this doctrine on "the ground of oneness" has been used instead to emphasize the importance of not taking a name, which ironically has emphasized that their formula for a generic name is the one true name. For example, look at Evangelical's posts. His understanding of this doctrine demonstrates the apparent two faced aspect of this doctrine. When confronted with the reality that emphasizing any name other than Jesus is sectarian and divisive those who "stand on this ground" will agree and say that is what they teach. Yet when listening to those who have been discipled with this teaching their understanding is that the name determines if your standing is right or wrong, and they aren't talking about the name of Jesus. They will even go so far as to imply the name of Jesus is also divisive.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, perhaps you would tell me: Is it possible to be a part of the practicality of the local church without being associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee?

Originally Posted by Drake

It is irrelevant whether Witness Lee's name is even mentioned or the Living Stream Ministry materials are used for edification or not.

Both of these brothers know about the giant elephant in the room...but only one of them wants to pretend that the humongous pachyderm doesn't exist.

So, if "it is irrelevant whether Witness Lee's name is even mentioned or the LSM materials are used", then why have longtime Local Church brothers, and even whole churches been excommunicated over the person and work of Witness Lee? In fact, the last 50-60 years of the LC movement has been so heavily scarred by vicious infighting and betrayal, so as to be unrecognizable to anyone who would read Watchman Nee, or even the earliest ministry of Lee.

Actually, there has been quite a bit of meaningful dialogue, from both sides of the aisle as far as I can see. But to address the "practicality of the church" or "the ground of the church" or any related issues, without addressing the person (authority) and work (ministry) of Witness Lee, I'm afraid that meaningful dialogue will eventually digress to something much less meaningful, and even less profitable to all concerned.
-

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Both of these brothers know about the giant elephant in the room...but only one of them wants to pretend that the humongous pachyderm doesn't exist.

So, if "it is irrelevant whether Witness Lee's name is even mentioned or the LSM materials are used", then why have longtime Local Church brothers, and even whole churches been excommunicated over the person and work of Witness Lee? In fact, the last 50-60 years of the LC movement has been so heavily scarred by vicious infighting and betrayal, so as to be unrecognizable to anyone who would read Watchman Nee, or even the earliest ministry of Lee.

Actually, there has been quite a bit of meaningful dialogue, from both sides of the aisle as far as I can see. But to address the "practicality of the church" or "the ground of the church" or any related issues, without addressing the person (authority) and work (ministry) of Witness Lee, I'm afraid that meaningful dialogue will eventually digress to something much less meaningful, and even less profitable to all concerned.
-

Very good Unto. It's one thing for an assembly to meet according to "the ground of the church" or to "meet practically as the church" in whichever city it may be. It's another to meet according to "the ground of the church" or to "meet practically as the church", but not taking LSM publications as the basis for fellowship. This is precisely the denominating factor why one Local church (and it's members) can be received for fellowship and another cannot.

I am reminded of an example. A brother from the Church in Moses Lake (parted fellowship with LSM in 1986) sought to visit the Church in Euphrata, but was promptly shown the door. What is the issue? By all appearances it's fellowship according to a ministry. This must be what is implied when it's said to be meeting on the ground of oneness.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If the name points to the fact that this group is very concerned with the Lord's burden in Jn 17, Paul's burden in Eph 4 and is aligned with Rev 2&3 that suggests to me they would completely deemphasize their name and focus instead on what unites them with all the christians in their city, the name of Jesus. However, this doctrine on "the ground of oneness" has been used instead to emphasize the importance of not taking a name, which ironically has emphasized that their formula for a generic name is the one true name. For example, look at Evangelical's posts. His understanding of this doctrine demonstrates the apparent two faced aspect of this doctrine. When confronted with the reality that emphasizing any name other than Jesus is sectarian and divisive those who "stand on this ground" will agree and say that is what they teach. Yet when listening to those who have been discipled with this teaching their understanding is that the name determines if your standing is right or wrong, and they aren't talking about the name of Jesus. They will even go so far as to imply the name of Jesus is also divisive.

Very well stated ZNP.

This doctrine is just one example of the "two faced aspect" of many of the LSM doctrine. It is what keeps people from seeing the truth. There is the doctrine as stated by Witness Lee (and ONLY Witness Lee) - you can read it for yourself, I have posted the "ground of oneness" link on this site before. THEN, you can hear the watered down version or the rebuttal version from members of the LSM. This second version is more palatable until you continue to seek answers, ask questions, and search scripture. I believe this is one of the reasons there is a spirit of confusion among LSM members.

Paul never makes the charge of Witness Lee's version of "Ground of Oneness". I don't think that can be disputed. I guess someone could say that it is implied, but that would be a theory that could not be backed-up by scripture. What Paul DID make the charge of was "charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith".

I love my brothers and sisters in the LSM and feel for them deeply. I am saddened by much of what they are subject to with the LSM.