Erroneous Teaching of Lee Concerning Natural Affection

[Truthseeker]

Witness Lee's teaching has made a big mistake concerning natural affection. He and LSM always teach us that natural affection comes from our soulish life and we need to deny and crucify it at cross. Here the example:


The case of Nazarite consecration in Numbers 6 requires us to reject natural affection. Read more about it here: https://www.agodman.com/blog/todays-...parated-death/

Or natural affection could be like honey which ferments. This is in the life study of Leviticus concerning meal offering in ch.2 : https://www.ministrybooks.org/books....=N80V1O4WI1YCG

But it's all Lee's personal opinion and there's nothing to do with divine revealation in the Bible. On the contrary, the Lord requires us to have natural affection and He condemns anyone who has no natural affection like Romans 1: 31(Darby version) saying " void of understanding, faithless, without natural affection, unmerciful". Or, in 2 Timothy 3:3 saying " without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, without self-control, savage, not lovers of good."

Here are two examples from Bible proving that the Lord requires us to have natural affection. If not, we'll be like corrupted unbelievers in the last days of this age. With natural affection, we will be like mother who can give up her baby for saving his life(1 Ki 3:16-28). But without natural affection, we'll become like that cruel another harlot who agrees on dividing the baby in two pieces. That's why natural affection is biblical and it pleases God to do so.

[Cal]

Also, Romans 12:10 says, "Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love."

The phrase "kindly affectionate" in Greek is philostorgoi. It is a unique term here, a combination of the word for brotherly love (phileo) and the word for affection (storge).

This clearly states our love for Christian brothers and sister should include human affection. But Lee bluntly taught "no affection." I heard him say it myself. Clearly a doctrine of demons.

[awareness]

I only hope that anyone and everyone that hears or reads Lee's teaching on natural affection immediately busts out laughing.

[Ohio]

This quote is from STEM Publishers, the online go to site for Exclusive Brethren writers. Lee was not the source of this teaching, rather he merely "stole" it from the Brethren.

Leaven and honey were excluded from the meat offering in Luke 2, and it may be well to look at this. Leaven represents evil, and could have no place in the perfect Man. Jesus was absolutely holy. Honey is rather the figure of natural affections, which are good in themselves, but form no part of the offering upon the altar. So our Lord could say to Mary, in John 2, "What have I to do with thee?" We have no doubt as to our Lord's care and love for her from other passages.

The Brethren became famous for inferring the most ridiculous of interpretations from O.T. passages, especially when warring with those they formerly met with. For them everything must be properly interpreted, and it's often amazing what they could dig out of scriptures to bludgeon their opponents and hold their people in bondage.

If you read Brethren literature, e.g. the vindictive GV Wigram, after the Newton and Muller excommunications, you would be amazed at the vitriol-laced interpretations extracted from the Torah, and heaped on these two brothers. For the faithful follower in the Darby Lineage, you would think brother George Muller deserved a far worse judgment than the devil himself. And to think that W. Nee told us these Darby Brethren should be the historical fulfillment of "Philadelphia" the church of brotherly love. Obviously the Savior thought otherwise, and George Muller, while caring for English Orphans, received more direct answers from prayer than perhaps any brother in church history.

The interpretation of honey as "natural affection" was used by Exclusive Brethren to keep their faithful loyal to the program, despite their love for friends and family who might be expelled. This is little different from today's Amish shunning, or what Jewish believers faced being "put out of the synagogue" for believing in Jesus.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Witness Lee's teaching has made a big mistake concerning natural affection.

It depends how you define "natural affection". I don't think the Local Church teaching is in agreement with the actual scriptural meaning. The Greek word for natural affection in 2 Tim 3:3 is "astorgos" which is derived from the Greek "storge" or "familial love".

Jesus does talk about how ONLY having a type of reciprocal familial love is unprofitable (Luke 6:32).

Christians however are to love even our enemies and not only friends and relatives or those in our ideological circles or what have you. So if you're not able to love those that hate you and have hurt you, then maybe you do only know one type of affection, whether you call it "natural affection" or not. Or worse you have neither.

In Timothy, Paul is saying that a time will come when even those that only knew "familial love" will not even have that and so "Father will be divided against son and son against father; mother against daughter and daughter against mother; and mother-in-law against daughter-in-law.." (Luke 12:53). He's not talking about actual Christians.

Either way the Local Church teaching is deceptive and full of equivocation. Going to the root, the attack on natural affection actually started with Watchman Nee. Nee stated in The Latent Power of the Soul, "how useless was emotion" and in The Spiritual Man Nee states that "Our natural likes and dislikes do not have any part here; natural affection must lose its power" and other similar things.

If anything, the Local Churches only practice natural affection or love for only those within their ideological family. But even that's in question here.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The interpretation of honey as "natural affection" was used by Exclusive Brethren to keep their faithful loyal to the program, despite their love for friends and family who might be expelled.

So to the Exclusive Brethren honey/natural affection was/is no laughing matter.

But isn't natural affection well, natural? as natural as breathing, eating, urinating, and daily bowel movements, that we couldn't stop if we tried?

I remember the "unspoken" rule about friendships. But still, I developed friendships in the local church that still lasts up to today.

So ... Denying natural affection is unnatural, and denies, and is an assault on, our natural personhood.

Good luck on trying to stop it. That can't be done any more than changing the color of your hair, or the color of your eyes.

Isn't it a childish notion? I remember it on playgrounds when I was a kid : "If you're gonna be friends with so-and-so then you're not my friend." And in the LC out the door you go for being friends. That's how foolish and absurd teaching against natural affection is. Plus, being against "natural" affection is blatantly mean, hateful, and inhumane ; and a cultic attack on you as a person, usurping you from making your own social decisions.

I guess in the LC they want to completely control you. What should that be called?

[Raptor]

I have always understood this teaching of "natural affection" without causing me much trouble at all. There are plenty of negative examples in the Bible (and even in society). Maybe the issue with some is the words "n...a" themselves? Regardless, this thing is real and can cause lots of problems in God´s house.

Part of what I have understood it to be is what James talks about in ch. 2:1-13: that is, personal favoritism, respect of persons, making distinctions among yourselves, showing partiality. You like someone, you have a click with someone, so you favor them and go beyond what God desires or says in His word, sometimes at the expense of others.

This is partly why probably Peter withdrew from the Gentiles, to hang out with the Jews and got him a rebuke from Paul. Also, probably partly why some in Corinth said, "hey we like this guy Apollos...he´s much cooler than Peter, let´s be of Apollos"....Also did not Jacob care more for Joseph, more than his other sons, ...that was part of what caused his brothers' jealousy.

Did not WL seemingly love and care too much for PL, allowing him to hang around, work and promoting him ....going beyond what God prescribes? That is "natural affection". Look what that caused. And did not the leading brothers care too much for the person of WL and PL and did not remove the evil brother but looked the other way? Did they not apologize to PL, to make WL happy? That´s what I understand it is, to love, appreciate, befriend someone in the flesh or with your self, even if it´s "good", but God is not in it or allowing it.

I´ve heard horror stories about churches in central america, where the elders and other saints that are better off and better educated really "like their own class" and are very racist and discriminatory to the poorer saints/ones with more of an indigenous background. When it comes down to sending some to the FTT, guess which ones always go?

Hypothetically, if you push this "na" to an extreme in a church, you can end up with a social club, full of "clicks" and people relating to others based on family, relatives, likes, dislikes, race, "chemistry", background, money, not based on the love of God, in and through the Spirit.

All these are obvious examples with bad results, there maybe many other contexts where friendships and relationships, maybe family based or "my roommate from college based" and never cause any problems.....until the test comes. I still keep in touch with high school friends, but I have prayed for them and seek a way to share something about the Lord. I don´t like to have friends at work or in the world just for the sake of having a friend to "hang out" with or watch the game with. For me befriending someone, to have a real friend you care for is one you want to share with and give the best you have, which is Christ.


(In society one example of this is nepotism, favoritism, "old boy network". )

[Cal]

Natural affection isn't favoritism. It's just the natural feeling of liking people. Storge and agape do not have to be mutually exclusive. I can have unconditional love for people and also have affection for them. God created both feelings.

To my knowledge nowhere does the bible prohibit affection per se. We are to put God first, of course--but that doesn't mean we cannot, in that context, "enjoy all things," including human relationships with others.

Lee was always either/or. He saw everything as an enemy of his truth. Too bad he didn't include his paranoia in that list of enemies. In fact, he should have put it at the top of the list.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Natural affection isn't favoritism. It's just the natural feeling of liking people. [.

But it can easily lead to favoritism. That´s the point, that by being "natural" in the sense of without God, it easily yields different kinds of bad results, favoritism is just one of the possible bad results. So you "naturally like" someone but don´t like another one. God says to like both. Now you easily fell into favoritism.

It´s not about God prohibiting affection. It´s about having affection without God.

You "naturally" love someone, with your own love...till it runs out, then you don´t want to love them anymore. But God says forgive 7x70, and Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You can´t make it.

OR,

You just "naturally like" a sister, but God says no, not that one. But you insist and insist and both of you are damaged.

OR

You just naturally like your friend from college, you have such a good time together. Until that day when he starts telling you this joke about the Lord and using His name in vain. Now the Lord is burning in you to "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, being always ready for a defense...." Yet you "naturally like" your friend so much you don´t want to offend him, so you say nothing, and when you get back home your spirit is dead and you are full of shame.


These kinds of things happen all the time, and the Bible is full of examples like these. If the words "natural affection" cause so much confusion to understand these basic things in God´s word then come up with another phrase.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Raptor

I have always understood this teaching of "natural affection" without causing me much trouble at all. There are plenty of negative examples in the Bible (and even in society). Maybe the issue with some is the words "n...a" themselves? Regardless, this thing is real and can cause lots of problems in God´s house.

Perhaps things were different in your neck of the woods, but this is how this was interpreted where I was.

Natural affection meant we should not have friends or relationships in which we do natural things.

Basically saints in the church had no friends after decades in the church. "Natural things" were "common" things, and "common" things were things that were not holy. So every time brothers and sisters were together they had to do "spiritual" things. Shopping together was OK as long as you were shopping for the love feast, or helping a sister in need. Of course, many of the bros/sis broke these rules, but they were not the "healthy" ones.

TC always pooh-poohed friendships in the church, and preferred to emphasize spiritual "companionships."

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Natural affection meant we should not have friends or relationships in which we do natural things.

Basically saints in the church had no friends after decades in the church. "Natural things" were "common" things, and "common" things were things that were not holy. So every time brothers and sisters were together they had to do "spiritual" things. Shopping together was OK as long as you were shopping for the love feast, or helping a sister in need.

That is simply not even human.

I just posted another post down below. I suggested using another phrase other than "natural affection" to help get out of the woods. Maybe this helps,

....do not walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit.
Walk by the Spirit and you shall by no means fulfill the lust of the flesh.
If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit

be affectionate by the Spirit

So the point is you relate to someone according to the spirit, by the Spirit, living by the Spirit, walking by the Spirit. It does not matter if you have to go buy manure with a brother, or change a lightbulb with a sister, or drive together to work. The point is where are you when you do these things, are you in the spirit, by the Spirit, or in yourself.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Raptor

I have always understood this teaching of "natural affection" without causing me much trouble at all. There are plenty of negative examples in the Bible (and even in society). Maybe the issue with some is the words "n...a" themselves? Regardless, this thing is real and can cause lots of problems in God´s house.

I opposed that God is against natural affection. If you ask me lack of natural affection is a neurosis, to say the lease, maybe even schizophrenia, bipolar, or borderline personality disorder.

But then again, that's not foreign in the LC, nor to some that have left. So I guess, thank God for psychotropics ... or anything that makes us normal psychologically and emotionally healthy humans again.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Ohio

TC always pooh-poohed friendships in the church, and preferred to emphasize spiritual "companionships."

Going a bit off topic

As I was making my last comment tracing the teaching of natural affection back to Watchman Nee, I couldn't help to think why this forum mostly lacks criticism toward Watchman Nee if much, if not all, of Lee's teaching were derived from him.

And then I thought how similar the lack of criticism of Nee is to that of Titus Chu here as well, especially when I view them all as part of the same polycephalic entity. Does anyone have a rational explanation for this before I start formulating theories?

Anyway, carry on....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Going a bit off topic

As I was making my last comment tracing the teaching of natural affection back to Watchman Nee, I couldn't help to think why this forum mostly lacks criticism toward Watchman Nee if much, if not all, of Lee's teaching were derived from him.

And then I thought how similar the lack of criticism of Nee is to that of Titus Chu here as well, especially when I view them all as part of the same polycephalic entity. Does anyone have a rational explanation for this before I start formulating theories?

Anyway, carry on....

Can you restate your question? I am looking for a rational explanation to what you are asking.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Raptor

That is simply not even human.

Right!

Just take a peek at how we treated each other at times, and one has to wonder at times if we were human or not.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Going a bit off topic

As I was making my last comment tracing the teaching of natural affection back to Watchman Nee, I couldn't help to think why this forum mostly lacks criticism toward Watchman Nee if much, if not all, of Lee's teaching were derived from him.

And then I thought how similar the lack of criticism of Nee is to that of Titus Chu here as well, especially when I view them all as part of the same polycephalic entity. Does anyone have a rational explanation for this before I start formulating theories?

Anyway, carry on....

Here are a few threads you should look at:

Nigel Tomes: LSM’s ‘Authority and Submission’ Tampers with the Trinity

What is the boundary of the Local Church

Reconsideration of the Vision

Misrepresenting God: Delegated Authority (Nee)

Wright Doyle’s Biography of Nee

“Early Nee” vs. “Later Nee”

The ground on Which the Church should be built [please note there are multiple threads on this doctrine of the ground of the church]

Article: Beware of the writings of the Watchman

Article: Nee’s ecclesiology

Authority and Submission

Nee’s ‘Ministry to the House or to the Lord’

Spiritual Authority by Watchman Nee

LSM’s Sacrament - the “Ground of the Local Church” Nigel Tomes

Problems with Watchman Nee

The “Functions” of the Parts of Man

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Going a bit off topic

As I was making my last comment tracing the teaching of natural affection back to Watchman Nee, I couldn't help to think why this forum mostly lacks criticism toward Watchman Nee if much, if not all, of Lee's teaching were derived from him.

And then I thought how similar the lack of criticism of Nee is to that of Titus Chu here as well, especially when I view them all as part of the same polycephalic entity. Does anyone have a rational explanation for this before I start formulating theories?

Anyway, carry on....

It may be that no one wants to touch Nee because he is some kind of exalted guru before Lee. But, really he was just a very smart brother that figured out how to reign as God's minister of the age. It's all Oriental Hocus pocus mind games that Lee codified as God's economy. As soon as the saints get tired of being abused Lee's kingdom will come crashing down.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Here are a few threads you should look at:...…...

Thanks for that list ZNP. It's definitely a good place to start for anyone new to the forums if they'd like to catch up on Watchman Nee, BUT comparatively speaking the number of Lee and LSM leadership criticism far outweighs that of Nee and GLA on the forums. I think I alluded to this discrepancy once before...I can't help but come back to this.

Originally Posted by HERn

It may be that no one wants to touch Nee because he is some kind of exalted guru before Lee. But, really he was just a very smart brother that figured out how to get what he wanted from women while reigning as God's minister of the age. It's all Oriental Hocus pocus mind games that Lee codified as God's economy. As soon as the saints get tired of being abused Lee's kingdom will come crashing down.

I definitely would agree with the first part, HERn. Could it be that people are too scared to touch Titus Chu because they view him as the same type of exalted guru? I happen to think so...

The more provocative stuff I'm not too familiar with and honestly not interested in as Nee's doctrines tell me all I need to know.

The last part I just don't see happening considering the comparisons of the Local Churches to the Catholic church. Catholicism is riddled with controversy yet still stands strong. The Lord allows organizations like this to stand for a reason just as He allows the tares to grow amongst the wheat.


With that said, I apologize to Truthseeker for going off topic. I didn't want to start a new thread on that one question.

[byHismercy]

This is where the semantics of the Lee way really get confusing. There is no way to reconcile this baloney doctrine with holy scripture.

God is love. He so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son. His greatest commandment to us is to love Him first. Our next word is to love our neighbors, others as ourselves. How naturally affectionate the Father must be toward us!

I feel natural affection for all you folks here, shoot, anyone who is tender enough to open up towards me garners my natural affection almost immediately. This affection is from God our Father.....because He is love!! Are we not made in the very image of the God who is Himself, love? How can we not be filled with natural affection?

To claim this doctrine against natural affection is to throw out Gods' word. To dispute it. To find natural affection lacking was His warning to us....to know we would be in the last days. How can any believer reject Gods' word for this wicked doctrine of man?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

I feel natural affection for all you folks here, shoot, anyone who is tender enough to open up towards me garners my natural affection almost immediately. This affection is from God our Father.....because He is love!! Are we not made in the very image of the God who is Himself, love? How can we not be filled with natural affection?

Well said.

[awareness]

Brother Jo S Dr. Lily Hsu's book, exposing Nee's private sexual waywardness, brings Nee completely down. Turns out he loved not only natural affection, but the physical sort too.
Check out this thread :
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ily+hsu&page=4

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Raptor

But it can easily lead to favoritism.

Sorry, Raptor, but I think you are off-base. That's LR thinking, IMHO.

Marriage can easily lead to being distracted, so let's ban marriage. Sexuality can lead to lust, so let's ban sex. Eating can lead to gluttony, so let's ban eating. Having kids can lead to bringing the world in your house, so let's ban families. And on and on.

"Anything that is not a need is an indulgence." I actually heard a sister say that, like it was some powerful insight. (She was very grim and tedious person.) I've heard it all. All these things sound very spiritual, but they are man's wisdom, not God's. They are doctrines of demons.

be affectionate by the Spirit

Well, of course. Who ever endorsed anything outside the Spirit?

What causes problems in God's house is living outside the Spirit. There is no need to target affection as some kind of insidious weapon of the enemy. Paul never discouraged affection. He encouraged it. Sounds to me like you have it backwards.

Lee discouraged affection because he wanted all loyalty and affection directed at him. It's a classic ploy of abusive groups to discourage close relationships between members. The goal is to make you emotionally dependent on what the group is selling.

Don't worry about have too much affection, Raptor. Worry about not having enough. Do you think Lee had affection for the people he cut down at the knees? No, I'm sure he told himself, "I can't be natural, shove the knife in."

Nothing personal, Raptor. But the lies of the LR are subtle.

[Jo S]

Last post here on this topic otherwise UntoHim will get upset with me.

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Jo S Dr. Lily Hsu's book, exposing Nee's private sexual waywardness, brings Nee completely down....

Awareness, my point wasn't to focus on the criticism of any person(s) or to balance out criticisms in general. It's to point out the glaringly obvious bias on the forum and find its meaning.

HERn, you said it all and I appreciate your transparency;

Originally Posted by HERn

As soon as the saints get tired of being abused Lee's kingdom will come crashing down.

This is the overwhelming agenda I see on this forum; to destroy Lee's kingdom, aka the LSM, all the while Nee and GLA go mostly unnoticed. This imbalance can't be explained away with "well, most don't have direct experience with Nee or Chu" when the fact is that many here have direct experience with the Chu influenced local churches and Nee's literature. Common sense tells me if the LSM is wiped off the face of the earth, then the very foundation of the Lord's Recovery is still left standing and not only that, but a new MOTA as well.

Ohio, what happened in 2006 was pure politics draped in bible-speak yet I have the feeling, like you, many here still buy into the martyrdom narrative GLA broadcasts hook, line, and sinker. And because of the conflict this belief creates, many are suffering. That's not to excuse LSM, they still spread the same false gospel.

I have no interest in politics, but others apparently do. I came here a year ago seeking advice and help for some friends but instead ran right into what seems like a proxy war instigated by some set on using this platform for settling scores.

And speaking of UntoHim; your forum is the only online community I know of that can serve in encouraging those coming out of the LC's. It's unfortunate that the politicking, which goes mostly unnoticed, largely hinders that potential.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Ohio, what happened in 2006 was pure politics draped in bible-speak yet I have the feeling, like you, many here still buy into the martyrdom narrative GLA broadcasts hook, line, and sinker. And because of the conflict this belief creates, many are suffering. That's not to excuse LSM, they still spread the same false gospel.

I have no interest in politics, but others apparently do. I came here a year ago seeking advice and help for some friends but instead ran right into what seems like a proxy war instigated by some set on using this platform for settling scores.

Not sure what exactly you mean by proxy wars and the martyrdom narrative. Can you say more? Examples?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Jo S

This is the overwhelming agenda I see on this forum; to destroy Lee's kingdom, aka the LSM, all the while Nee and GLA go mostly unnoticed. This imbalance can't be explained away with "well, most don't have direct experience with Nee or Chu" when the fact is that many here have direct experience with the Chu influenced local churches and Nee's literature. Common sense tells me if the LSM is wiped off the face of the earth, then the very foundation of the Lord's Recovery is still left standing and not only that, but a new MOTA as well.

LSM won't go down until the MOTA lie goes down. If the MOTA lie goes down, then the basis for a new MOTA will be dealt with as well.

This is why I usually speak against the false spiritual authority the LR uplifts.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Jo S

This is the overwhelming agenda I see on this forum; to destroy Lee's kingdom, aka the LSM, all the while Nee and GLA go mostly unnoticed.

Nee has been completely scrutinized. About the only original work of his was his book "Authority and Submission", his doctrine of deputy authority, and his doctrine concerning the ground of the church.

If you think the MOTA doctrine is derivative of Nee's teaching then that also has been heavily scrutinized.

Dr. Hsu's book has also been reviewed.

So if you have some other issue with Nee by all means create a thread.

Other than that what other issue is there to have with Nee?

As for GLA vying for martyrdom status my interest in the Blended's discipline of Titus Chu was the way in which it was done and the lack of a Biblical basis. I feel that action exposed the Blended's for what they are. Other than that Ohio has been very explicit concerning Titus Chu's sins.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

LSM won't go down until the MOTA lie goes down. If the MOTA lie goes down, then the basis for a new MOTA will be dealt with as well.

This is why I usually speak against the false spiritual authority the LR uplifts.

Yes, they are a set of dominoes, but I feel the main domino is the doctrine of the "ground of the church". If that goes down the basis for their MOTA doctrine also falls.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Last post here on this topic otherwise UntoHim will get upset with me.

Shame on Untohim. I say let you speak your peace to power.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Awareness, my point wasn't to focus on the criticism of any person(s) or to balance out criticisms in general. It's to point out the glaringly obvious bias on the forum and find its meaning.

My bad. Please forgive this idiot. But prolly meaning will be as independent as fingerprints.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

I feel natural affection for all you folks here, shoot, anyone who is tender enough to open up towards me garners my natural affection almost immediately. This affection is from God our Father.....because He is love!! Are we not made in the very image of the God who is Himself, love? How can we not be filled with natural affection?

Amen! Hear! Hear! Amen!

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by awareness

Shame on Untohim. I say let you speak your peace to power.

Ok, I hold you accountable for this reply then.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not sure what exactly you mean by proxy wars and the martyrdom narrative. Can you say more? Examples?

Proxy meaning two opposing sides using Localchurchdiscussions.com as a battle ground for their political agendas. We saw that when Drake was active and I see it even now. As far as the martyr narrative, I already addressed that on Jo Casteel's open letter thread.

Originally Posted by Igzy

LSM won't go down until the MOTA lie goes down. If the MOTA lie goes down, then the basis for a new MOTA will be dealt with as well.

This is why I usually speak against the false spiritual authority the LR uplifts.

Igzy, I agree that speaking against false spiritual authority is important BUT I can't agree with the belief that it'll lead to the downfall of an organization. Many have spoken against the heresy of one man being the voice of God yet we still have a Pope. It's good to get the info out to help other's discern but that seems to be it when it comes to religion.

Jesus came not to condemn or destroy the world, he came to convinct us of sin so that we can repent and be saved. Shouldn't that be our heart as well?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Nee has been completely scrutinized.....Other than that what other issue is there to have with Nee?

My issue wasn't that Nee hasn't been scrutinized, it was that most arguments end at Lee/LSM when they can easily be traced back to Nee. But I get the sense it's better to end at Lee knowing DCP and LSMers reading through the forum will be more personally offended by it. I mean who wouldn't want to bring more life into the forum with a Drake comeback, right? The problem is that atmosphere I imagine keeps those that are more apprehensive from coming on board and sharing their stories. But maybe I'm just being too idealistic...

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

....As for GLA vying for martyrdom status my interest in the Blended's discipline of Titus Chu was the way in which it was done and the lack of a Biblical basis. I feel that action exposed the Blended's for what they are.

As for the Blended's discipline of Titus, I don't disagree with it being wrong. In the sphere of the Christian faith it would have been wrong but in politics that's just the name of the game. Blendeds cutting someone out for orchestrating a soft coup against their established leadership is politics. Titus bringing to light the sins of the LSM is no different then politicians using the sins of their opponents as leverage in elections yet both sides trying to justify their politics with the bible is equally wrong. That's the issue I have with holding movements like the Lord's Recovery up to scripture, it's seems to validate them more than anything else...Under it all you just won't find anything resembling biblical Christianity, rather you'll find a political machine strung together by strange occultic beliefs.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Other than that Ohio has been very explicit concerning Titus Chu's sins.

Jabs compared to the Mike Tyson left uppercut's Lee and LSM get here. Jabs are only good for points which leads me to believe either A) there exists bias and sentiment toward GLA. B) It's a lure to get Drake back. C) A little bit of both. D) None of the above and I've lost my mind. Definitely feeling like D) at the moment...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Jabs compared to the Mike Tyson left uppercut's Lee and LSM get here. Jabs are only good for points which leads me to believe either
A) there exists bias and sentiment toward GLA.

B) It's a lure to get Drake back.

C) A little bit of both.

D) None of the above and I've lost my mind. Definitely feeling like D) at the moment...

E) Jo S is trolling us

F) Jo S is drinking and posting

F) Jo S password has been hacked by DCP

G) Jo S is reincarnation of Bilbo

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Ok, I hold you accountable for this reply then.........

YOU ROCK!!

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Jo S

This is the overwhelming agenda I see on this forum; to destroy Lee's kingdom, aka the LSM, all the while Nee and GLA go mostly unnoticed. This imbalance can't be explained away with "well, most don't have direct experience with Nee or Chu" when the fact is that many here have direct experience with the Chu influenced local churches and Nee's literature. Common sense tells me if the LSM is wiped off the face of the earth, then the very foundation of the Lord's Recovery is still left standing and not only that, but a new MOTA as well.

Ohio, what happened in 2006 was pure politics draped in bible-speak yet I have the feeling, like you, many here still buy into the martyrdom narrative GLA broadcasts hook, line, and sinker. And because of the conflict this belief creates, many are suffering. That's not to excuse LSM, they still spread the same false gospel.

I have no interest in politics, but others apparently do. I came here a year ago seeking advice and help for some friends but instead ran right into what seems like a proxy war instigated by some set on using this platform for settling scores.

And speaking of UntoHim; your forum is the only online community I know of that can serve in encouraging those coming out of the LC's. It's unfortunate that the politicking, which goes mostly unnoticed, largely hinders that potential.

Please understand that we encourage people to get out of LSM but we never recommend someone to join Cleveland of TC after leaving. It depends on the Lord. We ask everyone here to pray for His guidance for the way we should go. Yeah, many of us have direct experiences with LSM's false teaching and practices and some people like Ohio had direct experience with Lee when he was alive. For Titus Chu or Nee, l myself rarely have direct fellowship with them because I never spend my time with them and their flock. That's why I have no enough database to criticize. I have no intention to play politics here.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

E) Jo S is trolling us

F) Jo S is drinking and posting

F) Jo S password has been hacked by DCP

G) Jo S is reincarnation of Bilbo

I may be out of touch, but I don't think Jo S is any of these things. I just feel he's not been clear. Cuz of that I can't quite nail down where he stands. Particularly his claim of imbalance on the forum. I might be unbalanced, some might say, but I don't see all the other members being that way.

It is true that there's way more exLCer's on the forum, than LCer's. If that's the imbalanced Jo S sees, he's right. But LCer's could fix that by joining ... except, they're scared of us.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Proxy meaning two opposing sides using Localchurchdiscussions.com as a battle ground for their political agendas. We saw that when Drake was active and I see it even now. As far as the martyr narrative, I already addressed that on Jo Casteel's open letter thread...
My issue wasn't that Nee hasn't been scrutinized, it was that most arguments end at Lee/LSM when they can easily be traced back to Nee. But I get the sense it's better to end at Lee knowing DCP and LSMers reading through the forum will be more personally offended by it. I mean who wouldn't want to bring more life into the forum with a Drake comeback, right? The problem is that atmosphere I imagine keeps those that are more apprehensive from coming on board and sharing their stories. But maybe I'm just being too idealistic...Jabs compared to the Mike Tyson left uppercut's Lee and LSM get here. Jabs are only good for points which leads me to believe either A) there exists bias and sentiment toward GLA. B) It's a lure to get Drake back. C) A little bit of both. D) None of the above and I've lost my mind. Definitely feeling like D) at the moment...

Wow! You think a lack of concentration on Titus Chu and Watchman Nee on a forum trying to make sense of the Local church movement is a conspiracy to get Drake back?

I think Ohio's E, F, F, or G make a whole lot more sense.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Igzy, I agree that speaking against false spiritual authority is important BUT I can't agree with the belief that it'll lead to the downfall of an organization. Many have spoken against the heresy of one man being the voice of God yet we still have a Pope. It's good to get the info out to help other's discern but that seems to be it when it comes to religion.

Because people are held in the LR by fear, and that is really not true of the Catholic Church. I was raised a Catholic. Yes, we were taught that it is the "one true church" and all that, but the mindset is very different than that in the LR. There is no real fear of leaving the CC now. If people sweat leaving the CC now it's usually for familial/cultural reasons, not spiritual ones.

So, yes, the organization might continue. I don't really care about that. My goal is to break the stronghold of fear and bondage, so people can make their own choices.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Jesus came not to condemn or destroy the world, he came to convinct us of sin so that we can repent and be saved. Shouldn't that be our heart as well?

Of course. Love, repentance and salvation are right in line with what we are doing here.

I'm about people being saved, not organizations being destroyed. But I am for taking down spiritual strongholds that keep people from God. We are fighting a spiritual stronghold here, not people.

"For though we live in the flesh, we do not wage war according to the flesh. The weapons of our warfare are not the weapons of the world. Instead, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We tear down arguments, and every presumption set up against the knowledge of God; and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." 2 Cor 10:3-5

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I mean who wouldn't want to bring more life into the forum with a Drake comeback, right?

Me, for one. Unless he's had a turn.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Other than that Ohio has been very explicit concerning Titus Chu's sins.

To clarify, Ohio refers to Titus' mistreatment of brothers. I have elevated that to Titus Chu's sins because that is how I read the abuse of the saints.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Jo S

This is the overwhelming agenda I see on this forum; to destroy Lee's kingdom, aka the LSM, all the while Nee and GLA go mostly unnoticed.

Well, LSM is the most blatant example, but there are other manifestations as well.

This is why I write more about principles than specifics. Tear down the false principles, and the organizations that are based on them might continue, but they are rendered mostly toothless. The same principles that invalidate the LR and its claims invalidate anyone else who makes similar claims.

An example is the Catholic Church. It has been rendered largely toothless. People used to fear losing their salvation for leaving it, but that falsehood has been rejected by most now because the principle it is based on has been exposed as false.

MOTA is false. Local ground is false. The LR as God's unique move is false. Take those false principles out and the tiger has no teeth or claws. He's just a big, dumb pussycat, like the Catholic Church.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, LSM is the most blatant example, but there are other manifestations as well.

This is why I write more about principles than specifics. Tear down the false principles, and the organizations that are based on them might continue, but they are rendered mostly toothless. The same principles that invalidate the LR and its claims invalidate anyone else who makes similar claims.

An example is the Catholic Church. It has been rendered largely toothless. People used to fear losing their salvation for leaving it, but that falsehood has been rejected by most now because the principle it is based on has been exposed as false.

MOTA is false. Local ground is false. The LR as God's unique move is false. Take those false principles out and the tiger has no teeth or claws. He's just a big, dumb pussycat, like the Catholic Church.

So well said, Igzy, having lived thru both.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So well said, Igzy, having lived thru both.

So true bro Ohio. And Igzy is right. And now we're tearing down their principle of no natural affection. A very insidious dehumanizing principle.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So true bro Ohio. And Igzy is right. And now we're tearing down their principle of no natural affection. A very insidious dehumanizing principle.

It was so typical of Lee to zoom in on some dubious interpretation of O.T. typology while ignoring all the plain exhortations found in the N.T.

But who were we to read the Bible ourselves? Supposedly we needed Lee to "properly interpret" these verses for us. Reminds me of my youth hearing the same thing in Catholic school.

Another case in point was how Lee circumvented I Cor 6 in order to prove to us that suing our brothers was OK.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It was so typical of Lee to zoom in on some dubious interpretation of O.T. typology while ignoring all the plain exhortations found in the N.T.

But who were we to read the Bible ourselves? Supposedly we needed Lee to "properly interpret" these verses for us. Reminds me of my youth hearing the same thing in Catholic school.

Another case in point was how Lee circumvented I Cor 6 in order to prove to us that suing our brothers was OK.

Lee used the Bible on us to make it sound like he was speaking for God. David Koresh of Waco fame did the same thing. And they aren't the first to do it. It's an easy trick to fall for.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Ohio

E) Jo S is trolling us

F) Jo S is drinking and posting

F) Jo S password has been hacked by DCP

G) Jo S is reincarnation of Bilbo

I only drink of the living water Ohio, and regular water. At this moment it's coffee.

Speaking of DCP, if Cleveland doesn't already have their own version of it, I elect Ohio as head director.

Originally Posted by awareness

I may be out of touch, but I don't think Jo S is any of these things. I just feel he's not been clear. Cuz of that I can't quite nail down where he stands. Particularly his claim of imbalance on the forum. I might be unbalanced, some might say, but I don't see all the other members being that way.

If I can reduce it all into one word it's discrimination. And I'm not referring to race, religion, or personal traits. It's this; why would you focus on only one of the heads of a seven-headed monster? You cut that off and you'll only make the monster angry.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow! You think a lack of concentration on Titus Chu and Watchman Nee on a forum trying to make sense of the Local church movement is a conspiracy to get Drake back? I think Ohio's E, F, F, or G make a whole lot more sense.

For some, absolutely. For others, it's politics, and yet still for others it's fear of touching "God's anointed".

I refer you to the 3 stages of truth, ZNP.

BTW Ohio, Drake knew what he was doing by shunning you and he knows what he's doing now by staying off the forum. Don't let all that keep you in a state of unrest.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Because people are held in the LR by fear, and that is really not true of the Catholic Church. I was raised a Catholic. Yes, we were taught that it is the "one true church" and all that, but the mindset is very different than that in the LR. There is no real fear of leaving the CC now. If people sweat leaving the CC now it's usually for familial/cultural reasons, not spiritual ones.

So, yes, the organization might continue. I don't really care about that. My goal is to break the stronghold of fear and bondage, so people can make their own choices.

Of course. Love, repentance and salvation are right in line with what we are doing here.

I'm about people being saved, not organizations being destroyed. But I am for taking down spiritual strongholds that keep people from God. We are fighting a spiritual stronghold here, not people.

It's true there once was a fear of leaving the one true Catholic Church but I was under the impression that today it's fear that leads people into the Catholic Church, fear of God's judgment and wrath that is (Matthew 3:7). Could it be one of the things that leads many into the Local Churches today?

As far as strongholds, I agree we should bring lies into the light of scripture. However I have issue when people makes "strongholds" objects, whether people or organizations. It's the love of God that draws people out of the darkness and sets them free. If you only supply information that merely reveals the darkness, then what's left for those people that leave those organizations because of those efforts? Are they still not left in bondage?

I agree that the lies embedded in Local Church doctrine are strongholds and go even further and say they are cancerous. And just like cancer, the goal is to destroy the tumors without destroying the person even if that person is our enemy. Easy to say, hard to do, but it's commanded and expected of us.

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

For Titus Chu or Nee, l myself rarely have direct fellowship with them because I never spend my time with them and their flock. That's why I have no enough database to criticize. I have no intention to play politics here.

I completely understand that. From a mainly unbiased point of view, when criticizing doctrine, it's intuitive for me to not stop mid-track but go to the root of the teachings. If my search ends at a person, I'll call them out but it's not personal. I feel many can get a little bit too personal in their responses and stop short because of that. In saying that, things seem so personal here that the term "Lee" has become a synonym for LSM, DCP, Drake, ect.

I too haven't had direct contact or fellowship with Nee or Lee but in reading Nee's own words I do get a clear sense of who he was as a person of faith and see mostly him in LC members, that includes Lee and Chu. If I ever get caught up in anger it's toward Watchman Nee and the naivety he had that led him to mix all the eastern mystic and new age thought into Christian doctrine. I then remember how that was once me and so I allow empathy to take over.

Weren't most all of you once just like a young Nee and a young Lee, naive and idealistic? They too got caught up and ensnared in lies just like we all did. Even those in leadership today. Let's pray for them and hope the Lord breaks their chains.

Thanks for putting up with me Truthseeker, didn't mean to take over your thread with my conspiracy theories.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I only drink of the living water Ohio, and regular water. At this moment it's coffee.

Speaking of DCP, if Cleveland doesn't already have their own version of it, I elect Ohio as head director.

If I can reduce it all into one word it's discrimination. And I'm not referring to race, religion, or personal traits. It's this; why would you focus on only one of the heads of a seven-headed monster? You cut that off and you'll only make the monster angry.

BTW Ohio, Drake knew what he was doing by shunning you and he knows what he's doing now by staying off the forum. Don't let all that keep you in a state of unrest.

Jo S, it was you who said in a previous post, "I've lost my mind." I was only trying to throw you a lifeline.

I still don't understand what you are disturbed by. When I and others respond or ask why, you seem to get more upset. LSM in Anaheim has been the root of the LC problem for decades. That's why this forum exists.

Jo S, no one is telling you what to post or not. How does your bias become our discrimination? If you have issues with Cleveland, why don't you spell them out?

What is your seven-headed monster? Stop speaking in riddles.

And your comments about Drake make me a little suspicious of your motives.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jo S, it was you who said in a previous post, "I've lost my mind." I was only trying to throw you a lifeline.

And your comments about Drake make me a little suspicious of your motives.

You left out the part where I said, "That how I feel". Feelings don't always constitute reality.

You know, in the last string of posts I've made, I've noticed how a few members confuse my lack of bias as favoritism for the opposition and have tried to compare me to Lee or DCP, just like you're doing.

I don't take offense because I know I'm not Lee, but what it's saying to me is that this place is hungry for Lee (or a representative of Lee) to come onto the forum. It's a tell that anger and hatred has a stronghold here and it's at a breaking point.

That's what I'm trying to point out. And no, I won't be that person because I'm not that person. But by keeping that desire, people risk turning on themselves.

I'm not your enemy. As far as bad practices and false doctrine of the LC's, we're in agreement, but the vitriol here at times is just too much and makes it an unwelcoming place. It's at the point where one feels is they don't have the same amount of animosity toward Lee's kingdom, they're not welcome.

Originally Posted by Ohio

What is your seven-headed monster? Stop speaking in riddles.

It's reference to the beast in revelation and the analogy is pointing to what I've been trying to say all along. Focus is too much on the individuals within the LC's and the take down of organizations in preference to the entity as a whole. Rather than exposing lies in the light and love of the truth and for others, they're weaponized with the intent to cause people harm.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Jo S

It's reference to the beast in revelation and the analogy is pointing to what I've been trying to say all along. Focus is too much on the individuals within the LC's and the take down of organizations. Rather than exposing lies in the light of love for others, they're weaponized with the intent to cause people harm.

Okay, I think you've made your point, and point taken.

But what you have to realize is this is just your opinion. It's not necessarily absolute fact. I don't think many here want to do anyone harm per se. The fact that they are a little harsher than you might prefer does not put them in error. It just means you might handle things differently. Let's leave it at that.

UntoHim has written many times about being more civil. It's a fair word. Let's move on.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, I think you've made your point, and point taken.

But what you have to realize is this is just your opinion. I

UntoHim has written many times about being more civil. It's a fair word. Let's move on.

Igzy, if what I say doesn't apply to you then I'm happy.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Igzy, if what I say doesn't apply to you then I'm happy.

Everything you said applied to me. Then again it didn't, if you know what I mean.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Jo S

(1)If I can reduce it all into one word it's discrimination. And I'm not referring to race, religion, or personal traits. It's this; why would you focus on only one of the heads of a seven-headed monster? You cut that off and you'll only make the monster angry.

(2)BTW Ohio, Drake knew what he was doing by shunning you and he knows what he's doing now by staying off the forum. Don't let all that keep you in a state of unrest.

(3)It's true there once was a fear of leaving the one true Catholic Church but I was under the impression that today it's fear that leads people into the Catholic Church, fear of God's judgment and wrath that is (Matthew 3:7). Could it be one of the things that leads many into the Local Churches today?

(4)As far as strongholds, I agree we should bring lies into the light of scripture. However I have issue when people makes "strongholds" objects, whether people or organizations. It's the love of God that draws people out of the darkness and sets them free. If you only supply information that merely reveals the darkness, then what's left for those people that leave those organizations because of those efforts? Are they still not left in bondage?

(5)I agree that the lies embedded in Local Church doctrine are strongholds and go even further and say they are cancerous. And just like cancer, the goal is to remove the tumors without destroying the person even if that person is our enemy. Easy to say, hard to do, but it's commanded and expected of us.

(6)I too haven't had direct contact or fellowship with Nee or Lee but in reading Nee's personal words I do get a clear sense of who he was as a person of faith and see mostly him in most LC'ers, that includes Lee and Chu. If I ever get caught up in anger it's toward Watchman Nee and the naivety he had that led him to mix all the eastern mystic and new age thought into Christian doctrine. I then remember how that was once me and so I allow empathy to take over.

(7)Weren't most all of you once just like a young Nee and a young Lee, naive and idealistic? They too got caught up and ensnared in lies just like we all did. Even those in leadership today. Let's pray for them and hope the Lord breaks their chains.

1) The monster Nee cut his own head off.

2) I miss Drake

3) I don't think people join the RCC out of fear. They're born into it.

4) If God pulls the rug out from under falseness and misplaced faith, maybe it's so we end up only having faith in Him.

5) The goal is to walk away and let the system die of attrition.

6) I didn't know Nee at all, nor even Lee when it comes down to it. You know what they say, 'If you want to keep your heroes, don't get to know them.'

7) Yes. We all got caught up in lies ; Nee, Lee, and Titus too. But we don't all claim to be the authority of God on the earth.

[UntoHim]

My goodness, only on LocalChurchDiscussions can a thread with "natural affection" in the title get so contentious and chippy! No worries on my part though - many times the most contentious and chippy threads seem to bring out the hard truth and reality that only comes from "iron sharpening iron". Also, I think part of the reason for the questioning and contentiousness comes from the simple fact that we were never allowed such a luxury in the Local Church. The question mark was a symbol of the Snake. There was room for only one opinion. So now we are all let out into the wild as it were, where we have found out the hard way that we actually did have opinions, reservations and questions about all sorts of things. Now that we are allowed to think for ourselves, we're finding out that not everyone thinks alike.

Originally Posted by Jo S

...but what it's saying to me is that this place is hungry for Lee (or a representative of Lee) to come onto the forum. It's a tell that anger and hatred has a stronghold here and it's at a breaking point.

Although I think Jo has overstated a bit here, there is a point to be well-taken I believe. Anger and hatred are part and parcel of fallen men and women...and that includes those who have been saved and redeemed. Sin, anger, hatred, regret and selfishness are still alive and well within the fallen flesh of the old man, and will be until the day we die. It is our "job" to not let these things remain as a stronghold in our lives. It's part of "working out our own salvation". Yet during the process we need have some understanding and patience for each other and we're doing the working out, especially on an open forum like LCD. We need to pretend that we are all in one big room with many people watching and hearing. Current LC members are watching and hearing. Former members are too. Even members of the general Christian public are watching and hearing. You never know, maybe we're even entertaining an angel or two.

As far as bad practices and false doctrine of the LC's, we're in agreement, but the vitriol here at times is just too much and makes it an unwelcoming place. It's at the point where one feels if they don't have the same amount of animosity toward Lee's kingdom, they're not welcome.

Another fair observation. Again, the simple fact is that not every former member has the same feelings about the person and work of Witness Lee. The gambit runs all the way from the view that Lee was a true apostle and oracle of God that simply had a few character flaws and made a few mistakes, all the way up to considering that the man was a rank charlatan and a religious fraud of the worst kind. Of course I'm stating what is surely the farthest reach of the two extremes, and my experience and observation over 20+ years tells me that the vast majority of former members fall into the majority middle. Another thing to consider would be that fact that some of us have just freshly exited the LC movement and are naturally going to have a different view of things than those of us who have been out for decades. Once again, patients and understanding should be the order of the day.

Rather than exposing lies in the light and love of the truth and for others, they're weaponized with the intent to cause people harm.

Again, probably a little overstated. Again, point well-taken. Unfortunately, I think some of us let our pride and passions get the best of us, and end up accomplishing both of these things - exposing lies in the light and love of truth, while at the very same time causing some real harm to the very people we're trying to help and fellowship with. I'm reminded of a great quote by Tim Keller: Love without truth is sentimentality; it supports and affirms us but keeps us in denial about our flaws. Truth without love is harshness; it gives us information but in such a way that we cannot really hear it.
-

[aron]

Jo S has a great view, as valid here as any other. There is a larger world than the Lord's recovery (LR). Problems in the LR indicate larger issues, and discussion benefits by these issues.

We are blind to our own prejudices and it really helps when a discussion newcomer has the wherewithal to point them out.

In my case, my understanding of what I was once under, in the LR, benefit greatly by seeing high-demand, isolationist groups like Geftakys, the EL, the NAR, TC in the GLA and DYL in Brasil. The self-deluded sense of aggrandizement being imposed on others as some kind of necessary condition, i.e. "God's will".

It would be a shame if articulate, opinionated voices got effectively shouted off the forum.

And speaking if vitriol, my posts can get caustic at times. I've owned this and apologised and am willing to continue to do so. It's probably intrinsic to the healing process - err and repent.

Opinions can be firmly, even resolutely held. But the core teaching of the Master is, Love one another. Give the other person's opinions the same respect that you give your own.

[Cal]

This from UntoHim bears repeating.

Tim Keller: Love without truth is sentimentality; it supports and affirms us but keeps us in denial about our flaws. Truth without love is harshness; it gives us information but in such a way that we cannot really hear it.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

And speaking if vitriol, my posts can get caustic at times. I've owned this and apologised and am willing to continue to do so. It's probably intrinsic to the healing process - err and repent.

I've witnessed extreme embitterment within the quarantined sect of the local churches. It's why when I see it here, after a while, it just gets old.

In psychology it's called PTED and two of the main triggers of this is divorce or dismissal.

I wish I could type the magic combination of words to help, but if you don't want help then it doesn't matter what's said or how it's said.

The saying it true; misery loves company and those that struggle with it often look for others like them so they can continue to justify their bitterness. Rather then helping others out of their bitterness, they'll help condition them to stay in that pervasive state of resentment.

You may think that the day the LSM goes up in flames you'll have peace but it won't be there.

I'll be blunt, the reason those in the GLA sect of the local churches are embittered is because they view themselves as victims. Where as I see that episode of LC history as a chance for a fresh start and redemption. Yet the leadership carried over the very same damaging doctrines that Watchman Nee and Witness Lee taught.

Until this is addressed with repentance and forgiveness, the toxic embitterment which permeates their environment won't change and healing won't take place.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I'll be blunt, the reason those in the GLA sect of the local churches are embittered is because they view themselves as victims.

Are you speaking abstractly or specifically? I don't recall anyone actually establishing that anyone in the GLA is actually embittered. I'm not saying no one is, but it seems you are painting with a broad brush. Sounds a little like, "You need to stop beating your wife," without every establishing that any beating actually occurred.

Now, if you had written, If anyone in the GLA is embittered, it is because they view themselves as victims, I'd have bought that. But not the way you wrote it.

In fact, I wouldn't even buy that, because many in the GLA were victimized. That's objective fact. But there is the fact of victimhood and there is the error wallowing in it. I assume when you say "view themselves as victims" you mean the latter. But simply knowing oneself to be a victim is not an error.

And accusing someone of being embittered simply because he knows objectively that he is a victim is blaming the victim.

I'm not saying at the moment that's what you are doing, but I don't know exactly what you are doing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not saying at the moment that's what you are doing, but I don't know exactly what you are doing.

Bro, you are wasting your time looking for clarification. I tried. Thrice. I gave up.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bro, you are wasting your time looking for clarification. I tried. Thrice. I gave up.

Indignation about injustice can sometimes be confused with bitterness. I supposed the former can possibly lead to the latter, but it ain't necessarily so.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Are you speaking abstractly or specifically?

Both. the problem starts at leadership and then works it way down into breeding a culture of victimhood. My broad brush stroke was meant to be broad, it's a big picture.

I understand most members of LSM and GLA churches weren't directly involved in the leadership decisions which led to the quarantine, but many were. If you weren't then members on both sides can see themselves as victims however there's another perspective to consider.

It wasn't my fault that I was born into sin. I didn't have a say in that. As long as I continued to view myself as a victim of circumstance there was justification for my lack of repentance. Yet I had to repent. Whether or not I was ignorant I still partook of sin and was found guilty.

It's been 13 years since the quarantines yet no real changes to core doctrine made by leadership. If you're given the opportunity for a fresh start and to make change yet do nothing, accountability falls on you. So you can either change your ways or focus on the superficial and adopt a victim mentality/martyr complex to continue to justify your lack of repentance.

There's a difference between being a victim of circumstance and victimhood. Even if you've inherited a circumstance, it doesn't mean you have to stay a part of that circumstance. This goes for both sides. The problem wasn't coups or quarantines, it was false doctrine all along yet no attention is given to that by either side..As long as leadership willingly stays ignorant to that, then they won't understand what the real cause of their division is and many under them will continue to suffer.

Even if you've left completely, you may no longer be bound by the decisions of the Local Churches, but it doesn't change the fact that you partook of the doctrines and practices of the Local Churches.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Indignation about injustice can sometimes be confused with bitterness. I supposed the former can possibly lead to the latter, but it ain't necessarily so.

When there's partiality and a lack of accountability in indignation, that's when you know it's bitterness.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Both. the problem starts at leadership and then works it way down into breeding a culture of victimhood. My broad brush stroke was meant to be broad, it's a big picture.

Okay, you say you are talking specifically, but you are not being specific. WHO EXACTLY is playing the victim? What is your evidence? Do you know these people? Have you observed them firsthand? Please be more concrete and give some examples. I'm being honest here, I still don't know exactly what behavior you are talking about. And I still don't know how you want that behavior to change.

When there's partiality and a lack of accountability in indignation, that's when you know it's bitterness.

Again, where do you see such behavior displayed? Be specific.

Wanting justice for others and even oneself is not necessarily bad, as long as you let God meet it out. Recall Rev 6:10:

"They called out in a loud voice, 'How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?'"

These victims are pleading to God for justice. Are they partial? Are they unaccountable? Are they bitter? How do you know?

And the Bible is full of exhortations that we should seek justice for those who are oppressed and taken advantage of:

"Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow." Isaiah 1:17

"Thus says the LORD, 'Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor.'" Jeremiah 22:3

"Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute."
Psalm 82:3

"Open your mouth, judge righteously, And defend the rights of the afflicted and needy." Ps 31:9

"Thus has the LORD of hosts said, 'Dispense true justice and practice kindness.'" Zechariah 7:9

"The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor; the wicked does not understand such concern." Prov 29:7

These are verses we NEVER studied in the LR. And frankly I think they make them uncomfortable. Their whole culture of allowing oneself to be abused by an organization ignores them, as does their indifference to social justice.

One reason I ask is that we've had LR sympathizers come on this board and halfway admit that people have been abused there, but then they are quick to effectively advise "Get over it." Now I understand the need for putting things in healthy perspective to promote healing. But these advisers are more interested in lightening the load of criticism on the LR than they are with the healing of those abused. Their first priority is that the LR be preserved, all else is secondary, including people.

I understand that God commands us to turn the other cheek. But there is also Matt 18:15-17, in which, in his only mention of the practical local church in his ministry, Jesus chooses to point out that it is a place a person can go to for JUSTICE. I find that very interesting.

This is why I feel good about being a sheep dog.

[Cal]

"Thus says the LORD, 'Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor.'" Jeremiah 22:3

Assuming this applies to those victimized by the LR, how do we obey the command to do justice and righteousness and deliver them?

"Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy." Ps 31:9

How do we obey this command and open our mouths? Posting on this board seems a good start I would think.

"Reprove the ruthless" Isaiah 1:17

I imagine that someone who reproves the ruthless might sound a little bitter to somebody or other.

[Cal]

I recalled a scene from Driving Miss Daisy. At the end of the film, both Hoke and Daisy are quite old. He visits her in her senior home. They have this exchange.

Daisy: How are you?
Hoke: Oh... I'm doin' the best I can.
Daisy: (laughs) Me too.
Hoke: Well, I reckon that's 'bout all there is to it then.

The best we can do is all we can do. To me that's what not being bitter means. It means doing our best. Being bitter is a kind of giving up, a kind of quitting. It's hurting yourself to spite your circumstances or those who have hurt you.

That said, seeking justice is not necessarily being bitter.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

"Reprove the ruthless" Isaiah 1:17

I imagine that someone who reproves the ruthless might sound a little bitter to somebody or other.

Jesus was the one who reproved the ruthless. You and I are the ruthless. We are not God's avenging angels, however tempting it might seem when we survey the likes of Nee and Lee (and Chu, Dong et al).

I'm not going to defend Jo S, but what I see them doing is this, painting with a broad brush that applies to all. When Jesus came out of the desert, he opened his mouth and painted with a broad brush: Repent. That means you, me, Ohio, Jo S, Witness Lee and so forth. If we just focus on the wrongs of Lee and the Blendeds, a limitless treasure trove it seems, we might find ourselves here, six or eight years hence, unmoved. I don't think we want that. How do we all go forward in mutual learning?

There are forces behind the scenes, that manifest themselves in Lee and Chu and others. What are they? Are you and I affected? When Jo S pointed out the NAR that was a learning moment for me. Oh - hey - look at the delusion: "God needs an apostle. Might as well be me, since I have the idea". Sound familiar?

We can leave the LR, but to what? What next?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bro, you are wasting your time looking for clarification. I tried. Thrice. I gave up.

It's always the Other Guy who's not clear, right Ohio? You are always too clear. That is what reminds me of Lee. He was always "too clear". The Other Guy with him was the one "not so clear". He once told us that he hadn't learnt anything from anyone for 45 years.

A discussion is a mutual learning experience. It isn't an extended monologue.

Originally Posted by aron

Opinions can be firmly, even resolutely held. But the core teaching of the Master is, Love one another. Give the other person's opinions the same respect that you give your own.

That last sentence may disqualify about 3/4 of my posts. I tend to disrespect ideas that don't seem well-founded. But I admit my ideas are tentative, provisional, and subject to change. But it's dogmatism that I can't stand.

Witness Lee had this tendency to say, "We must all see that..." No, dude, you must jump off a pier into the ocean. Only Jesus gives the "musts" and "oughts" and "should" and "need to" around here.

Back to the title of the thread: How many of my posts show evidence of a person with much "natural affection"? I think Igzy and Ohio are indignant that sheep are getting gnawed by wolves. That's good. But Jo S is challenging us all to go deeper, beyond the surface.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

Jesus was the one who reproved the ruthless. You and I are the ruthless. We are not God's avenging angels, however tempting it might seem when we survey the likes of Nee and Lee (and Chu, Dong et al

If God just wanted Jesus to reprove the ruthless he wouldn’t have commanded us to do it. I think your beliefs are getting in the way of what the Bible actually says .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

It's always the Other Guy who's not clear, right Ohio? You are always too clear. That is what reminds me of Lee. He was always "too clear". The Other Guy with him was the one "not so clear". He once told us that he hadn't learnt anything from anyone for 45 years.

aron, your comments here about me are unwarranted.

Jo S singled me out a couple times on this thread which I didn't understand.

I asked him for clarification so I could respond. He ignored my request.

I decided to let it go about the time Igzy began to dialog with him.

Igzy got a little perturbed too, so I told him not to expect much feedback.

I considered that unnecessary tension on a topic of "natural affection" seemed too ironic to continue with.

Then you hit me with a cheap shot. Pretty surprising. Was your password hacked, aron?

[Cal]

In the interest of taking the high ground, let me suggest that this thread has morphed into a very important topic for which I'm sure no one has all the answers. It could be summarized thusly:

What is the responsibility of Christians in responding to aberrant or abusive groups, ministries and leadership, particularly those which abuse authority to bully and control believers?

Given the many Old Testament verses exhorting God's people to defend the defenseless, stand up to oppressors and seek justice, do such commands carry over into the New Testament age and, and if so, how to we fulfill them?

Perhaps a new thread on this subject is in order? UntoHim, can you work your magic and transfer relevant posts to such a new thread?

I would very much like to discuss these ideas.

Thanks!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

We can leave the LR, but to what? What next?

Participating on this board isn't all I do. It isn't even the main thing I do.

There are many ways to serve the Lord. All you have to do is pray about it and look around.

I'm not obsessed about the LR. I just feel God wants me to use my thinking, writing and debating skills to help shed some light on the movement. The more I do it the more I feel it's what he wants. I do pray about it. I don't think I'm just a loose cannon doing my own thing here.

Prayer is the key. Keep praying about how you serve the Lord. That gives him a way to guide and adjust you. One problem with the LR people is they never seem to actually pray about whether they should be there. In fact, I think they believe considering praying about it is a sign of weakness. I still remember the LR guy who told me, "I don't need to pray about it." Good luck with that attitude!

I feel warning people and supporting them is legitimate. If it comes across as confrontational at times, well that's just the nature of the situation. It's pretty hard to avoid when you feel a group is damaging believers.

I will say this: I feel everything we do here would be better and more effective if we all prayed more about it.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Cal

In the interest of taking the high ground, let me suggest that this thread has morphed into a very important topic for which I'm sure no one has all the answers. It could be summarized thusly:

What is the responsibility of Christians in responding to aberrant or abusive groups, ministries and leadership, particularly those which abuse authority to bully and control believers?

Given the many Old Testament verses exhorting God's people to defend the defenseless, stand up to oppressors and seek justice, do such commands carry over into the New Testament age and, and if so, how to we fulfill them?

Perhaps a new thread on this subject is in order? UntoHim, can you work your magic and transfer relevant posts to such a new thread?

I would very much like to discuss these ideas.

Thanks!

Was this ever done? (new thread on the topic Cal bolded?)

[UntoHim]

Trapped, I'm guessing that you have answered your own question by starting the "The Shunning" thread?
-

[Trapped]

Ah! I honestly didn't realize there was overlap in the two threads. The shunning thread was more supposed to be how does an individual handle it personally. Cal's suggestion seems to be more of "what is our responsibility" or "what are we given the okay to do" in the face of aberrant groups. Shunning can be only a small part of what makes an aberrant group an aberrant group. Also, someone may not have experienced shunning themselves, but still have a responsibility to speak up.

So to me, they are separate threads.

[Terry]

Originally Posted by Jo S

If anything, the Local Churches only practice natural affection or love for only those within their ideological family. But even that's in question here.

How I perceived LC practice of natural affection similar to Luke 6:32. It's common to love those who love the ministry, yet as soon as any element of the ministry is questioned, one is turned on in an instant.
I have not seen anyone question the motive for Lee's teaching against natural affection?
Natural affection being scrutinized kind of made it difficult to bond and be built with a brother/sister through whom one can open up to.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

I have not seen anyone question the motive for Lee's teaching against natural affection?
Natural affection being scrutinized kind of made it difficult to bond and be built with a brother/sister through whom one can open up to.

I really didn't become aware that the LC had this type of teaching until I had started attending some of the conferences and trainings and heard it spoken from the podium. I remember when I attended some of the summer college trainings that were held, one of the rules they would have for us was "no engaging in small talk."

I don't know if people really took it seriously or not, but I always did. In fact, I was always relatively introverted to begin with so it made me almost afraid to engage in conversation sometimes, because then when anyone actually did want to just have a normal conversation I would wonder if it was a trap or not.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I really didn't become aware that the LC had this type of teaching until I had started attending some of the conferences and trainings and heard it spoken from the podium. I remember when I attended some of the summer college trainings that were held, one of the rules they would have for us was "no engaging in small talk."

I don't know if people really took it seriously or not, but I always did. In fact, I was always relatively introverted to begin with so it made me almost afraid to engage in conversation sometimes, because then when anyone actually did want to just have a normal conversation I would wonder if it was a trap or not.

I think this is a good example of a disconnect in experiences in the LC. There are some people who don't take things to heart and some who do. Some people who hear a rule and immediately discard it as not for them and don't have the feelings of guilt about it. Some people who take it to heart and are greatly affected by it.

Then decades later when the inevitable problems from the church arise, the ones who didn't take things to heart and were unaffected then try to drown out the ones who did and were affected.

I fell into the "took it to heart and was affected" category.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I think this is a good example of a disconnect in experiences in the LC. There are some people who don't take things to heart and some who do. Some people who hear a rule and immediately discard it as not for them and don't have the feelings of guilt about it. Some people who take it to heart and are greatly affected by it.

Then decades later when the inevitable problems from the church arise, the ones who didn't take things to heart and were unaffected then try to drown out the ones who did and were affected.

I fell into the "took it to heart and was affected" category.

Yeah, it reminds me of when I lived in a brothers house and one of the rules was no watching movies. I was really the only one that attempted to follow that rule. But then I gave up on it since no one else seemed to care. Almost immediately, I got caught watching a movie and got in trouble. Nobody else did though, not sure why. That's the kind of stuff that eventually caused me to become disillusioned with the whole thing.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Yeah, it reminds me of when I lived in a brothers house and one of the rules was no watching movies. I was really the only one that attempted to follow that rule. But then I gave up on it since no one else seemed to care. Almost immediately, I got caught watching a movie and got in trouble. Nobody else did though, not sure why. That's the kind of stuff that eventually caused me to become disillusioned with the whole thing.

I know what you mean. We all attempted to tow the line of LC legalism with such things, because we thought it was being genuinely spiritual. I never even saw anyone have just one glass of wine or a beer (except one Aussie bro I knew, who was completely unreligious). After experiencing freedom from these kind of legal notions over the past 20 years, with no one putting their expectations on me, I see how legalistic and enslaving it all was! For instance, now if some of us bros go out for a little fellowship and someone orders a beer (almost always just one, BTW), no one thinks anything about it. If someone sees a really good movie (sometimes a Christian movie, sometimes not), we often hear about it from them. Because we all know we have the real freedom in Christ to do so. (but also, not all things are "profitable" to share)

However, let me add, that sometimes brothers now also talk about how they personally are being carried away with too much "entertainment," and on occasion ask for prayer about that. Great - we have the freedom to be open and candid with each other about such things! To me, this is a healthy Christian environment. This reminds me a little of what CS Lewis talked about -the relationship he had with other bros in their little group, which they fondly called the "Inklings" (because many of them were writers, who included such folks as JR Tolkien). They'd have a beer together, smoke a cigar and fellowship about their Christian life, the world, etc.

If only I saw the freedom in Christ then according to what I see now . . .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Yeah, it reminds me of when I lived in a brothers house and one of the rules was no watching movies. I was really the only one that attempted to follow that rule. But then I gave up on it since no one else seemed to care. Almost immediately, I got caught watching a movie and got in trouble. Nobody else did though, not sure why. That's the kind of stuff that eventually caused me to become disillusioned with the whole thing.

I was one who tended to keep the rules in the brothers' house. One of the rules was paying the monthly room and board. When I wondered why there was no money for food, someone whispered that most of the brothers didn't have money to contribute. Oh well. So much for rules.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I know what you mean. We all attempted to tow the line of LC legalism with such things, because we thought it was being genuinely spiritual. I never even saw anyone have just one glass of wine or a beer (except one Aussie bro I knew, who was completely unreligious). After experiencing freedom from these kind of legal notions over the past 20 years, with no one putting their expectations on me, I see how legalistic and enslaving it all was! For instance, now if some of us bros go out for a little fellowship and someone orders a beer (almost always just one, BTW), no one thinks anything about it. If someone sees a really good movie (sometimes a Christian movie, sometimes not), we often hear about it from them. Because we all know we have the real freedom in Christ to do so. (but also, not all things are "profitable" to share)

However, let me add, that sometimes brothers now also talk about how they personally are being carried away with too much "entertainment," and on occasion ask for prayer about that. Great - we have the freedom to be open and candid with each other about such things! To me, this is a healthy Christian environment. This reminds me a little of what CS Lewis talked about -the relationship he had with other bros in their little group, which they fondly called the "Inklings" (because many of them were writers, who included such folks as JR Tolkien). They'd have a beer together, smoke a cigar and fellowship about their Christian life, the world, etc.

If only I saw the freedom in Christ then according to what I see now . . .

Especially because I grew up in the LC, I really didn't know any better when it came to a lot of the legalism. I though that such things were necessary for spirituality. And I think that even when I did question things, I still took the LC seriously. It never made any sense to me that if people really believed the LC to be what it claims to be, they why would there be so many members that were not really all that serious about it. What became apparent later on was that many people were just along for the ride. They already knew better than to go along with some of the extremes, but they also knew better than to vocalize that.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Especially because I grew up in the LC, I really didn't know any better when it came to a lot of the legalism. I though that such things were necessary for spirituality. And I think that even when I did question things, I still took the LC seriously. It never made any sense to me that if people really believed the LC to be what it claims to be, they why would there be so many members that were not really all that serious about it. What became apparent later on was that many people were just along for the ride. They already knew better than to go along with some of the extremes, but they also knew better than to vocalize that.

And I suppose that's because we bought into the idea that the LC was it, the one true move, so we didn't think it appropriate to speak up even if we had an inkling to do so. In my case, I knew the Lord initially brought me there, that is, the LC in Berkeley back in 74. But He also kept me from becoming too involved and for too long. It's only been recently that I've been getting clearer as to why and how that path lead me to where I am today.