Does "Baptist" Mean to a Baptist What "Recovery" Means..

[Cal]

(In the running for the thread with the longest title.)


What am I getting at here?

Simply that every movement (and thus its designations) conjures up positive images in its faithful followers which bespeak the best God has to offer. "Baptist" to a Baptist essentially means God's best, as does "Recovery" to an LCer. So they are more alike than LCers might want to admit.

Certainly there is plenty of difference between the Baptist movement and the Recovery movement. Yet LCers would like to make vivid differences which, when you get right down to it, aren't much differences at all. Why is the name "Baptist" divisive and "The Recovery" is not? Simply put, because in the minds of LCers, the Recovery is something good and genuine and totally of God himself thus it cannot be divisive (no matter how much havoc it wreaks). While to them "Baptist" means something of old dead religion, and so could never be anything but negative. On the other hand, Baptists think the Baptist movement is where God makes his home, so, of course, they like to call themselves Baptists.

But is there really any difference? No, there is not. So, if an LCer says by calling himself a Baptist a person is divisive, he must also say that by calling himself a person in the Lord's Recovery such a person is also divisive. Likewise if calling oneself a Baptist is not divisive, then one can say simply calling oneself a person in the Lord's Recovery is not divisive either.

When a Baptist says "we in the Baptist church" is he really saying anything different than when a LCers says "we in the Lord's Recovery"? In essence, no. One is not necessarily more exclusive or divisive than the other. Designations are necessarily for communication. No matter how much they try to get around it, LCers designate and denominate themselves when they refer to themselves as being in the Lord's Recovery and others as not.

Obviously, then, for communication purposes, denominating is unavoidable. The issue then is not denominating. The issue is what are the implications of the denominating. If a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church because the Baptist beliefs to me represent the best God has to offer right now," then the Baptist is doing no differently than what LCers claim they are doing. Neither should be held at fault for doing this.

But if a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church, and you are not, so you are not in God's move," then that is an exclusive implication of the denominating. This in fact is what many LCers and most staunch LSMers do. It is practically by definition sectarian.

So LC/LSMers in an attempt to claim special status try to draw all kinds of superficial differences between their names and the names of denominations (e.g. saying the name is really a "description"; making an issue of signboards, etc) but fail to see the essential similarities. On the other hand, they do not see the deep and essential exclusivity of claiming that those not in the Lord's Recovery (their movement) are not in God's move, while pointing an accusing finger at the superficial exclusivity of some modern denominations.

[OBW]

In other words, the LC engages in a form of equivocation concerning the significance of their moniker v the significance of that of others.

In reality, it would seem that the LC thinks more highly of their moniker than does most other Christian groups. Yet they speak as if it is the opposite. “Red is grey and yellow, white.” I think I know which is an illusion.

[countmeworthy]

I think the BIGGEST difference between the 'Lord's Recovery' and all other Christian gatherings who meet in a building once or twice a week to hear the Word of God is that in the LC meetings, people used to 'testify' after the message was given by the elder.

I don't know if they still call it testify or if they now call it prophesy.
The other difference was/is that at prayer meetings, people in the LC would 'build upon' each other's prayers...again supporting the 'burden' for the week.

I'm not critisizing the testimonies. I rather enjoyed the testimonies. It helped build confidence in the saints and I think over all that was a good thing.

I don't think it's like that now. I think people stand in line and there are little bells so the testimonies don't get too long winded. I don't know for sure.

Anyway.........those are the differences that distinguish 'The Lord's Recovery' from any other denomination or non-denomination IMHO. (In My Humble Opinion)

Otherwise, there isn't much difference. Well....I don't know...I don't know how many congregations watch webcasts.

[Hope]

Igzy,

Brilliant parallel!

I was once a Southern Baptist. I remember well in the “Baptist Standard,” a monthly publication, the Southern Baptists being referred to as “God’s Favorite People.” They were fairly uniform in believing that not only were the Baptists, God’s best but the Southern Baptists were the best of the Baptists. Kind of like being an FTT member of a local church. They were so proud that Billy Graham was a member of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas.

I almost was laughing as I read your post. Excellent observations!! I would invite a present LSM/LCer to rebut Igzy. If no one can, then the case for the LSM representing the Body of Christ and having a scriptural “Oneness” is done and over.

Hope, Don Rutledge

[Hope]

Ibzy,

Brilliant parallel!

I was once a Southern Baptist. I remember well in the “Baptist Standard,” a monthly publication, the Southern Baptist being referred to as “God’s Favorite People.” They were fairly uniform in believing that not only were the Baptists, God’s best but the Southern Baptists were the best of the Baptists. Kind of like being an FTT member of a local church. They were so proud that Billy Graham was a member of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas.

I almost was laughing as I read your post. Excellent observations!! I would invite a present LSM/LCer to rebut Igzy. If no one can, then the case for the LSM representing the Body of Christ and having a scriptural “Oneness” is done and over.

Hope, Don Rutledge

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

(In the running for the thread with the longest title.)

So LC/LSMers in an attempt to claim special status try to draw all kinds of superficial differences between their names and the names of denominations (e.g. saying the name is really a "description"; making an issue of signboards, etc) but fail to see the essential similarities.

Being raised in the local churches, one minor teaching is other Christian assemblies are denominations because a name is taken. This thread is comparing Baptists to LCers. I think more important than a name is our heart. Where are we giving the headship?
Is it necessary to be pigeonholed according to a particular denomination? Whether it's LC, Baptist, Presbyterian, or Brethren?
Isn't it good enough just to be a brother or sister in the Lord and see each other as such?
What Igzy's question says to me, if a Baptist cannot meet with a non-Baptist congregation, there is division. Same goes for one in the LC's. If an lcer cannot meet with a non-lc assembly, there is division.
Our hearts need to be recallibrated in receiving one another.
For the record, I am currently meeting with an assembly that has the word Baptist in their name. When we meet I don't see Baptists, I see brothers and sisters in the Lord. In the same context when I met in the local churches.

This might be along the same line as Igzy's questioning, but can God's administration (economy) be only found in the local churches?

Terry

[Oregon]

What get’s old Igzy is your endless criticism of “ the local churches”. Don’t you ever have anything positive to say? I have a mother and a brother meeting with the local churches and they are precious dear saints. I fellowship with them regularly concerning the things of God……just like I fellowship with other believing family members who do not meet with “the local churches”. There are some positive things there you know along with a lot of precious bothers and sisters in the Lord. But to listen to you one would think it is nothing but a dark evil cult.

Is that all your life is about is to constantly make negative posts on this forum concerning the local churches?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Oregon

What get’s old Igzy is your endless criticism of “ the local churches”...

Oregon, I understand your views, having protested regularly myself about the implications conveyed by words such as "cult, Kool-Aid, idolatry," etc. The forum can be a toxic place indeed. And ... I should add that the "Texas brand" of LCism was perhaps the most obnoxious of all. Hence, their regularly extreme assessments of the movement.

Ole' Igzy's comments here were not like that, and actually were helpful. I think we both would agree that over time the LC's have become denominated. I was persuaded of this several years ago solely due to the matter of "headquarters," and find the matter of "what's your name," to be secondary to this.

Oregon, your testimony is helpful. You have found a way to fellowship with believers both inside the LC's and out. Even though, as Igzy points out, they are both in denominations, they also are all believers, children of God, with Christ within. This is why I continually differentiate the bad behavior of LSM and LC leaders from the LC saints. Many saints are precious indeed. Many don't agree with LSM teachings and practices that differ from scripture. They stay for many reasons, and we should realize this fact in our posts.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Oregon

What get’s old Igzy is your endless criticism of “ the local churches”. Don’t you ever have anything positive to say? I have a mother and a brother meeting with the local churches and they are precious dear saints. I fellowship with them regularly concerning the things of God……just like I fellowship with other believing family members who do not meet with “the local churches”. There are some positive things there you know along with a lot of precious bothers and sisters in the Lord. But to listen to you one would think it is nothing but a dark evil cult.

Is that all your life is about is to constantly make negative posts on this forum concerning the local churches?

I’m not sure who “you” is here. Is it Igzy, Terry, Hope, or me?

In any case, this is a forum to discuss the problems with the group known generally by several names; the Local Church, the local churches, the Lord’s recovery, or the recovery. If the fact that things are said that is negative to their organization bothers you, then you are in the wrong place. If you want to disagree, then disagree with specific things that have been said. Don’t just say we shouldn’t be here. It that is what you think about this forum, then the only one who shouldn’t be here is you.

I’m not really saying you should just go away. Just noting that saying negative things are said about the LC is pointless.

I also have a father, a brother and sister and their families that meet with the LC. I agree that they are dear Christians. But I also see the toll that the LC is having on them. They would deny it, but it is as plain as the nose on your face.

But rather than complaining about Igzy’s characterization of the moniker “the recovery” relative to that of others, consider the truth or fallacy of that characterization.

This forum is a tremendous aid to those of us who need to be freed from the bondage that the LC laid on us. The arguments made here by various LC apologists are typically phrased in broad terms that are hard to argue against at that level. It is difficult to say anything against some of the generalities that sound so spiritual. But if there is nothing to be said against them, then why aren’t we still there? Because there is something wrong with those things even if it seems to be an attack on Christ Himself to say that. But it only seems so.

Here we can deconstruct the teachings into the parts that, while sounding untouchable, are not supported by scripture. So Albert and others come and try to obfuscate the discussion by repackaging everything into those spiritual-sounding catch-phrases that seem so hard to refute at the macro level. Once you get to the significant details and see the error, you can be freed. It has freed me.

With a few exceptions, we are never talking about the people in the LC. We are talking about the system of teachings and practices and the culture of shame and bondage. When dear Christians become fooled into thinking that near heresy is God’s highest and shaming of brothers and sisters is administered by God’s deputy authorities, it is time to speak up. Do you think that the members of so many other true cults are simply evil like the system they are trapped within? No, they are misguided and have been duped. We can argue about the applicability of the “C” word to the LC, but real dear Christians are duped to stay in such a aberrant system. Won't you say something for their benefit?

[Hope]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oregon, I understand your views, having protested regularly myself about the implications conveyed by words such as "cult, Kool-Aid, idolatry," etc. The forum can be a toxic place indeed. And ... I should add that the "Texas brand" of LCism was perhaps the most obnoxious of all. Hence, their regularly extreme assessments of the movement.
Ole' Igzy's comments here were not like that, and actually were helpful. I think we both would agree that over time the LC's have become denominated. I was persuaded of this several years ago solely due to the matter of "headquarters," and find the matter of "what's your name," to be secondary to this.

Oregon, your testimony is helpful. You have found a way to fellowship with believers both inside the LC's and out. Even though, as Igzy points out, they are both in denominations, they also are all believers, children of God, with Christ within. This is why I continually differentiate the bad behavior of LSM and LC leaders from the LC saints. Many saints are precious indeed. Many don't agree with LSM teachings and practices that differ from scripture. They stay for many reasons, and we should realize this fact in our posts.

Hold on there good Brother and friend Ohio,

Your phrase above really made me chuckle. Texas is a large area and had and still does have many different local churches with hundreds of many different brothers and sisters. I know personally the posters here who came from Texas. None of them was just your average bear. Jane Anderson is a very unique personality and one of the most intense persons I ever knew. She was not then and is not now just the average sister you might run into. Matt, Mike, Nell are all very strong personalities (a good thing). Jane and Nell were in Houston and OK City. Ray Graver and James Barber had a thing about subduing strong personalities. No doubt they were among their targets. I would suppose they received more than their fair share of abuse.

The humorous thing is that your area was discussed as a region that was under the thumb of ole tyrant Titus Chu, legal and not very living. Thus, the explanation for some of the problems. I did not like it then and I do not think it helps to lump individuals such as Igzy into groups of people. It tends to minimize what they have to offer.

Just a little brotherly fellowship.

In Christ Jesus,

Hope, Don Rutledge

PS I frankly appreciate Igzy's pointing out the fallicies and contradictions. If our premise is that all was roses or all was briars and stickers we have missed the mark by a mile. From the start there were struggles, problems and many issues to overcome. We need to throw out the myths about the recovery. I sat in too many sessions with WL in which he was discussing big problems and issues in China and Taiwan as well as Elden and then Anaheim. If you ever attended one of his elders/co-workers meetings, you know how much of his speaking was concerning the latest round of problems and what to do about it.

[Oregon]

Originally Posted by OBW

I’m not sure who “you” is here. Is it Igzy, Terry, Hope, or me?

In any case, this is a forum to discuss the problems with the group known generally by several names; the Local Church, the local churches, the Lord’s recovery, or the recovery. If the fact that things are said that is negative to their organization bothers you, then you are in the wrong place. If you want to disagree, then disagree with specific things that have been said. Don’t just say we shouldn’t be here. It that is what you think about this forum, then the only one who shouldn’t be here is you.

If you'll go back and read what I said OBW....I never said one word about who should be here and who shouldn't be here. The point I am making is that the general nature of this forum is constant criticism of anything to do with the local churches. And my point is simply that there are some good things there....although rarely recognized by posters on this board.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Oregon

What get’s old Igzy is your endless criticism of “ the local churches”. Don’t you ever have anything positive to say? I have a mother and a brother meeting with the local churches and they are precious dear saints. I fellowship with them regularly concerning the things of God……just like I fellowship with other believing family members who do not meet with “the local churches”. There are some positive things there you know along with a lot of precious bothers and sisters in the Lord. But to listen to you one would think it is nothing but a dark evil cult.

Is that all your life is about is to constantly make negative posts on this forum concerning the local churches?

Dear Oregon,

Well, in the first place my post wasn't that negative. It was just pointing out a fundamental flaw in thinking on the part of some. Do you think things would be better if this was not pointed out for the sake of not being negative? Certainly not every perceived error needs to be pointed out. But this one has lead to gross hypocrisy. How can I ignore it?

I can see how you could be irked by seeing just this one side of me. I know there are good saints in the LCs. What breaks my heart the most is feeling I can't really have free fellowship with my old friends there. I miss them very much. But, simply put, they think anyone not in their movement is off and that's hard to deal with in a relationship.

As far as the part of my life which is spent on this board goes (I do have other parts), it is about pointing out the flaws in the arguments and thinking put forth by LCers and LSM/LCers. Not all flaws, though. I am not interested in nitpicking. I feel to focus on the flaws in reasoning which work to hold people there. I'm trying to help people be set free from a web of reasoning which formerly ensnared me and for many years stumbled my walk. That is what my life on this board is about, more or less.

Why do I do this? Honestly because I feel not enough people are doing it. I have certain gifts that lend themselves to this arena and I think the Lord is pleased that I am using them. I'm also by nature a debater and someone who doesn't mind speaking my mind and even feels called to do it.

I pray a lot about my efforts here. I myself get bothered sometimes by the seeming negativity. I suppose I could do like most people do and just pretend the problem doesn't exist and go about my business. It bothers me how many do that. I understand the idea of moving on and going on positively and living and let living. But I don't understand leaving victims in a ditch to fend for themselves when something can be done about it. Frankly, I think a lot of people are just plain scared to take on LSM.

One walks a treacherous path, however, when one becomes a critic. Sometimes you hurt innocent people's feelings or worse do damage. If I've done either to you, I apologize.

However, simply calling me overly critical is not going to work with me. You are going to have to tell me why the things I write should not be written, why they do more damage than good, because I'm seeking to do some good.

Someone is going to have to convince me I'm wrong before I stop, short of the Lord just plain telling me to. I hope you can understand and I hope this post doesn't make me sound self-righteous because I'm certainly open to being corrected.

Igzy

[Cal]

BTW, how am I going to know when I'm done here? I guess when I run out of things to say. But the post that started this thread has not been said before. At least, I think, not in the way I said it. So perhaps it can do some good.

Anyway, basically what I guess my post adds up to is that the LSM/LC is as much a denomination, and in some ways more of one, than many of the others. The unique thing about it is that it is a denomination which thinks denominating is bad, so it pretends not to be one, while condemning all the others. That's pretty much it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oregon, your testimony is helpful. You have found a way to fellowship with believers both inside the LC's and out. Even though, as Igzy points out, they are both in denominations, they also are all believers, children of God, with Christ within. This is why I continually differentiate the bad behavior of LSM and LC leaders from the LC saints. Many saints are precious indeed. Many don't agree with LSM teachings and practices that differ from scripture. They stay for many reasons, and we should realize this fact in our posts.

This is well-stated. However, I would add that if the "reasons" they stay hold them there against their will and are not of God, well then that's wrong and that's why I'm here. If there are any bogus arguments why someone should remain in a group, I'm here to shoot them down.

Frankly, few things bother me more than the arrogance of those who think they have the ground to direct other's decisions, and use fear and misinformation to do so. I hate bullying. I was picked on as a kid and the lack of confidence that produced was exploited by LC bullies. So I guess it's kind of a personal prejudice and crusade.

If anyone can convince me that no one in the LSM/LC or any other LC is being manipulated to stay there, then my work here is done.

Don't worry, I'm not as scary as I sound.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Oregon

If you'll go back and read what I said OBW....I never said one word about who should be here and who shouldn't be here. The point I am making is that the general nature of this forum is constant criticism of anything to do with the local churches. And my point is simply that there are some good things there....although rarely recognized by posters on this board.

You are correct that you never said that anyone should leave. I never said you did. And, if you look at what I wrote carefully, you will see that I really didn't either. But I did say that the purpose of the forum is the discussion of the problems of the LC, therefore if constantly hearing about its problems (something that is, by definition, negative when viewed from the inside and even the outside) then being part of the forum is probably not a good idea.

I didn't intend to suggest you or anyone else should just leave. I suggested that you consider the purpose of the forum before complaining. We are within the grouping "Practice What He Preached?" It should be presumed that the topics of discussion would begin with "No." That is, by definition, negative. Any are free to disagree. There have been threads that are positive with respect to the LC. Admittedly not many, but they do exist.

But if you think I was being antagonistic with you, I did not intend that and am sorry for giving that impression.

[Hope]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is well-stated. However, I would add that if the "reasons" they stay hold them there against their will and are not of God, well then that's wrong and that's why I'm here. If there are any bogus arguments why someone should remain in a group, I'm here to shoot them down.

Frankly, few things bother me more than the arrogance of those who think they have the ground to direct other's decisions, and use fear and misinformation to do so. I hate bullying. I was picked on as a kid and the lack of confidence that produced was exploited by LC bullies. So I guess it's kind of a personal prejudice and crusade.

If anyone can convince me that no one in the LSM/LC or any other LC is being manipulated to stay there, then my work here is done.

Don't worry, I'm not as scary as I sound.

By the way,

I did not get involved in the forums to play Mr. Nice guy.

It is time for light to shine. John 1:5, And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. John 3:20-21, "For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God." NASB

I saw too much bully behavior and too many sincere brothers and sisters abused. Likewise I saw too much pure work of the Lord damaged.

I appreciate posters as OBW and Igzy who bring things into the light and are themselves willing to be brought into the light. Same with respect to Oregon, Ohio, Indianna and any other state. We can all learn a lot and many can be helped. May the free exchange continue.

I am not discouraged by critical words nor do I swoon when someone give a positive promotion.

Hope, Don Rutledge

[Oregon]

Igzy and OBW,

I deeply and honestly appreciate your last posts. Please forgive me if I was too much in my post. The last posts by both of you have helped me to open up to understand both of you better. Like the word says...."a soft answer turneth away wrath".......and I appreciate your soft answers. I know there are problems with the LC. Gosh....I spent over 30 years of my life there. My first wife divorced me because she literally hated the LC.......and that's where I met her as a young sister. Believe me......I've been through it too. I guess where I am coming from is that even the seven churches in Revelation who were nearly all rebuked by the Lord had some good things about them and the Lord mentioned them. So....sometimes I do get a little bothered when all I see is an unending flow of criticism.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Hope

Hold on there good Brother and friend Ohio,...

Brother Hope, thanks for the brotherly fellowship. You are right about intense persons with strong personalities taking hold of the leadership of the movement. This occurred both in Texas and Ohio, but of course in the end we know who continually wins that battle, don't we? Whether on the football field or in the courtroom, Ohio folks are just no match for those Lone Star folks, with their pickup trucks and shotguns in the back window.

Yes, these are generalizations and broad brush characterizations which overly simplify very complex situations, but they do help at times to explain our history. I left the LC's because I was tired of the bullying in my area, only to come to the forum and learn (partly thru Thread of Gold) that some other places were far worse. In fact, it was this systemic disease of mistreatments and abuses that caused me to first realize that something was seriously, inherently wrong with the whole program. Of course, not every leader and not every saint was molded the same way, but the leaders did tend to promote those of similar character.

Sorry, Igzy, for "lumping you" with the others.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is well-stated. However, I would add that if the "reasons" they stay hold them there against their will and are not of God, well then that's wrong and that's why I'm here. If there are any bogus arguments why someone should remain in a group, I'm here to shoot them down. Frankly, few things bother me more than the arrogance of those who think they have the ground to direct other's decisions, and use fear and misinformation to do so. I hate bullying. I was picked on as a kid and the lack of confidence that produced was exploited by LC bullies. So I guess it's kind of a personal prejudice and crusade.

Well ... Igzy, perhaps our paths have crossed more than once, for I can surely relate to your story. It is mine also and perhaps the singlemost important reason I have posted on the forums. I do thank the Lord for all those who truly loved and shepherded me, but often mixed in with this was, as you also experienced, a certain degree of manipulation, fear based controls, bullying mistreatments, and being "used" for another's benefit. Due to my own childhood experiences, perhaps I was more vulnerable than others. Were it not for the repeated abuses undeservedly inflicted upon other precious brothers, I might never have become aware of my own situation. I am not completely innocent myself either, since at times I found myself treating others the way I was being treated. That frankly scared me.

As I read Hope's account several months ago, this was the section that moved me to tears:

We peasants had sympathy toward the weaker members of our society, and especially for ones oppressed. I believe the Lord Jesus puts into his believers a strong desire to bestow more abundant honor on the less comely and to protect the weak. One of the main reasons I eventually left the local churches was the rough treatment received by weaker ones and ones whose opinions did not match the leaders’ ideas. I recognize in some ways my reaction to the “lording it over” that came in later days may have been partly due to my culture. Ransford Ackah of Ghana once told me, “Don, you always favor the poor.” I had to confess to him that his statement was true. Regardless of our background, culture, disposition, or how our mother raised us, we all need to be transformed and conformed to Christ.

Here is a small example of the kinds of events which has long troubled me. I served for years as deacon under the elder's direction. I constantly was contacting the saints related to their serving the church. I personally tried to maintain the attitude that these saints are volunteers, giving their time willingly, and I should do my best to appreciate them. Not all feel this way. One time I was expressing some difficulty to the leader about carrying out the latest changes. I told him I was doing my best to support his burden, and suddenly he said to me, "I don't need you. If you can't do this, I'll get someone else who can." The attitude startled me.

Experiences like this eventually turned me sour. I came to the conclusion that true elders view every saint as an asset, while the workers view the saints as liabilities. Of course, this is another generalization, but in my view, the LC's were a much more kind and loving place before we had so many full-timers.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I came to the conclusion that true elders view every saint as an asset, while the workers view the saints as liabilities. Of course, this is another generalization, but in my view, the LC's were a much more kind and loving place before we had so many full-timers.

Wow Ohio, your words stirred me up. Earlier this week in emanna the topic of one email was The Church Only Having One Class of Believers. Here is a short excerpt:

"The concept of today's organized Christianity is to have various distinct classes of people within the church. It is against the Bible, however, to have different classes of believers in a local assembly."

Is this really the case in denominational or non-denominational churches?
Ohio, as I read into your experience, did the elders view themselves as a different class apart from the non-administrative member? The place of fellowship where I've been meeting there is no distinction of classes. Can the same be said within the local churches?

Terry

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

"The concept of today's organized Christianity is to have various distinct classes of people within the church. It is against the Bible, however, to have different classes of believers in a local assembly."

Often times, within the Recovery, "the work" with the full-timers as "managers" creates a "business" out of the church, with the many members as "employees" of the enterprise, carrying the latest "agenda" from headquarters. As such, the saints are often poor "employees," since they may not be well-suited for the tasks assigned to them. The leaders, as such, rarely take into account the actual needs and wants of the saints, since their condition takes second place to the "program." This "top down" management style almost becomes synonymous with the definition of a denomination. For such a "business" to prosper, the elders as middle "managers" must be able to hire and fire incompetent performers, else their own performance, as viewed by headquarters, suffers. Hence, the saints, like myself, become a liability, not an asset, to the program.

I personally now believe that most of the condemnation by LSM upon the so-called "religious class" of pastors was contrived and self-serving, rallying the saints to a common "enemy" without, while a far worse "enemy" within grew unchecked.

[OBW]

"Two legs bad! Four legs good!"

Or was it:

"Four legs good! Two legs better!?!?"

[Cal]

Oregon: Thanks for your post. Your story about your divorce broke my heart. I appreciate your input here and hope you get some benefit from the board.

Ohio and Hope: From what I've seen and heard, Titus was a bit more of a bully than anyone in Texas (except maybe Ray Graver). They were quite different though in that Ray always worked behind the scenes, whereas Titus was very public with his weight-swinging.

Texas wasn't so much about bullying as it was about being legalistic about adhering to WL and Benson's vision. Benson was viewed as pretty much a junior apostle, with extra-local authority. All the elders in Texas deferred to him.

I was aquainted with most of those guys in the 70s and early 80s and let me say that I liked all of them. Benson was a little enigmatic, and Ray was less likable, but I had fondness for most of them. They were generally cheerful and devoted. It was just that they were all pretty much sold out to be "one with the ministry," although I felt that George Whittington chaffed at the semi-mindless conformity. George struck me as more free-thinking and intelligent than the typical elder.


Let me say something about Don Looper, who passed away before his time. I was in Austin when he moved there to be the leading elder, replacing George Whittington. It was felt that Austin needed a leader who communicated well with young people, Austin being primarily a college town in those days. Everyone felt Don had the appropriate gifts for that job. So he moved from Houston to Austin in '75 or '76, I'm not sure which.

I actually helped him and his family move. Myself, Don, and his wife with two young daughters in tow, loaded up a U-HAUL and drove it to Austin. I became attached to the Loopers right away. Don's wife was almost always bubbly and cheerful. I remember she giggled a lot. The UHAUL didn't have a gas cap and Don was concerned about the safety and insisted that he alone drive it. But halfway home he became sleepy because he'd been up all night, and I convinced him to let me drive. It was one of those sweet, practical church experiences that you remember. No great theology was exchanged, just being together and working together.

Don was a special brother. He had a fineness about him that was attractive. He was gentle, perceptive and intelligent. The success that Austin experienced in the mid to late '70s can mostly be attributed to him.

Don knew how to assimilate what was coming from Anaheim and present it in a manner which was most beneficial and appropriate to our needs. We had a little oasis in Austin for awhile. But by the early 80s the bloom was gone and, as they say, with the bloom went I.

Don, you are missed and I appreciate what you did for all of us. You weren't perfect and I wished you'd never heard of "deputy authority," but I myself was better for knowing you.

[Hope]

Brother Igzy,

One of the best 35,000 foot summaries of things in Texas. See what I put in Bold from your post. I particularly agree with you assessment of George and of Don Looper.

If the worst you can say about ole Don Rutledge is that he was not perfect, then we are buddies for life. I am sure the saints in Dallas can get you straight on that.

Yes, indeed, I wish I had never heard of "deputy authority."

And you become a bigger mystery to me with each of your posts!!! No one can not speculate regarding who is who. You had me thinking you were a Jr. Higher in the late 70s and 80s and probably from O K City. I missed that one!!

It is ironic but Don's move to Austin was part of the power grab that was going on by Max Rapoport. He wanted to get George out of Austin. He was greatly mistaken that he could control Don Looper. Don was an extremely nice person but he had a will of iron. I knew him not only as a brother in the Lord but as an all-conference star baseball player and top athelete. I also wish Brother Don Looper had never heard of deputy authority.

Hope, Don Rutledge

[Hope]

Originally Posted by OBW

"Two legs bad! Four legs good!"

Or was it:

"Four legs good! Two legs better!?!?"

Mike, Quit making me laugh. I do admit that I enjoy clever analogies. Humor can be an extremely powerful way to critique. This one was about as good as it can get. I think you will be hard pressed to top this, but I do not want to low rate your wit.

Hope, Don Rutledge

PS I believe we can realize more through this style of criticism rather than by making everything a Greek Tragedy. I remember how often I was shocked by dear ole WL and how he could get carried away by some little next to nothing that became a cause Celebes. Once someone called a wrong hymn at the Lord's Table in Anaheim. The hymn was based on a passage in Revelation that probably referes to the nations that come out of the great tribulation. My oh my. It seemed that God's move on the earth was in danger. This was at one of his elders/co-workers meetings and we endured this for a meeting and a half.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Hope

And you become a bigger mystery to me with each of your posts!!! No one can not speculate regarding who is who. You had me thinking you were a Jr. Higher in the late 70s and 80s and probably from O K City. I missed that one!!

Ha, ha! I was a little older than that, but not much. I was probably 20 or 21 when Don Looper came to Austin. "Young and dumb" as we used to call ourselves.

I was pretty quiet and shy in those days. I'd rather handle a snake than give a testimony. I remember one time I finally got up the nerve, jumped up, blurted something or other out and sat down. A sister was sitting next to me. She sardonically handed me my supplement. In my excitement at jumping up I had tossed it into her lap. I was totally humiliated.

[Cal]

Hope, do you have any idea what became of George? I heard he was in West Texas leading a small LC.

[Hope]

The last I heard George was in San Antonio. Cleo, his wife had very severe MS. I was in San Antonio about six years ago and called him. I had supper with him at his home. The LSM has completely beaten him down and he has had many heartaches from life. His second daughter died tragically. There were other difficult things they experienced but that is too private for the forum. They are a most precious couple which meant a lot to me.

Hope, Don Rutledge

[Cal]

When I first joined the LC in Austin, times were simpler. It was all about "enjoying the Lord" and serving him. Things then revolved around the University of Texas. One brother and his wife owned a ramshackle coffee shop near "the Drag," the main street in front of the campus. We'd gather there and drink coffee and eat their special doughnuts, which were made mostly with eggs.

Adjacent to the coffee shop was a little health food store which George and Cleo ran. It suited them. George looked and talked like a campus academian, right down to the tweed jacket with suede elbow patches.

George had a pointed sense of humor. I remember one Friday about fifteen or so members of a nearby burning little black church visited our love feast. We invited them because they were so on fire for the Lord. "They are just like us!" was our comment to each other. In the meeting they readily jumped up and gave testimonies of the Lord's work in their lives. A couple of the men kept saying that they used to be thugs, and Jesus had saved them. But in their brogue they kept saying "tugs" for "thugs." Later that evening George happened to stop by our brothers house, and he started calling us all a bunch of "tugs." That's the way he was.

Cleo never seemed fully comfortable in the LC. She, like George, seemed too intelligent and liberal to fully play the role.


Hope, you spoke of their daughter that died. That wasn't Grace, was it?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hope, do you have any idea what became of George? I heard he was in West Texas leading a small LC.

George is in San Antonio. My nephew, who lives in Austin, got married to a sister who was from SA. So the wedding was in SA (about 2-1/2 years ago now). I saw George and Cleo at the wedding. I’m not sure she really knew who I was, but I could almost say the same about George. The man who I so highly revered as very practical and seldom prone to excessive religious hyperbole (that I ever saw) essentially only could say “Praise the Lord, brother” to me. That is an uplifting thing. But in the context of the gathering of people for a wedding — one in which he spoke — it was not what I considered to be the George Whittington I knew from Dallas.

BTW. While I already thought we were close to the same age, you have now confirmed it to be closer than I previously thought.

[Cal]

OBW, I'm not quite understanding what you are getting at about George. What was different from what you remembered about him?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hope, you spoke of their daughter that died. That wasn't Grace, was it?

It was not Grace, but the younger one — I believe Martha (Ginny was in the middle I think, although my memory is slipping at the moment). Her entire saga, beginning at least with their return to Dallas, was somewhat tragic. That it would end in such an early death is even more tragic.

My sister keeps up with Grace a little.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

OBW, I'm not quite understanding what you are getting at about George. What was different from what you remembered about him?

He seemed distant and more about "toeing the line" in terms of his comments at the wedding. He had never seemed distant before.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

...too intelligent and liberal...

Boy, there's a real thread starter for some future date - Liberalism in the Recovery!

(Might be a short thread, tho...)

[Cal]

Is George an elder in "the church in San Antone?"

[Hope]

The daughter of the Whitingtons which is deceased is Ginny.

George was serving at the pleasure of the LSM in San Antonio.
He would have been an elder. But this was at least six years ago.

I would not have said Cleo was more liberal etc she just had her own personality.

Of course George would have been different from his time in Dallas. A lot of water has gone under the bridge. His life has not been a flower strewn pathway with sky always blue. Besides serving the "ministry" is a real kick in the solar plexus. I have had my share of health problems and plenty of stress but I assure you I will look 10 years younger than any of my contemporaries from that era. Walking in the Freedom in Christ is great for your health and stress relief. Gal 5:1, It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. NASB

Hope, Don Rutledge

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Is George an elder in "the church in San Antone?"

Yes Igzy. When I first moved here to SA in 2005, I went to several meetings. I met George and Cleo. Cleo was in a wheel chair. She had MS...I THNK...I can't remember for sure.

The meetings were small...and though some things had changed...like using a mike to hear someone 'prophesy'...and using Morning revivals instead of bibles at the meetings..and hearing people testify or prophesy in Chinese, Korean, Spanish and English...I felt I was in a time warp.

Btw, I really, really did my best to be open and receive the 'sharing' but I was suffocating..so I stopped going to the meetings.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Hope

Igzy,

Brilliant parallel!

I was once a Southern Baptist. I remember well in the “Baptist Standard,” a monthly publication, the Southern Baptists being referred to as “God’s Favorite People.” They were fairly uniform in believing that not only were the Baptists, God’s best but the Southern Baptists were the best of the Baptists. Kind of like being an FTT member of a local church. They were so proud that Billy Graham was a member of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas.

I almost was laughing as I read your post. Excellent observations!! I would invite a present LSM/LCer to rebut Igzy. If no one can, then the case for the LSM representing the Body of Christ and having a scriptural “Oneness” is done and over.

Hope, Don Rutledge

Just as the Recovery have much in common with the Plymouth Brethren (aka Exclusive Brethren), the Recovery also has some in common with the SBC Baptists. Some of which I am going to present a superficial comparison.

• Baptism
  1 Baptists I met with did not emphasize baptism, but who one is baptized can only happen by immersion.
  2.Local Churches was not as strict how one is baptized, but beginning with my baptism and all the baptisms I had witnessed in the Local Churches, all were by immersion
• One Publication
  1. Baptists use a Lifeway publication for their Lord's Day Sunday school.
  2. Local Churches uses a LSM publication for ther Lord's Day prophesying time.
• Children's Ministry with the view of salvation
  1. Baptists have a Children's ministry with the intent of Children's salvation.
  2. Local Churches used to have a Children's ministry with the same purpose of salvation.
• Membership
  1. Baptists make membership being a formality before becoming a member of the assembly.
  2. Local churches all that is needed for membership is regeneration; salvation by the blood of Jesus Christ.
• Community
  1. Baptists stress serving the community
  2. Local Churches stress a ministry over locality

Personally I think it would be an easy transition for a Baptist to enter into the Recovery brand of fellowship. One of the few differences would me no visible clergy instead of a pastor.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Igzy

(In the running for the thread with the longest title.)


What am I getting at here?

Simply that every movement (and thus its designations) conjures up positive images in its faithful followers which bespeak the best God has to offer. "Baptist" to a Baptist essentially means God's best, as does "Recovery" to an LCer. So they are more alike than LCers might want to admit.

Certainly there is plenty of difference between the Baptist movement and the Recovery movement. Yet LCers would like to make vivid differences which, when you get right down to it, aren't much differences at all. Why is the name "Baptist" divisive and "The Recovery" is not? Simply put, because in the minds of LCers, the Recovery is something good and genuine and totally of God himself thus it cannot be divisive (no matter how much havoc it wreaks). While to them "Baptist" means something of old dead religion, and so could never be anything but negative. On the other hand, Baptists think the Baptist movement is where God makes his home, so, of course, they like to call themselves Baptists.

But is there really any difference? No, there is not. So, if an LCer says by calling himself a Baptist a person is divisive, he must also say that by calling himself a person in the Lord's Recovery such a person is also divisive. Likewise if calling oneself a Baptist is not divisive, then one can say simply calling oneself a person in the Lord's Recovery is not divisive either.

When a Baptist says "we in the Baptist church" is he really saying anything different than when a LCers says "we in the Lord's Recovery"? In essence, no. One is not necessarily more exclusive or divisive than the other. Designations are necessarily for communication. No matter how much they try to get around it, LCers designate and denominate themselves when they refer to themselves as being in the Lord's Recovery and others as not.

Obviously, then, for communication purposes, denominating is unavoidable. The issue then is not denominating. The issue is what are the implications of the denominating. If a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church because the Baptist beliefs to me represent the best God has to offer right now," then the Baptist is doing no differently than what LCers claim they are doing. Neither should be held at fault for doing this.

But if a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church, and you are not, so you are not in God's move," then that is an exclusive implication of the denominating. This in fact is what many LCers and most staunch LSMers do. It is practically by definition sectarian.

So LC/LSMers in an attempt to claim special status try to draw all kinds of superficial differences between their names and the names of denominations (e.g. saying the name is really a "description"; making an issue of signboards, etc) but fail to see the essential similarities. On the other hand, they do not see the deep and essential exclusivity of claiming that those not in the Lord's Recovery (their movement) are not in God's move, while pointing an accusing finger at the superficial exclusivity of some modern denominations.

Well said!

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But if a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church, and you are not, so you are not in God's move," then that is an exclusive implication of the denominating. This in fact is what many LCers and most staunch LSMers do. It is practically by definition sectarian.

Great commentary Igzy.

One thought on the portion quoted above. Is it really the same for "many" or "most" - The LSM is founded on the principle that claims the exclusive move of God and the "recovered" truth. As a part of the LSM churches wouldn't ALL members be actively participating and agreeing to the sectarian and divisive position? Could they plead their case against this, as it is the foundation and bedrock of the LSM?

Also, (although not impossible) - but Baptists wouldn't make that claim, where, to your point, it is a tenant of the LSM churches.

[Evangelical]

I think Terry a while ago stated the clear difference between a baptist denomination/sect and a local church right here:

Originally Posted by Terry

[*]Membership
1. Baptists make membership being a formality before becoming a member of the assembly.
2. Local churches all that is needed for membership is regeneration; salvation by the blood of Jesus Christ.

Any group that has formal membership requirements must automatically be discounted as being a genuine local church. When a person is baptized in a Baptist church, they are baptized into the Baptist church, hence their baptism is denominational. This is demonstrated when a Baptist church will re-baptize a person just because they were not baptized properly by full immersion or baptized in a non-similar denomination. People who have a denominational baptism will usually say "I was baptized as a ... Baptist" , or "baptized as a ... Lutheran". They have no concept of true baptism when they think they are baptized into a particular denomination.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think Terry a while ago stated the clear difference between a baptist denomination/sect and a local church right here:

I was baptized by a Southern Baptist preacher when I was young.

But later in life, when I joined the C. in Santa Cruz Ca., that wasn't enough. We had to go to the ocean, where they baptized me in freezing cold water. I felt a clear change, in my nervous system.

Then, years later, in the C. in Ft. Lauderdale, to demonstrate our loyalty, to the local church and Witness Lee's movement, with much fanfare -- detailed 2nd paragraph following -- the whole church went down to the ocean, and all were baptized (in warm water at least).

Two different local churches, two different sets of elders, two completely different times, and two baptisms to prove total commitment, to the Lee/LSM denominational "local" churches.

Moreover, I recall being baptized many more times, to show a all-in commitment, with lots of shouting, fist pumping, and necks poppin' out veins.

Now I don't know if that's a "clear difference between a baptist denomination/sect and a local church."

You decide.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So LC/LSMers in an attempt to claim special status try to draw all kinds of superficial differences between their names and the names of denominations (e.g. saying the name is really a "description"; making an issue of signboards, etc) but fail to see the essential similarities. On the other hand, they do not see the deep and essential exclusivity of claiming that those not in the Lord's Recovery (their movement) are not in God's move, while pointing an accusing finger at the superficial exclusivity of some modern denominations.

A few years ago when I was just starting to pull my head out of the sand and trying to figure things out, I asked two elders independently from each other if it is purely the fact that we do not "name" ourselves some form of Lee-ites or Nee-ites, as Lutherans or Wesleyans do, that we can say the LC's are not a denomination. I remarked that in following Lee/Nee, we are in practice doing the same things as others are doing, who we criticize, and I asked if the only reason we can make a distinction is because we don't actually use Lee/Nee's name in our name. To their credit, both elders, not knowing how the other responded, admitted that yes, the practice is the same or at least very similar. I asked what would happen if someone stood up in a meeting and shared from a non-LSM book, particularly week after week, even if the light they received from the book was genuine and their experience of the Lord real and living. They both said that probably at first it would be tolerated but after a few weeks, there would be some comments. (Although when I had a similar conversation with one of them years later he changed his story and said there are some who do not share from HWMR, for example, and are still accepted in the meetings). One elder admitted that we as a group do not do a good job of educating the saints that Lee/Nee is not the basis for our fellowship.

Of course no subsequent education occurred (no doubt because the hammer from Anaheim would come down if they caught wind of it), but at least I appreciated that they could admit the real situation.

[Trapped]

One thing that bothers me is that in the ministry Lee says that the church should only take the name of the Lord Jesus, and that taking the name of another is wrong (e.g. saying you are a Methodist/Baptist/Lutheran, etc is wrong). I.e., if you are Mrs. Jones, you do not take the name Smith.

Okay, then, by that principle, the local church websites should not state that the churches follow the teaching and ministry of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee! Why, in talking about the church, are there other names mentioned besides the Lord Jesus? If you are Mrs. Jones, yes, you should not take the name Smith.....but to further the analogy, if you are Mrs. Jones, you also should not "take up" with Smith, regardless of whether you actually take the name Smith or just only involve yourself with Smith without taking the name. If the LC does what W. Lee’s ministry itself describes, it should only be stating that they follow the New Testament ministry, or that they follow the Lord Jesus.

(I could get into how LSM intentionally blurs and conflates the phrases “the New Testament ministry” with “brother Lee’s ministry” with “the ministry” in the publications that are put out, but won’t).

So the LC’s can’t call themselves Lee-ans. Fine. But saying “we are the church in [city] (we follow the ministry of W. Lee and W. Nee)" is apparently okay.

So if Wesleyan/Lutheran is wrong, what criticizing word would LSM come up with if they came across a group who stated that they were, for example, "The church in [city] (we follow the teachings of Wesley/Luther)"?!

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

...The LSM is founded on the principle that claims the exclusive move of God and the "recovered" truth...

Does LSM/the LC still make the claim that they are God's unique (exclusive?) move on the earth?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Does LSM/the LC still make the claim that they are God's unique (exclusive?) move on the earth?

Of course. They and they alone.

All other Christians are poor, poor, degraded Christianity.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Does LSM/the LC still make the claim that they are God's unique (exclusive?) move on the earth?

Only because their rituals are better. Their major ritual is worship of Nee and mostly Lee. All other Christians don't have those rituals. That makes them poor.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Does LSM/the LC still make the claim that they are God's unique (exclusive?) move on the earth?

One precurser, in one of the very last conversations my LC ``friend" would deign to have with me, I was explicitely told that they consider themselves to be Gods expression here on earth....therefore, what fellowship could they have, literally, what point would there be, in speaking with one who wasn't "in" their group. I was cut off shortly after that conversation.

And how foolish of the LC....I would like to posit here....there cannot be a person in Christ, there cannot be any person who having touched the Father through believing on the Son, having received the Holy Spirit....who is "poor". To have the Son, and be considered "poor"....this is a deception, plain and simple. We none of us possessing the Son could ever be poor again! Praise Jesus, saints.

It was only at the very end of my connection with the LC were such bold proclamations made to me, however. I have to say, their exclusivity was successfully disguised from me for many years. I got all the hard sells at the end. The thousand years of outer darkness, the declaration that God would only have it their way, other aggressive teachings...but I cannot help myself....I only ever want to be Mary at His feet, looking at His face, and listening to His word, while my sister Martha (the LC) can rush about, doing all the work and complaining to the Lord to make me help her. I will keep my part, I have chosen Him.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

One precurser, in one of the very last conversations my LC ``friend" would deign to have with me, I was explicitely told that they consider themselves to be Gods expression here on earth....therefore, what fellowship could they have, literally, what point would there be, in speaking with one who wasn't "in" their group. I was cut off shortly after that conversation.

And how foolish of the LC....I would like to posit here....there cannot be a person in Christ, there cannot be any person who having touched the Father through believing on the Son, having received the Holy Spirit....who is "poor". To have the Son, and be considered "poor"....this is a deception, plain and simple. We none of us possessing the Son could ever be poor again! Praise Jesus, saints.

It was only at the very end of my connection with the LC were such bold proclamations made to me, however. I have to say, their exclusivity was successfully disguised from me for many years. I got all the hard sells at the end. The thousand years of outer darkness, the declaration that God would only have it their way, other aggressive teachings...but I cannot help myself....I only ever want to be Mary at His feet, looking at His face, and listening to His word, while my sister Martha (the LC) can rush about, doing all the work and complaining to the Lord to make me help her. I will keep my part, I have chosen Him.

By His Mercy,

First, going just by what you have written above your friend was wrong to take that attitude if she was referring to you.

Second, you also are wrong in saying you are a Mary and she is but a Martha.

There is no tangible difference in your or her attitudes.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

By His Mercy,

First, going just by what you have written above your friend was wrong to take that attitude if she was referring to you.

Second, you also are wrong in saying you are a Mary and she is but a Martha.

There is no tangible difference in your or her attitudes.

Drake

Hi Drake, did you ever notice in the Gospels "the tangible difference in the attitudes" between the Pharisees and those followers of Jesus put out of the Synagogue?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

One precurser, in one of the very last conversations my LC ``friend" would deign to have with me, I was explicitely told that they consider themselves to be Gods expression here on earth....therefore, what fellowship could they have, literally, what point would there be, in speaking with one who wasn't "in" their group. I was cut off shortly after that conversation.

And how foolish of the LC....I would like to posit here....there cannot be a person in Christ, there cannot be any person who having touched the Father through believing on the Son, having received the Holy Spirit....who is "poor". To have the Son, and be considered "poor"....this is a deception, plain and simple. We none of us possessing the Son could ever be poor again! Praise Jesus, saints.

It was only at the very end of my connection with the LC were such bold proclamations made to me, however. I have to say, their exclusivity was successfully disguised from me for many years. I got all the hard sells at the end. [b]The thousand years of outer darkness[/], the declaration that God would only have it their way, other aggressive teachings...but I cannot help myself....I only ever want to be Mary at His feet, looking at His face, and listening to His word, while my sister Martha (the LC) can rush about, doing all the work and complaining to the Lord to make me help her. I will keep my part, I have chosen Him.

Wow! I've certainly had or been a party to those "exclusive" conversations as well. Yikes! No building-up there, to be sure.

The thousand years in outer darkness teaching is something many of us in Scottsdale have struggled with for years. But - glory to God - we are drying out! Some who were around when this group split from the LC back in the 1980s, have had longer to dry out than me, and have been helping me along - to renew my mind from a fear-based/performance walk. I thank God nearly every day for the brothers here! God is not a steamroller - He loves us; He loves US; He LOVES US!

Now here's a "balancing word" regarding being poor. Yes, we have been given far more riches than we know in this life. However, He does tell the Church in Laodacia that they have become, "wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked."

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Wow! I've certainly had or been a party to those "exclusive" conversations as well. Yikes! No building-up there, to be sure.

The thousand years in outer darkness teaching is something many of us in Scottsdale have struggled with for years. But - glory to God - we are drying out! Some who were around when this group split from the LC back in the 1980s, have had longer to dry out than me, and have been helping me along - to renew my mind from a fear-based/performance walk. I thank God nearly every day for the brothers here! God is not a steamroller - He loves us; He loves US; He LOVES US!

Now here's a "balancing word" regarding being poor. Yes, we have been given far more riches than we know in this life. However, He does tell the Church in Laodacia that they have become, "wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked."

Praise Jesus, Sonstoglory! I see we actually can be poor....thank you for this word. I was speaking from the feet of the Lord! In prayer, spending time with Him, I realized how far from poor I was and was sharing based off of that. I believe any person looking at Him would experience the treasure of Christ....

And just to clarify, Drake, in the word, at that time, my heart desires to remain as Mary, only caring for His word, even to the neglect of my "duties", and when I was comparing myself to a "Martha" I was not thinking of a specific person, but the LC in general. This is my own personal revelation from the Lord. I see the LC as one rushing about, furiously trying to usher every child of God into and under the umbrella of WLs ministry, and forsaking those who try to buck this rider off their back. We are set free in Christ Jesus, brother. Everything in me wants to say to the LC, show me the justification for the division....in scripture! from the rest of Gods children....but that conversation is impossible, that door is closed to me. You really have no idea how much I appreciate some willingness to discuss these things, in you, Drake. Praise Jesus, brother.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hi Drake, did you ever notice in the Gospels "the tangible difference in the attitudes" between the Pharisees and those followers of Jesus put out of the Synagogue?

Hello, Ohio! The main tangible difference in attitude that I can see would be the aspect of division. I just am at a complete loss to ever understand....why is it we cannot be together in our christian walk with the saints in the LC?? What real difference is there? All the crucial components of faith and salvation are here!! The very Christ Himself we have in common....why not simply agree to disagree with each other over the Lee ministry....who even cares? The whole situation is the saddest situation I have been (an unwilling) partner in. It grieves me and I just think if my friends in the LC would simply look at me and listen, they would understand the damage this practice does to individuals in the body....I truly believe this is against the Lords' heart for His family....

Praise Jesus, the great physician! He is well able to handle this! I thank Him for you all, opening this conversation up to this public forum....I don't know where I'd be today if I was still under the deception that it was only me that got shunned from this group of real believers! I'd be a wreck, I think. I pray the light of Christ shines into every heart here....

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hi Drake, did you ever notice in the Gospels "the tangible difference in the attitudes" between the Pharisees and those followers of Jesus put out of the Synagogue?

Hello, Ohio! The main tangible difference in attitude that I can see would be the aspect of division. I just am at a complete loss to ever understand....why is it we cannot be together in our christian walk with the saints in the LC?? What real difference is there? All the crucial components of faith and salvation are here!! The very Christ Himself we have in common....why not simply agree to disagree with each other over the Lee ministry....who even cares? The whole situation is the saddest situation I have been (an unwilling) partner in. It grieves me and I just think if my friends in the LC would simply look at me and listen, they would understand the damage this practice does to individuals in the body....I truly believe this is against the Lords' heart for His family....

Praise Jesus, the great physician! He is well able to handle this! I thank Him for you all, opening this conversation up to this public forum....I don't know where I'd be today if I was still under the deception that it was only me that got shunned from this group of real believers! I'd be a wreck, I think. I pray the light of Christ shines into every heart here....

[awareness]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Hello, Ohio! The main tangible difference in attitude that I can see would be the aspect of division. I just am at a complete loss to ever understand....why is it we cannot be together in our christian walk with the saints in the LC??

That's sweet of you. Thanks. My explication is, they don't accept me ... or want me. That's why.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Hello, Ohio! The main tangible difference in attitude that I can see would be the aspect of division. I just am at a complete loss to ever understand....why is it we cannot be together in our christian walk with the saints in the LC?? What real difference is there? All the crucial components of faith and salvation are here!! The very Christ Himself we have in common....why not simply agree to disagree with each other over the Lee ministry....who even cares? The whole situation is the saddest situation I have been (an unwilling) partner in. It grieves me and I just think if my friends in the LC would simply look at me and listen, they would understand the damage this practice does to individuals in the body....I truly believe this is against the Lords' heart for His family....

Praise Jesus, the great physician! He is well able to handle this! I thank Him for you all, opening this conversation up to this public forum....I don't know where I'd be today if I was still under the deception that it was only me that got shunned from this group of real believers! I'd be a wreck, I think. I pray the light of Christ shines into every heart here....

Originally Posted by awareness

That's sweet of you. Thanks. My explication is, they don't accept me ... or want me. That's why.

Yes Harold, and it becomes an impasse, a stumbling in the Lords' body, doesn't it? Has any LCer ever tried to justify this practice to you with scripture? I just don't understand how real christians can go so far from Gods' word....I have noticed insofar as this forum goes....they cannot address this matter of unrighteously dividing the body of Christ....I guess this also explains why they cannot discuss it, after it is committed. God bless you, Harold. He wants you....He receives you.

[least]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

And just to clarify, D--k-, in the word, at that time, my heart desires to remain as Mary, only caring for His word, even to the neglect of my "duties", and when I was comparing myself to a "Martha" I was not thinking of a specific person, but the LC in general. This is my own personal revelation from the Lord.

byHismercy,
while you are in pain you need 'desires to remain as Mary, only caring for His word', for healing. The Lord heals us.
when we are well, 'nourish and cherish' by our Lord our God, our "duties" (our function) in the body of Christ will be carried out; we as members of the body of Christ each is a part ‘fulfilling our duties’ as instructed by Christ the head of the body.
-
In fact, God has arranged the members of the body, every one of them, according to His design.
-

[Drake]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

And just to clarify, Drake, in the word, at that time, my heart desires to remain as Mary, only caring for His word, even to the neglect of my "duties", and when I was comparing myself to a "Martha" I was not thinking of a specific person, but the LC in general. This is my own personal revelation from the Lord. I see the LC as one rushing about, furiously trying to usher every child of God into and under the umbrella of WLs ministry, and forsaking those who try to buck this rider off their back. We are set free in Christ Jesus, brother. Everything in me wants to say to the LC, show me the justification for the division....in scripture! from the rest of Gods children....but that conversation is impossible, that door is closed to me. You really have no idea how much I appreciate some willingness to discuss these things, in you, Drake. Praise Jesus, brother.

byHismercy,

Well, we all heard the message that Mary chose the better part so we should aspire to be a Mary. Nevertheless, Martha's service part is still needed.

But you are applying that verse in what appears in a prideful way... yet, we all are to greater or lesser degrees both Mary and Martha... and we should be both loving the Lord and in service. The better part does not mean the only part. Ironically, a condemning and critical heart toward another was a trait of Martha... not Mary.

Drake

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Drake

byHismercy,

Well, we all heard the message that Mary chose the better part so we should aspire to be a Mary. Nevertheless, Martha's service part is still needed.

But you are applying that verse in what appears in a prideful way... yet, we all are to greater or lesser degrees both Mary and Martha... and we should be both loving the Lord and in service. The better part does not mean the only part. Ironically, a condemning and critical heart toward another was a trait of Martha... not Mary.

Drake

Hi Drake, I don't feel prideful. And I don't want to condemn the saints in the LC where I am. I definitely stand against the LC practice of seperating themselves from true believers...that is to say, I condemn choosing WL over Jesus, dividing the body over WL. My criticism is not for the individual saints, but the Satanic deception they are under....can you show me in scripture the justification of shunning fellow saints, saints who want to continue in the fellowship of Christ with you? Where is this practice set forth in scripture for us to model? I don't see it. I see the Lord asking us to love one another, asking us to go another mile when asked for one, instructing us to receive one another, excepting under specific circumstances...to be open and honest in our dealings with each other...all these things have been forsaken by the LC here. What do you believe, brother? Is this practice justifiable by your bible, in your walk, according to your God? We were shunned in the name of my savior Jesus, brother. When I asked Him, searched His word, all He ever showed me was the error in it....sincerely seeking....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

byHismercy,

Well, we all heard the message that Mary chose the better part so we should aspire to be a Mary. Nevertheless, Martha's service part is still needed.

But you are applying that verse in what appears in a prideful way... yet, we all are to greater or lesser degrees both Mary and Martha... and we should be both loving the Lord and in service. The better part does not mean the only part. Ironically, a condemning and critical heart toward another was a trait of Martha... not Mary.

Drake

Dear Drake, you have outdone yourself.

A sad broken hearted child of God has been cast out of your little exclusive sect, and you imply that it is her who is proud.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dear Drake, you have outdone yourself.

A sad broken hearted child of God has been cast out of your little exclusive sect, and you imply that it is her who is proud.

Ohio,

Stop playing the victim card on her behalf. She is stronger than you give her credit for.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

Stop playing the victim card on her behalf. She is stronger than you give her credit for.

Drake

Dear Drake, you have a long history of dismissing the concerns of every wounded or hurting child of God who comes to this forum.

Thank the Lord for those willing to be "Good Samaritans," rather than all the know-it-all "priests and Levites" in the LC movement. (Luke 10.25-37)

Listen to byHismercy's own comments ...

Praise Jesus, the great physician! He is well able to handle this! I thank Him for you all, opening this conversation up to this public forum....I don't know where I'd be today if I was still under the deception that it was only me that got shunned from this group of real believers! I'd be a wreck, I think. I pray the light of Christ shines into every heart here....

And you have the nerve to tell her she is proud, and I am playing the "victim card."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Hi Drake, I don't feel prideful. And I don't want to condemn the saints in the LC where I am. I definitely stand against the LC practice of seperating themselves from true believers...that is to say, I condemn choosing WL over Jesus, dividing the body over WL. My criticism is not for the individual saints, but the Satanic deception they are under....can you show me in scripture the justification of shunning fellow saints, saints who want to continue in the fellowship of Christ with you? Where is this practice set forth in scripture for us to model? I don't see it. I see the Lord asking us to love one another, asking us to go another mile when asked for one, instructing us to receive one another, excepting under specific circumstances...to be open and honest in our dealings with each other...all these things have been forsaken by the LC here. What do you believe, brother? Is this practice justifiable by your bible, in your walk, according to your God? We were shunned in the name of my savior Jesus, brother. When I asked Him, searched His word, all He ever showed me was the error in it....sincerely seeking....

byHismercy,

As you are sincerely seeking I am happy to share my perspective.

Many, perhaps most, proud people don't realize they are proud. As I read your comparing yourself as the Mary and everyone else in the local churches as Martha then it became obvious that you were exhibiting Martha's criticizing attitude toward Mary. Not Mary's blissful at peace attitude at the Lord's feet. Mary does not stand up for herself, she is silent. The Lord speaks on her behalf unlike Martha who levels harsh criticism as you did. Furthermore, in your limited exposure to the saints in the local churches you cannot possibly have enough of a sample size to know everyone is a Martha in the local churches. I have met Marys and Marthas. Both are needed. In fact, I myself am either at any given moment. When a Mary I need to remember my service and when a Martha I need to remember the better part.

Yet, to your question, I already answered. Did you miss it?

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dear Drake, you have a long history of dismissing the concerns of every wounded or hurting child of God who comes to this forum.

Thank the Lord for those willing to be "Good Samaritans," rather than all the know-it-all "priests and Levites" in the LC movement. (Luke 10.25-37)

Listen to byHismercy's own comments ...

And you have the nerve to tell her she is proud, and I am playing the "victim card."

And there it is yet again. Pride on open display. ....

You are the Good Samaritan and I am the know it all Levite.

Please, come down off your high horse Ohio. We're trying to have a conversation down here. All that neighing and whinnying is drowning out anything meaningful you might add.

Drake

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

And there it is yet again. Pride on open display. ....

You are the Good Samaritan and I am the know it all Levite.

Please, come down off your high horse Ohio. We're trying to have a conversation down here. All that neighing and whinnying is drowning out anything meaningful you might add.

Drake

Drake you adhere to no consistency in your admonition, it weakens your arguments.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Drake you adhere to no consistency in your admonition, it weakens your arguments.

Oh, I see.

You disapprove of Ohio's prideful comparison of himself as the Good Samaritan and me as the "know it all Levite"... yet you remain silent.

However, my measured response to someone who says they are sincerely seeking verses someone who is disrupting the conversation taking for himself the title of Good Samaritan, a title applied to the Lord Himself, ... the difference in my response. .. THAT is what you find objectionable?

Please. Talk about inconsistencies.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Oh, I see.

You disapprove of Ohio's prideful comparison of himself as the Good Samaritan and me as the "know it all Levite"... yet you remain silent.

However, my measured response to someone who says they are sincerely seeking verses someone who is disrupting the conversation taking for himself the title of Good Samaritan, a title applied to the Lord Himself, ... the difference in my response. .. THAT is what you find objectionable?

Please. Talk about inconsistencies.

Drake

When you called byHismercy proud, that was not a "measured" response except when using Lee's own set of weights.

Hear what the Lord says, "Go, and do likewise." (Luke 10.37)

Stop reading Lee's footnotes on these verses, and start practicing the Lord's actual admonition.

You condemn the downtrodden and chastise those who come to their defense. Calling you a "priest or Levite" gives all of them a bad name.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

Oh, I see.

You disapprove of Ohio's prideful comparison of himself as the Good Samaritan and me as the "know it all Levite"... yet you remain silent.

However, my measured response to someone who says they are sincerely seeking verses someone who is disrupting the conversation taking for himself the title of Good Samaritan, a title applied to the Lord Himself, ... the difference in my response. .. THAT is what you find objectionable?

Please. Talk about inconsistencies.

Drake

Just trying to help you out Drake. I’m holding out hope for you brother!

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Drake

byHismercy,

As you are sincerely seeking I am happy to share my perspective.

Many, perhaps most, proud people don't realize they are proud. As I read your comparing yourself as the Mary and everyone else in the local churches as Martha then it became obvious that you were exhibiting Martha's criticizing attitude toward Mary. Not Mary's blissful at peace attitude at the Lord's feet. Mary does not stand up for herself, she is silent. The Lord speaks on her behalf unlike Martha who levels harsh criticism as you did. Furthermore, in your limited exposure to the saints in the local churches you cannot possibly have enough of a sample size to know everyone is a Martha in the local churches. I have met Marys and Marthas. Both are needed. In fact, I myself am either at any given moment. When a Mary I need to remember my service and when a Martha I need to remember the better part.

Yet, to your question, I already answered. Did you miss it?

Drake

Hi Drake, I'm sorry my assessment of the Lee movement feels harsh and critical....I love the saints therein and that includes you! By Gods grace.....but I am starting to feel it is my responsibility to call out error in the body....I was a very young person and very young in my salvation when I was first caught up in this deception in the LC....as so many have testified. I was brought in through the ftta presence on my college campus in Orange County CA and I have met in the C in Huntington Beach, the C in Diamond Bar, a small LC in Tx., and here in Wa state. I have been in touch with this Lee ministry for 24 years and am familiar with many forms of deception that they put into practice regarding splitting from genuine believers in the body. I only wish I knew then what I know now about what they keep hidden from christians that they bring in. I would have steered clear from the unscriptural practices the LC engages in!

As to missing your answer to my question about justifying wickedly dividing from saints...I am sorry, I did miss it. I read the whole thread and if you did address this issue, could you tell me the post#?

My wish now is to expose the hidden divisive error this group practices...and openly discuss any error regarding Gods word by the light and discernment I find in the Spirit. Not just here in the LC matters but with my SDA friend...the JW who come to my door, Mormons....whereever He gives me His word and I see deceived ones. I myself have nothing in my natural person that equips me for this task...excepting one thing, the Holy Spirit, and Gods word. He is my only boast, Drake. I have nothing else to boast in. If you knew me in person, you would know it's true! Lol, God bless you, Drake! And all the dear brothers here!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Not just here in the LC matters but with my SDA friend...the JW who come to my door, Mormons....whereever He gives me His word and I see deceived ones. I myself have nothing in my natural person that equips me for this task...excepting one thing, the Holy Spirit, and Gods word. He is my only boast, Drake. I have nothing else to boast in. If you knew me in person, you would know it's true! Lol, God bless you, Drake! And all the dear brothers here!

AMEN! SDA - Now there's another discussion. I love SDA saints and have a few good stories about how the Lord has brought about awesome fellowship with them! (As you likely know, they do focus on one person a lot and tend to get legal on certain things . . . many general similarities with the LC I think.)

[byHismercy]

By the way, the reason the Local Church values "Marys' silence, and not standing up for herself" is because this facilitates the deceptive practices they engage in. How can they deceive new ones with everybody talking about their experience in the LC? This throws a fat wrench into their works....and God bless that wrench!

I found genuine saints in the LC, people who love the Lord Jesus and want to pursue Him. But the fruit of going along with error in silence is harming the body...and needs to be brought into the light. I believed when I was taught there that I would not find Jesus, and life, in any other assembly of believers on earth. I was easily deceived as a baby Christian. I regret turning my face and mindless accepting what was taught there when I recognized teachings that were additions to Gods word....no other way to describe them. If Jesus wants me to be quiet, Drake, He will let me know. I trust Him.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by least

byHismercy,
while you are in pain you need 'desires to remain as Mary, only caring for His word', for healing. The Lord heals us.
when we are well, 'nourish and cherish' by our Lord our God, our "duties" (our function) in the body of Christ will be carried out; we as members of the body of Christ each is a part ‘fulfilling our duties’ as instructed by Christ the head of the body.
-
In fact, God has arranged the members of the body, every one of them, according to His design.
-

Amen, Least

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

I believed when I was taught there that I would not find Jesus, and life, in any other assembly of believers on earth. I was easily deceived as a baby Christian. I regret turning my face and mindless accepting what was taught there when I recognized teachings that were additions to Gods word....no other way to describe them. If Jesus wants me to be quiet, Drake, He will let me know. I trust Him.

Me too! I was a baby Christian. Didn't know nuthin about nuthin! But I knew the Lord had miraculously brought me to the LC back in 1974. And back then I think that is exactly where I was supposed to be - it was a most happening Jesus place then! ("God places members in the body as He sees fit.") It wasn't until decades later that He was able to show me and bring me to a place that was so much better (because the LC mindset was there is NOTHING better . . .)!

Now I know He did it all to bring me where I am today.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Hi Drake, I'm sorry my assessment of the Lee movement feels harsh and critical....I love the saints therein and that includes you! By Gods grace.....but I am starting to feel it is my responsibility to call out error in the body....I was a very young person and very young in my salvation when I was first caught up in this deception in the LC....as so many have testified. I was brought in through the ftta presence on my college campus in Orange County CA and I have met in the C in Huntington Beach, the C in Diamond Bar, a small LC in Tx., and here in Wa state. I have been in touch with this Lee ministry for 24 years and am familiar with many forms of deception that they put into practice regarding splitting from genuine believers in the body. I only wish I knew then what I know now about what they keep hidden from christians that they bring in. I would have steered clear from the unscriptural practices the LC engages in!

As to missing your answer to my question about justifying wickedly dividing from saints...I am sorry, I did miss it. I read the whole thread and if you did address this issue, could you tell me the post#?

My wish now is to expose the hidden divisive error this group practices...and openly discuss any error regarding Gods word by the light and discernment I find in the Spirit. Not just here in the LC matters but with my SDA friend...the JW who come to my door, Mormons....whereever He gives me His word and I see deceived ones. I myself have nothing in my natural person that equips me for this task...excepting one thing, the Holy Spirit, and Gods word. He is my only boast, Drake. I have nothing else to boast in. If you knew me in person, you would know it's true! Lol, God bless you, Drake! And all the dear brothers here!

thanks byHismercy,

Thanks for declaring your intentions.... and your viewpoints. no need to apologize for what you thought was harsh and critical.. it wasn't really, at least not by forum standards. Even if it were it does not bother me... no need to hold back on my account. There are better reasons than whether you will offend me.

It was really an observation on my part that you were condemning Christians as being proud while projecting pride. Claiming the position of Mary while relegating other Christians as loving the Lord less, calling them Marthas, pointing their busyness and suggesting how complicated they are while you are just only sitting at the Master's feet.... etc. It is like someone referring to themselves the Good Samaritan and other folks Pharisees or Levites...

That was the observation I was making. If that does not describe you, then great. If that is you then we will have many opportunities to chat.

Thanks
Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

By the way, the reason the Local Church values "Marys' silence, and not standing up for herself" is because this facilitates the deceptive practices they engage in. How can they deceive new ones with everybody talking about their experience in the LC? This throws a fat wrench into their works....and God bless that wrench!

....l If Jesus wants me to be quiet, Drake, He will let me know. I trust Him.

byHismercy,

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. Really, I'm delighted thst you speak your mind. The only attempts at silencing were from Ohio. He tried to cast you as some fragile victim unable to speak for yourself. I saw you differently.

Drake

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Drake

thanks byHismercy,

Thanks for declaring your intentions.... and your viewpoints. no need to apologize for what you thought was harsh and critical.. it wasn't really, at least not by forum standards. Even if it were it does not bother me... no need to hold back on my account. There are better reasons than whether you will offend me.

It was really an observation on my part that you were condemning Christians as being proud while projecting pride. Claiming the position of Mary while relegating other Christians as loving the Lord less, calling them Marthas, pointing their busyness and suggesting how complicated they are while you are just only sitting at the Master's feet.... etc. It is like someone referring to themselves the Good Samaritan and other folks Pharisees or Levites...

That was the observation I was making. If that does not describe you, then great. If that is you then we will have many opportunities to chat.

Thanks
Drake

Hi Drake, in fact, I am evil! Praise Jesus! Redeemed by His sacrifice on the cross, utterly unworthy, only reconciled to God by grace! Hallelujah! Let all glory go to Jesus!

If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him? Luke 11:13

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

I have been in touch with this Lee ministry for 24 years and am familiar with many forms of deception that they put into practice regarding splitting from genuine believers in the body. I only wish I knew then what I know now about what they keep hidden from christians that they bring in. I would have steered clear from the unscriptural practices the LC engages in!

I agree with Drake - Thanks for speaking your mind. It sounds like you have many first hand experiences with the churches of Witness Lee that the Lord can use for His good.

I thought I'd share - I didn't read any pride in your statements, but who knows a strangers heart from what he/she posts on the internet...

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Drake

byHismercy,

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. Really, I'm delighted thst you speak your mind. The only attempts at silencing were from Ohio. He tried to cast you as some fragile victim unable to speak for yourself. I saw you differently.

Drake

I don't see that at all...rather, when the brothers advocate for me on this forum, I see the Lord.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I agree with Drake - Thanks for speaking your mind. It sounds like you have many first hand experiences with the churches of Witness Lee that the Lord can use for His good.

I thought I'd share - I didn't read any pride in your statements, but who knows a strangers heart from what he/she posts on the internet...

Yes, only the Spirit, searching the hearts of men....can know us through and through. And I really don't want to exalt myself above other believers. I would like to clarify, though, Drake was taking what I was saying the wrong way...probably because I wasn't being clear....He gave me a desire to be looking at His face, listening for His word, remaining at His feet. What I see as Martha is the practice in the LC of insisting on the Lee way...this way they have come to believe is the God ordained way, and dividing from believers in their rigidity to the Lee way...

The Lord said to Martha, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her."

When the LC fussily splits and segregates themselves from the rest of the Lords' body....I am sure the Lord would correct them of this practice....this is what I see in the word. I didn't mean to compare every saint in the LC to Martha...but this is certainly a preoccupation they have that I know the Lord would correct...this particular practice is wrong, it is not the love of Christ, it has nothing to do with our Father. This is what He shows me through His word.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

I would like to clarify, though, Drake was taking what I was saying the wrong way...

.....When the LC fussily splits and segregates themselves from the rest of the Lords' body....I am sure the Lord would correct them of this practice....this is what I see in the word. I didn't mean to compare every saint in the LC to Martha...but this is certainly a preoccupation they have that I know the Lord would correct...this particular practice is wrong, it is not the love of Christ, it has nothing to do with our Father. This is what He shows me through His word.

We heard you the first time. No misunderstanding. You've affirmed what you said before.

Now, to your argument. .. you argue against splits and segregation yet you conveniently ignore that denominations are called denominations for a reason. They denominate, segregate, and split. Will the Lord correct them of this practice? Do you see that in the word?

Thanks
Drake

[byHismercy]

Drake, God is looking at every heart, individually. He knows our coldness, lukewarmness, or burning, He knows the condition of each one of His children, and those who are yet enemies. He loves every person...and wants us to be in Him, abiding in His love through keeping His commandment....that commandment being for us to love each other as He loved us! I will just stay with His heart for His children and love them. He put in me a heart to meet with every believer around the world, when I was before Him, in prayer...literally found myself daydreaming about flying to Russia and meeting with the children of God there...this was a precurser to my "ushering out" by the LC. I disagree with the LC practice of condemning saints in various denominations for their "crime" of not being in the LC. When He gives me love for the brothers and sisters, He never qualified it by the LC denomination only. That teaching is not scriptural and only comes from the LC. Jesus is not teaching me in the Spirit to condemn His members. I cannot and will not go along with this LC mindset, this abberant erroneous teaching any longer. God bless you!

[Drake]

-1

byHismercy,

I agree with first part of your last post. After that your argument is incoherent. So, let's agree that God knows us, loves us, motivates us, etc. You, me and Christians in the local churches all agree and are no different in that way.

You stated that you saw in the word that segregation and splitting is a practice that the Lord will correct. Ok, lets have a look at how what you saw in the word is applied. Is the Lord consistent? Surely He is. Is segregating the Body in anyway, denominating one group of Christians from another over doctrine and practices, condemned in the word? Again, surely it is.

Therefore, surely, surely, what you saw in the word, segregating, splitting, and denomination is wrong regardless of which group of Christians it is applied to. In other words, your argument is incoherent because you selectively apply what you saw in the word to one group of Christians while ignoring the elephant in the room, that is millions of Christians are in what is appropriately labeled hundreds of Denominations. Do you condemn them?

Drake

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

I disagree with the LC practice of condemning saints in various denominations for their "crime" of not being in the LC. When He gives me love for the brothers and sisters, He never qualified it by the LC denomination only. That teaching is not scriptural and only comes from the LC. Jesus is not teaching me in the Spirit to condemn His members. I cannot and will not go along with this LC mindset, this aberrant erroneous teaching any longer. God bless you!

Yes & AMEN!

I will give my little testimony here about the last time I met with LCers a few years ago. We were RV vacationing in the NW and I decided to go be with the saints in the LC in Tacoma, WA on Sunday morning. There was very good singing and I was able to release my spirit. Then we had a break to partake of some coffee and refreshments. A brother and I were talking and he asked about our experience with our travel trailer. At one point I began to tell him how good it was - that wherever we were on a Sunday, I would just find the closest group of believers and go be with them. I told him that while these believers I'm visiting may not practice this or that exactly as I might prefer, it was still glorious as they had the Spirit of Jesus Christ among them. I buoyantly told him how good this was, when we travel, and that he should try it.

Of course I knew full well the exclusivity of the LC and how this might be taken by the brother. But there was full peace in me and a flow of spirit to convey this to him!

The brother listened, but had zero response. No facial response. No verbal response. It was as if I hadn't spoken at all about this.

We then went back to the second part of the gathering where there were lots of testimonies about Life Study related things (but I don't think any fresh experiences of Christ were conveyed whatsoever). I'm a little said as I remember and write this . . .

(Let me also say that visiting and being with these other groups as we travel has been a real growth area for me. Where I meet regularly we have a very open meeting style where saints function freely, and that I really enjoy. Visiting other places, they do not often have the level of member functioning and other participation that I am used to. When I started visiting these other places, I was overly critical. I began to realize how much being critical just killed the flow of life within me. Over a number of these experiences the Lord gained something in me to not be so critical, but just to enjoy who these ones were in Christ. This has been very precious and has resulted in some wonderful experiences of Christian fellowship in far-flung places of the country!)

[Drake]

Sons to Glory》". .... I told him, in a rather excited way, that as we traveled this was so good and that he should try it.

Of course I knew full well the exclusivity of the LC and how this might be taken by the brother. But there was full peace in me and a flow of spirit to convey this to him!

The brother listened, but had zero response. No facial response. No verbal response. It was as if I hadn't spoken at all about this."

Brother,

Your intention may not have been with malice but your judgement toward that brother lacks a gracious heart. He may well have had zero response because he disagreed with your mobile church life practice.... that would be okay anyway afterall they did receive you......and yet he could have just as well been discouraged that he could not embark on such a free style, or afford it, or has a job or family to take care of. You made it sound like he should share in the joy and experience of your free lance church life. Why? Why is he not entitled to your appreciation of his choices in church life? Instead, you criticize the brother publicly and openly in this forum because he deadpanned your animated suggestion that he should buy an RV and hit the road himself. It may have been that he saw no value in it before the Lord or maybe it was not a practical alternative for him. In any case, so what? Why does he deserve your criticism?

The local churches receive all genuine believers without further preconditions. The problems come in when people bring their baggage into the meetings and insist that everyone start doing what they do. So, they take advantage of the liberty in the meetings to impose their practices in the saints. When they get deadpanned they leave of their own accord sometimes firing both guns on their way out because no one would go along with their "proposals". Seen it happen many times.

Drake

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Drake

Sons to Glory》". .... I told him, in a rather excited way, that as we traveled this was so good and that he should try it.

Of course I knew full well the exclusivity of the LC and how this might be taken by the brother. But there was full peace in me and a flow of spirit to convey this to him!

The brother listened, but had zero response. No facial response. No verbal response. It was as if I hadn't spoken at all about this."

Brother,

Your intention may not have been with malice but your judgement toward that brother lacks a gracious heart. He may well have had zero response because he disagreed with your mobile church life practice.... that would be okay anyway afterall they did receive you......and yet he could have just as well been discouraged that he could not embark on such a free style, or afford it, or has a job or family to take care of. You made it sound like he should share in the joy and experience of your free lance church life. Why? Why is he not entitled to your appreciation of his choices in church life? Instead, you criticize the brother publicly and openly in this forum because he deadpanned your animated suggestion that he should buy an RV and hit the road himself. It may have been that he saw no value in it before the Lord or maybe it was not a practical alternative for him. In any case, so what? Why does he deserve your criticism?

The local churches receive all genuine believers without further preconditions. The problems come in when people bring their baggage into the meetings and insist that everyone start doing what they do. So, they take advantage of the liberty in the meetings to impose their practices in the saints. When they get deadpanned they leave of their own accord sometimes firing both guns on their way out because no one would go along with their "proposals". Seen it happen many times.

Drake

Okay, some further information is warranted. He asked me how we came to be in the area. When I told him we were RVing, he said that he and his wife were strongly desiring to get an RV soon, and to travel around. The conversation went from there. All I know is the Lord's life and light were certainly with me as I shared with him, and the witness is in my spirit as I convey this now.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay, some further information is warranted. He asked me how we came to be in the area. When I told him we were RVing, he said that he and his wife were strongly desiring to get an RV soon, and to travel around. The conversation went from there. All I know is the Lord's life and light were certainly with me as I shared with him, and the witness is in my spirit as I convey this now.

Well, okay. You said before he had "zero response. No facial response. No verbal response. It was as if I hadn't spoken at all about this."

Yet, he did respond and he responded verbally. Maybe the Lord checked Him along the way. You've had that happen, haven't you? You know, you are thinking or talking about something and the Lord checks you from going further? Whatever the reasons the story appears to be looking for a point to make.

Or maybe he just hated your RV. ;-)

Drake

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Drake

Well, okay. You said before he had "zero response. No facial response. No verbal response. It was as if I hadn't spoken at all about this."

Yet, he did respond and he responded verbally. Maybe the Lord checked Him along the way. You've had that happen, haven't you? You know, you are thinking or talking about something and the Lord checks you from going further? Whatever the reasons the story appears to be looking for a point to make.

Or maybe he just hated your RV. ;-)

Drake

It doesn't seem I am communicating my thoughts well. We had a good discussion, up until when I told him my experience of visiting ekklesia in various places. And yes, only he and God knows if the HS checked him at that point.

So you don't see a point? What else do you want me to try and communicate bro?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

It doesn't seem I am communicating my thoughts well. We had a good discussion, up until when I told him my experience of visiting ekklesia in various places. And yes, only he and God knows if the HS checked him at that point.

So you don't see a point? What else do you want me to try and communicate bro?

Hi Sons to Glory,

Well, I think you communicate very well. And you seem to be fair and balanced.

What I am saying here is that your point is a type of argument from silence. You are reading into his deadpan something to fit the narrative in this thread. Unless he said "take your free lance RV and get off the church property" or something like "you, Sons to Glory, are so far off I can't stand talking to you anymore".. or something like that , then you are reading the incident into this thread as a proof point that he condemns other Christians... but it isn't a proof point or a validation of such a thing.

At worst, it seems, when you tried to encourage him to abandon his normal church life practice and hit the road and attend any ol' place with a sign hanging out front that says "Church" he might have thought that he could not do that before the Lord because to do so would violate a sacred principle that to meet with someone who separates themselves from the Body because of a doctrine or practice is to endorse division. So perhaps, rather than a proof point, as you suggest, that he separates himself and his family from the Body he was turned off by the idea of endorsing division, those who separated themselves from the Body, through participating in it directly. Since you went back into the fellowship after that discussion and were received then he and they were at least practicing the oneness in the Body. Yet, you found space to criticize he and they on this occasion. That's your right but I think you can interpret as I did above as well. No one knows for sure what he was thinking so you're using him as an example is speculative.

Drake

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi Sons to Glory,

Well, I think you communicate very well. And you seem to be fair and balanced.

What I am saying here is that your point is a type of argument from silence. You are reading into his deadpan something to fit the narrative in this thread. Unless he said "take your free lance RV and get off the church property" or something like "you, Sons to Glory, are so far off I can't stand talking to you anymore".. or something like that , then you are reading the incident into this thread as a proof point that he condemns other Christians... but it isn't a proof point or a validation of such a thing.

At worst, it seems, when you tried to encourage him to abandon his normal church life practice and hit the road and attend any ol' place with a sign hanging out front that says "Church" he might have thought that he could not do that before the Lord because to do so would violate a sacred principle that to meet with someone who separates themselves from the Body because of a doctrine or practice is to endorse division. So perhaps, rather than a proof point, as you suggest, that he separates himself and his family from the Body he was turned off by the idea of endorsing division, those who separated themselves from the Body, through participating in it directly. Since you went back into the fellowship after that discussion and were received then he and they were at least practicing the oneness in the Body. Yet, you found space to criticize he and they on this occasion. That's your right but I think you can interpret as I did above as well. No one knows for sure what he was thinking so you're using him as an example is speculative.

Drake

Oh, I forgot to add one other piece of information. Yes, they did allow me back into the meeting. But right afterwards as I, quite unsuspectingly, went out to the parking lot, I was quickly approached by four big brothers wearing hoods. They grabbed me and dragged me into a shed, where several others poured hot tar over me, then dumped some goose down feathers on me. At that point they tied me to a large beam and ran me out of town.

Please forgive my flippant response here (it was hard to resist)!

In other words, no, he didn't tell me what he was thinking, therefore I can't know for sure. All I know is the communication between us, which had been very good, abruptly stopped at that point (telling my wayfaring RV story).

And, I have to tell you this made me laugh (I don't think you intended to be funny though . . .):

you tried to encourage him to abandon his normal church life practice and hit the road and attend any ol' place with a sign hanging out front that says "Church" he might have thought that he could not do that before the Lord because to do so would violate a sacred principle that to meet with someone who separates themselves from the Body because of a doctrine or practice is to endorse division.

You are joking. . . I hope, right?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

The local churches receive all genuine believers without further preconditions. The problems come in when people bring their baggage into the meetings and insist that everyone start doing what they do. So, they take advantage of the liberty in the meetings to impose their practices in the saints. When they get deadpanned they leave of their own accord sometimes firing both guns on their way out because no one would go along with their "proposals". Seen it happen many times.

Drake, this is exactly what LSM did to the Midwest churches. You may be able to deceive your LC loyalists, but those of us who have lived thru LSM's hell, we see thru all your deception.

Sounds to me like you were one of these many invaders bringing all your LSM baggage into the Midwest meetings, taking advantage of our liberty of the Spirit to impose your practices on the saints.

Except it didn't happen as you say. Instead of firing your guns on the way out the door, you hijacked some naive locals, brought them under your subjection, made them a good show in the flesh, and then used them to file lawsuits to steal church properties from the saints. You and yours were successful in two Ohio LC's.

Your endless comments about "poor, poor, divided Christianity are more than hollow sounding, they cover up LSM's own divisive and corrupt practices. There is no denomination on earth which is more divisive than LSM. Your hypocrisy stinks to high heavens.

[Drake]

-2

But, did the hooded men take your RV away and run it through an RV chop shop? Maybe you were too attached to it anyway.

....and I will inject humor into my serious points but they are not jokes.

Drake

[Sons to Glory!]

by Drake post #88 you tried to encourage him to abandon his normal church life practice and hit the road and attend any ol' place with a sign hanging out front that says "Church" he might have thought that he could not do that before the Lord because to do so would violate a sacred principle that to meet with someone who separates themselves from the Body because of a doctrine or practice is to endorse division.

So assuming you weren't actually funnin' me (maybe the joke is on me - I am still finding it quite amusing ), let's break it down:

1. "you tried to encourage him to abandon his normal church life practice" I tried to put a mind altering drug in his coffee too.

2. "and attend any ol' place with a sign hanging out front that says 'Church'" Because that's not an accurate description of a bonefide ekklesia?

3. "he might have thought that he could not do that before the Lord because to do so would violate a sacred principle that to meet with someone who separates themselves from the Body because of a doctrine or practice is to endorse division" Who are we talking about here? (OIC, at least I think I do . . . sorta - I'm endorsing division, right?)

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake, this is exactly what LSM did to the Midwest churches. You may be able to deceive your LC loyalists, but those of us who have lived thru LSM's hell, we see thru all your deception.

Sounds to me like you were one of these many invaders bringing all your LSM baggage into the Midwest meetings, taking advantage of our liberty of the Spirit to impose your practices on the saints.

You sound like the culprit, and a historical revisionist, who ordered changing the locks on the meeting hall in Mansfield leaving even the elderly folks out in the cold. Plenty of material there to talk about loyalists, invaders, deception, and stealing others property and liberty.

Pathetic.



Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So assuming you weren't actually funnin' me (maybe the joke is on me - I am still finding it quite amusing ), let's break it down:

1. "you tried to encourage him to abandon his normal church life practice" I tried to put a mind altering drug in his coffee too.

2. "and attend any ol' place with a sign hanging out front that says 'Church'" Because that's not an accurate description of a bonefide ekklesia?

3. "he might have thought that he could not do that before the Lord because to do so would violate a sacred principle that to meet with someone who separates themselves from the Body because of a doctrine or practice is to endorse division" Who are we talking about here? (OIC, at least I think - I'm endorsing division, right?)

Oh good. Substance with a pinch of humor. Let's break it down.

1. Did you? What were you peddling in that RV? Hard to hit a moving target y'know.

Now, you took his deadpan so seriously that you were compelled to bring it up here in this thread as a proof point that he hates other Christians. At least, that is what you used as a springboard. So, what could he have taken so seriously to cause him to shut down? the RV itself? the mind altering drug? Or that you in testing him, knowing he would have convictions about a topic, purposefully baiting him....sure enough got the precise reaction that you expected. Clever. Now, that proves, what? Zero. Nada. Nunca. Well, maybe it shows he had a good measure of Christ because he didn't say anything though feeling he naively followed your bread crumbs to the point of you challenging his beliefs. You said you knew it upfront and then sprung your well executed plan. He didn't see it coming. Got him, you did..... written all over his face.

2. Exactly. A sign in the front yard or hanging on a building or a portable lighted display with quips and sayings is not a SCRIPTURAL description of a bonafide ekklesia. It is at best, and in general, a clustering of Christians who gather, not on the basis of the one Body, but on some doctrine or practice, gift, or person.

3. Well, you do encourage Christians to stay in their division, don't you? Your breakfast fellowship is shaking hands over the walls that exist between your congregations. In your RV you are like a goodwill ambassador visiting and driving past the wall, up to the house for a cup of tea, and then when you leave you drive back past the wall.. but the wall is still the wall. It is still there. You had a cup of tea and so you are refreshed but what about the testimony of the one Body. What does the world see? they see walls, division, separation. From what little I know of you, you do not actually make any effort to dismantle those walls, nor do you see a need to ... and I am not asking you to either. If you believe in walls then build more walls. You've read that haven't you?

I'm just pointing out that you took opportunity to throw that brother under the bus when the occasion arose but it did not prove your point or byHismercy's.

Drake

[Sons to Glory!]

Oh now we are having some real fun! Read my responses in bold below.

Originally Posted by Drake

Oh good. Substance with a pinch of humor. Let's break it down.

1. Did you? What were you peddling in that RV? Hard to hit a moving target y'know.

Now, you took his deadpan so seriously that you were compelled to bring it up here in this thread as a proof point that he hates other Christians. strong word "hate" - I didn't say that At least, that is what you used as a springboard. Seems to imply that I went there with a motive. Nope. It was just something that came up after he mentioned that he wanted to RV himself. It was an experience of Christ I had while visiting other believers - should I have withheld something I felt in spirit to share with him? Again, no preconceived or nefarious motive here. So, what could he have taken so seriously to cause him to shut down? the RV itself? the mind altering drug? Or that you in testing him, knowing he would have convictions about a topic, purposefully baiting him....sure enough got the precise reaction that you expected. Clever. Now, that proves, what? Zero. Nada. Nunca. Well, maybe it shows he had a good measure of Christ because he didn't say anything though feeling he naively followed your bread crumbs to the point of you challenging his beliefs. You said you knew it upfront. Sure, I had at least some idea of his beliefs in the LC ground of oneness. But I see past that erroneous hang-up now (sorry if that offends). I see all Christians are already one. How & why? He did it. It is already true. "One Spirit." "One Faith" and etc. What we see of a human-caused messed-up church is not faith. In faith (unseen) all believers are one already because of what He did. Something was in me of Christ - believe it or not - that wanted to share with this brother these very good experiences of oneness in spirit with Christians in different areas. Can you share something specific in the word that says meeting with other Christians is divisive?

2. Exactly. A sign in the front yard or hanging on a building or a portable lighted display with quips and sayings is not a SCRIPTURAL description of a bonafide ekklesia. It is at best, and in general, a clustering of Christians who gather, not on the basis of the one Body, but on some doctrine or practice, gift, or person. To me, this very last part (underlined) sounds like we are talking about the LC. (I don't think you see that, do you?) Christians have to specifically meet as the one church in that location to be an ekklesia - is that what you're inferring?

3. Well, you do encourage Christians to stay in their division, don't you? Your breakfast fellowship is shaking hands over the walls that exist between your congregations. In your RV you are like a goodwill ambassador visiting and driving past the wall, up to the house for a cup of tea, and then when you leave you drive back past the wall.. but the wall is still the wall. It is still there. You had a cup of tea and so you are refreshed but what about the testimony of the one Body. What does the world see? they see walls, division, separation. From what little I know of you, you do not actually make any effort to dismantle those walls. ... and I am not asking you to either. If you believe in walls then build more walls. You've read that haven't you? Good point. So should we dismantle the abundantly rich Thursday breakfast? And when we are traveling near some small town that only has a couple Christian meeting places, should I not get with them and keep to myself - "It's just me and Jesus!" - or what do you suggest?

Drake

[Drake]

Sons to Glory>”strong word "hate" - I didn't say that”

You”re right. You didn’t. Apologies.

Let’s discuss what you did say.

You said “yes and amen” to byHismercy’s false assertion that local church Christians are “....condemning saints in various denominations for the “crime” of not being in the LC.”

Drake

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Drake

Sons to Glory>”strong word "hate" - I didn't say that”

You”re right. You didn’t. Apologies.

Let’s discuss what you did say.

You said “yes and amen” to byHismercy’s false assertion that local church Christians are “....condemning saints in various denominations for the “crime” of not being in the LC.”

Drake

The full quote you are referring to is this:

Originally Posted by byHismercy (originally post 81)
I disagree with the LC practice of condemning saints in various denominations for their "crime" of not being in the LC. When He gives me love for the brothers and sisters, He never qualified it by the LC denomination only. That teaching is not scriptural and only comes from the LC. Jesus is not teaching me in the Spirit to condemn His members. I cannot and will not go along with this LC mindset, this aberrant erroneous teaching any longer. God bless you!

So brother Drake, that may sound strong, but do you disagree that this is the practice of the LC?

And I hope to hear your reply to to the three points I commented on (in bold) in post #95. Thanks!

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

The full quote you are referring to is this: So brother Drake, that may sound strong, but do you disagree that this is the practice of the LC?
And I hope to hear your reply to to the three points I commented on (in bold) in post #95. Thanks!

Of course I disagree with that fabricated characterization of the practice in the local churches! “Crime”? Absurd! Where has the thought or word “crime” ever come up” ?There is no such teaching that God loves local church Christians and not all Christians equally. Of course He loves all Christians equally. Does that mean He loves everything all Christians do? Of course not ! He spells out very clearly in Revelation 2 & 3 that He has some things against us. We need to heed those things. Heeding those matters, hating what He hates, communicating those amongst ourselves is our responsibility. There is a vast difference between standing with the Lord in the things He both loves and hates and the false allegation that local church members condemn other believers for the “crime” that they do not meet with us. If you believe that false assertion , and I assume you do since you “yes and amen”ed it, then it does not matter what I think of your other three questions. Which I am happy to answer if we can settle this matter.

What I suggest is you take a few minutes to read Watchman Nee’s booklet... “What Are We?”. It is the best explanation of this matter.

Try this link: https://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?id=2355E0

Drake

[Sons to Glory!]

I think you are most vigorously objecting to the word, "crime" right? I will admit that this may not be the most appropriate word. ByHisMercy, I'm guessing, is using that in a way to illustrate and emphasize how strongly they see the things which happened to them. "Crime" may be a bit inflammatory, but it is conveying a strong emotion.

Am I right ByHisMercy?

BTW - I found the Nee booklet after some searching.

[Sons to Glory!]

I do thank the Lord that He preserved me (once again) and kept me out of this whole
brother-against-brother mess that took place in Ohio!

He has been faithful! (Yes, in case you didn't know - it's all about me . . . )

So I gotta ask - will there ever be forgiveness applied regarding this unfortunate situation?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I do thank the Lord that He preserved me (once again) and kept me out of this whole
brother-against-brother mess that took place in Ohio!

He has been faithful! (In case you didn't know - it's all about me . . . )

So I gotta ask - will there ever be forgiveness applied regarding this unfortunate situation?

Maybe when or if they lift the quarantine.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I think you are most vigorously objecting to the word, "crime" right? I will admit that this may not be the most appropriate word. ByHisMercy, I'm guessing, is using that in a way to illustrate and emphasize how strongly they see the things which happened to them. "Crime" may be a bit inflammatory, but it is conveying a strong emotion.

Am I right ByHisMercy?

BTW - I found the Nee booklet after some searching.

You may be right that "crime" is inflammatory and not the best word. I do my best to express myself and I am open to others ideas...my intention was not to inflame emotions! That being said....we are being punished most certainly by the saints here...if there was no crime committed...which there was not....we are certainly receiving the harshest form of chastisement. People we love very much, who also claim to love us, will not receive us, nor any communication from us, nor respond in any way when we try to remain in peace and reconciliation (and that of Christ!) with them. This is most surely their best attempt to get us to obey their ultimatum to meet with the Lee ministry, and that alone. My excommunication came about very swiftly after I let them know that we were seeking another assembly, closer to home, outside their group. I personally would have never cut off contact with the saints we were close with...there would always be an open door for any believer, no matter the assembly, distance...I see no reason to separate....I truly believe in the one body! One Spirit, one Lord, one Father....there is no justification for division here. There is no gross ongoing life of living in sin here, there is absolutely no scriptural justification for their dividing from us, or me from them. I know of a very dear couple who felt led to come to this locality a few years ago...I knew them from the C in Diamond Bar, they left their grown children to come and bless the LC here, they were treated very poorly and sent on their way after not many months. This brother loved the Lord and was very much a blessing to me..they both tried to talk to me about what they went through here but I was so ignorant at that time of the real practices of the LC....I was no help to them. Now I can guess what they must have experienced. Withdrawing love, fellowship of Christ, communication...this is cruelty in Jesus name...I will never believe this is the operation of the Holy Spirit...rejection and that game, that is Satans realm, that is Satans game.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

You may be right that "crime" is inflammatory and not the best word. I do my best to express myself and I am open to others ideas...my intention was not to inflame emotions! That being said....we are being punished most certainly by the saints here...if there was no crime committed...which there was not....we are certainly receiving the harshest form of chastisement...

Wow - sounds a lot like the Amish practice of shunning.

Your signature says you're from the NW, but are you talking Ohio here?

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Drake

Well, not just the characterization of so-called crime. Rather, this whole erroneous thought about what we think Gods love is toward ourselves and other Christians. At best it is a big misunderstanding and at worst it is a slanderous accusation.

Look, I agree with everything In that booklet. If you disagree with something then that is fair game to debate.

Drake

It is no misunderstanding, it is not slander. I am speaking the truth. But I am fairly certain its obvious who is telling the truth between you and I, Drake. I am not the only one who can read and be witness to your special talent for twisting others' testimony, or distorting what they speak, or simply wilfully misunderstanding them. Every person or family who has been deceived by the LC, or had their faith egregiously abused by the LC knows what the LC is. They speak to the one body of Christ, but they do not practice what they preach, not by a long shot.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Wow - sounds a lot like the Amish practice of shunning.

Your signature says you're from the NW, but are you talking Ohio here?

No, I've never been that far east. The Church in Diamond Bar and the Church in Huntington Beach are both in southern CA. I currently reside in the pacific northwest but we are seeking transfer to get out of Wa. The residual bad taste this region left in our mouths has all come from relationships and trust betrayed by the LC here....we cannot wait to leave this area. My children, myself, and my spouse....we are leaving as soon as it is practically made possible. It is no small matter to be duped by people you think are following the truth and Jesus. My trust in the saints has been rocked to say the least. I don't think I can ever be blind to deviation from Gods word in an assembly again, praise Jesus. I won't be silent if I encounter such deviation in the future. I wish the LC could be witness to the damage their actions do....they very effectively are looking the other way, however.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

No, I've never been that far east. The Church in Diamond Bar and the Church in Huntington Beach are both in southern CA. I currently reside in the pacific northwest but we are seeking transfer to get out of Wa. The residual bad taste this region left in our mouths has all come from relationships and trust betrayed by the LC here....we cannot wait to leave this area. My children, myself, and my spouse....we are leaving as soon as it is practically made possible. It is no small matter to be duped by people you think are following the truth and Jesus. My trust in the saints has been rocked to say the least. I don't think I can ever be blind to deviation from Gods word in an assembly again, praise Jesus. I won't be silent if I encounter such deviation in the future. I wish the LC could be witness to the damage their actions do....they very effectively are looking the other way, however.

If by chance you come Scottsdale way, look me up! There's a good number of recovering Recovery saints here, who just love Jesus!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here we are discussing the church in Mansfield with elders appointed by a recognized apostle TC. The church is split into parties, one of Lee, and one of Titus, and one of Christ. The elders alone must administrate and shepherd these saints into one accord. It is their decision alone whether outside any ministers should be invited to help them.

But read Drake's posts. He belittles and disqualifies these 4 local elders as "TC proxies." This proves that in the minds of an LSMer, no elder on earth is legitimate unless he is subservient to them. Once again LSM has violated their own teachings. Hypocrites.

My understanding is that each ekklesia is autonomous. Paul could strongly exhort, and did, different locations. But as far as I can tell, he never came in to subject them to his direct authority and override their local will, right? (This is just like the Lord - He won't override our own will.)

The view that I used to have was that God was a steamroller and He would get His purpose no matter if you stood in His way or not - that is, if you get in His way He will squash you flat. But what was Christ's example? "I am meek and lowly." This is how He approaches us. He stands at the door and knocks - not a steamroller. (Yes, He will get His purpose, but He may need to go around us to achieve it. Again, meek.)

[Sons to Glory!]

And let me add that things go sideways when authority outside of an ekklesia is subjected upon it (other than Christ). The Church in Rome is the biggest example of this, and then came all the smaller examples. I think perhaps the biggest sin of the Roman Catholics is that they supplanted the authority of Christ with a central government (which The Romans were really good at).

So with the Roman example you then have the whole clergy-laity thing on steroids - that is, not just authority and control over one ekklesia, but many. Truly a mysterious monster indeed!

[Sons to Glory!]

In the words of that great street philosopher of our time (Rodney King): "CAN'T WE ALL JUS' GET ALONG!?"

(The answer is: No. In Adam you can't get along.)

[Evangelical]

Back to Baptists, for a minute:

Baptists believe that only the Baptist Closed communion is genuine communion and they are the only true Christians descended from the time of Christ. They believe a communion held between members of different denominations (divisions) or in Open Communion is not a genuine communion.

This is taken from The New Testament Church By T.T. Martin where he defends the practice of the baptist church to have "closed communion" and says that if Baptists stopped taking closed communion there would be no genuine communion on the Earth.

In many respects the doctrine is similar to the recovery, as it emphasizes the symbolism behind the bread and wine as relating to the one body, and believes that not every church which has bread and wine is genuine communion if it is a communion of division (1 Cor 11:18-20).

One major flaw is that the Baptist communion is not based on the locality but on doctrine about how the communion should be done and their identity as Baptists. They seem to represent a group of Christians of like mind who get together and claim to be without division, and claim their Lord's Table is genuine. Is not every denomination like this? Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, all consider their communion to be without division, and so a genuine communion. But they forget that they themselves are a division within the city.

I don't believe that Paul in 1 Cor 11:18-20 meant that any group of Christians who can get along with each other can meet together hold the Lord's Table, claim to be without division and satisfy 1 Cor 11:18-20. Because I see the principle of locality, I see that the only non-divisive Lord's Table which satisfies 1 Cor 11:18-20 must be one which is based on the locality. 1 Corinthians 11:20 indicates this when it says "when you come together in one place", other versions say "gather together in the same place". There is nothing said about gathering together because of any other reason than being in the same one place. A true divided communion then according to 1 Cor 11:18-20, must be one which is a gathering together because of a reason other than being in the same one place, such as "I am a Pharisee" or "I am a Sadducee". The communion of denominations, including Baptist, therefore, must be a communion based on faction "I am a Baptist, I am a Catholic", just as Judaism was divided into factions.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't believe that Paul in 1 Cor 11:18-20 meant that any group of Christians who can get along with each other can meet together hold the Lord's Table, claim to be without division and satisfy 1 Cor 11:18-20. Because I see the principle of locality, I see that the only non-divisive Lord's Table which satisfies 1 Cor 11:18-20 must be one which is based on the locality. 1 Corinthians 11:20 indicates this when it says "when you come together in one place", other versions say "gather together in the same place". There is nothing said about gathering together because of any other reason than being in the same one place. A true divided communion then according to 1 Cor 11:18-20, must be one which is a gathering together because of a reason other than being in the same one place, such as "I am a Pharisee" or "I am a Sadducee". The communion of denominations, including Baptist, therefore, must be a communion based on faction "I am a Baptist, I am a Catholic", just as Judaism was divided into factions.

Three questions (hopefully answer with a yes or no):
1. If I take the table with some believers not meeting on the ground of oneness (one church one city), am I promoting division?

2. If the "Scottsdale Church" (legal name "The Church in Scottsdale") has the Lord's table and I partake, am I promoting the oneness of the body?

3. If someone takes the table at "The Church in Columbus," but they usually meet at a denomination, are they promoting oneness?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A true divided communion then according to 1 Cor 11:18-20, must be one which is a gathering together because of a reason other than being in the same one place, such as "I am a Pharisee" or "I am a Sadducee". The communion of denominations, including Baptist, therefore, must be a communion based on faction "I am a Baptist, I am a Catholic", just as Judaism was divided into factions.

Then brother, you should read up on Landmarkism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmarkism

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Back to Baptists, for a minute:

Baptists believe that only the Baptist Closed communion is genuine communion and they are the only true Christians descended from the time of Christ. They believe a communion held between members of different denominations (divisions) or in Open Communion is not a genuine communion.

This is not true and is a weird thing to say.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

This is not true and is a weird thing to say.

It's from the book

The New Testament Church By T.T. Martin, a renowned Baptist.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Three questions (hopefully answer with a yes or no):
1. If I take the table with some believers not meeting on the ground of oneness (one church one city), am I promoting division?

With these sorts of questions a yes/no answer is not possible. It's like asking the question - if a muslim goes to America does it make them a terrorist?

So my answer is it depends what you are promoting when you take the table. It also depends on what others are promoting when they take the table. It depends what the table is there for - is it just to promote the faction or not? e.g. Catholic table is only for Catholics, so I know their table is not for every believer in the city.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

2. If the "Scottsdale Church" (legal name "The Church in Scottsdale") has the Lord's table and I partake, am I promoting the oneness of the body?

It depends what you are promoting when you take the table. If I feel it is only for people of the Church in Scottsdale then maybe its a division. If people of any denomination are welcome then probably not a division.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

3. If someone takes the table at "The Church in Columbus," but they usually meet at a denomination, are they promoting oneness?

It depends if they are promoting their faction at the table or not.

An example might help. In the time of Christ, the Jewish factions were the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducee. Suppose a Scribe wanted to partake of communion at the table with the 12 disciples. He had a choice to promote the unity of the 12 disciples or promote the faction of the Scribes. It depends what he is promoting.

The bread on the table symbolizes the oneness of all believers everywhere. If the bread on the table symbolizes the oneness of believers in a particular faction then it cannot be a genuine Lord's table.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

With these sorts of questions a yes/no answer is not possible. It's like asking the question - if a muslim goes to America does it make them a terrorist?

So my answer is it depends what you are promoting when you take the table. It also depends on what others are promoting when they take the table. It depends what the table is there for - is it just to promote the faction or not? e.g. Catholic table is only for Catholics, so I know their table is not for every believer in the city.



It depends what you are promoting when you take the table. If I feel it is only for people of the Church in Scottsdale then maybe its a division. If people of any denomination are welcome then probably not a division.



It depends if they are promoting their faction at the table or not.

An example might help. In the time of Christ, the Jewish factions were the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducee. Suppose a Scribe wanted to partake of communion at the table with the 12 disciples. He had a choice to promote the unity of the 12 disciples or promote the faction of the Scribes. It depends what he is promoting.

The bread on the table symbolizes the oneness of all believers everywhere. If the bread on the table symbolizes the oneness of believers in a particular faction then it cannot be a genuine Lord's table.

Thanks. That seemed pretty thoughtfully conveyed.

So, okay, let's say I'm just meeting with a group of Christians. We are all pretty young and simple in the Lord - just wild & youthful Jesus lovers. We have read "Do this in remembrance of Me" in the Bible and have decided to do that. We believe we are one with every Christian in the area we meet (and the rest of the world), because that's what the Anointing within tells us. And others come from different groups from time to time, and just take the bread and wine with us. Everyone enjoys the one Spirit together and are filled with His love. Very pure & enjoyable fellowship results.

Then let's say there is a group meeting in the city. Let's say Scottsdale, on the ground of oneness (who for legal purposes the state calls "The Church in Scottsdale"). The ones in the first group know of this Scottsdale Church gathering. They have fellowship and take the table together. They enjoy the one Spirit. They are filled with Christ's love for each other.

And they all feel free to take the bread and the wine in various places, as the occasion arises, because the Spirit tells them they are one with all believers.

Is there anything divisive going on?

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's from the book

The New Testament Church By T.T. Martin, a renowned Baptist.

T.T. Martin? Never heard of him. He’s not the MOTA of Baptists. Your comment is a weird comment given it’s undeniably stark contrast to reality.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

This is not true and is a weird thing to say.

Then you too need to read up on Landmarkism.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's from the book

The New Testament Church By T.T. Martin, a renowned Baptist.

Landmarkism, Landmarkism, Landmarkism.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

T.T. Martin? Never heard of him. He’s not the MOTA of Baptists. Your comment is a weird comment given it’s undeniably stark contrast to reality.

That was what Baptists believed before they became all liberal and all.

Here is one quote, which is remarkably similar to Lee.

Picture Methodists and Presbyterians and Disciples in Open Communion, the Presbyterian with his Calvinism, the Methodist with his salvation-partly of works, and the Disciple with his immersion in order to the remission of sins. Are there not divisions there? Why, if what the Disciple teaches is true, the Methodists and the Presbyterians have no remission of sins and are going to hell. They call it, and the world calls it, Open Communion; but God says it is not possible to eat the Lord's Supper, because there are divisions there.

Or maybe J. R. Graves:

Denominational communion never has been sustained, and never can be, but at the expense of peace. It has always been the occasion of discord among brethren. It has alienated churches one from the other. It has distracted and divided associations, and all for the very good reason that it is departure from the simplicity that is in Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks. That seemed pretty thoughtfully conveyed.

So, okay, let's say I'm just meeting with a group of Christians. We are all pretty young and simple in the Lord - just wild & youthful Jesus lovers. We have read "Do this in remembrance of Me" in the Bible and have decided to do that. We believe we are one with every Christian in the area we meet (and the rest of the world), because that's what the Anointing within tells us. And others come from different groups from time to time, and just take the bread and wine with us. Everyone enjoys the one Spirit together and are filled with His love. Very pure & enjoyable fellowship results.

Then let's say there is a group meeting in the city. Let's say Scottsdale, on the ground of oneness (who for legal purposes the state calls "The Church in Scottsdale"). The ones in the first group know of this Scottsdale Church gathering. They have fellowship and take the table together. They enjoy the one Spirit. They are filled with Christ's love for each other.

And they all feel free to take the bread and the wine in various places, as the occasion arises, because the Spirit tells them they are one with all believers.

Is there anything divisive going on?

Taking bread and wine in various places, are these "various places" denominations? If so that sounds divisive.

Going back to a biblical example. Suppose all the 12 disciples are gathered with Christ ready to celebrate the Passover. On this occasion, John says he can't join them because he has to go and celebrate Passover with the Pharisees (a denomination of Judaism). Peter also cannot attend because he is celebrating Passover with the scribes (another denomination). They all love Christ and the Spirit tells them they are "one with all the Jews". And maybe the Scribes and Pharisees joined Christ and disciples for Passover as well sometimes.

A practical problem with people coming from anywhere to the Lord's Table is that you have no control over the meeting. Any drunkards, fornicators, or revilers could come and take the Lord's Table and then depart never to be seen again. This happens often in denominations where fornicators, homosexuals and all will go from church to church and take communion anywhere they please.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by awareness

Then you too need to read up on Landmarkism.

Hey man, I read your link.

According to the mighty Wikipedia, there are over 100 million people who identify as Baptist or belong to a Baptist type church. According to your link it appears that only 300,000 adhere to landmarkism. Let’s just say for arguments sake that this number is low. Even at three times that number, it’s less than 1% of “baptists”. So why would someone make a statement that Baptisits believe XYZ when less than 1% of those do? It is either a disconnect from reality, intentional deception, or something worse.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Hey man, I read your link.

According to the mighty Wikipedia, there are over 100 million people who identify as Baptist or belong to a Baptist type church. According to your link it appears that only 300,000 adhere to landmarkism. Let’s just say for arguments sake that this number is low. Even at three times that number, it’s less than 1% of “baptists”. So why would someone make a statement that Baptisits believe XYZ when less than 1% of those do? It is either a disconnect from reality, intentional deception, or something worse.

Brother Least, I know about Landmarkism because I was raised in the Southern Baptist Church. I have a little booklet passed down from my mother entitled "The Trail of Blood," that traces the Southern Baptist's back to John the Baptist. Now the Southern Baptist don't claim to be Landmarkists, not officially, but they believe the same thing. And the Southern Baptist's are the largest Protestant Christian sect.

Landmarkism share many characteristics to Lee's local church ... mainly that "we are the only ones that have the truth." Oddly tho, they don't claim to follow a ribbon of local churches all the way back to the Apostolic church -- unbroken continuity -- like the Landmarkists. Else there would be no need for a Recovery. But they do claim that they are the only ones that discovered the true expression of the Apostolic church, with their one church in one city.

Also Landmarkism holds that only local, independent Baptist congregations can truly be called “churches” in the New Testament sense. Isn't that Nee's and Lee's autonomy of the locality doctrine?

And how about their doctrine "that only faithful landmark Baptists will comprise the Bride of Christ?" Sound familiar?

Ultimately tho, what they share in common that sticks out like a sore thumb is, their exclusivity : we are it, and the the rest of Christianity, all the other Christians not in our group, are apostates. Like Lee stated "Christianity is Christless."

Thanks for humoring me leastofthese.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Least, I know about Landmarkism because I was raised in the Southern Baptist Church. I have a little booklet passed down from my mother entitled "The Trail of Blood," that traces the Southern Baptist's back to John the Baptist. Now the Southern Baptist don't claim to be Landmarkists, not officially, but they believe the same thing. And the Southern Baptist's are the largest Protestant Christian sect.

Landmarkism share many characteristics to Lee's local church ... mainly that "we are the only ones that have the truth." Oddly tho, they don't claim to follow a ribbon of local churches all the way back to the Apostolic church -- unbroken continuity -- like the Landmarkists. Else there would be no need for a Recovery. But they do claim that they are the only ones that discovered the true expression of the Apostolic church, with their one church in one city.

Also Landmarkism holds that only local, independent Baptist congregations can truly be called “churches” in the New Testament sense. Isn't that Nee's and Lee's autonomy of the locality doctrine?

And how about their doctrine "that only faithful landmark Baptists will comprise the Bride of Christ?" Sound familiar?

Ultimately tho, what they share in common that sticks out like a sore thumb is, their exclusivity : we are it, and the the rest of Christianity, all the other Christians not in our group, are apostates. Like Lee stated "Christianity is Christless."

Thanks for humoring me leastofthese.

Ok cool, I wouldn’t say I’m a Baptist and my mom never gave me the cool landmarkism books but I never was questioning if it was a “thing” or even how it compared to the Witness Lee churches- I was more making the comment - claiming that this school of thought is actually what baptists believe is a falsehood. Would you agree? If we polled 100 million baptists, how many would believe in landmarkism?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Taking bread and wine in various places, are these "various places" denominations? If so that sounds divisive.

Going back to a biblical example. Suppose all the 12 disciples are gathered with Christ ready to celebrate the Passover. On this occasion, John says he can't join them because he has to go and celebrate Passover with the Pharisees (a denomination of Judaism). Peter also cannot attend because he is celebrating Passover with the scribes (another denomination). They all love Christ and the Spirit tells them they are "one with all the Jews". And maybe the Scribes and Pharisees joined Christ and disciples for Passover as well sometimes.

Are there verses that directly connect the Lord's table with the teaching of oneness? In order to take the table properly, must we all agree we are one & also not be divisive in our practice (e.g., denominations)? I'm not sure where specific passages are that would back that up . . .

So it might sorta sound good, but please show me in case I've missed those references.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Hey man, I read your link.

According to the mighty Wikipedia, there are over 100 million people who identify as Baptist or belong to a Baptist type church. According to your link it appears that only 300,000 adhere to landmarkism. Let’s just say for arguments sake that this number is low. Even at three times that number, it’s less than 1% of “baptists”. So why would someone make a statement that Baptisits believe XYZ when less than 1% of those do? It is either a disconnect from reality, intentional deception, or something worse.

It doesn't matter the percentage. If 1% of baptists believe in X, and 99% believe in Y, then it is still correct to say "baptists believe in X" or "baptists believe in Y" without quantifying. If we say "baptists don't believe in X" , then it rules out the 1%, and declares those 1% to not be baptists when in fact they are. Note that I never said "ALL baptists believe in X", when I know that is not the case. Anyway, read the OP and early posts, it's clearly about comparing Southern or "landmark" baptists to the recovery.

Landmarkism was a fundamental/conservative counter to perceived liberalism in the baptist denomination. It has produced many authors and world-wide evangelists/preachers so they have had an impact. It could be argued that they are the "true baptists" because they hold to conservative ideals of the baptist faith, just as "true Lutherans" are those who hold to the old teachings of Lutheranism despite accepting gay marriage, or "true Catholics" who hold to the old teachings of Catholicism without accepting multi-faith heresy. I have encountered landmark-type beliefs in baptists who even wouldn't say they are "landmark baptist". The belief that baptists are an unbroken line of descendants from the first apostles is one such belief that I have encountered.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Are there verses that directly connect the Lord's table with the teaching of oneness? In order to take the table properly, must we all agree we are one & also not be divisive in our practice (e.g., denominations)? I'm not sure where specific passages are that would back that up . . .

So it might sorta sound good, but please show me in case I've missed those references.

Rendered "one loaf", the Greek that Paul implies this one loaf brings about a kind of unity between those who partake of it:

1 Cor 10: 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.


The situation in Corinth as I understand it, was that some believers (rich ones probably), where consuming all the food they had brought and leaving none for the poor. This caused strife and division, factions, between different groups, so the Lord's table was a place of strife not unity. At this point, we can note that they were still one church, the poor or the rich factions did not think about starting their own denominational meeting at this stage. To solve this problem, they could have, and Paul no where sanctions this Paul no where says , "ok, different factions separate, make your own church and have your own Lord's Table in your own way".

1 Cor 11:17-20 17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,[a] 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It doesn't matter the percentage. If 1% of baptists believe in X, and 99% believe in Y, then it is still correct to say "baptists believe in X" or "baptists believe in Y" without quantifying. If we say "baptists don't believe in X" , then it rules out the 1%, and declares those 1% to not be baptists when in fact they are. Note that I never said "ALL baptists believe in X", when I know that is not the case. Anyway, read the OP and early posts, it's clearly about comparing Southern or "landmark" baptists to the recovery.

That's rich, I think you're my new forum fav!

So what you really meant is(my comments in red - yours in black):

Some Baptists, albeit very few, believe that only the Baptist Closed communion is genuine communion and they are the only true Christians descended from the time of Christ. This antiquated belief system holds to the thought that a communion held between members of different denominations (divisions) or in Open Communion is not a genuine communion. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to host a discussion on the topic as almost no baptists today (some estimate less than 1%) adhere to this position. The foremost expert in the matter is a frequent poster on a forum created to discuss Witness Lee and his church. He can be found in the "Alt Views" section when on a probation handed down by UntoHim. This poster can be identified by the alias "awareness" and credits his vast knowledge of landmarkism to his mother, whom he loves dearly.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Rendered "one loaf", the Greek that Paul implies this one loaf brings about a kind of unity between those who partake of it:

1 Cor 10: 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.


The situation in Corinth as I understand it, was that some believers (rich ones probably), where consuming all the food they had brought and leaving none for the poor. This caused strife and division, factions, between different groups, so the Lord's table was a place of strife not unity. At this point, we can note that they were still one church, the poor or the rich factions did not think about starting their own denominational meeting at this stage. To solve this problem, they could have, and Paul no where sanctions this Paul no where says , "ok, different factions separate, make your own church and have your own Lord's Table in your own way".

1 Cor 11:17-20 17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,[a] 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.

Here is an interesting thing concerning the oneness, that came from Harry Foster, a close co-worker of T. Austin Sparks for 40 years. Bro Foster gave this at Spark's passing ceremony in 1971:

The Cross is not only painful, it is unifying. Brother Sparks believed and preached that by it the individual believer is not only led into an enlarging personal enjoyment of resurrection life, but also into a true integration into the fellowship of the Church which is Christ's body. He could never think of himself as an isolated Christian, nor of assemblies as isolated groups, but he tried to keep before him the divine purpose of redemption, which is the incorporation of all believers into vital membership of the one body. It has sometimes happened that Christians most anxious to express this oneness have yet contradicted its spirit by being betrayed into an attitude of superiority towards other Christians, so allowing themselves to be wrongly divided from their fellows in Christ. We here have had to confess our own failures in this respect, realizing that our very eagerness to be faithful to the Scriptural revelation of what the Church ought to be may have unintentionally produced something of a separateness among the people of God. If brother Sparks at times tended in this direction, he certainly moved farther and farther away from it as he came nearer to eternity, being growingly careful to show a proper appreciation of all true believers, whatever their connection.

Interesting that Sparks appeared to be saying (via Foster) that the oneness had more to do with the cross taking care of personal and internal divisiveness rather than adhering to something external.

Over and over recently I've been pointed back to the reality of this - all things we think we need to come up with, are actually in Christ (i.e., rather than something I need to get myself worked-up to do). In other words, turning to Him and experiencing His life in us is ALL those things we need - including oneness. It's not some external practice that I think makes sense (even from scripture). This is the New Covenant . . . not the letter, but the power of His indestructible life in and through us.

I think Sparks had it right.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Ok cool, I wouldn’t say I’m a Baptist and my mom never gave me the cool landmarkism books but I never was questioning if it was a “thing” or even how it compared to the Witness Lee churches- I was more making the comment - claiming that this school of thought is actually what baptists believe is a falsehood. Would you agree? If we polled 100 million baptists, how many would believe in landmarkism?

It's pretty popular in my neck of the woods, here in Western Kentucky.

But more in line with The Trail of Blood <-click. And here, free for Kindle <-click. They don't know it as Landmarkism.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

That's rich, I think you're my new forum fav!

So what you really meant is(my comments in red - yours in black):

Some Baptists, albeit very few, believe that only the Baptist Closed communion is genuine communion and they are the only true Christians descended from the time of Christ. This antiquated belief system holds to the thought that a communion held between members of different denominations (divisions) or in Open Communion is not a genuine communion. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to host a discussion on the topic as almost no baptists today (some estimate less than 1%) adhere to this position. The foremost expert in the matter is a frequent poster on a forum created to discuss Witness Lee and his church. He can be found in the "Alt Views" section when on a probation handed down by UntoHim. This poster can be identified by the alias "awareness" and credits his vast knowledge of landmarkism to his mother, whom he loves dearly.

The OP and other posts seem to be talking about landmark baptism to me. The OP says ""Baptist" to a Baptist essentially means God's best". .

So they practice closed communion because they think it is the best communion and other communions are not real communions.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Here is an interesting thing concerning the oneness, that came from Harry Foster, a close co-worker of T. Austin Sparks for 40 years. Bro Foster gave this at Spark's passing ceremony in 1971:
Interesting that Sparks appeared to be saying (via Foster) that the oneness had more to do with the cross taking care of personal and internal divisiveness rather than adhering to something external.

Over and over recently I've been pointed back to the reality of this - all things we think we need to come up with, are actually in Christ (i.e., rather than something I need to get myself worked-up to do). In other words, turning to Him and experiencing His life in us is ALL those things we need - including oneness. It's not some external practice that I think makes sense (even from scripture). This is the New Covenant . . . not the letter, but the power of His indestructible life in and through us.

I think Sparks had it right.

He seems to be talking about the invisible reality but what about the practical? It's easy to be one with other believers, we only have to say and believe we are, even if watch church TV. But practically how? The visible reality should match the invisible reality. The external practice of meeting together should be the practical expression of the reality.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Rendered "one loaf", the Greek that Paul implies this one loaf brings about a kind of unity between those who partake of it:

Thanks for the verses. The "one loaf" is symbolic. Cuz they could be "coming together" in all the churches, in the different cities, and homes, and breaking bread of "the one loaf," all at the same time, and in different places.

I knew a preacher that would take "the table" to those in the hospital, some that wanted it before they die.

I think it's a matter of the heart. Doesn't Paul instruct us to examine ourselves?

My complaint about this ritual, is that it wasn't intended to be a ritual, but a meal together. Like a Love Feast.

Hey! I remember having some pretty wild Lord's Table in the LC ; with bread being passed like a football, and jugs of wine sloshing on the floor, by John Ingalls, no less.

I once asked that preacher what he thought the eternal purpose of God is, and how do we partake in it. He answered, "We can't know the eternal purpose of God. We're not Got. But we can partake in it by having a meal together." I was impressed. He and I became close friends. His church, Disciples of Christ, had a love feast every Sat. nite. I wasn't very churchy back then. I went a few times. It reminded me of the LC ... SCARY!!!.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

He seems to be talking about the invisible reality but what about the practical? It's easy to be one with other believers, we only have to say and believe we are, even if watch church TV. But practically how? The visible reality should match the invisible reality. The external practice of meeting together should be the practical expression of the reality.

Forcing the outward practice won't make the inward a reality in anybody. It's a form - empty unless it's filled with the Reality. The reality of the indwelling Christ is what is important.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Forcing the outward practice won't make the inward a reality in anybody. It's a form - empty unless it's filled with the Reality. The reality of the indwelling Christ is what is important.

If what you say is true, then Paul would not have to instruct them about oneness, because they were all Christians, they all had the indwelling Christ. They did not have to wait for some inward feeling to meet together. Paul no where writes that we should only meet together if we have the inward reality. Paul seems to be saying they should meet together in unity because they are all one in reality.

Using marriage as an example, suppose a couple got married, and chose to live apart. This would say something about the marriage, regardless of how much inward loving feeling they have for each other. Married people live together because they are married. Call it "forced outward practice" if you will, but it's done because it is expected.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by awareness

It's pretty popular in my neck of the woods, here in Western Kentucky. But more in line with The Trail of Blood <-click. And here, free for Kindle <-click. They don't know it as Landmarkism.

Lumping everything as a whole, what % of baptists do you believe adhere to this belief?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Lumping everything as a whole, what % of baptists do you believe adhere to this belief?

That's hard to say. I guess it depends on your region. On Baptist Succession Wiki states about The Trail of Blood :

"This view was once commonly held among Baptists. Since the end of the 19th century, however, the theory has increasingly come under attack and today has been largely discredited. Nonetheless, the view continued to be the prevailing view among Baptists of the Southern United States into the latter 20th century."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_successionism

My extended family are Southern Baptists, and they all know about The Trail of Blood, and are proud of it. I poke fun at them, cuz I don't buy it.

Don't all Christian groups seek to validate, and glorify, their superiority over all other groups? Why would anyone stay in an inferior group?

So they invent stories like The Trail of Blood, and Landmarkism. Nee and Lee cooked up The Recovery, to make their movement special ; it's the final development of the Bride for the return of the Bridegroom. Ya can't get any better than that.

I think it's human nature to do that. For instance, the native American tribe, the Navajos, called themselves "The Real People." All other tribes weren't real people.

So it's tribalism at work, and has nothing to do with Christ, or the movement he established ... tho that can be clouded by the fact that the early Christian movement was primarily Jewish, which was quintessential tribalism.

Paul broke that tribe, and opened the door to all of us, and even stated that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Yet he didn't change human nature. So we still have tribalism hanging on, and this "my tribe is better than your tribe" is still with us today.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If what you say is true, then Paul would not have to instruct them about oneness, because they were all Christians, they all had the indwelling Christ. They did not have to wait for some inward feeling to meet together. Paul no where writes that we should only meet together if we have the inward reality. Paul seems to be saying they should meet together in unity because they are all one in reality.

Using marriage as an example, suppose a couple got married, and chose to live apart. This would say something about the marriage, regardless of how much inward loving feeling they have for each other. Married people live together because they are married. Call it "forced outward practice" if you will, but it's done because it is expected.

You make a good point. That is the ideal. The outward should match the inward and it is the right way.

So what should we do - force the idea on others and in the process alienate ourselves from them? I don't believe the Lord does that. He's a lover. He woos. He wins. He is gentle. He takes whatever time is needed and does what He is allowed . . . in love.

Brother, again, I do agree with you in principle - it's the practice that we seem to differ a bit on. Thank you Lord for Evangelical my brother!

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by awareness

Don't all Christian groups seek to validate, and glorify, their superiority over all other groups? Why would anyone stay in an inferior group?

I think I understand the point you're making here and I wouldn't disagree with you, per se. But the thought that all Christian groups act/behave this way isn't true. The pastor of my church would never say that he has it all figured out - that his baptist belief system is right and superior, others Christian belief systems are wrong and inferior. (So you can pick this apart, but I think you may get my point). I doubt my pastor would even claim that the he agrees with 100% of baptist teachings. I'll ask him this week.

In fact, I had a discussion with my pastor from my old non-denominational church (before I moved) and he shared how it was an ongoing question he gave to God - Am I pastoring, teaching, leading, and serving the church the best way?

I interact with so many Christians from a wide background of belief - It wasn't until the LSM churches did I interact with elders, members, and leaders of the church who "had it all figured out" (well besides Mormons, JW, and Muslims - the closest Christian group I would say is the CoC). Now... this is purely anecdotal.

It is impossible to compare the baptist churches to the LSM churches, because the baptists don't have a Witness Lee and LSM - who remain ever present and unquestionable authority dragging people away from truth.

[awareness]

All good points Least. We can't over generalize. The Baptists aren't all the same, even in the same assembly. Southern Baptists, for instance, broke with the Baptists, in mid-19th century, over the issue of holding slaves.

We, or I, can say the same for the Church of Christ (Campbellites), who hold only they will go to heaven, everyone else, specially if they use musical instruments, are gonna burn. Except I mingled with them here, and not all the members in the CoC churches agree with the official "non-creedal" doctrine they are being taught, or coming from the pulpit.

But I think the topic here is about the Baptists, and if Baptist means the same as Recovery.

So I guess we need to define what Baptist means. I thought that was what we are doing, even when pointing out Baptist Landmarkism.

So so far we've failed to identify even what Baptist means.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I think I understand the point you're making here and I wouldn't disagree with you, per se. But the thought that all Christian groups act/behave this way isn't true. The pastor of my church would never say that he has it all figured out - that his baptist belief system is right and superior, others Christian belief systems are wrong and inferior. (So you can pick this apart, but I think you may get my point). I doubt my pastor would even claim that the he agrees with 100% of baptist teachings. I'll ask him this week.

In fact, I had a discussion with my pastor from my old non-denominational church (before I moved) and he shared how it was an ongoing question he gave to God - Am I pastoring, teaching, leading, and serving the church the best way?

I interact with so many Christians from a wide background of belief - It wasn't until the LSM churches did I interact with elders, members, and leaders of the church who "had it all figured out" (well besides Mormons, JW, and Muslims - the closest Christian group I would say is the CoC). Now... this is purely anecdotal.

It is impossible to compare the baptist churches to the LSM churches, because the baptists don't have a Witness Lee and LSM - who remain ever present and unquestionable authority dragging people away from truth.

It seems like your issue should be with the OP and originator of this thread then, and the other posters who agree with the comparison, if you say we cannot compare baptist church to the LSM.

But in reality we can, there is or was a proportion of baptists who believe similar to the LSM, so we can. I provided quotes from some of their key people. They are surely baptists, perhaps even more baptist than your church/pastor, because they hold onto the ye olde baptist beliefs. I can't speak old English but something like this - Me baptist, closed communion good, other denominations bad, only baptist good, no baptist? hell for you!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Obviously, then, for communication purposes, denominating is unavoidable. The issue then is not denominating. The issue is what are the implications of the denominating. If a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church because the Baptist beliefs to me represent the best God has to offer right now," then the Baptist is doing no differently than what LCers claim they are doing. Neither should be held at fault for doing this.

But if a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church, and you are not, so you are not in God's move," then that is an exclusive implication of the denominating. This in fact is what many LCers and most staunch LSMers do. It is practically by definition sectarian.

I had a vision of the Lord standing over a huge map of the US, pointing at Houston and telling me "if you want Me I am there". That is the vision that sent me to return to Houston and enter the LC there. So I was always aware that I was sent by the Lord to the church in Houston.

However, I just recently realized that a second interesting experience I had on my way to Houston was the Lord's instructions / warning to me.

After receiving the vision in Connecticut, I did a 180 and headed to Houston. I was hitchhiking across the country, it was the summer time. When I got to West Memphis it was very hot, the middle of the day, and so I was looking for some shade. There was a church so I went there. The door was locked. So I prayed "Lord, I am your son, this is your house, can you open the door?" I tried again and the door opened. I went to the back, there was carpet, it was cool, I laid down. Within a couple of minutes I heard a car come to a stop on the gravel outside. It was a cop car. Then a second car pulled up. I went to the last pew and got down on my knees. The pastor came in and asked what I was doing, I said "I am praying". He asked how I got in. I said I came in the front door. He said, how, it was locked? I was standing next to him and could see a bicycle chain hanging down. Apparently they wrapped the chain around the handles on the inside. I said "who are you to lock the house of God?"

I always thought that this was a message the Lord wanted me to deliver to him, never saw it before as a warning he was giving to me.

1. We are son's of God, that is our standing.

and

2. No one has some special status.

In Galatians Paul warned that these ones were trying to bring us into subjection. To lock you in, or to lock you out.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

You may be right that "crime" is inflammatory and not the best word. I do my best to express myself and I am open to others ideas...my intention was not to inflame emotions! That being said....we are being punished most certainly by the saints here...if there was no crime committed...which there was not....we are certainly receiving the harshest form of chastisement. People we love very much, who also claim to love us, will not receive us, nor any communication from us, nor respond in any way when we try to remain in peace and reconciliation (and that of Christ!) with them. This is most surely their best attempt to get us to obey their ultimatum to meet with the Lee ministry, and that alone. My excommunication came about very swiftly after I let them know that we were seeking another assembly, closer to home, outside their group. I personally would have never cut off contact with the saints we were close with...there would always be an open door for any believer, no matter the assembly, distance...I see no reason to separate....I truly believe in the one body! One Spirit, one Lord, one Father....there is no justification for division here. There is no gross ongoing life of living in sin here, there is absolutely no scriptural justification for their dividing from us, or me from them. I know of a very dear couple who felt led to come to this locality a few years ago...I knew them from the C in Diamond Bar, they left their grown children to come and bless the LC here, they were treated very poorly and sent on their way after not many months. This brother loved the Lord and was very much a blessing to me..they both tried to talk to me about what they went through here but I was so ignorant at that time of the real practices of the LC....I was no help to them. Now I can guess what they must have experienced. Withdrawing love, fellowship of Christ, communication...this is cruelty in Jesus name...I will never believe this is the operation of the Holy Spirit...rejection and that game, that is Satans realm, that is Satans game.

I read your post and I feel like I'm back in the church in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, back in 1980.

All these years -- decades actually -- on opposite coasts, across America, and the local church's of Witness Lee are still the same.

But ... I can't call it the "c" word ... cuz bro Ohio hates it when I do that.

Thanks byHismercy, for sharing that ... I think ... they really aren't fond memories. It hurts when Christians you've had loving fellowship with turn their hearts off toward you. I was left wondering, whatever happened to I Corinthians 13 kind of love? "The greatest of these?" The local church certainly doesn't have it. They have a Matthew 5:47 problem.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by awareness

All good points Least. We can't over generalize. The Baptists aren't all the same, even in the same assembly. Southern Baptists, for instance, broke with the Baptists, in mid-19th century, over the issue of holding slaves.

We, or I, can say the same for the Church of Christ (Campbellites), who hold only they will go to heaven, everyone else, specially if they use musical instruments, are gonna burn. Except I mingled with them here, and not all the members in the CoC churches agree with the official "non-creedal" doctrine they are being taught, or coming from the pulpit.

But I think the topic here is about the Baptists, and if Baptist means the same as Recovery.

So I guess we need to define what Baptist means. I thought that was what we are doing, even when pointing out Baptist Landmarkism.

So so far we've failed to identify even what Baptist means.

I agree, would we also need to define the Recovery? What are the implications for each of us, either following Witness Lee and his church or being affiliated with a local church (maybe a denomination, maybe non-denom)?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I agree, would we also need to define the Recovery? What are the implications for each of us, either following Witness Lee and his church or being affiliated with a local church (maybe a denomination, maybe non-denom)?

Yeah. What means recovery? When I was in the LC I thought recovery meant the recovery of lost truths, and recovering back to the early Acts church, before all was lost, with Constantine and the imperial Roman Catholic Church. After all, Lee had "the high peak truths."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I read your post and I feel like I'm back in the church in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, back in 1980. All these years -- decades actually -- on opposite coasts, across America, and the local church's of Witness Lee are still the same.

We must be careful with the descriptions we use on others. Otherwise these terms become meaningless. Descriptors have to accurately and fairly characterize the group. Without doubt the LC's are a denomination with their headquarters at LSM in Anaheim. We can say that they are an exclusive and elitest Christian sect. We can also say that many of their leaders are abusive. So I would characterize the LCM as an abusive and exclusive elitest Christian denominational sect.

Perhaps you can improve on this.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So I would characterize the LCM as an abusive and exclusive elitest Christian denominational sect. Perhaps you can improve on this.

I believe that's an accurate description of the LCM. We might improve on it by identifying the mechanics involved, to match them up to the mechanics in those considered undeniable cults, to see if they match up.

I've read a lot of books and materials on cults. Cuz of my LCM experience I'm drawn to them. I'm actually in awe of them. I don't get why people join them. Like this latest one that's been in the news, Nxivm, where women give themselves to the leader, and are branded like cattle, with his initials, slowly with a soldering iron like tool. Why would they join?

Your characterization is spot on. But it's a mouthful. It would be cumbersome in conversation to banter about. The word cult encapsulates it ... and it's simple ... easy to use in conversation.

But if I classify the type of cult the LCM is I'd have to call it a soft cult. It's not a hard cult like Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, Waco -- death cults -- and prolly Scientology. It's more like a soft cult, like the Mormon's, and the JW's.

That's why I call the LCM a personality cult. That's undeniable.