Some Good Things to Come Out of the Recovery?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Not sure what you mean by your first statement - can you clarify?

You mentioned rote and only certain saints allowed to say certain things, that is a liturgical clergy-laity system. If only one person is speaking they have become "clergy" to the ones who don't speak who are the "laity". The clergy-laity system evolves from a majority of members not wanting or able to speak or a few members imposing rules that only one or two can speak. The format of the meetings encourages everyone to speak but if that does not happen it becomes a clergy-laity meeting.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You mentioned rote and only certain saints allowed to say certain things, that is a liturgical clergy-laity system. If only one person is speaking they have become "clergy" to the ones who don't speak who are the "laity". The clergy-laity system evolves from a majority of members not wanting or able to speak or a few members imposing rules that only one or two can speak. The format of the meetings encourages everyone to speak but if that does not happen it becomes a clergy-laity meeting.

Are you defining a clergy-laity system based on a meeting format or as the practice of a church body? I guess I could google it.

I regularly participate with a group of believers from different “denominations” where we sit in a circle, break bread and people are free to share a word, hymn, song, praise, etc. This is much different than at the LSM churches, where most everyone regurgitates LSM approves materials. In an attempt for some appearance of authenticity, my LSM locality was “training” people not to read directly from the LSM material. It was too blatantly obvious what was going on and they wanted people to stick to the script, but not to directly read. This carries over into home meetings too... so sad!

They also mentioned this at the training in Anaheim, so I assume this is true throughout. Those who are skilled in regurgitating Witness Lee in their own words get extra Amen’s.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

In an attempt for some appearance of authenticity, my LSM locality was “training” people not to read directly from the LSM material. It was too blatantly obvious what was going on and they wanted people to stick to the script, but not to directly read.

This is how LSM defines oneness and the one accord -- all speak the same thing, speak the one thing, think the one thing, etc -- straight from the latest LSM book without appearing too "robotic." Yet the stated goal of the FTT's is to mass produce "Witness Lee Tape Recorders."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Are you defining a clergy-laity system based on a meeting format or as the practice of a church body? I guess I could google it.

I regularly participate with a group of believers from different “denominations” where we sit in a circle, break bread and people are free to share a word, hymn, song, praise, etc. This is much different than at the LSM churches, where most everyone regurgitates LSM approves materials. In an attempt for some appearance of authenticity, my LSM locality was “training” people not to read directly from the LSM material. It was too blatantly obvious what was going on and they wanted people to stick to the script, but not to directly read. This carries over into home meetings too... so sad!

They also mentioned this at the training in Anaheim, so I assume this is true throughout. Those who are skilled in regurgitating Witness Lee in their own words get extra Amen’s.

I used the term system in a loose way. There is the clergy-laity system which is the official way things are ordered and structured by clergy and laity. But practice wise, some "clergy-laity" churches may not practice clergy-laity distinctions as much as others. And in the recovery a church may practice a clergy-laity distinction more than a Catholic church. This is something we need to be aware of, and it all starts with expecting only one person to speak every Sunday, or one person insisting they speak and not giving others a chance. This happens because people don't read their morning revivals and Bible at home during the week, they come to the meeting and expect others who have to fill in their knowledge gaps. This is no different really to a person in the denominations going to church on a Sunday to listen to the priest and never reading their devotionals and bible at home.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This happens because people don't read their morning revivals and Bible at home during the week, they come to the meeting and expect others who have to fill in their knowledge gaps. This is no different really to a person in the denominations going to church on a Sunday to listen to the priest and never reading their devotionals and bible at home.

Yes, we very much have a spectator culture... easier that way, not messy.

Evan- do you find that the majority of people in your LSM church speak mostly about the current Morning revival topic when they talk about God? Whether they’re in a meeting or otherwise? I found this to be true and it was always interesting to me. I remember talking about what God was doing in my life at a Sunday meeting (really cool things!) but it had nothing to do with the morning revival. People actually listened and were engaged rather than humming “Amen’s” at the right time. I remember feeling sad that the only great things they could think about God was what Witness Lee had told them to say that week.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You mentioned rote and only certain saints allowed to say certain things, that is a liturgical clergy-laity system. If only one person is speaking they have become "clergy" to the ones who don't speak who are the "laity". The clergy-laity system evolves from a majority of members not wanting or able to speak or a few members imposing rules that only one or two can speak. The format of the meetings encourages everyone to speak but if that does not happen it becomes a clergy-laity meeting.

It wasn't that only certain ones were permitted to speak, but what they spoke had some controls on it, as is being brought out on this thread.

So we know that this is another one of those things that started pretty well in the "Recovery," but then degraded.

But since this is a thread about good things that came out, I would put forth the 2nd one: The Emphasis on the Indwelling Christ. While the LC certainly didn't have the market cornered on this subject either, this was a central teaching of Nee and Lee.

(And, again, what started as a good focus of "Christ in you, the hope of glory" unfortunately devolved into the external control thing. And I should add that today 95% of the speaking I hear in Christendom still focuses on some aspect of the law. They may speak of New Testament things, but it is conveyed in an old covenant way of performance - still stuck in a Galatians type error. Most haven't learned that the Christian life is impossible to live apart from the life of Christ in them!)

But, nonetheless, I believe this focus - Christ in y-all - is the central theme to what the new covenant is about, and I think the Recovery did a lot to promote this truth.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You mentioned rote and only certain saints allowed to say certain things, that is a liturgical clergy-laity system. If only one person is speaking they have become "clergy" to the ones who don't speak who are the "laity". The clergy-laity system evolves from a majority of members not wanting or able to speak or a few members imposing rules that only one or two can speak. The format of the meetings encourages everyone to speak but if that does not happen it becomes a clergy-laity meeting.

Hasty generalization!

Here in Grace Baptist Church, we have cell groups where everyone has the opportunity to share from their studies and meditations on the scripture. And everyone is encouraged to evangelize the lost. You err to generalize every Christian groups with clergy-laity system!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Hasty generalization!

Here in Grace Baptist Church, we have cell groups where everyone has the opportunity to share from their studies and meditations on the scripture. And everyone are encouraged to evangelize the lost. You err to generalize every Christian groups with clergy-laity system!

That's awesome!! I recognize that if a gathering is too large (e.g., at Sunday teaching time) it may not be conducive to open sharing from members. But I consider it so key that even in those situations it would be really good if at least a few were allowed to share something they were inspired by afterward.

I've sometimes heard that groups don't want to do that for fear of what someone might say or that things could "get out of control." That is always a possibility, but I have to say the benefits of the riches that come out of the members speaking, far outweighs any of the downsides. And in experiencing this kind of open meeting for perhaps 30 years, I can honestly say I could easily count on one hand the times anything got too far sideways.

But that is a big benefit of smaller meetings too. So if it, for some legitimate reason, can't be done in the large corporate gatherings, then I think there definitely needs to be small gatherings where everyone is encouraged to share real experiences of Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Hasty generalization!

Here in Grace Baptist Church, we have cell groups where everyone has the opportunity to share from their studies and meditations on the scripture. And everyone are encouraged to evangelize the lost. You err to generalize every Christian groups with clergy-laity system!

If everyone has the opportunity to share, then that is not a clergy-laity system.

But if everyone is lazy and looks to one person in the group to do most of the speaking, essentially they look up to that person as a "clergy". That's how it starts. It parallels the situation in Israel when they wanted a king to rule over them. They basically wanted to hand over their spiritual responsibilities to others, and those who wish to control others are more than happy to oblige under the guise of them being "unable" or doing a "poor job".

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If everyone has the opportunity to share, then that is not a clergy-laity system.

But if everyone is lazy and looks to one person in the group to do most of the speaking, essentially they look up to that person as a "clergy". That's how it starts. It parallels the situation in Israel when they wanted a king to rule over them. They basically wanted to hand over their spiritual responsibilities to others, and those who wish to control others are more than happy to oblige under the guise of them being "unable" or doing a "poor job".

Good point. I think it may be hard to determine the exact initial cause - did the people get lazy or did someone rise up to conquer the laity? But if the people are strong in the Lord, then they will fulfill their function and there won't be an opportunity to allow someone to rise over them . . .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Hasty generalization!

Here in Grace Baptist Church, we have cell groups where everyone has the opportunity to share from their studies and meditations on the scripture. And everyone are encouraged to evangelize the lost. You err to generalize every Christian groups with clergy-laity system!

I remember one Full-Timer commenting to me in private about how easy it was to be a Christian in the denominations -- only coming one hour a week to church.

It just shows you how insulated they are from any contact with the real world. All they know about other Christian churches are the cheap comments drummed into them for years. Is this not the very definition of prejudice and stereotyping?

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It just shows you how insulated they are from any contact with the real world. All they know about other Christian churches are the cheap comments drummed into them for years. Is this not the very definition of prejudice and stereotyping?

The “recovery” doesn’t work without condemning other Christians. It is a pillar or foundation of Lee’s ministry. They are not set apart by demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit or the works of their “ministry”, but instead, by considering themselves over Poor, Poor, Christianity. We saw Drake point to some Beyoncé service or Joel Osteen church that hosted a secular performance group - clearly insulated from reality.

This is one of the major reasons why I think the LSM will not be around for much longer. Young people are much more aware and sensitive to this type of stereotyping of groups. The information is out there for them to access and see how God is moving across the world. For some, it is fun to be a part of an exclusive group who hold all the secrets and are much more “enlightened” - but I feel that this type of thinking is much harder to find in the millennial generation.

Jonah whined to God when He spared Nineveh, His heart was hard towards these sinful people. To those in the LSM-Don’t let your heart harden towards actual believers, the sons and daughters of Christ’s Church.


Praise God that he offers His gift of salvation to all!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

The “recovery” doesn’t work without condemning other Christians. It is a pillar or foundation of Lee’s ministry. They are not set apart by demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit or the works of their “ministry”, but instead, by considering themselves over Poor, Poor, Christianity.

Like the school yard bully who must beat all others down so that he seems to "rise above."

[Sons to Glory!]

Okay, since this is a thread of good things to come out of the Recovery, let's get back to that!

So what about the Recovery's focus on the indwelling Christ? Again, I know they didn't invent this (since it is perhaps THE central theme of the New Covenant) and are not the only ones so focused. But, as said, 95% of what I hear out there seems to be a version of Christianity via Judaism.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay, since this is a thread of good things to come out of the Recovery, let's get back to that!

Good luck with that.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay, since this is a thread of good things to come out of the Recovery, let's get back to that!

So what about the Recovery's focus on the indwelling Christ? Again, I know they didn't invent this (since it is perhaps THE central theme of the New Covenant) and are not the only ones so focused. But, as said, 95% of what I hear out there seems to be a version of Christianity via Judaism.

I agree that the focus on the indwelling Christ is an important recovery.
This focus has two parts:
a) Christ lives in us and not just in heaven - this helps with intimacy and relating to the Lord as one man to another.
b) the Spirit living in us is not "a different spirit" but the Lord Himself as the Spirit - this helps with understanding that the Spirit is not some mysterious or impersonal power that might either work a strange "gold dust" miracle or strike us dead any moment, but truly a Comforter. The name Jesus is truly the name of the Father, the name of the Son, and the name of the Spirit.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

The “recovery” doesn’t work without condemning other Christians. It is a pillar or foundation of Lee’s ministry. They are not set apart by demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit or the works of their “ministry”, but instead, by considering themselves over Poor, Poor, Christianity. We saw Drake point to some Beyoncé service or Joel Osteen church that hosted a secular performance group - clearly insulated from reality.

Protestantism/evangelicalism doesn't work without condemning Catholicism. And Catholicism doesn't work without condemning Judaism (see the history).

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Protestantism/evangelicalism doesn't work without condemning Catholicism. And Catholicism doesn't work without condemning Judaism (see the history).

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

abolish - kat-al-oo'-o

From G2596 and G3089; to loosen down (disintegrate), that is, (by implication) to demolish (literally or figuratively); specifically (compare G2646) to halt for the night: - destroy, dissolve, be guest, lodge, come to nought, overthrow, throw down.

How would the Gospel not work without condemning Catholicism? What about countries where there is no Catholicism present? Is there no Christianity? I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate here Evangelical.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

abolish - kat-al-oo'-o

From G2596 and G3089; to loosen down (disintegrate), that is, (by implication) to demolish (literally or figuratively); specifically (compare G2646) to halt for the night: - destroy, dissolve, be guest, lodge, come to nought, overthrow, throw down.

How would the Gospel not work without condemning Catholicism? What about countries where there is no Catholicism present? Is there no Christianity? I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate here Evangelical.

Protestantism, as the name implies (to protest), does not exist without condemning (protesting against) Catholicism.

The narrative behind Protestantism is that the Roman Catholic church is not the one true church established by Christ founded on Peter the apostle. That "Catholicism is wrong" is implied every time an evangelical gives someone a gospel tract as opposed to directing them to their nearest Catholic Priest.