Deceptions on Campus

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by clever sister

Christian Fellowship

CF is the [local] branch of TSCF (Tertiary Students Christian Fellowship), which in turn is affiliated with IFES (International Fellowship of Evangelical Students) – connecting us with a national and international Christian community.

From the local university's website. They aren't hiding their link to Evangelicalism.

Another point, we know for a fact that CoC is ONLY run by local church members. There may be legitimate reasons for a group to call themselves Christians on campus if it was a “mixed bag” of Christians with different backgrounds.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Another point, we know for a fact that CoC is ONLY run by local church members. There may be legitimate reasons for a group to call themselves Christians on campus if it was a “mixed bag” of Christians with different backgrounds.

Run by local church members is how it should be - it is biblical.


Three points as highlighted by gotquestions:
https://www.gotquestions.org/parachurch-ministries.html

1) parachurch ministries are usually independent of church oversight.

2) These organizations don’t have the same structure as the local church, which is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).

3) The local church is God’s plan for the building up of the saints to do the work of the ministry, and He has gifted believers to accomplish that goal (Ephesians 4:11-12).

Biblically it is the local church, not inter-church or para-church organizations which God has equipped to do the work on campuses. Biblically and historically there is little support for church-independent organizations to be doing the work without oversight from the local church.

On this basis I question their legitimacy to do work on campus if they are not overseen or run by the local church.

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Run by local church members is how it should be - it is biblical.

I didn't say it shouldn't be run by church members and your point that it's biblical to be run by church members doesn't apply at all. The issue we were discussing was the name being CoC instead of their real name of who employs them. The LC employs full-timers to work on campus and run CoC- there are no other Christian groups involved. They've been legitimately criticized by mainstream Christianity for being "deceitful" in their recruiting tactics- with one of the ways being the issue of using a different name. You can look that up yourself! They've been criticized for it and it is true, that cults also recruit this way. It's not a great way to be viewed- doing the same thing cults do and excluding your name from a group thats undoubtedly run by them.

Anyways, I never said that local church members running the group was wrong- I have no issue with that. To my knowledge- no one does. We were talking about their two names and I didn't even say that was unbiblical- just a bad practice! There are a lot of things in life that you aren't going to be able to straightforwardly pin point to Scripture for a clear answer. I don't think the Bible addresses either issue of who should run campus ministry groups and how they should be named but my point is, you're bringing up an issue that isn't being debated and then implying that my position on the new subject you've brought up is unbiblical. Stick to the issues please and make points that apply to the argument.
You may be doing this intentionally in an effort to frustrate me or maybe you're just not great at debating...not sure. I'm happy to keep this up though.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by kumbaya

I didn't say it shouldn't be run by church members and your point that it's biblical to be run by church members doesn't apply at all. The issue we were discussing was the name being CoC instead of their real name of who employs them. The LC employs full-timers to work on campus and run CoC- there are no other Christian groups involved. They've been legitimately criticized by mainstream Christianity for being "deceitful" in their recruiting tactics- with one of the ways being the issue of using a different name. You can look that up yourself! They've been criticized for it and it is true, that cults also recruit this way. It's not a great way to be viewed- doing the same thing cults do and excluding your name from a group thats undoubtedly run by them.

Anyways, I never said that local church members running the group was wrong- I have no issue with that. To my knowledge- no one does. We were talking about their two names and I didn't even say that was unbiblical- just a bad practice! There are a lot of things in life that you aren't going to be able to straightforwardly pin point to Scripture for a clear answer. I don't think the Bible addresses this issue but you can try to say it's biblical all you want for local church members to run a campus ministry but you're totally off subject. Intentionally, perhaps? Or maybe just not great at debating...not sure. I'm happy to keep this up though.

We cannot really separate the matter of names from the matter of denominations versus the local church because this is what is causing the confusion.

You may see the local church as any member from any denomination participating. I disagree. If a presbyterian participates, it is the presbyterian church, not the local church, participating. If a student asks that person "which church should I go to", that presbyterian may say "you can come to mine if you like". So a student would be "recruited" to presbyterianism. Very unlikely that the presbyterian volunteer would suggest a student go to a Catholic church I think. Thus proving they are not about "building up the Body" but evangelicalism.

Clearly, the group which represents evangelicalism is only a part of the body (what about pentecostals and Catholics etc?).

The only group which represents the local church as a whole is Christians on campus. For this reason it is valid for them to be named as simply Christians. The moment the name "evangelical" or "Witness Lee" is added to the name, it becomes a denominational group.

In the minds of the local church members, there is no such thing as "the church of Witness Lee", or "the Local Church" (in capital letters), and "Living Stream Ministry" is the ministry and not the church. So by not naming the group as anything other than "Christians on campus" they are being true to their beliefs and therefore the claims of deception are unfounded. I do not believe that the local church members believe themselves to be part of a denomination called "the church of Witness Lee". For this reason you cannot claim deception.

What is more like deception, is individuals who attend a certain denomination of their choice every Sunday, pretending to be "just Christians" or "just evangelical Christians" on campus. The leader may be presbyterian, the lead missionary may be a baptist, and maybe another is a pentecostal. They do not reveal their true denominational affiliation to the students, knowing well, that they are devoted to a denomination in their heart and on a Sunday. This is entirely different to the local churches, who do not believe they are a denomination of any kind. This confusion is evident when students are converted to "Christianity", only to be faced with the tough decision of "which church should I attend this Sunday", then, they realize that Christianity is really divided into many different groups.

Also, it may vary from campus to campus, but I think there are more volunteers from the local churches involved than full timers. It costs a lot of money to support full timers and it is better to get volunteers (including student volunteers) to devote their weekends of after work hours than full timers.

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We cannot really separate the matter of names from the matter of denominations versus the local church because this is what is causing the confusion.

You may see the local church as any member from any denomination participating. I disagree. If a presbyterian participates, it is the presbyterian church, not the local church, participating. If a student asks that person "which church should I go to", that presbyterian may say "you can come to mine if you like". So a student would be "recruited" to presbyterianism. Very unlikely that the presbyterian volunteer would suggest a student go to a Catholic church I think. Thus proving they are not about "building up the Body" but evangelicalism.

Clearly, the group which represents evangelicalism is only a part of the body (what about pentecostals and Catholics etc?).

The only group which represents the local church as a whole is Christians on campus. For this reason it is valid for them to be named as simply Christians. The moment the name "evangelical" or "Witness Lee" is added to the name, it becomes a denominational group.

In the minds of the local church members, there is no such thing as "the church of Witness Lee", or "the Local Church" (in capital letters), and "Living Stream Ministry" is the ministry and not the church. So by not naming the group as anything other than "Christians on campus" they are being true to their beliefs and therefore the claims of deception are unfounded. I do not believe that the local church members believe themselves to be part of a denomination called "the church of Witness Lee". For this reason you cannot claim deception.

What is more like deception, is individuals who attend a certain denomination of their choice every Sunday, pretending to be "just Christians" or "just evangelical Christians" on campus. The leader may be presbyterian, the lead missionary may be a baptist, and maybe another is a pentecostal. They do not reveal their true denominational affiliation to the students, knowing well, that they are devoted to a denomination in their heart and on a Sunday. This is entirely different to the local churches, who do not believe they are a denomination of any kind. This confusion is evident when students are converted to "Christianity", only to be faced with the tough decision of "which church should I attend this Sunday", then, they realize that Christianity is really divided into many different groups.

Also, it may vary from campus to campus, but I think there are more volunteers from the local churches involved than full timers. It costs a lot of money to support full timers and it is better to get volunteers (including student volunteers) to devote their weekends of after work hours than full timers.

I don't see this as a matter of what groups are a denomination or not! How is that an issue related this topic?

Every group has to have a name, legally, to own property and employ people. This thread is titled "deceptions on campus" and one of the deceptions the LC uses is employing people that sometimes call themselves a different name (CoC) when on college campuses other than the name of the group they're a part of and that employs them (the LC). Every denomination or non-denominational group has to have a name. The difference in what groups are denominations or not doesn't apply because they all have names and the issue we're discussing is how the LC uses a different name when they're on the college campuses. There is a name for the group that owns the CoC house and employs the CoC employees, that are also full-timers for the local church, and the name isn't "Christians on campus!" its "The Local Church in <blank>."

Aside from your point about a Presbyterian not inviting someone to a Catholic Church not making sense due to the issue of Catholics not teaching a "saved by grace and grace alone" doctrine essential to the Christian faith (they believe there are works required as well for most), your argument truly doesn't make any sense with better examples! Even if you used a different example like "a Presbyterian wouldn't invite someone to a Baptist church," while probably true- that absolutely doesn't mean they're about "building up evangelism" instead of building up the body of Christ! You're saying it proves this, but how? Yes, they probably want to gain a member for their church, which every group does, but they're still essentially helping to increase the body of Christ. Evangelism isn't something that is "built up" by inviting someone to your church at all! That's just pure and simple inviting someone to church! I don't see how someone inviting another to their Christian meeting, denomination or not, proves they're not concerned with building up the body of Christ, but instead concerned with building up evangelicalism. You keep saying these actions prove this, but again-how? It's natural to invite someone to the place you know and are familiar with. Your judgement of that group being a "denomination" is a result of your "us vs. them" indoctrination and having an unbalanced viewpoint of the one church/one city doctrine being taken to an extreme. In practices, the local church mirrors that of a sectarian group- which is more divisive and elitist than most denominations! Yet, you think by insisting that you don't have a name, even though in practice you're just the same as other denominations (if not worse), that makes some kind of difference! A group is defined by its practices, not it's name! The local church is practicing all the things denominations do but their ridiculous claim to "not have a name" somehow proves to them that they're different. It reminds me of the book, "The Emperor's New Clothes!" You keep saying that people from denominations are just promoting evangelism by inviting people to their church instead focusing on building up the body of Christ. That also doesn't make sense bc Evangelism is a movement accepted by most Protestant groups, possibly all, so I don't see how inviting someone to a church you prefer is "building up evangelism!" Ha! If anything, sending someone to a different Protestant church would be more along the lines of "promoting evangelism!"

This isn't really the issue but your understanding of what evangelism is and how it relates to the Body is seriously flawed. My last response covered how your idea that evangelism "represents" just a portion of the body of Christ is pretty skewed. Not judging you, I'm not an expert but you really don't know what you're talking about and its obvious. Evangelicals don't "represent" anybody more than the rest, and are absolutely interested in increasing the whole body of Christ, which can include members of the Catholic Church that are saved on their own accord, despite what the Catholic Church teaches. Do you understand the difference in Protestantism and the Catholisism? The Catholic church does not teach that you are saved by being "born again" in the way we understand it. They believe that God's grace alone is not sufficient for salvation but requires works and there's a whole complicated process that honestly, I don't know a whole lot about. Either way- it's a legitimate argument that the Catholic Church, as a whole, has some serious differences in the fundamentals of the faith and while there are definitely saved believers in the church- you won't see an Evangelical speaking in that congregation. More likely bc it would never be allowed! So, I don't know why you're trying to figure out what groups Evangelicals represent and which ones they don't in the body of Christ. I don't understand your point to that argument but I'm guessing it's some justification for the relationship between Evangelicals and denominations and the LC and CoC. This got way off topic but there was a lot to address! For example...

This statement you've made has issues....

"The only group which represents the local church as a whole is Christians on campus. For this reason it is valid for them to be named as simply Christians. The moment the name "evangelical" or "Witness Lee" is added to the name, it becomes a denominational group."

Why do you think the only group that represents the local church is Christians on campus? The group that represents the local church is called, "The church is <blank> locality." That's what's on their signs, their mail, their tax forms, property records, and the paychecks for their employees.

It's crazy to me that you can't recognize that they have a name. They LEGALLY HAVE TO HAVE A NAME to exist, doing the things they're doing. I understand the reasons that you don't want to have a name (you feel like it makes you a denomination even though no one cares about that except ppl in the LC) but you can't have an organization that owns property, employs people, and takes peoples money without paying taxes, WITHOUT A NAME!!! Sorry, this is just a humorous issue for me bc it's not the first time I've discussed this and the response is always the same- complete insistence that they have no name. Except on their sign of course. Oh, and with the IRS, and with their realtors and banks. They can have a name then, but bc having a name allegedly makes you a denomination- they become very clear after "taking care of business matters" that they do NOT have a name!!

Now, I'm not saying they have to be called, "the Church of WL" or the "LSM church," but in a practical way, LSM essentially controls all the churches with monetary requirements and other expectations so if you HAD to pick a name, it seems "Living Stream Ministry Church" would be the most accurate-especially due to the churches requirement to buy and sell LSM material exclusively.

But, I know that would upset you and my friends and family to be called that so fine- don't call yourself that. But don't deny the name each local church LEGALLY has. You're so caught up in lofty doctrine and legalism about names you can't acknowledge that each locality already has a name recognized by the government! I would say that's a pretty good argument for having a name when your government recognizes you as "said name". The idea of not having a name is so ridiculous and doesn't work in the real world. I think God will give some grace on this and you won't be condemned for having a name and becoming *gasp* a DENOMINATION. LC people are so indoctrinated that this is so evil- it's just a knee jerk response when someone says that word. Even being considered as "non-denominational" is below them. Get over it peeps, they're just words. No one cares what your name is but in the real world, groups have names!! It reminds me of when the artist Prince changed his name to a symbol with no name. So, people had to call him, "the artist formally known as Prince." That essentially become his new name, in practice, bc there was no option to address him with his name being a symbol other than "the artist formerly known as Prince!" This is how I view the LC- switching between a name when required to legally and then a symbol that is ridiculous and others having to name them to address the normal issues every Christian group experiences. You have no right to be offended by whatever name people call you when you've insisted that you have no name! Luckily, that can all be avoided bc lo and behold, according to our government- they have a name (sshhh! just like denominations do!) Frankly, by not naming themselves- the legality that they had to pick a name probably saved them! I'm sure they would have been labeled as the "WL church" (even more than they are now!) or something along those lines!

Also, in regards to this comment,

"I do not believe that the local church members believe themselves to be part of a denomination called "the church of Witness Lee". For this reason you cannot claim deception."

You can claim deception bc according to the US government, they have a name. They should use that name instead of CoC. Also, I never said they believe themselves to be part of a denomination called, "The church of Witness Lee." You can claim they're using deception by calling themselves CoC when they already have a name that's recognized by the government, which unfortunately has a bad reputation (hence the deception). Do you really think the local church would call themselves CoC if they weren't such a controversial group? You'll probably say yes, you follow blindly.

This comment you made still manages to surprise me even though I've heard this nonsense before....

You said...


"What is more like deception, is individuals who attend a certain denomination of their choice every Sunday, pretending to be "just Christians" or "just evangelical Christians" on campus. The leader may be presbyterian, the lead missionary may be a baptist, and maybe another is a pentecostal. They do not reveal their true denominational affiliation to the students, knowing well, that they are devoted to a denomination in their heart and on a Sunday. This is entirely different to the local churches, who do not believe they are a denomination of any kind. This confusion is evident when students are converted to "Christianity", only to be faced with the tough decision of "which church should I attend this Sunday", then, they realize that Christianity is really divided into many different groups."

I didn't realize that Christians were embarrassed of the denomination they're affiliated with! Do you realize this isn't true?? Only people in the LC can say this bc you've been so indoctrinated against denominations. They are NOT embarrassed by their denomination NOR do they hide their denominational affiliation to students. It's ironic, bc this is something cults do, but not denominations! Earlier today, I found a link to all the Christian clubs on the campus I live by. More than half listed their associated Christian group on the list. For many of the other ones, I just had to click on the link to their webpage to find out their Christian groups affiliation. I truly feel bad that you are so misguided by the local church! NO ONE except the local church views denomination affiliation as something to "hide" or be embarrassed about. I really hope you can begin to see this. I also feel you're projecting your ideas about denominations on how someone "feels devoted to that denomination in their heart." That's completely ridiculous. I'm not saying some old-schoolers aren't like that but the trend now with Christian congregations is absolutely NON-DENOMINATIONAL and denominations left and right are dropping those affiliations and standing on a unified simple doctrine for accepting other believers! Some are doing now what the local church claims to do (yet doesn't) and "stand on the ground of oneness," perhaps in different words but essentially doing the same thing by being open to accepting all believers and taking communion with them. Christians are realizing more and more that denominations (although not evil) aren't helping bring Christians together. Pretty soon the local church is going to see a true expression of the Body of Christ coming together- from the former denominations!!I truly believe this and I also believe the Lord's Recovery will go even more off course with what the Bible teaches. They've been on a scary path and it's not getting better!

With your last point, yes- there are more members of the LC that are college age than full-timers, running CoC- although not by much! Why pay a full-timer to do it when a college age person will do it for free, right?

[Evangelical]

Strictly speaking the name "the local church in.." is for the Sunday meeting where the Lord's table is held. This is, strictly speaking, the assembly of the local church. Clearly, this is something which Christians on campus is not, so I think that using a different name such as Christians on campus is entirely appropriate. If you can show, that the Christians on Campus meetings are equivalent to the Lord's Table meeting on a Sunday then perhaps you have a point. Can you?

So, if the names do not mean anything, then why they don't get rid of them? Ask any denominational pastor that, and their answer will reveal the truth! And, I never did understand why there are different evangelical groups on the one campus, all trying to achieve the same ends, with very similar gospels. The situation is that we have different evangelical organizations all competing for the same students.

It's very easy to prove that Evangelicalism is indeed something that is "built up" - there was a time when Evangelicalism did not exist. It grew over time to the number of people it includes today. Clearly then, it was "built up", it must have been. Evangelical movements obviously build up themselves and the particular denominations they represent. Evangelicals also send missionaries to preach their gospel, and in many cases, re-evangelize countries for which there are already well established Catholic or Orthodox churches. Pentecostals will then do the same, sending their missionaries to preach their pentecostal gospel, in many cases, re-evangelizing areas where there are already well established evangelical/Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox churches. So, there is a build up of those particular denominations wherever they grow.

I am puzzled by your statement (in bold) that evangelicals don't represent anybody more than the rest.

If you look at this website:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...ulation_growth

There is a table "Religious Self-Identification of the U.S. Adult Population: 1990, 2001, 2008"

34% of American adults considered themselves "Born Again or Evangelical Christians" in 2008. Therefore, Evangelical groups and associations represent 34% of Americans, or whatever the figure is today, I don't know. I mean, these groups don't exist for the Catholic church do they? (they have their own statistics, a much larger group than the Evangelicals).

I understand the difference between Protestants and Catholics and the reasoning for the differences. What I don't understand is why Catholics are considered "part of the Body of Christ" sometimes, and other times not. Unless evangelical groups are building up the Catholic churches, I cannot see how they can claim to be building up the Body. Their reluctance to build up the attendance at Catholic churches proves they are about building up evangelicalism rather than the entire Body of Christ.

This is what Watchman Nee says:
"A church can only be named after its locality. It cannot have any other name." ~ The Normal Christian Faith,
by Watchman Nee. So, either you have misunderstood what they are saying when they say "we have no name", or they have misunderstood what it means and did not explain it properly. "We don't have a name" is really a shortening of "we don't have a special name other than the name of the locality".

As I mentioned before, the local church assembly and the on campus meeting are different. So, there is good reason for using different names. As an example, if I went shopping with 10 brothers and sisters, I would not tell the cashier "we are the church in...". We might however, say, "we are Christians". I do not think a denominational church would speak like this either. If 10 baptists went shopping they would not tell the cashier "we are the baptist church in...", but they might say "we are Christians".

I have the heard the same story for what, the past 20 years, about denominations "getting together". I just don't see much happening. I believe the increase in non-denoms is in general, due to dissatisfaction with mainstream denominations, rather than a genuine attempt at unity. I have met with some non-denom Christians before, and their reason for being non-denom is typically "this church is this, and this church is that", rather than "we saw the vision of the oneness of the Body and want to be one with all the believers".

These sorts of statements:
"More than half listed their associated Christian group on the list. For many of the other ones, I just had to click on the link to their webpage to find out their Christian groups affiliation." prove otherwise to what you claim about the situation of denominationalism.

Obviously, the more "affiliations" there are, the more division there must be. If a group was affiliated with 100,000 different groups, I would think, wow, that's a lot of different groups - for what?

[clever sister]

I feel like a lot of these arguments are missing the point.

When a student comes into contact with a Christian club at there college, whether or not they are Christian they probably want an idea what the club is about.

Now, there is one club that at my campus that clearly links itself to one particular church service. So, when a student encounters this group thinks 'Oh, it's for members of that church group and if they are encouraging me to come along it is because they want me to go to their service"
Now, if a student is looking for a Sunday service, because they've just moved to that there or whatever, they might enquire to find more about. If they are not interested they move along.

If they come into contact with a para-church group, usually they can work out pretty quickly that it is a para-church group and decide if they want to go or not, according to their beliefs and what they are looking for.

Then you get to Christians on Campus. Cool, a Christian group that welcomes all Christians. If you are a naive Christian that sounds great. What are they doing on campus? Oh, they just come together to study the bible. A lot of Christians new to university would love to study the bible with others. Maybe, one is not a Christian but curious what the bible has to say, a bible study sounds perfect for that.
However, Christians on Campus's purpose is not just to have bible studies on campus to help enlighten Christian and non-Christian's alike.
The purpose is to get them to come to the Local Church in [City] Sunday meetings, to get them to be active recruiters while at college and when they finish college to go to the FTT.

That's the deception.

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you can show, that the Christians on Campus meetings are equivalent to the Lord's Table meeting on a Sunday then perhaps you have a point. Can you?..

I’m sorry you have issues understanding my points. I’ve already made a point for all the important issues you’ve addressed and I can’t help you understand the rest- it should be common sense though. No one can help you besides the Lord and there are some people we shouldn’t argue with. You made that clear when you asked me to prove how a group of people is the same as an event (a table meeting) thinking that I wouldn’t be able to (because people and events are two different things) and you’re still ignoring the fact that the governement recognizes them as having a name proven by the fact that the LC employs CoC and owns their property. But now you’re claiming that bc the LC has a table meeting with a function other than that of CoC- that it must somehow excuse the issue of them having two names, even though it’s a common cult recruitment tactic.

I could sit here and continue to prove each of your points as incorrect but I’m hoping someone else takes the wheel. First of all, we can’t have a discussion if we can’t agree on the facts- which we clearly can’t do.

There are some ppl you just shouldn’t argue with- you’re proving to be one of them. Have a great day.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So, if the names do not mean anything, then why they don't get rid of them? Ask any denominational pastor that, and their answer will reveal the truth!

Ask those in Midwest LC's who got sued in court for their name. Columbus where I once lived was one place.

Yes, folks, the height of hypocrisy and arrogance -- the LSM church that claims to have no name, and condemns all others for their names, went to court with a lawsuit to legally acquire the rights to their officially sanctioned name "the church in Columbus."

So now LSMers like Evangelical can now condemn the church there for being the "Columbus Christian Assembly."

As Someone once said, "Woe to you hypocrites, blind guides."

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Strictly speaking the name "the local church in.." is for the Sunday meeting where the Lord's table is held. This is, strictly speaking, the assembly of the local church. Clearly, this is something which Christians on campus is not, so I think that using a different name such as Christians on campus is entirely appropriate. If you can show, that the Christians on Campus meetings are equivalent to the Lord's Table meeting on a Sunday then perhaps you have a point. Can you?

So, if the names do not mean anything, then why they don't get rid of them? Ask any denominational pastor that, and their answer will reveal the truth! And, I never did understand why there are different evangelical groups on the one campus, all trying to achieve the same ends, with very similar gospels. The situation is that we have different evangelical organizations all competing for the same students.

It's very easy to prove that Evangelicalism is indeed something that is "built up" - there was a time when Evangelicalism did not exist. It grew over time to the number of people it includes today. Clearly then, it was "built up", it must have been. Evangelical movements obviously build up themselves and the particular denominations they represent. Evangelicals also send missionaries to preach their gospel, and in many cases, re-evangelize countries for which there are already well established Catholic or Orthodox churches. Pentecostals will then do the same, sending their missionaries to preach their pentecostal gospel, in many cases, re-evangelizing areas where there are already well established evangelical/Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox churches. So, there is a build up of those particular denominations wherever they grow.

I am puzzled by your statement (in bold) that evangelicals don't represent anybody more than the rest.

If you look at this website:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...ulation_growth

There is a table "Religious Self-Identification of the U.S. Adult Population: 1990, 2001, 2008"

34% of American adults considered themselves "Born Again or Evangelical Christians" in 2008. Therefore, Evangelical groups and associations represent 34% of Americans, or whatever the figure is today, I don't know. I mean, these groups don't exist for the Catholic church do they? (they have their own statistics, a much larger group than the Evangelicals).

I understand the difference between Protestants and Catholics and the reasoning for the differences. What I don't understand is why Catholics are considered "part of the Body of Christ" sometimes, and other times not. Unless evangelical groups are building up the Catholic churches, I cannot see how they can claim to be building up the Body. Their reluctance to build up the attendance at Catholic churches proves they are about building up evangelicalism rather than the entire Body of Christ.

This is what Watchman Nee says:
"A church can only be named after its locality. It cannot have any other name." ~ The Normal Christian Faith,
by Watchman Nee. So, either you have misunderstood what they are saying when they say "we have no name", or they have misunderstood what it means and did not explain it properly. "We don't have a name" is really a shortening of "we don't have a special name other than the name of the locality".

As I mentioned before, the local church assembly and the on campus meeting are different. So, there is good reason for using different names. As an example, if I went shopping with 10 brothers and sisters, I would not tell the cashier "we are the church in...". We might however, say, "we are Christians". I do not think a denominational church would speak like this either. If 10 baptists went shopping they would not tell the cashier "we are the baptist church in...", but they might say "we are Christians".

I have the heard the same story for what, the past 20 years, about denominations "getting together". I just don't see much happening. I believe the increase in non-denoms is in general, due to dissatisfaction with mainstream denominations, rather than a genuine attempt at unity. I have met with some non-denom Christians before, and their reason for being non-denom is typically "this church is this, and this church is that", rather than "we saw the vision of the oneness of the Body and want to be one with all the believers".

These sorts of statements:
"More than half listed their associated Christian group on the list. For many of the other ones, I just had to click on the link to their webpage to find out their Christian groups affiliation." prove otherwise to what you claim about the situation of denominationalism.

Obviously, the more "affiliations" there are, the more division there must be. If a group was affiliated with 100,000 different groups, I would think, wow, that's a lot of different groups - for what?

Ok, I have more time and feel you need to see a different perspective (if possible).

In response to your first paragraph, you're ignoring the fact that the government recognizes the LC as having a name and that the LC employs the people for CoC and owns the building CoC uses. In addition to ignoring that, you're now stating that the LC does have a name, but strictly speaking- it's only for Sunday table meetings. So they do have a name, but only on Sundays- according to you? Also, how is comparing the meetings of CoC (that are run by LC employees) and the Lord's table meeting in the LC proving that their different names are justified? Why do you consider the style of their meetings being equivalent to each other as a factor in this discussion? Do you really think that just because the meetings have a different flavor that it justifies them being called a different name when they're on a campus? With that reasoning, what should we call the group (although the same people) that meets on Wednesday nights for the prayer meeting? According to your logic, it could be acceptable to call them a different name (even though they're the same group of people) because the prayer meeting is run differently than the Lord's Table and their functions are different. Do you understand how your logic isn't applicable to justify them calling themselves CoC now? Obviously, the LC and CoC have two different initiatives but they're all on the "same team" and working together. Just like a business has a sales team and customer service team- but is still one company. It's exactly like the LC having CoC for recruiting, so why are they using a different name with CoC- if not to be deceitful? Given the general populations knowledge about deceitful recruiting practices- you'd think the LC would want to avoid this well known deceitful practice of giving themselves another name when recruiting on campus! But, it seems to be a small price they're willing to pay and will use the tactic to avoid the loss of potential recruits!

You can't deny, one exists to recruit for the other and you're right that the CoC meetings will not be the same as the Lord's table meeting but that is not "proof" as you're stating, that they are justified in being called different things! Also, you're just willfully ignoring the fact the the government does recognize the local church as having a name. Not the mention, the local church wouldn't be able to employ people or own property- without a name. You can insist all day long that there is no name, yet- from a legal standpoint, there is a name. You can't have it both ways and just claim to be "Christians who meet together on the (in theory only) ground of one-ness" with no name, but then also employ people and own property. To do those things, you must have a name. You can't argue that they legally have one but I guess you could argue that it's only due to "man's law" that they have a legal identity and then turn around and refuse to acknowledge that lowly characteristic of having a name as a mere "legal technicality." Feel free to do so, as do many other LC-goers! But you have a name, therefore- call yourself that name when out in the world doing things in an organized effort.

I hesitated even responding bc I knew this would be so repetitive and it's proving to be the case! I'm taking the time to respond to all your points but you've ignored the ones you can't defend and then thrown out more points that are, as the others, not proving your argument like you think they are! This topic you've brought up now about how LC and CoC meetings being different and how that somehow justifies the different names is such a bad example for your argument that I almost feel bad pointing out such flawed logic.

Ok, 2nd paragraph. You said, "if names don't mean anything, why don't they drop them?" Ok, just because a congregation is required to have a name in order to operate in the way that most congregations do, that doesn't mean that they're a divisive denomination! A name could be a name for a denomination or a non-denominational group. How could they drop their name(denominational or not), as you're suggesting, and employ people and own property? I'm not sure what answer you believe the hypothetical pastors would give in your scenario but I'm going to take a wild guess and say their response would be something that someone in the local church told you it would be- ha! There are so many of those silly notions in the LC that make you think about the world in an alternate reality! Also, in regards to the evangelical campus ministries "competing with each other," that's also likely your perception due to being in the local church. They'll tell you that kind of stuff but in reality, unless individual evangelical leaders on campus have some sort of personal vendetta to "steal" other believers from other groups and be the exception to the rule-you're completely off base to say they're competing for students. There are needs that can be met, in different ways, and by different groups. A healthy Christian campus ministry will work with other groups that also preach the gospel but may serve in a different way. You really do have an LC indoctrinated view of how things work outside the LC- I'm not trying to be condescending. It's just very obvious and it makes me sad.

Your third paragraph...I'm not sure why we're discussing this- I agree with you that different Christian groups tend to grow the group they're associated with. That seemed to turn into an argument on the definitions of different movements and actually- I'm glad bc it made me read up on the topic and now I can see why you're separating Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism. I thought that Pentecostalism was just a movement under the umbrellas of the Evangelicalism movement. While Pentecostalism TECHNICALLY does have its roots in Evangelicalism, there are some differences. Again, I don't see how this topic applies to the conversation at hand (CoC) since it's common knowledge that Christian groups are trying to gain members for their associated congregations but I do think it's interesting that you claim the local church doesn't do that! Anyways, I'd share his article about the differences/similarities of the two movements.

https://fullerstudio.fuller.edu/evan...-charismatics/

4th paragraph... I didn't say that evangelicals "don't represent anybody more than the rest." They clearly can't "represent" Catholics bc Catholics wouldn't allow it! I already explained that evangelicalism is only within the Protestant churches because the Catholic Church, by definition, doesn't allow any movement to promote it or recognize it other than itself! I can't speak for Catholicism (need to look that up) but Evangelicalism recognizes the Catholic church as having members that are born again Christians and part of the body of Christ. But obviously, due to not being "welcomed" in the Catholic Church community, they don't have much affiliation with the Catholic Church as a result. Also, it's obvious that Evangelicals don't agree with the majority of Catholic doctrine so while they recognize that there are born again Christians there, it would be unreasonable for Evangelicals to promote attendance in a place they believe also teaches unscriptural doctrine- even if it's not doctrine related to the key issues of the faith. As far as the survey you brought up, I'm sorry-I don't see how that applies. I agree that Evangelicalism might be represented as a separate group than Catholicism (as shown in the survey). Again, for the most part- that's due to the Catholic Church not welcoming the evangelical movement into their services. What point does that survey make, in your opinion, by distinguishing the two groups of born-again Christians/Evangelical and Catholic Christians? Are you trying to imply this somehow means that Evangelicalism is to blame for this? After posting the survey, you're clearly stating that because Evangelicalism doesn't actively build up each denomination equally- according to you, this proves they are wrong to claim they are building up the Body of Christ? Wow! So it has to be one or the other in your mind? The ONLY thing you have to do to become a believer and member of the Body is to be born-again. Why does the issue of how Evangelicalism possibly creating more growth in certain denominations than others even matter? For someone so concerned about the one-ness of the body of Christ, do you really care that the movement has less affect on some groups than others? Even if they do cause some groups to grow more than others, do you think that result is 100% due to Evangelicalism deciding which groups they want to grow and which ones they don't? Please! They're growing the Body! That's all that matters! Evangelicalism isn't trying to "build up" evangelicalism. It's whole existence is to serve the Lord! If one denomination grows more than another because of Evangelicalism- that's just the Lord's mercy and has less to do with their efforts given that it's a movement that includes all Protestant churches!

5th paragraph.....forgive me if I don't take Watchmen Nee's words as a substitute for Scripture. Please! Show me where it says that in the Bible. The city boundaries as being the basis and boundary for meeting with other Christians is HIGHLY debatable and you should know that very few Christians agree with this doctrine due to it stretching Biblical teachings.

6th paragraph... see my first paragraph but your example of telling a cashier "we're Christians" instead of the fact that they're Baptists is clearly not the same as one group of people being employed by a Christian congregation, then recruiting for it under a different name. Who is the "cashier" in this example? The college students? In your example, you forgot to include that the Baptist church would actually be paying the "shoppers" to tell the cashier they are "just Christians" and then develop a relationship with the cashier, with the ultimate goal of bringing them to the Baptist church. If you're going to use that analogy-let's apply it fully!

7th paragraph... well, that is your experience and perspective. Mine is different. I've seen it happen to two churches personally and have sensed the change. I looked it up and sure enough, it's happening! The article says churches are, "reinventing how evangelicals and others cooperate and shape their ministries in many contexts and across denominational borders." This seems to contradict your claim that they're ditching their denomination status "due to dissatisfaction with mainstream denominations, rather than a genuine attempt at unity." Sure, the article doesn't use LC lingo like "seeing a vision of the one-ness of the Body." It's basically the same thought process though! Also, give them a break! Change takes time! Clearly this is an awesome thing to see how congregations are moving towards more fellowship and involvement with each other! Do you not recognize that is from the Lord? You still think congregations efforts to be one in the Body of Christ is still somehow below the LC due to your insistence that the LC doesn't have a name, therefore stands on the ground of one-ness" (even thought they don't back that statement up)? Here's the article- again, I'm sorry you haven't seen it but it's happening!

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ne...inational.html

8th paragraph... yes, there are many affiliations or denominations. That's why it's been great to see so many dropping those denominational ties and focusing on the key issues of the faith and fellowship with the whole body of Christ. Granted, being non-denominational, as I stated before, doesn't mean you can't have a name. Denominations do divide - I agree. Names however- don't. I know you're not going to agree due to your intense LSM indoctrination but just know your opinion and the LC doctrine on this issue is discredited by the majority of Christian scholars, and believers in general. The doctrine of "having no name besides that of your locality" is questionable at best, not emphasized in the Bible, and practically impossible to execute in the real world. It could never work and the LC knows it! It's easy to "state this ideology" knowing that it would never actually happen due to them not being able to manage it and ultimately LSM would lose their control. Still, the doctrine is definitely OVER EMPHASIZED by the LC in an classic sectarian attempt to elevate themselves over other believers. By elevating an obscure doctrine to such an unhealthy level- they actually create MORE division with other Christians in that this requirement is almost at the same level as the fundamental issues of the faith! They use this elevated doctrine as the basis of their existence and judge and follow any other doctrine as a measure against it. It's called BEING OUT OF BALANCE- and unfortunately it's something many cults and sectarian groups do. They take one doctrine of minor importance, that may even be correct, but elevate it to a point that is unhealthy and base/measure everything against it. The LC isn't the first to do it and it won't be the last!

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The only group which represents the local church as a whole is Christians on campus. For this reason it is valid for them to be named as simply Christians. The moment the name "evangelical" or "Witness Lee" is added to the name, it becomes a denominational group.

In the minds of the local church members, there is no such thing as "the church of Witness Lee", or "the Local Church" (in capital letters), and "Living Stream Ministry" is the ministry and not the church. So by not naming the group as anything other than "Christians on campus" they are being true to their beliefs and therefore the claims of deception are unfounded. I do not believe that the local church members believe themselves to be part of a denomination called "the church of Witness Lee". For this reason you cannot claim deception.

If you pray to dead human beings like Mary or some apostles....then they are your idols.

If you pray to a wooden statue of long dead Buddah, then that is your idol.

If you divide from the body of Christ for not receiving Witness Lee as the oracle of god, the minister of the age, the apostle of the age, the one ministry.....then Witness Lee and Living Stream Ministry is your idol...whether or not you practice transparency and "name" your group after WL or not.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

If you pray to dead human beings like Mary or some apostles....then they are your idols.

If you pray to a wooden statue of long dead Buddah, then that is your idol.

If you divide from the body of Christ for not receiving Witness Lee as the oracle of god, the minister of the age, the apostle of the age, the one ministry.....then Witness Lee and Living Stream Ministry is your idol...whether or not you practice transparency and "name" your group after WL or not.

Only if you can point me to the body of Christ and say "there is the body" and show me that this is the body of Christ we are divided from, can you really say that. So which denomination or denominations exactly are you going to point me to? If you are unable to point me to the body of Christ, then I'm afraid you cannot claim we are divided from it. The Catholics could tell me clearly, "we are the mystical body of Christ, and these protestants are sects as they have divided from us". What can you say?

Practically speaking, the "body of Christ" you refer to is a plurality of denominations, and has been split into Protestant/Catholic etc for quite some time. So, I don't really know what you mean by "dividing from the body", when the body you speak of is already fractured. I think you mean "dividing from the conglomeration of denominations (minus Catholics) that we think is the body of Christ". If this is the case, then a believer "divides the body" every time they choose to attend one denomination over another because of their preference, likes/dislikes etc. And spiritually speaking, I think as long as we are believers, we cannot be divided from the body of Christ.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Practically speaking, the "body of Christ" you refer to is a plurality of denominations, and has been split into Protestant/Catholic etc for quite some time. .

This is a Euro-centric view. In actuality the "body" first split in the fourth century (Chalcedon), then in the eleventh century (Great Schism) then in the sixteenth century (Protestant/Catholic), then innumerable Protestant splinterings since then. Including splinters that claim to be the restored church. Google "true church" and you'll see how many besides Nee/Lee et all claim to be God's legitimate ("Proper" in LC parlance) collective representatives on earth today.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Only if you can point me to the body of Christ and say "there is the body" and show me that this is the body of Christ we are divided from, can you really say that. So which denomination or denominations exactly are you going to point me to? If you are unable to point me to the body of Christ, then I'm afraid you cannot claim we are divided from it. The Catholics could tell me clearly, "we are the mystical body of Christ, and these protestants are sects as they have divided from us". What can you say?

Practically speaking, the "body of Christ" you refer to is a plurality of denominations, and has been split into Protestant/Catholic etc for quite some time. So, I don't really know what you mean by "dividing from the body", when the body you speak of is already fractured. I think you mean "dividing from the conglomeration of denominations (minus Catholics) that we think is the body of Christ". If this is the case, then a believer "divides the body" every time they choose to attend one denomination over another because of their preference, likes/dislikes etc. And spiritually speaking, I think as long as we are believers, we cannot be divided from the body of Christ.

Hi Evangelical,
I don't view the body of our Lord as this or that denomination. Neither does He. Remember, neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor master, male nor female.... Myself and my family were practically divided from the body by the Local Church nearest us. We were quarantined, shunned, disconnected, dropped, muted, by people we loved very much, people who had spent years ingratiating themselves to my young children. This practice of excommunicating true believers, born again, Spirit regenerated christians is the division I speak of. This is the LC way....tried and true. We are not the first and we won't be the last ones to be on the receiving end of such cruel behavior. I tried for months to reconcile with our friends, while the true reasons behind their disconnection were hidden from me. The truth is, if I had ever known about this groups true beliefs, their habits of quarantining christians, I would never have been inside at all. They hide what they do...the incredibly unchristian, cold hearted practices, unless you are completely sold out for the ministry. We were deceived by this group. In the end we were just left damaged and broken hearted. I am talking about 3 precious kids who love Jesus all under the age of 12. It was the very strange shunning that caused me to look for answers online....where I find, what? This is standard procedure for the Leeites.

This is the unjustified division I am talking about. My story matches everyone elses. In fact, they refuse to speak to us. Even if I reach out to them, they refuse any contact. In fact, I'm pretty sure you are not allowed to be speaking to me either, so you better watch out! Don't let them catch you at it!

Seriously, though, Evangelical....come out of her. It is no place for true christians....no place for you if you love the Lord Jesus, and want to continue in His word, as His disciple....get out before they inflict damage on you or your family, if any of them are in.

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Run by local church members is how it should be - it is biblical.


Three points as highlighted by gotquestions:
https://www.gotquestions.org/parachurch-ministries.html

1) parachurch ministries are usually independent of church oversight.

2) These organizations don’t have the same structure as the local church, which is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).

3) The local church is God’s plan for the building up of the saints to do the work of the ministry, and He has gifted believers to accomplish that goal (Ephesians 4:11-12).

Biblically it is the local church, not inter-church or para-church organizations which God has equipped to do the work on campuses. Biblically and historically there is little support for church-independent organizations to be doing the work without oversight from the local church.

On this basis I question their legitimacy to do work on campus if they are not overseen or run by the local church.

Ok, that's fine that you question their legitimacy to do work on campus without being overseen or run by the local church. I didn't have a problem with that.

My issue is with them using two different names and excluding CoC's affiliation with the local church that runs it, while recruiting and during the initial stages of their interactions with college kids.

You're trying to prove a point on an argument that no one is having. No one has said that it's wrong to have local church employees run a campus ministry, right? I'll have to scroll down but I'm pretty sure that again- you're twisting this argument.

In an effort to clarify why a group shouldn't use a different name (or totally exclude their name) than the one they're employed by or a member of, I went on to point out that CoC was ONLY run by local church employees and student members.

You seem to be taking my clarification of who the group is run by (in an effort to show why they shouldn't have a different name), and twist it to say that I have an issue with the fact that LC members are running a campus ministry in the first place.

That isn't my issue so again, your opinions on who should or shouldn't be involved with a campus ministry are completely off topic and please stop implying that I've taken an stance on an issue that I never took and aren't even legitimate concerns.

You've got to be doing this on purpose, right?

What's your deal?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Ok, that's fine that you question their legitimacy to do work on campus without being overseen or run by the local church. I didn't have a problem with that.

My issue is with them using two different names and excluding CoC's affiliation with the local church that runs it, while recruiting and during the initial stages of their interactions with college kids.

You're trying to prove a point on an argument that no one is having. No one has said that it's wrong to have local church employees run a campus ministry, right? I'll have to scroll down but I'm pretty sure that again- you're twisting this argument.

In an effort to clarify why a group shouldn't use a different name (or totally exclude their name) than the one they're employed by or a member of, I went on to point out that CoC was ONLY run by local church employees and student members.

You seem to be taking my clarification of who the group is run by in an effort to show why they shouldn't have a different name, and twist it to say that I have an issue with the fact that LC members are running a campus ministry in the first place.

That isn't my issue so again, your opinions on who should or shouldn't be involved with a campus ministry are completely off point and insinuating that I've made an argument which I've never made.

OK, getting back on primary topic, let's consider alternatives to the deception argument, one being:

"the requirements of the campus to allow "Christians on Campus" to be present." (as the OP stated)