Indwelling Christ in our Human Spirit - who emphasizes this now besides LC?

[Sons to Glory!]

We did so well with the "Eating & Drinking Jesus Daily - who emphasizes this besides the LC?" thread, I thought to start this topic.

It seems like such an evident (aka no-brainer) and key aspect of the New Covenant, that now Christ lives in us, and the Anointing is dwelling in us to write His laws on our hearts and minds. And it seems most apparent in scripture that man has a spirit and by the new birth our spirit is regenerated with His life. And that we are one Spirit with Him. (1 Cor 6:17)

I learned about having a spirit and that Christ was in me from the LC (circa 1974). Now days I seldom hear anyone in other Christian groups talk much about the importance of "Christ is you, the hope of glory." (Col 1:27) But if this not the New Covenant, then what is? And, of course, many might acknowledge that Christ is in the believer, but then approach the whole New Covenant in a largely outward, Old Covenant way of buckle-down performance, which is simply legalism.

So here's the main question: Are there Christian groups or speakers out there who emphasize the indwelling of Christ in our spirit - and that the Christian life is impossible to live apart from Him living in and through us?

(and of course I know the ramifications of how LSM took things to an extreme and abused the truth of this, and how the resultant legalism has suppressed the Holy Spirit there, etc., etc.)

[Truthseeker]

This indwelling Spirit comes from Inner life movement not directly from Nee or Lee's ministry. We can find it richly in T.A Sparks sermon.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

This indwelling Spirit comes from Inner life movement not directly from Nee or Lee's ministry. We can find it richly in T.A Sparks sermon.

Absolutely! Sparks is one of my routine favs. (the LC would have done much better to more closely follow his speaking on various matters I think)

So do you hear anyone speaking about this now much - and even more, practicing it?

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

We did so well with the "Eating & Drinking Jesus Daily - who emphasizes this besides the LC?" thread, I thought to start this topic.

It seems like such an evident (aka no-brainer) and key aspect of the New Covenant, that now Christ lives in us, and the Anointing is dwelling in us to write His laws on our hearts and minds. And it seems most apparent in scripture that man has a spirit and by the new birth our spirit is regenerated with His life. And that we are one Spirit with Him. (1 Cor 6:17)

I learned about having a spirit and that Christ was in me from the LC (circa 1974). Now days I seldom hear anyone in other Christian groups talk much about the importance of "Christ is you, the hope of glory." (Col 1:27) But if this not the New Covenant, then what is? And, of course, many might acknowledge that Christ is in the believer, but then approach the whole New Covenant in a largely outward, Old Covenant way of buckle-down performance, which is simply legalism.

So here's the main question: Are there Christian groups or speakers out there who emphasize the indwelling of Christ in our spirit - and that the Christian life is impossible to live apart from Him living in and through us?

(and of course I know the ramifications of how LSM took things to an extreme and abused the truth of this, and how the resultant legalism has suppressed the Holy Spirit there, etc., etc.)

Mary E McDonough penned a treatise that Is so similar to Lee’s teachings on this topic that it appears he based a lot of his teachings on it: https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Plan-Red.../dp/0736307184

Major Ian Thomas also used the three circle tripartite man illustration, but his ministry was quite different than Lee’s. Here is a Sermon index http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/m...cat.php?cid=17
He came to my community church in 2005, and I asked him if he knew of Lee. He did and said “he was a sheep stealer” as a congregation he was ministering to in Colorado had been attracted away to follow him.

But, while I hear much about Christ in me or you in community church circles, there is not much on The Spirit in our spirit as Lee so over-emphasized.

I’ll be interested if contemporary teachers not influenced my Nee or Lee teach on this topic.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by JJ

Mary E McDonough penned a treatise that Is so similar to Lee’s teachings on this topic that it appears he based a lot of his teachings on it: https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Plan-Red.../dp/0736307184

Major Ian Thomas also used the three circle tripartite man illustration, but his ministry was quite different than Lee’s. Here is a Sermon index http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/m...cat.php?cid=17
He came to my community church in 2005, and I asked him if he knew of Lee. He did and said “he was a sheep stealer” as a congregation he was ministering to in Colorado had been attracted away to follow him.

But, while I hear much about Christ in me or you in community church circles, there is not much on The Spirit in our spirit as Lee so over-emphasized.

I’ll be interested if contemporary teachers not influenced my Nee or Lee teach on this topic.

Ian Thomas preached for seven days at our Baptist Church in the 70s. "Oil in the lamp, gas in the car, and God in the man!"

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by JJ

Mary E McDonough penned a treatise that Is so similar to Lee’s teachings on this topic that it appears he based a lot of his teachings on it: https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Plan-Red.../dp/0736307184

Major Ian Thomas also used the three circle tripartite man illustration, but his ministry was quite different than Lee’s. Here is a Sermon index http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/m...cat.php?cid=17
He came to my community church in 2005, and I asked him if he knew of Lee. He did and said “he was a sheep stealer” as a congregation he was ministering to in Colorado had been attracted away to follow him.

But, while I hear much about Christ in me or you in community church circles, there is not much on The Spirit in our spirit as Lee so over-emphasized.

I’ll be interested if contemporary teachers not influenced my Nee or Lee teach on this topic.

I heard a radio message yesterday by Charles Stanley that hit on a lot of indwelling points. His main thrust was the Comforter was given to us, and at a couple points he said the HS resided in us. Then he mentioned that Christ was in us. It was one of the better things I'd heard on media for some time!

I've also read some good things about the indwelling in Piper books. (also Murray, Tozer, Hannah W. Smith, Sparks, et. al., but these are not alive)

So there is mention of the indwelling out there by some current mainstream ones, and not just obscure teachers. I mean this is a main tenet of the New Covenant, is it not?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I heard a radio message yesterday by Charles Stanley that hit on a lot of indwelling points. His main thrust was the Comforter was given to us, and at a couple points he said the HS resided in us. Then he mentioned that Christ was in us. It was one of the better things I'd heard on media for some time!

I've also read some good things about the indwelling in Piper books. (also Murray, Tozer, Hannah W. Smith, Sparks, et. al., but these are not alive)

So there is mention of the indwelling out there by some current mainstream ones, and not just obscure teachers. I mean this is a main tenet of the New Covenant, is it not?

The notion of the indwelling of the HS has been posited, debated, and questioned, going back to at least the apostolic fathers ... and also condemned.

An early proponent of it, Montanus (2nd century CE), was condemned as a heretic because he and his two two female colleagues, Priscilla and Maximilla, who claimed the Paraclete to be indwelling and working thru them more than thru Montanus, in what was considered back then to be The New Prophecy.

The moral of my little screed here, I guess is, Montanus claimed the Paraclete spoke through him. But it looked to the orthodoxy as something tantamount to witchcraft, or demon possession, so I guess we can get carried away with the HS, to the point of being unpredictable ; a wild card to the orthodoxy, perhaps a loose cannon, or canon ... haha ... at any rate, the HS made troublesome to the order of that that had developed during the proto-orthodox, the precursor to the church in Rome becoming the state religion.

But then again, according the gospel we call John, Jesus said the HS is like the wind. We can hear it, but can't tell from where it comes, and to where it goes ... so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

So Montanus might have been right, but it would have removed the authority of what became institutional Christianity.

The Mother Church was against it. The charismatic movement within her these days is a hard pill for them to swallow.

Same for the local church. Lee killed the movement of the holy Spirit many times. Just try and follow the Holy Spirit in the local church, and see where that gets you.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Same for the local church. Lee killed the movement of the holy Spirit many times. Just try and follow the Holy Spirit in the local church, and see where that gets you.

You mean I couldn't just stand up and testify of a fresh experience of the Lord!? Yeah, yer probably right!

I do distinctly remember WL, as we were going through the Romans training and chapter eight thereof, asking Who of the Triune God was in us. Not easy to figure out from the following . . .

Romans 8: 9-11: "However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you."

[Raptor]

Here Billy Graham hammers the point that the Holy Spirit is in us and that the christian life is about Him living through us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03T2uLXio28

In this message he speaks about three things: 1) without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness, 2) without faith I cannot please Him, 3) without "Me" you can do nothing. On this 3rd segment, starting at minute 25, he talks about abiding in Christ, here are some excerpts:

"After you come to Jesus Christ as your Savior, you know what happens, the Holy Spirit comes to live in your heart. The moment you receive Christ, the moment you put your whole weight on Christ, the Spirit of God comes to live within you and He lives through you and in you and He lives the christian life through you.

There are many of you here tonight, you look like a christian, you act like a christian in many ways, but deep inside there is no abiding in Christ. There is no life, there is no sap, the fruit isn't there. ...Are you abiding in Christ? Jesus withdrew Himself into solitary places to meet God, and we must do the same thing. We must keep contact with Him everyday, it must be constant and deliberate, never a day when we do not sense His presence. And without this abiding you cannot do anything that will be spiritually pleasing to God.

Without "Me" you can´t bear supernatural fruit but with Him I can love that fellow over there that normally I wouldn't love. With Him, I can be gentle when normally I might want to hit him in the face. With Him in my life, living through me, I can forgive the wrongs that have been done and the things that were said. With Him the life can be lived, because you see, nowhere in the New Testament does it tell me, Billy Graham, to live a christian life. It tells me that the old Bill must die and Christ must live through me and in me. He does the living through me if I´m daily moment-by-moment abiding in Him. It's His sap that gives me the strength and the life, the spiritual life that I must have. By their fruits you shall know them. "

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Now days I seldom hear anyone in other Christian groups talk much about the importance of "Christ is you, the hope of glory." (Col 1:27) But if this not the New Covenant, then what is? And, of course, many might acknowledge that Christ is in the believer, but then approach the whole New Covenant in a largely outward, Old Covenant way of buckle-down performance, which is simply legalism.

Let me ask you, Sons to Glory! - Does your group have guest speakers, teachers from other other churches in your area or other unaffiliated people come and speak at your fellowship? The reason I ask is that it seems like you guys are a little isolated, and even a bit insulated, from the other Christian groups and influences in general, and from non Local Church sources specifically. I guess this shouldn't be too surprising, knowing that the group is a direct spin off of the Local Church of Witness Lee.

I guess I'm struggling a little with your attitude towards "other Christian groups". You say that you seldom hear anyone talk much about the importance of "Christ in you, the hope of glory". This seems a rather puzzling thing to say. This term "Christ in you, the hope of glory" is a direct quote from the apostle Paul in Colossians 1:27. So it's in the Bible. So any Christian teacher who is doing either a topical study or sequential study will be covering this wonderful and important aspect of the indwelling Christ, and depending upon the audience, place it in its proper context and give it the proper emphasis. The teacher may or may not use the same terminology as, or put such a great emphasis on a certain aspect as was done by Witness Lee, but so what? The New Testament contains 27 books, 260 chapters, containing about 138,000 words. God Word is God's Word. Any interpretations, including what is or is not emphasized, is subject to the frailty and fallibility of the teacher - even if they are claiming that their personal interpretations are "recovered truth". The days of the scripture writing apostles are over. We do not have the apostles John, Peter or Paul to expand and expound upon what has been written. And just as important, in my view, we do not have these men around to tell us what should or should not be emphasized.

So here's the main question: Are there Christian groups or speakers out there who emphasize the indwelling of Christ in our spirit - and that the Christian life is impossible to live apart from Him living in and through us?

In light of what I have written above, I think that your ostensibly rhetorical question is actually begging the question. It is circular, it assumes something that you could not possible know - to wit - that you know what is taught and emphasized by anything but a small fraction of Christian teachers, ministers and scholars. Witness Lee was constantly making this crucial error. Eventually, this kind of thinking lead Lee to make such absurd and asinine statements as "Judaism is satanic, Catholicism is demonic, and Protestantism is Christless". May God have mercy.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Here Billy Graham hammers the point that the Holy Spirit is in us and that the christian life is about Him living through us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03T2uLXio28

In this message he speaks about three things: 1) without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness, 2) without faith I cannot please Him, 3) without "Me" you can do nothing. On this 3rd segment, starting at minute 25, he talks about abiding in Christ, here are some excerpts:

"After you come to Jesus Christ as your Savior, you know what happens, the Holy Spirit comes to live in your heart. The moment you receive Christ, the moment you put your whole weight on Christ, the Spirit of God comes to live within you and He lives through you and in you and He lives the christian life through you.

There are many of you here tonight, you look like a christian, you act like a christian in many ways, but deep inside there is no abiding in Christ. There is no life, there is no sap, the fruit isn't there. ...Are you abiding in Christ? Jesus withdrew Himself into solitary places to meet God, and we must do the same thing. We must keep contact with Him everyday, it must be constant and deliberate, never a day when we do not sense His presence. And without this abiding you cannot do anything that will be spiritually pleasing to God.

Without "Me" you can´t bear supernatural fruit but with Him I can love that fellow over there that normally I wouldn't love. With Him, I can be gentle when normally I might want to hit him in the face. With Him in my life, living through me, I can forgive the wrongs that have been done and the things that were said. With Him the life can be lived, because you see, nowhere in the New Testament does it tell me, Billy Graham, to live a christian life. It tells me that the old Bill must die and Christ must live through me and in me. He does the living through me if I´m daily moment-by-moment abiding in Him. It's His sap that gives me the strength and the life, the spiritual life that I must have. By their fruits you shall know them. "

That was simply awesome!! Now that's what I'm talking about!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Let me ask you, Sons to Glory! - Does your group have guest speakers, teachers from other other churches in your area or other unaffiliated people come and speak at your fellowship? The reason I ask is that it seems like you guys are a little isolated, and even a bit insulated, from the other Christian groups and influences in general, and from non Local Church sources specifically. I guess this shouldn't be too surprising, knowing that the group is a direct spin off of the Local Church of Witness Lee.

I guess I'm struggling a little with your attitude towards "other Christian groups". You say that you seldom hear anyone talk much about the importance of "Christ in you, the hope of glory". This seems a rather puzzling thing to say. This term "Christ in you, the hope of glory" is a direct quote from the apostle Paul in Colossians 1:27. So it's in the Bible. So any Christian teacher who is doing either a topical study or sequential study will be covering this wonderful and important aspect of the indwelling Christ, and depending upon the audience, place it in its proper context and give it the proper emphasis. The teacher may or may not use the same terminology as, or put such a great emphasis on a certain aspect as was done by Witness Lee, but so what? The New Testament contains 27 books, 260 chapters, containing about 138,000 words. God Word is God's Word. Any interpretations, including what is or is not emphasized, is subject to the frailty and fallibility of the teacher - even if they are claiming that their personal interpretations are "recovered truth". The days of the scripture writing apostles are over. We do not have the apostles John, Peter or Paul to expand and expound upon what has been written. And just as important, in my view, we do not have these men around to tell us what should or should not be emphasized.


In light of what I have written above, I think that your ostensibly rhetorical question is actually begging the question. It is circular, it assumes something that you could not possible know - to wit - that you know what is taught and emphasized by anything but a small fraction of Christian teachers, ministers and scholars. Witness Lee was constantly making this crucial error. Eventually, this kind of thinking lead Lee to make such absurd and asinine statements as "Judaism is satanic, Catholicism is demonic, and Protestantism is Christless". May God have mercy.
-

Yes, we do have others come in to speak a few times a year. And there is a fair amount of "cross pollination" with other Christian groups by various ones. There are a number of other groups nearby, that some here go to weekly, and some from other groups come here weekly. One of the leading ones here was asked about three years ago to come teach at another group, which he has been doing each Tuesday since. There are no "fences" in anyone's mind, from any other believers. (we see this as a clear error of the LC)

And I've shared on this forum numerous times that I travel around and meet with various groups, denominations, etc., as the opportunity arises. So there's this, and also what I hear on the radio and TV. It's just that so much of what I hear is sort of like trying to follow the New Testament in an old covenant way of performance and legalism, which is something that is required of the self to do - not through daily abiding in the indwelling Christ. This was really emphasized well with what Raptor just posted of Billy Graham's speaking. That was so good!

So yes, while the indwelling of Christ is certainly a main theme in the New Testament, that doesn't mean we are in the reality of that practice, does it? Shoot, my old man still thinks it can live the Christian life apart from Christ - that is, having a form thereof, but denying the abiding in Him. I need to look away unto Jesus every day, be nourished by Him and let His life live through me (and the cross is applied to my old life thereby).

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

That was simply awesome!! Now that's what I'm talking about!

YES! It was very refreshing. I had not listened to BG all my christian life until now that I started dialysis and eliminating the kool-aid. He´s got several good messages, so much power, sober mind, simplicity, release of the Spirit and word....he was a gift!

[byHismercy]

https://youtu.be/-lpAeHMoQCI

This pastor of my favorite ministry has something to say about that. This would be my assembly if it weren't a few hundred miles away. The reality of Christ in us is not an exclusive belief or knowledge, praise God!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Here Billy Graham hammers the point that the Holy Spirit is in us and that the christian life is about Him living through us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03T2uLXio28

Billy Graham helped lead me to the Lord. What an awesome preaching gift he had!

If anyone was a minister of the age..... But can you even imagine him making such a claim? 'Nuff said.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Billy Graham helped lead me to the Lord. What an awesome preaching gift he had!

If anyone was a minister of the age..... But can you even imagine him making such a claim? 'Nuff said.

Billy Graham's vision of Christ and the church is an excellent pattern for us all.

[Sons to Glory!]

It's interesting that I find myself somewhere between the LC and so-called mainstream Christianity on many things. The LC rails against other Christians and thereby becomes divisive. Yes, Christianity is short on many things, and I'm often surprised by how sideways Christians get certain things that are so clear and even elementary. But the Lord has to supply the vision and clarity to us all, and attacking others about these things just divides and makes others defensive and closed-off. For instance, T. Austin Sparks is not shy about pointing Christian shortcomings out, however I never get the sense that he's the least bit divisive about it - rather he's just wanting to point out the reality, for the building up of the body in love.

To me, the biggest short-coming in Christianity is what Paul might ask is, "Beginning in the new birth of the Spirit, why do you think you should continue in the flesh?" That is, going back to doing things in an outward way, and not relying on the indwelling Christ (doing the New Covenant in the way of the old covenant).

So I can't cotton to the "way of the LCs" because of many obvious factors, but the LC was basically right about certain short-comings of Christianity. (however as WL would say, "Dead right.")

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

but the LC was basically right about certain short-comings of Christianity. (however as WL would say, "Dead right.")

Well, I don't think he was basically right. When he called Protestant churches "Christ-less" and other churches "lifeless," he was basically wrong. Christ-less means NO Christ. Lifeless means NO life. That was flat wrong and intentionally misleading. Lee exaggerated the shortcomings of other churches and whitewashed his own. He was completely biased and unfair.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, I don't think he was basically right. When he called Protestant churches "Christ-less" and other churches "lifeless," he was basically wrong. Christ-less means NO Christ. Lifeless means NO life. That was flat wrong and intentionally misleading. Lee exaggerated the shortcomings of other churches and whitewashed his own. He was completely biased and unfair.

It's like family members who tell me, "I get life when I read the ministry." Oh really? What they are not saying is implied -- I get no life when I read elsewhere. But is it true? It's all subjective, so who can say otherwise? When I read the ministry I get troubled. So who is right, and who is not?

Lee allowed no tolerance for other's ministry. Paul said, "Let your tolerance be known to all, the Lord is near." (Phil 4.5) With the LC then, we must consider the contrapositive of this verse -- if there is no tolerance for others, does that mean the Lord is not there at all?

W. Lee regularly loved to compare the best of the Recovery with the worst of Christianity, especially in the big trainings. All of us would then smile, firmly convinced that the Recovery was all good, and Christianity was all bad, based on his simple comparison. But can we not use the same standards on His ministry? Why can't I compare the dear saints I know in "Christianity" with Lee's Manager at LSM, namely his own son Philip? Using Lee's own practice, what's wrong with characterizing the entire Recovery using Philip, his profligate son?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, I don't think he was basically right. When he called Protestant churches "Christ-less" and other churches "lifeless," he was basically wrong. Christ-less means NO Christ. Lifeless means NO life. That was flat wrong and intentionally misleading. Lee exaggerated the shortcomings of other churches and whitewashed his own. He was completely biased and unfair.

Yes, calling them "Christ-less" is not the heavenly vision of the church, to be sure! Let's face it, to our eyes the church is a mess, but God loves her just like in the book of Hosea where God tells him to love the whore. The reality is what she - the church - actually is to become. Therefore, you might say that WL sided with the erroneous earthly vision of what was apparent to the eyes . . . and then took that erroneous, earthly vision to condemn her. We always have that choice - to take the earthly view or God's true view.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Let's face it, to our eyes the church is a mess, but God loves her just like in the book of Hosea where God tells him to love the whore.

Our eyes are not qualified to see or know if the church is a mess. And it certainly is not the calling or job of any self-appointed apostle wannabe to go around telling gullible people that all of protestant Christianity is "Christless". No man could possible know this...unless he was omnipresent like God. Witness Lee based most of his criticisms on his experience with foreign missionaries in early-mid 20th century China - hardly a large enough of a sampling of the Christian church throughout time and space. But this is the last significant contact the Lee had with "poor, poor Christianity". Lee's followers should have known this, but we were so enthralled with this Godman that we swallowed everything hook, Line and sinker.

I think if Witness Lee had spent more time emphasizing the "Indwelling Christ in our Human Spirit" than ranting and raving about the shortcomings of others, the Local Church movement would have come a lot closer to being the true recovery of the proper church instead of the personality cult that we see today. May God have mercy.
-

[Cal]

I'm not sure what good it does to point out that "the church is a mess" or that "Christianity is short on many things" other than to make oneself feel like the exception. If the church is a mess it's been a mess for a long time, and that includes the LR and all of us. I'm sure the Lord knows it's a "mess," if indeed it is.

The solution is to minister positively to the church as one can. Pointing out specific areas of need is one thing, calling the whole thing a mess is like a coach telling his team, "In general, you guys stink!"

"Let's face it?" What good does that do? Oh, yeah. It shows we know something. Bully for us.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not sure what good it does to point out that "the church is a mess" or that "Christianity is short on many things" other than to make oneself feel like the exception. If the church is a mess it's been a mess for a long time, and that includes the LR and all of us. I'm sure the Lord knows it's a "mess," if indeed it is.

The solution is to minister positively to the church as one can. Pointing out specific areas of need is one thing, calling the whole thing a mess is like a coach telling his team, "In general, you guys stink!"

"Let's face it?" What good does that do? Oh, yeah. It shows we know something. Bully for us.

Ha ha - "Bully for us." (are you sure yer from Texas?!)

So true. Saying "You stink" to someone is derogatory to them, as is says nothing specific about their actions, but rather who they are. That is not meant to help them or make us one with them, but is of the "steal, kill & destroy" camp I think.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think if Witness Lee had spent more time emphasizing the "Indwelling Christ in our Human Spirit" than ranting and raving about the shortcomings of others, the Local Church movement would have come a lot closer to being the true recovery of the proper church instead of the personality cult that we see today. May God have mercy.

Winner! Winner - Chicken dinner! Love took an exit from the LR, stage left. Yes, God please be merciful to the dear ones there.

[Weighingin]

Christians, including those in the Recovery, make up the aggregate "Christianity." As an older Christian, the sharing that separated us from other Christians that influenced me as a young believer now I see was off the mark.
As for judging whether the universal church is a mess, I go to Rev 2 and 3.
However one may interpret those portions. I.e., that Sardis is dead Protestantism, and so forth, I've come to see that portion as the Lord counseling
us of the conditions that hinder all Christians from experiencing Him, but also showing us, with Smyrna and Philadelphia, what He approved.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not sure what good it does to point out that "the church is a mess" or that "Christianity is short on many things" other than to make oneself feel like the exception. If the church is a mess it's been a mess for a long time, and that includes the LR and all of us. I'm sure the Lord knows it's a "mess," if indeed it is.

The underlying pretext for large scale condemnations of Christianity and the premise for the Recovery itself is that we must be "restored or recovered to the glorious church of the New Testament." Well I've read the Bible and I didn't find this so-called "glorious church." Every N.T. story and description of the early church has a little heaven, a little earth, and even a little hell. Go back and read your Bible. Isn't that what you see too?

So what do we focus on? Problems? The church is a mess? So what's new? Recently I watched a Podcast series, "The Church is Broken," and from the speaker's point of view, he was convinced he was right. He had his evidence. Millions of other Christians throughout church history probably have said the same thing. Every servant of God could perhaps repeat the same conclusion.

What we see with our own eyes can be a real "faith-killer." But have we not been called to walk by faith, not by sight? Faith can see Jesus in the heavenly part, the earthly part, and even the hellish part of the church. Faith can find Jesus in every situation. Admittedly many times this takes some serious searching, but be assured, Jesus has promised us that we will indeed find Him.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The underlying pretext for large scale condemnations of Christianity and the premise for the Recovery itself is that we must be "restored or recovered to the glorious church of the New Testament." Well I've read the Bible and I didn't find this so-called "glorious church." Every N.T. story and description of the early church has a little heaven, a little earth, and even a little hell. Go back and read your Bible. Isn't that what you see too?

So what do we focus on? Problems? The church is a mess? So what's new? Recently I watched a Podcast series, "The Church is Broken," and from the speaker's point of view, he was convinced he was right. He had his evidence. Millions of other Christians throughout church history probably have said the same thing. Every servant of God could perhaps repeat the same conclusion.

What we see with our own eyes can be a real "faith-killer." But have we not been called to walk by faith, not by sight? Faith can see Jesus in the heavenly part, the earthly part, and even the hellish part of the church. Faith can find Jesus in every situation. Admittedly many times this takes some serious searching, but be assured, Jesus has promised us that we will indeed find Him.

Well said, Ohio!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The underlying pretext for large scale condemnations of Christianity and the premise for the Recovery itself is that we must be "restored or recovered to the glorious church of the New Testament." Well I've read the Bible and I didn't find this so-called "glorious church." Every N.T. story and description of the early church has a little heaven, a little earth, and even a little hell. Go back and read your Bible. Isn't that what you see too?

So what do we focus on? Problems? The church is a mess? So what's new? Recently I watched a Podcast series, "The Church is Broken," and from the speaker's point of view, he was convinced he was right. He had his evidence. Millions of other Christians throughout church history probably have said the same thing. Every servant of God could perhaps repeat the same conclusion.

What we see with our own eyes can be a real "faith-killer." But have we not been called to walk by faith, not by sight? Faith can see Jesus in the heavenly part, the earthly part, and even the hellish part of the church. Faith can find Jesus in every situation. Admittedly many times this takes some serious searching, but be assured, Jesus has promised us that we will indeed find Him.

As long as humans are involved Christianity will be a mess. That's the situation.

How do I know that a church is a mess? Cuz I walk into it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

As long as humans are involved Christianity will be a mess. That's the situation.

How do I know that a church is a mess? Cuz I walk into it.

You're a mess? Good news! Salvation was tailor made for you! (For me too!)

[JJ]

Interesting posts, but I think we are off topic.

Maybe we need a new thread to discuss how we cope with church disfunction in general.

On one hand we bash the LC for how messed up it is, then say all churches are messed up. Is that hypocritical?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by JJ

Interesting posts, but I think we are off topic.

Maybe we need a new thread to discuss how we cope with church disfunction in general.

On one hand we bash the LC for how messed up it is, then say all churches are messed up. Is that hypocritical?

"Messed up" can mean different things. All churches are comprised of imperfect people and so are imperfect. In that sense they are all "messed up."

The LR took being "messed up" to the level of abuse of members and even of outsiders. That's the difference. Isn't that obvious?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Weighingin

Christians, including those in the Recovery, make up the aggregate "Christianity." As an older Christian, the sharing that separated us from other Christians that influenced me as a young believer now I see was off the mark.
As for judging whether the universal church is a mess, I go to Rev 2 and 3.
However one may interpret those portions. I.e., that Sardis is dead Protestantism, and so forth, I've come to see that portion as the Lord counseling
us of the conditions that hinder all Christians from experiencing Him, but also showing us, with Smyrna and Philadelphia, what He approved.

This goes along with the other posts here by Ohio, JJ, Igzy et. al.

Someone recently said something like, "So do you think God didn't know what He was getting into (literally) when He brought humans into His grand purpose? Is any human too much for Him? Of course not! Therefore He will get His glorious bride!"

This is why the whole universe will be absolutely awestruck when everyone sees how He has built His church. This, to me, is an example of the "Irresistible Force meets the immovable object." God planned to do this "impossible" thing through us, with all our issues and a free will to boot. To God be the glory!!!

[OBW]

About the only thing I don't hear often is the "in your human spirit" thing. I am not a naysayer on the the human spirit idea. But it is not clear that it is really what Nee and Lee said. Nor is it clear that Christ is in our "human spirit." I note that there is a reference to the Lord being "with your spirit." But I haven't found 'in."

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

About the only thing I don't hear often is the "in your human spirit" thing. I am not a naysayer on the the human spirit idea. But it is not clear that it is really what Nee and Lee said. Nor is it clear that Christ is in our "human spirit." I note that there is a reference to the Lord being "with your spirit." But I haven't found 'in."

We do have these verses, "That which is born of Spirit is spirit" and "He that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit with Him" and "Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?" (John 3:6 & 1 Cor 6:17 & 1 Cor 3:16)

(and how about John 14:20 - "On that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you." And then there's the whole discourse in John 17 where Jesus prays and mentions several times that He will be in us.)

So no, you may be right in that there is no verse which seems to say that He specifically is IN our spirit, but from these verses above, I think one can draw that conclusion pretty easily, don't you think?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So no, you may be right in that there is no verse which seems to say that He specifically is IN our spirit, but from these verses above, I think one can draw that conclusion pretty easily, don't you think?

I have learned, mostly from experience with the LC, that reading into the scripture (eisegesis (sp?) may ultimately be correct, but is seldom a basis for strongly-stated doctrine, or even "really-ought-to-believe-it" teachings. I have no problem with the idea. Or with the possibility that it might be correct.

But one verse saying that what is born of Spirit is spirit does not definitively mean that it places Jesus in our spirit. I am born of my father, but he does not "live in me" in a way that warrants the kind of thought that could be a metaphorical (or even literal) comparison. Yes, I have some of his DNA, as well as my mother's.

Maybe you see my reluctance on this issue. It could be true. But that is insufficient to warrant emphasis, complete with songs heralding its alleged truth. I find it much better to understand the actual importance of what was being referred to when Jesus made his statement(s). It wasn't about stirring us into the Christian equivalent of a beer-hall song. It was to make a spiritual comparison of physical eating of nourishment to the spiritual benefits of hearing (and heeding) what He was speaking (and what had been written in the scriptures).

The LC was long on hooks to get us and keep us. We were the chosen generation. The ones who returned from Babylon (unlike the rest of Christianity). We found the talisman for the proper name of a church — and it was all tied up in the legally registered name of a city/town. We had the better lexicon, using the highest wording, especially when concatenated into almost meaningless, over-adjectivized banners at trainings.

And when some of us left (including me) we took some of it along with us. We thought it was actually somehow important. Like needing to pray more like a LC prayer meeting than like the Lord's prayer (or disciple's prayer). I have spent many years getting rid of what I have found to be "simply" wrong. (Lee was fond of the word "simply.") And I have tended to take what was not necessarily wrong and lowered it at least one or two notches in my book of importance. Mostly, I have sought to learn what really is in the the Bible and hold to that regardless of where I heard it.

I would never say that there was nothing good to come from it. But to the extent that there is, it is mostly just for me, not as something to spread around like it is manna hidden from the mooing cows in Christianity. That is the way the LC would look at it.

BTW, there are some aspects of both Calvinist and Arminian theologies that are based on using their own special glasses (like "God's economy" was to Nee and Lee) all over the Bible to reinterpret things to say what they do not. It is a problem for everyone. I see some of the problems, and I am sure that I do not see others. I have found some in myself, and know that I will never find it all because I tend to like my "glasses."

But after 32 years, I no longer like the LC glasses.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

The LC was long on hooks to get us and keep us. We were the chosen generation. The ones who returned from Babylon (unlike the rest of Christianity). We found the talisman for the proper name of a church — and it was all tied up in the legally registered name of a city/town. We had the better lexicon, using the highest wording, especially when concatenated into almost meaningless, over-adjectivized banners at trainings.

I've come to feel that the LC glasses were not only to get us to read things into the text that weren't plainly stated, but they also prevented us from seeing things that were plainly stated. On this forum we were discussing "pray-reading" as a means of "eating Jesus" and I asked for scriptural support. A whole host of verses came out, but none of them said that pray-reading was eating Jesus. It was a set of conflations.

But I also noted that some verses were not brought out as well. Like the one where Jesus said, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me". Obedience to the Father's will is Jesus' food. Now, using that verse, Jeremiah's "Thy words were found and I did eat them" intimates Jesus obeying the Father's expressed will. Now, if you look at "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" you can see the man Jesus obeying every word of the Father. Etc.

But John 4:34 was not cited in the idea of "eating Jesus", so when he said, "He who eats me shall live because of me" nobody saw the possible relation to obedience, "As I obey the Father's commands, so shall you obey my commandments". And nobody mentioned the warning against "locutional mania" - "when you pray, don't pray like the gentiles do, babbling words".

Rather, let your yes be yes and your no be no, and obey my commandments. The gospel in this manner is simple: repent, believe, and obey. Pray-reading is not forbidden but it no longer seems like a "crucial truth unveiled in these last days." And avoiding dependence on largely manufactured esotericism - the proverbial hooks - allows us to see the things that are plainly stated, such as Jesus' obedience and his expectations for his disciples to follow.

I noticed the same thing about the "Spirit/spirit". Forcing verses together to manufacture meaning then precludes a whole host of other verses that might suggest, or even plainly state, other meanings.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Cal

You're a mess? Good news! Salvation was tailor made for you! (For me too!)

Maybe that's why my mama took me to church every time the doors were open.

I was born 2.5 months premature. I wasn't suppose to make it. But I did. My sister, 8.5 yrs older, said that after 2.5 months, I became a monster. She said I had ADHD before they knew about it.

I accepted Jesus as my savior and was baptized at 8 yrs old. And was taught once saved always saved. I cling to that.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

But I also noted that some verses were not brought out as well. Like the one where Jesus said, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me". Obedience to the Father's will is Jesus' food. Now, using that verse, Jeremiah's "Thy words were found and I did eat them" intimates Jesus obeying the Father's expressed will. Now, if you look at "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" you can see the man Jesus obeying every word of the Father. Etc.

But John 4:34 was not cited in the idea of "eating Jesus", so when he said, "He who eats me shall live because of me" nobody saw the possible relation to obedience, "As I obey the Father's commands, so shall you obey my commandments". And nobody mentioned the warning against "locutional mania" - "when you pray, don't pray like the gentiles do, babbling words".

Rather, let your yes be yes and your no be no, and obey my commandments. The gospel in this manner is simple: repent, believe, and obey. Pray-reading is not forbidden but it no longer seems like a "crucial truth unveiled in these last days." And avoiding dependence on largely manufactured esotericism - the proverbial hooks - allows us to see the things that are plainly stated, such as Jesus' obedience and his expectations for his disciples to follow.

I amend my responses on that pray-reading thread to "What Aron said!"

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have learned, mostly from experience with the LC, that reading into the scripture (eisegesis (sp?) may ultimately be correct, but is seldom a basis for strongly-stated doctrine, or even "really-ought-to-believe-it" teachings. I have no problem with the idea. Or with the possibility that it might be correct.

But one verse saying that what is born of Spirit is spirit does not definitively mean that it places Jesus in our spirit. I am born of my father, but he does not "live in me" in a way that warrants the kind of thought that could be a metaphorical (or even literal) comparison. Yes, I have some of his DNA, as well as my mother's.

Maybe you see my reluctance on this issue. It could be true. But that is insufficient to warrant emphasis, complete with songs heralding its alleged truth. I find it much better to understand the actual importance of what was being referred to when Jesus made his statement(s). It wasn't about stirring us into the Christian equivalent of a beer-hall song. It was to make a spiritual comparison of physical eating of nourishment to the spiritual benefits of hearing (and heeding) what He was speaking (and what had been written in the scriptures).

The LC was long on hooks to get us and keep us. We were the chosen generation. The ones who returned from Babylon (unlike the rest of Christianity). We found the talisman for the proper name of a church — and it was all tied up in the legally registered name of a city/town. We had the better lexicon, using the highest wording, especially when concatenated into almost meaningless, over-adjectivized banners at trainings.

And when some of us left (including me) we took some of it along with us. We thought it was actually somehow important. Like needing to pray more like a LC prayer meeting than like the Lord's prayer (or disciple's prayer). I have spent many years getting rid of what I have found to be "simply" wrong. (Lee was fond of the word "simply.") And I have tended to take what was not necessarily wrong and lowered it at least one or two notches in my book of importance. Mostly, I have sought to learn what really is in the the Bible and hold to that regardless of where I heard it.

I would never say that there was nothing good to come from it. But to the extent that there is, it is mostly just for me, not as something to spread around like it is manna hidden from the mooing cows in Christianity. That is the way the LC would look at it.

BTW, there are some aspects of both Calvinist and Arminian theologies that are based on using their own special glasses (like "God's economy" was to Nee and Lee) all over the Bible to reinterpret things to say what they do not. It is a problem for everyone. I see some of the problems, and I am sure that I do not see others. I have found some in myself, and know that I will never find it all because I tend to like my "glasses."

But after 32 years, I no longer like the LC glasses.

Thoughtful response and I hear ya. It is a topic those of us in Scottsdale are mindful of. That is, are we just accepting man's speaking on something (this could be LC speaking - often is - or other)? In any case, better to focus on the pure word than commentaries, etc. I put away my Recovery version with footnotes long ago for that reason, and haven't referred to a WL footnote for some time. I don't even use the RV without footnotes any more, although I did think it a pretty decent translation. However, there were still a few little "agenda" driven things in the translation of various verses (of course there always is with any translation). And now I consult the Greek more.

So pursuant to your post above, in John 17 there are some verses to consider, where Jesus says, "You Father are in me." Is this the Father, as Jesus says, or just the Father's life? Then Jesus says He will be in us, etc. And then we have the verses in Romans 8:9-11 "You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you." This is certainly a mystery which only He can reveal clearly to us!

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe that's why my mama took me to church every time the doors were open.

I was born 2.5 months premature. I wasn't suppose to make it. But I did. My sister, 8.5 yrs older, said that after 2.5 months, I became a monster. She said I had ADHD before they knew about it.

I accepted Jesus as my savior and was baptized at 8 yrs old. And was taught once saved always saved. I cling to that.

Harold, you cannot secure your salvation, nor do you need to. (No clinging necessary!) He has you sealed unto the day of redemption. Rest in that fact. Rest in every word He spoke because they are promises, sure and true. Same hand that made everything you can see holds you, brother!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Harold, you cannot secure your salvation, nor do you need to. (No clinging necessary!) He has you sealed unto the day of redemption. Rest in that fact. Rest in every word He spoke because they are promises, sure and true. Same hand that made everything you can see holds you, brother!

Well amen to that. Thanks brother.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well amen to that. Thanks brother.

She is a sister, bro.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So pursuant to your post above, in John 17 there are some verses to consider, where Jesus says, "You Father are in me." Is this the Father, as Jesus says, or just the Father's life? Then Jesus says He will be in us, etc.

Not sure how to answer your question.

But related to this (and I'm not referring to a Bible directly at this moment, and am generally not much of a memorizer of precise details) I recall that at one point in John (in or around chapter 17) he is praying to the Father and says something like "you are in me and I am in you . . . that they may be one as we are." When I recently read this, it was an eye opener since our oneness with each other is not like you are in me and I am in you. Yet it was by reference to Jesus in the Father and the Father in Jesus that our "prayed-for" oneness would be understood. There is clearly nothing simple (or "simply") here. Yet it also seems to indicate that there is something about the oneness of God that is not so "simply One" as Lee would have us understand. The more standard trinitarian understanding of oneness that does not negate separateness and separateness that does not negate oneness seems more meaningful.

While I definitely changed the specific thing being discussed (at least for a minute), I think that even as interesting as this potentially new view of oneness is, it is less important to get caught up in what it really means than it is to learn to actually express oneness with our Christian brothers and sisters. To stop finding nuances in doctrines as a basis to disagree with others.

And sometimes, noting how something is not talked about in certain terms by "others" is an attack on the idea of being one. Not saying that there is no room for discussion and debate over actual doctrines. We should always be ready to both learn and help others learn. And then walk away still as one body when neither is convinced by the other.

I was raised (through most of high school) in the Assemblies of God (pentecostal, dispensational, Arminian) then the LC (cessationist, dispensational, Calvinist — 14 years) then Bible churches (cessationist, dispensational, Calvinist — 32 years almost to the day). But I find that I am not a good Calvinist, not pentecostal, but not cessationist, and don't think much of dispensationalism. Yet I continue to meet with Bible churches. And I know that I give Ohio conniptions over this, but outside of the predeliction for Mary worship, I have much less disagreement with the RCC than I used to. I do not see it as some harlot that happens to have a few good Christians held hostage. I'm not saying I have any desire to convert. But they, as a group, not just as ad hoc individuals, are among the body of Christ with which we are to be one. That is more important than our doctrinal differences and differences in worship style.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have much less disagreement with the RCC than I used to. I do not see it as some harlot that happens to have a few good Christians held hostage. I'm not saying I have any desire to convert. But they, as a group, not just as ad hoc individuals, are among the body of Christ with which we are to be one. That is more important than our doctrinal differences and differences in worship style.

Power corrupts, ultimate power corrupts ultimately. And that happened to the RCC, when they became the state religion.

But all Christians, even Protestants, owe a debt of gratitude to the RCC. They produced the Canon of the Bible.

And like OBW, and his non-attachment to :"I am not a good Calvinist, not pentecostal, but not cessationist, and don't think much of dispensationalism," I'm not too much with Eusebius, who put it together. He must have been a cessationist, cuz he never referenced the Spirit to do it. I'm not with that because it means that, maybe the scripture is inspired, but not the development of the Canon of the scripture.

Still, in spite of her whoring around, and much worse, the RCC put together the Canon used by all Christians.

Bro OBW, isn't that also something that makes all Christians one?

[OBW]

Harold,

I think you've taken a little too much of the evangelical position on the RCC to heart. I don't disagree with many of the faults of the organization. And they have recently been showing their tendency toward getting directly involved in government and politics (4th verse, same as the first on that count).

But we gloss over the tremendous stability of teaching and doctrine. (A trait that has been both good and bad — hard to bring in error, but once it is there, hard to eradicate.) It took them some time (centuries) yet they now agree with Martin Luther on most of his theses.

And while they are not likely to ever move to an evangelical mode of "salvation," that is such a late-comer to the dance that we should understand it less as the God-ordained way and more like another way to come to faith.

Learning for a life-time and somewhere along the way realizing that you have come to believe has been the way for most of Christian history. No, it was not as common in the first days since there was no opportunity to learn. But they also baptized the whole family when the head of the house believed.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Harold,

I think you've taken a little too much of the evangelical position on the RCC to heart. I don't disagree with many of the faults of the organization. And they have recently been showing their tendency toward getting directly involved in government and politics (4th verse, same as the first on that count).

But we gloss over the tremendous stability of teaching and doctrine. (A trait that has been both good and bad — hard to bring in error, but once it is there, hard to eradicate.) It took them some time (centuries) yet they now agree with Martin Luther on most of his theses.

And while they are not likely to ever move to an evangelical mode of "salvation," that is such a late-comer to the dance that we should understand it less as the God-ordained way and more like another way to come to faith.

Learning for a life-time and somewhere along the way realizing that you have come to believe has been the way for most of Christian history. No, it was not as common in the first days since there was no opportunity to learn. But they also baptized the whole family when the head of the house believed.

interesting response bro OBW. But this thread is about the indwelling Christ in our spirit.

Essentially, early on that became a problem. Jesus said he would send the comforter to teach us, all of us, of everything.

The Paraclete, or those claiming to be inspired by it, became a problem for the established proto-orthodox, the church institution that had developed in the 2nd. c. Montanus and his two female colleagues, Priscilla, and Maximilla, claimed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The movement caught on. They claimed to be channeling the Paraclete, with fresh new prophesies. The established proto-orthodox condemned it as heresy. They won out. And such movements of claiming to channel the Holy Spirit were squashed out.

Come to think of it, Witness Lee had the same problem. He squashed movements of the Holy Spirit that sprang up, in his movement, like Elden hall, and like sending his man into a movement of the Spirit among brothers to start a LC in Tampa Florida.

Following the Spirit -- that's like the wind -- can cause a real disturbance to the establishment. It takes control away.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not sure how to answer your question.

But related to this (and I'm not referring to a Bible directly at this moment, and am generally not much of a memorizer of precise details) I recall that at one point in John (in or around chapter 17) he is praying to the Father and says something like "you are in me and I am in you . . . that they may be one as we are." When I recently read this, it was an eye opener since our oneness with each other is not like you are in me and I am in you. Yet it was by reference to Jesus in the Father and the Father in Jesus that our "prayed-for" oneness would be understood. There is clearly nothing simple (or "simply") here. Yet it also seems to indicate that there is something about the oneness of God that is not so "simply One" as Lee would have us understand. The more standard trinitarian understanding of oneness that does not negate separateness and separateness that does not negate oneness seems more meaningful.

While I definitely changed the specific thing being discussed (at least for a minute), I think that even as interesting as this potentially new view of oneness is, it is less important to get caught up in what it really means than it is to learn to actually express oneness with our Christian brothers and sisters. To stop finding nuances in doctrines as a basis to disagree with others.

And sometimes, noting how something is not talked about in certain terms by "others" is an attack on the idea of being one. Not saying that there is no room for discussion and debate over actual doctrines. We should always be ready to both learn and help others learn. And then walk away still as one body when neither is convinced by the other.

I was raised (through most of high school) in the Assemblies of God (pentecostal, dispensational, Arminian) then the LC (cessationist, dispensational, Calvinist — 14 years) then Bible churches (cessationist, dispensational, Calvinist — 32 years almost to the day). But I find that I am not a good Calvinist, not pentecostal, but not cessationist, and don't think much of dispensationalism. Yet I continue to meet with Bible churches. And I know that I give Ohio conniptions over this, but outside of the predeliction for Mary worship, I have much less disagreement with the RCC than I used to. I do not see it as some harlot that happens to have a few good Christians held hostage. I'm not saying I have any desire to convert. But they, as a group, not just as ad hoc individuals, are among the body of Christ with which we are to be one. That is more important than our doctrinal differences and differences in worship style.

Good ruminations bro! Here's some more. Yes, that verse in John 17, "that they may be one as We are one" is a mind blower! We have a hard enough time figuring out how the Father and Son are one. Yet we know they are one in some intrinsic, mysterious way unknown to us humans inhabiting the flesh. We can get a taste in spirit . . . But then this is prayed by Jesus that this oneness would also apply to and experienced by us - MEGA WOW!!! What have we been called into!? (namely the fellowship of the Father and His Son)

And yes, the teachings of a particular group are not so important to me either. I think I'm finally, sorta, kinda not getting blown about by every wind of teaching these days, at least not nearly as much. And this has only come about by a knowledge of Him and His word, and experiencing His love and the genuine fellowship in Christ's body. I've been somewhat surprised and watered by what I've heard come out of Christians of different groups, and that even includes the Roman church. These are all just systems - some a little closer to the mark than others (that day will reveal it all).

So I'm not so quick on here to jump in on the bashing of all things WL & LC. The LC system has manifested itself as something self-serving - OK fine. It should be avoided and we can tell others about the pitfalls of that system. Personally, I don't find much peace to dissect all things LC. It is what it is, and I have moved on (although the Lord is faithful to show me the things still in me from the LC that are off the mark). Others seem to have a burden to dissect it all over & over, and I must trust that is of Him, so also fine.

In the end we are one with all those who have Christ in them, and it's all nothing apart from gaining Christ and knowing His love!