Local Church Double-Speak

[zeek]

Wikipedia defines Doublespeak as "language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs), making the truth less unpleasant, without denying its nature. It may also be deployed as intentional ambiguity, or reversal of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth, producing a communication bypass."

Witness Lee used terminology that became the doublespeak of the daily "church life." It might be beneficial to identify and thus hopefully to demystify as many of the doublespeak terms as we can. For example, the term "follow your spirit" was a common phrase in the church at one time. The whole idea of being and doing in spirit seem to me to be a cover for the fact that the behavior of the rank and file members was tightly controlled. if you didn't call on the Lord when you supposed to you were looked at with suspicion. Can anybody relate to what I'm talking about?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Wikipedia defines Doublespeak as "language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs), making the truth less unpleasant, without denying its nature. It may also be deployed as intentional ambiguity, or reversal of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth, producing a communication bypass."

Witness Lee used terminology that became the doublespeak of the daily "church life." It might be beneficial to identify and thus hopefully to demystify as many of the doublespeak terms as we can. For example, the term "follow your spirit" was a common phrase in the church at one time. The whole idea of being and doing in spirit seem to me to be a cover for the fact that the behavior of the rank and file members was tightly controlled. if you didn't call on the Lord when you supposed to you were looked at with suspicion. Can anybody relate to what I'm talking about?

I like this thread. I hope you will create a lexicon after you get a lot of contributions.

I think the term "One with the ministry" can be considered doublespeak. It is loosely based on verses in Paul's ministry about how some were faithful coworkers and some abandoned him. But it is used in a way similar to calling someone a Jew in Nazi Germany. It is the kiss of death to be labeled as "not one with the ministry".

This creates an ironic twist. Even though the LSM publications teach that the ministry is for the churches and not the other way around, every church is in fear of being labeled "not one with the ministry".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Wikipedia defines Doublespeak as "language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs), making the truth less unpleasant, without denying its nature. It may also be deployed as intentional ambiguity, or reversal of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth, producing a communication bypass."

"Local" church is doublespeak, since they are anything but "local."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I like this thread. I hope you will create a lexicon after you get a lot of contributions.
I think the term "One with the ministry" can be considered doublespeak. It is loosely based on verses in Paul's ministry about how some were faithful coworkers and some abandoned him. But it is used in a way similar to calling someone a Jew in Nazi Germany. It is the kiss of death to be labeled as "not one with the ministry".
This creates an ironic twist. Even though the LSM publications teach that the ministry is for the churches and not the other way around, every church is in fear of being labeled "not one with the ministry".

Right. If it isn't enough to meet on the ground of oneness because you also must be one with a ministry, it seems two onenesses are required. Two onenesses seems absurd. I think only one oneness is possible. What they were advocating was twoness.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right. If it isn't enough to meet on the ground of oneness because you also must be one with a ministry, it seems two onenesses are required. Two onenesses seems absurd. I think only one oneness is possible. What they were advocating was twoness.

So then when they say "keep the oneness" it sounds good and spiritual, but it is surely referring to the "twoness"

[OBW]

While I do understand it, this "twoness" thing is a little silly. The real problem is their definition of oneness.

I am one with people that I do not entirely agree with. Oneness is to be standing solid with someone else. And our oneness is in Christ. It is in the fact that his sacrifice has paid the penalty for our sins and we have accepted that sacrifice as ours. It is in the common indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Our oneness is not in:

Music style
Hymns
Choruses
Piano and organ (or even a capella)
Band with drums and guitars
A choir
With robes
Manner in which communion/the Lord's table is observed
expository preaching
Reading of prayers together
Use of a "lectionary calendar" or just a lectionary
Seasons of quiet reflection
Seasons of boisterous open prayer
Women in or not in main ministry
Consumption or abstaining from alcohol
How to understand the doctrine of the trinity
Republican or Democrat
Any ministry of man
Candles or no candles
A cross or no cross on the building

But Lee and the LRC define oneness in terms of position on every one of those items. They may be a little lax on a few of them. But they really do care what you think. They especially care whose ministry you read/follow.

Even where scripture makes reference to being of the same mind, it is not a broad statement, but referring to a specific thing. I'm not looking at it at the moment, but I believe it could be simplified down to being obedient and a servant. Reading the wrong Bible translation or disagreeing with Lee on some point is clearly not what it is talking about.

The whole "oneness" thing is doublespeak in that their position is one of the most not-one positions in the marketplace of Christian thinking. They not only think they are the only way, they condemn everyone else for associating with demons and Satan.

LRC Oneness = isolation, sectarianism, absolute agreement on everything.
Real Oneness = being one despite differences.

[zeek]

Love Feast=>pot luck recruitment dinner.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by OBW

While I do understand it, this "twoness" thing is a little silly. The real problem is their definition of oneness.

I am one with people that I do not entirely agree with. Oneness is to be standing solid with someone else. And our oneness is in Christ. It is in the fact that his sacrifice has paid the penalty for our sins and we have accepted that sacrifice as ours. It is in the common indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Our oneness is not in:...

Amen OBW. Amen.

I think this applies to my situation very well too.

Unfortunately, there are many in the LRC who will never understand or refuse to understand this fact.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right. If it isn't enough to meet on the ground of oneness because you also must be one with a ministry, it seems two onenesses are required. Two onenesses seems absurd. I think only one oneness is possible. What they were advocating was twoness.

Let's not mince words. Let's tell it the way it is/was.

The whole local church movement thrived on double-speak. I know this by my own personal experience in the local church.

There were two sides to their double-speak. On one side of the double-speak was the spiritual abstract. As long as I stayed on this side, as long as I believed the local church was God's movement on the earth, as long as I believed Witness Lee was God's spokesperson, and the elders were the local spokespersons, everything was fine.

The other side of the double-speak was the human element. That's where the troubles entered in. Once I saw that the local church movement was man led, not God led, then the spiritual bubble of the double-speak popped, and the whole house of cards came tumbling down.

This came to full light in the C. in Ft. Lauderdale when I discovered that the lead elder, Mel Porter, was seeding the meetings with a group of 14 loyal brothers, to control the flow of the "Spirit," and direct it as Mel Porter wanted.

That was the end of my enjoyment of the meetings. No longer could I believe the meetings were spirit led. I realized that I was deluded about spirit led meetings. It was all man led and manipulated at that point.

And once the human side of the double-speak was discovered, that was the end of the local church for me.

I left in the early 1980s. Eight or nine years later John I., Bill Malon, Max Rapaport, and others caught onto what I discovered long before them. They were slow learners as far as I'm concerned.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

This came to full light in the C. in Ft. Lauderdale when I discovered that the lead elder, Mel Porter, was seeding the meetings with a group of 14 loyal brothers, to control the flow of the "Spirit," and direct it as Mel Porter wanted.

That was the end of my enjoyment of the meetings. No longer could I believe the meetings were spirit led. I realized that I was deluded about spirit led meetings. It was all man led and manipulated at that point.

And once the human side of the double-speak was discovered, that was the end of the local church for me.

This was a standard practice in Houston, less so while in Irving because of the chaos caused by the construction and virtually non existent in Odessa. It also took place to some extent during trainings. This didn't sour me on the spirit being part of the meetings, instead I saw it similar to Galatians how Abraham had two children, one of the flesh and one of the Spirit.

I considered these brothers (I am not aware of any sisters that did this) to be flunkies (I think those in the world might also use the term brown nose). Anyway I think this is where EM discovered the use of the footnotes because imagine how hard it is to speak in the meeting when you have no leading of the Spirit. To help these brothers I feel strongly, though I have no firsthand knowledge, that they were told prior to the meeting what was going to be shared.

KR and EM were two of the key ones, but there were about 5 or 6 in Houston. 14 seems excessive.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

... when I discovered that the lead elder, Mel Porter, was seeding the meetings with a group of 14 loyal brothers, to control the flow of the "Spirit," and direct it as Mel Porter wanted.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This was a standard practice in Houston, less so while in Irving because of the chaos caused by the construction and virtually non existent in Odessa.

Can you say more about what was so offensive. We brothers always prepared for the meetings, what is so wrong with that?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can you say more about what was so offensive. We brothers always prepared for the meetings, what is so wrong with that?

I was told that we were not to "load our testimonies."

And brothers preparing their testimonies beforehand is one thing.

But the elder steering the "flow" with 14 brothers is quite another thing altogether.

No thanks to the latter. Why waste my time on amateur acting ...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I was told that we were not to "load our testimonies."

And brothers preparing their testimonies beforehand is one thing.

But the elder steering the "flow" with 14 brothers is quite another thing altogether.

No thanks to the latter. Why waste my time on amateur acting ...

What does that even mean?

What is it to "load our testimonies?"

What is so obnoxious about steering the "flow?"

How did you waste your time on "amateur acting?"

Can you speak this in the plainest of terms what has upset you so much?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What does that even mean?

What is it to "load our testimonies?"

What is so obnoxious about steering the "flow?"

How did you waste your time on "amateur acting?"

Can you speak this in the plainest of terms what has upset you so much?

The elders would try to manufacture excitement, similar to how Madison avenue works now. So they had a definite agenda not only in the message but also in the testimonies. So these brothers would get up and gesticulate and pretend to be all excited about some WL footnote. One brother like this and he is a nut, so they would get 3 or 4. Now EM was the expert at this, but because of the obscure quotes he would come up with you knew he had been told ahead of time what the message was on. Likewise KR would get up and share a second message so you know he was given a heads up. No one else but these few brothers were given a heads up because it gave them an edge at standing up. Second, since these brothers were given 5 minutes in a testimony and others would be shut down after 1 minute and because they would only have 30 minutes of testimonies it gave the elders almost complete control over the testimonies and therefore the testimony was in danger of being a sham. In Houston there were definitely two camps when it came to testimonies, there were those who were hawking all things LSM and then there were those that shared personal experiences.

Again, I just felt it made the experience more of a matter of the spirit, not less. You were competing against everything.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What does that even mean?

What is it to "load our testimonies?"

What is so obnoxious about steering the "flow?"

How did you waste your time on "amateur acting?"

Can you speak this in the plainest of terms what has upset you so much?

The phoniness of it all ... the flow sold as The Spirit when it was man's contrivance. Why do I need the contrivance of men?

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by awareness

Let's not mince words. Let's tell it the way it is/was.

This came to full light in the C. in Ft. Lauderdale when I discovered that the lead elder, Mel Porter, was seeding the meetings with a group of 14 loyal brothers, to control the flow of the "Spirit," and direct it as Mel Porter wanted.

I witnessed this also, in the Church in Calgary. I attended a Brother's meeting shortly after moving here, and that meeting was headed by the leading brother in Calgary, whom I will not name.

This brother instructed us brothers that we were to come earlier on Lord's Day mornings, in order to guide the singing. In his opinion, the singing was 'pathetic', and the songs chosen were often 'wrong'. If a saint called a song that we did not feel was appropriate, we were to either ignore it, or call another to ensure that 'the spirit continued to flow'.

Over the next few weeks, I saw this occur a number of times - where saints who called songs were completely ignored if the elder brothers felt what was called was 'inappropriate'.

Man lead indeed; and that man trampled and embarassed others.

[zeek]

Once I saw that the local church movement was man led, not God led, then the spiritual bubble of the double-speak popped, and the whole house of cards came tumbling down.

Same here.

This came to full light in the C. in Ft. Lauderdale when I discovered that the lead elder, Mel Porter, was seeding the meetings with a group of 14 loyal brothers, to control the flow of the "Spirit," and direct it as Mel Porter wanted.

Mel Porter was pivotal in bursting my bubble as well. Thank you Mel.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Same here.



Mel Porter was pivotal in bursting my bubble as well. Thank you Mel.

Yes, thank you Mel Porter. If only I could meet him again. I'd vigorously shake his hand and thank him for making it plain and obvious that I was in a cult and had to get out.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Wikipedia defines Doublespeak as "language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs), making the truth less unpleasant, without denying its nature. It may also be deployed as intentional ambiguity, or reversal of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth, producing a communication bypass."

The most obnoxious of all WL doublespeak was this little phrase "The Office."

We were all continually told about all the faithful serving brothers and sisters functioning as Levitical priests behind the scenes, carrying out the Lord's burden to spread the riches of Christ throughout the whole earth ... phooey! ...

but what WL really meant was his son, Philip, an unregenerate, obnoxious, can't even rise up to the level of a backslider, abusive bully who was in charge at LSM.

[OBW]

I honestly think that the LRC had a real dichotomy going on because they honestly believed that "all could prophesy" whether through speaking or the calling of songs, or whatever. The reality is that there needs to be order in the church. And that does not mean simply no chaos.

But in terms of the "spirit" of a meeting, a constant shift from what one thinks to what another thinks in terms of the things profitable for a meeting will always be subject to the whims of the individual if we all think that we are called to "prophesy" in the meeting and consider that even the calling of songs is a function of that, then we have also bought into the idea that everyone has the gift of prophesy. But we don't. And the discord and disruption to what the meeting could be is quite remarkable. But the LRC never really knew that because they presumed that the enjoyment of singing a song was proof of the Spirit's leading. And the membership's willingness to sing virtually anything that anyone called evidences that we are not automatically attuned to where the Spirit is leading. But if one of the leading ones suddenly jumps up calls something else, we then could be swayed to believe that the Spirit really was leading somewhere else.

Reminds me of something that happened this weekend. Took a trip to the Hill Country with my wife (32nd anniversary) to stay in a BnB out in the country. The first evening we went into the nearby town a little late for something to eat. Only one place still open, Ino'z, and there was outdoor seating and a little band — really a singer with three players behind him. Sang his own Willie Nelson kind of country (enjoyable even for someone who doesn't particularly like country). But three times this little girl would sort of slip up to the band and say something. First time, the guy start playing "You are my Sunshine" afterward. Then she did it again a little later, and he played "If You're Happy and You Know It." It happened a third time. Don't recall what it was she asked for, but the man politely did something a little different, but acceptable to her. I could complain about the parents that needed to stop their 4 to 5 year old from completely altering the song set of a 60 to 70 year old man. But the real thing is that unless he asks for input (which he did not) one child directed what was ultimately 30 percent of the last set for the evening.

In many churches, songs are picked in advance as a cohesive plan of worship and often with at least a little bit of the direction of the coming sermon buried in it. Whether you do or don't like the format, in the end somewhere between 2 and 4 people effectively "prophesy" through their words, singing/leading in song, etc. But the LRC thinks there is this command that it be a free-for-all and that is the way most think is right. Yet there is no order in that. The topic for the day is taking up your cross but the songs are about resting and freedom because that was what the congregation wanted. The topic then seems to fight with the singing.

So, while not based on some detailed analysis of scripture, it would seem that the LRC almost had a conflict of definitions by claiming that all can prophesy while needing to keep things "in order." Mel P may not have done a good job of it. And the tension between keeping things on track while maintaining a false sense of openness probably was a real problem in all places. But it is more a testimony to the error of thinking that everyone is a prophet than a charge to lay at the feet of those whose responsibility was maintaining order. They tried to do it without directly saying that you really can't all prophesy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

So, while not based on some detailed analysis of scripture, it would seem that the LRC almost had a conflict of definitions by claiming that all can prophesy while needing to keep things "in order." Mel P may not have done a good job of it. And the tension between keeping things on track while maintaining a false sense of openness probably was a real problem in all places. But it is more a testimony to the error of thinking that everyone is a prophet than a charge to lay at the feet of those whose responsibility was maintaining order. They tried to do it without directly saying that you really can't all prophesy.

Leaving aside what Paul actually meant by "all can prophesy," the LC way of liberty in speaking was still just another way of service. Many churches have modified that pattern over time. They had too.

The bigger issue for me is leaving the scripture itself for LSM's weekly handouts. The elders cannot minister according the saints need, nor do they even consider what they need nor what the Lord wants to speak.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I honestly think that the LRC had a real dichotomy going on because they honestly believed that "all could prophesy" whether through speaking or the calling of songs, or whatever. The reality is that there needs to be order in the church. And that does not mean simply no chaos..

Bro Mike I remember the days when there was no "plan" for the meeting, preaching on the cross or otherwise. The meeting would be started by the first ones that showed up, and the flow would go from there.

Then came the Life Studies, and LEE'S structure was brought in. The Life Studies, for example, killed Elden Hall. They were actually death studies, and a way for Lee to take control.

And Mel Porter did his control of the meetings in the C. of Ft. Lauderdale in a sneaky way. Mel picked the 14 brothers that he used to control the meetings by how loyal they were to him. So most in the meetings he controlled didn't know that the meeting was seeded with controlling brothers.

And Mel Porter couldn't give a cohesive sermon if his life depended upon it. Mel Porter had to spiritual depth. Mel's "gift" was blind loyalty, to Witness Lee. And Lee chose him as an elder not because Mel had spiritual depth, but because he was blindly loyal to him.

Mel was about loyalty and commitment to Lee, and directed the meetings to that end.

It was a farce....a phony farce.

It would have been more honest had he issued a Program like so many churches do, with everything spelled out.

[zeek]

Mel Porter's sermons were incoherent rambling things that killed many a meeting for me. By the way, what did we call sermons in the LC? Whatever it was it was doublespeak because there most certainly were a lot of long-winded sermons.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Mel Porter's sermons were incoherent rambling things that killed many a meeting for me. By the way, what did we call sermons in the LC? Whatever it was it was doublespeak because there most certainly were a lot of long-winded sermons.

The local church is a great place to be from.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Mike I remember the days when there was no "plan" for the meeting, preaching on the cross or otherwise. The meeting would be started by the first ones that showed up, and the flow would go from there.

Then came the Life Studies, and LEE'S structure was brought in. The Life Studies, for example, killed Elden Hall. They were actually death studies, and a way for Lee to take control.

It seems this had more to do with the outpouring of the Spirit by God during the Jesus movement of the 60's. That kind of spontaneity is proof of the moving of the Spirit, not exclusive to the LC's, but indicative of many gatherings of the day.

Your comment about Elden was first spoken by Hosepipe. It was shocking to me at the time, shattering old myths long spoken in the recovery.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

I was told that we were not to "load our testimonies."

And brothers preparing their testimonies beforehand is one thing.

But the elder steering the "flow" with 14 brothers is quite another thing altogether.

No thanks to the latter. Why waste my time on amateur acting ...

Amateur acting? That's my impression of what prophesying became....a performance. Maybe I am expressing how saints are limited in their prophesying. For example during the week I may enjoy something from the Word or something from another ministry that would have nothing to relate to the Holy Word for Morning Revival.

Steering the flow, I can relate. When a single brother in 1996 I witnessed a casual conversation between an elder and another (elder/deacon?). A thought was suggested going to the Life Lessons in lieu of Holy Word for Morning Revival. I was all for it. At the time I had been reading the Life Lessons on my own. Then the brother whom I'm not sure if he was a deacon or an elder made the suggestion there could be a slected group of brothers who would ask questions at the end. Kind losses the element of spontanaity. When it came down to it, our locality wasn't about to pull a "Spokane". Meaning aborting the Holy Word for Morning Revival for a publication book. Like I said, I would have been in favor for this direction.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

The local church is a great place to be from.

Kinda like Detroit...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Mike I remember the days when there was no "plan" for the meeting, preaching on the cross or otherwise. The meeting would be started by the first ones that showed up, and the flow would go from there.

Then came the Life Studies, and LEE'S structure was brought in. The Life Studies, for example, killed Elden Hall. They were actually death studies, and a way for Lee to take control.

And Mel Porter did his control of the meetings in the C. of Ft. Lauderdale in a sneaky way. Mel picked the 14 brothers that he used to control the meetings by how loyal they were to him. So most in the meetings he controlled didn't know that the meeting was seeded with controlling brothers.

And Mel Porter couldn't give a cohesive sermon if his life depended upon it. Mel Porter had to spiritual depth. Mel's "gift" was blind loyalty, to Witness Lee. And Lee chose him as an elder not because Mel had spiritual depth, but because he was blindly loyal to him.

Mel was about loyalty and commitment to Lee, and directed the meetings to that end.

It was a farce....a phony farce.

It would have been more honest had he issued a Program like so many churches do, with everything spelled out.

Harold,

Having open meetings some of the time is all well and good. But just getting together and seeing where we go is not a proper understanding of Paul's directions to the most chaotic church in the NT. Mel Porter may have eventually done too much to direct the meetings. But the fact that he tried to direct the meetings at all is a credit to his understanding of his position as an elder.

And while just loyalty to Mel is not necessarily a good way to chose your lieutenants, finding a way to shepherd a meeting along that is not overly obtrusive or seen (unless you already know it is going on) is not necessarily bad. I'm not saying that Mel didn't go too far with it. But you are treating it as if the fact that he did anything was unChristian. It may have been unexpected in the face of the way the LRC had gone before. But that presumes that the free-for-all of the former days was actually good. I'm not sure it really was.

Someone had to stand up in a meeting in Dallas and tell people to quit bringing the green and white pom poms to the meetings. It may have been a little annoying to people like me (who went to the high school where the green and white pom poms came from), but it was absolutely consistent with the "flow" that had been going on in Dallas (and it seems in some of the other Texas cities) for some time. So there should have been no control? There absolutely should have been some control over the chaos that came. (BTW, it was either JI or JB that cast out the pom poms.)

You have a problem with Mel. And it is probably rather legitimate. But, like Lee, it doesn't make his entire existence wrong. He may not have been a good elder. He may not have been one apt to teach. That doesn't make all aspects of his attempts to reign-in some of the chaos wrong. Maybe he wasn't the best choice for elder. But he was what you had.

And by the way. Where does it say that a meeting of the church cannot be somewhat spelled-out? That negative is a declaration of Lee and the LRC. But I do not find it stated in such terms in scripture. Instead, I find something about "in order." About restraint. In fact, the liturgy of a "high church" looks more like what Paul described in 1 Cor 14 than the LRC. No, it is not my preference either. But it is not simply bankrupt or reprobate for not being LRC-like. I prefer the mixture of modern and ancient, liturgy and fundamentalism (without the head bashing) that I see each week. But that does not make it best. But it is, like so many others, quite acceptable.

And you know I don't defend the LRC. But I don't just bash it either. Neither should you. It is not good for your blood pressure. Or your spiritual condition. Help us in the process of providing useful feedback on the LRC. Don't just rant. (OK. Rant occasionally. Just not all the time.)

[TLFisher]

Since this thread is on double-speak brings me to the word fellowship. The way it has been used can confuse a believer.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

Since this thread is on double-speak brings me to the word fellowship. The way it has been used can confuse a believer.

well it should not be confused with fellowhip, which is also practiced in the LRC.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I honestly think that the LRC had a real dichotomy going on because they honestly believed that "all could prophesy" whether through speaking or the calling of songs, or whatever. The reality is that there needs to be order in the church. And that does not mean simply no chaos.

It depends a lot on who the elders are. In Houston the elders were strict, they would tell saints to sit down that had gotten off track, they would limit testimonies, the standing rule was no testimony over 5 minutes, but often they would say due to the time no testimony over 1 minute or no testimony over 30 seconds. Another tactic was to have an elder who hadn't shared the message stand up about 15 minutes into the testimonies, share for about 5+ minutes to sort of sum up the key points and then close the meeting.

When Paul says "all can prophesy" I don't see that as "all should prophesy" or "all will prophesy" or "all want to prophesy". Rather, I see that to mean that in a meeting you should have a format that does allow anyone in the congregation to speak. If you don't then what you have is a lecture. In the US all can play baseball. That doesn't mean that all will play baseball, or all even want to play baseball, it just means that if you have a 6 year old girl and she wants to play baseball, she can. This also doesn't mean that just because she can play baseball on a team, that there isn't a coach. If she says she wants to pitch the coach can still say no. Also, it doesn't mean that just because she wants to play that she is going to play that much. She might not be a starter. But even so, she will get to play some. That is a lot more than can be said for some churches. I have definitely been in "christian" meetings where it is certainly not true that "all can prophesy".

Now practicing this is difficult because it is messy. In NY the elders are quick to change songs that have been called, often after singing the first verse, they are not shy about it at all. I think that is a good thing. In other words, yes all can call a song, but you need to learn how to do it. What is the burden of the meeting? What is the context? Etc. If there is no correction, no rebuke, no discipline, then there is also no training. If you are so thin skinned that having your song "rejected" by the elders causes you to crawl up into your shell, then you need to examine your motives.

However, I have also seen this abused. In Irving they were brutal towards a lot of "new" brothers that were there to build the meeting hall. It may be that they wanted to discourage the brothers from coming to the meetings (yes, I was told directly that there was no need to go to the meetings) but I think it was certainly abusive. Ben M was probably the worst culprit (RG was always on the construction site and BP was often not there, so he was left to run the mtgs, and this right before his being expelled).

I have also seen the elders use inuendo to damage and smear saints in an attempt to establish their authority. So, like a pendulum this can swing both ways, some saints are childish and untrained in their participation, and some elders are abusive and speak with a forked tongue. In the end, everyone gets exposed in the light.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

Amateur acting? That's my impression of what prophesying became....a performance. Maybe I am expressing how saints are limited in their prophesying. For example during the week I may enjoy something from the Word or something from another ministry that would have nothing to relate to the Holy Word for Morning Revival.

Steering the flow, I can relate. When a single brother in 1996 I witnessed a casual conversation between an elder and another (elder/deacon?). A thought was suggested going to the Life Lessons in lieu of Holy Word for Morning Revival. I was all for it. At the time I had been reading the Life Lessons on my own. Then the brother whom I'm not sure if he was a deacon or an elder made the suggestion there could be a slected group of brothers who would ask questions at the end. Kind losses the element of spontanaity. When it came down to it, our locality wasn't about to pull a "Spokane". Meaning aborting the Holy Word for Morning Revival for a publication book. Like I said, I would have been in favor for this direction.

There is always the pressure to speak and often you don't even know if you have anything worth sharing. I remember one time I had shared a testimony in the Lord's table meeting and wanted to stand up a second time, but the Lord said no, pray for someone else. So I began to pray and as I did I saw this sister who seemed to be struggling, so I began to pray for her to speak, and for about 15 minutes you could see she was struggling more and more and I knew she must have something and so I was praying. And then she stood up and she shared this gospel experience she had that was wonderful, really amazing. Yet for 15 minutes she struggled, obviously wondering if she should speak at all. That is the other part, there is always that fear what if I stand up and get exposed?

Now if you take someone with no genuine experience and you put them in that environment and they try to control that environment, the only way is through amateur acting.

To me it was a wonderful menagerie, you saw the phonies and the genuine saints and the real shepherds, the real teachers, the real prophets. How else could people exercise their gifts? WL taught then when you share your testimony in a meeting it is like investing your talent with the bankers. I think this is true.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Harold,

Having open meetings some of the time is all well and good. But just getting together and seeing where we go is not a proper understanding of Paul's directions to the most chaotic church in the NT. Mel Porter may have eventually done too much to direct the meetings. But the fact that he tried to direct the meetings at all is a credit to his understanding of his position as an elder.

True. I see one valid way that an elder should direct the meetings of the church is to create an environment where the saints can grow and mature in the exercise of their gifts. Say what you like about them, but when I was in Houston RG, KR, and EM were also there as young brothers. Some may know Clem R, an elder, preceded my by only a year or two. There were many saints that came out of a relatively small church of 200 saints to become gifted members of the Body. So that environment where it was a given that in any meeting "all could prophesy" (though it was also a given that "all could be rebuked", "all could be chastened", etc.) is the same environment that many gifted brothers and sisters came out of.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

Mel Porter may have eventually done too much to direct the meetings. But the fact that he tried to direct the meetings at all is a credit to his understanding of his position as an elder.

And while just loyalty to Mel is not necessarily a good way to chose your lieutenants, finding a way to shepherd a meeting along that is not overly obtrusive or seen (unless you already know it is going on) is not necessarily bad. I'm not saying that Mel didn't go too far with it. But you are treating it as if the fact that he did anything was unChristian. It may have been unexpected in the face of the way the LRC had gone before. But that presumes that the free-for-all of the former days was actually good. I'm not sure it really was...........

And by the way. Where does it say that a meeting of the church cannot be somewhat spelled-out? That negative is a declaration of Lee and the LRC. But I do not find it stated in such terms in scripture. Instead, I find something about "in order." About restraint............

Like awareness said, if you're gonna have a program, have a program.

But is that the same thing as an elder playing this game of, "Hey look at me, look at how cleverly I can treat the meeting like a fast-paced game of chess, maneuvering the pieces to shape the board just how I want it! -- aren't we clever?"

All the while boasting in how much they let "the Spirit" flow in their meetings, in a way "Chris-chee-aa-nity" does not.

Is that the same thing?

P.S. I'm exaggerating. But am I exaggerating that much?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

True. I see one valid way that an elder should direct the meetings of the church is to create an environment where the saints can grow and mature in the exercise of their gifts. Say what you like about them, but when I was in Houston RG, KR, and EM were also there as young brothers. Some may know Clem R, an elder, preceded my by only a year or two. There were many saints that came out of a relatively small church of 200 saints to become gifted members of the Body. So that environment where it was a given that in any meeting "all could prophesy" (though it was also a given that "all could be rebuked", "all could be chastened", etc.) is the same environment that many gifted brothers and sisters came out of.

Funny how "gifted" seems to coincide with "steadfastly toes the party line"...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

True. I see one valid way that an elder should direct the meetings of the church is to create an environment where the saints can grow and mature in the exercise of their gifts. Say what you like about them, but when I was in Houston RG, KR, and EM were also there as young brothers. Some may know Clem R, an elder, preceded my by only a year or two. There were many saints that came out of a relatively small church of 200 saints to become gifted members of the Body. So that environment where it was a given that in any meeting "all could prophesy" (though it was also a given that "all could be rebuked", "all could be chastened", etc.) is the same environment that many gifted brothers and sisters came out of.

Are you saying that ClemR was just like KR and EM?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Like awareness said, if you're gonna have a program, have a program.

But is that the same thing as an elder playing this game of, "Hey look at me, look at how cleverly I can treat the meeting like a fast-paced game of chess, maneuvering the pieces to shape the board just how I want it! -- aren't we clever?"

All the while boasting in how much they let "the Spirit" flow in their meetings, in a way "Chris-chee-aa-nity" does not.

Is that the same thing?

P.S. I'm exaggerating. But am I exaggerating that much?

But in the LRC they (we) define(d) the flow of the Spirit in terms of the freedom that we had to go where we wanted and to what we enjoyed. And we defined the presence of the Spirit by our feelings.

If 2 or 3 should prophesy, then there is order. If all refers to the 2 or 3 then there is order. If all refers to the congregation, then there is chaos. But it might be enjoyable and give a good feeling.

We may be long gone from the LRC, but do we still use it and its meetings as a yardstick for the "flow of the Spirit" without discovering whether the Spirit was, in fact, flowing in those meetings? Or have we presumed that what we called the Spirit in those days was actually the Spirit and not just our personal enjoyment of freedom from old forms?

And we presume that the Spirit does not flow in well-organized meetings. Why? Because Lee said so? Because they aren't full of everyone "Prophesying"? Are we sure that is prophesying? Or is it just everyone talking and feeling good because they were allowed to speak?

And for any quick response, on what basis do you respond in the manner that you do?

I'm not answering. I don't think scripture gives us the kind of direction that was given in the LRC. That doesn't make other ways right or wrong. It just makes the ways less important. But are we presuming that the LRC way (when not directed by Mel Porter) is simply the way?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm not answering. I don't think scripture gives us the kind of direction that was given in the LRC. That doesn't make other ways right or wrong. It just makes the ways less important. But are we presuming that the LRC way (when not directed by Mel Porter) is simply the way?

I agree. All kinds of "ways" can be good for the church, but no way is "the" way. Only Jesus is "the" way. He told us that.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree. All kinds of "ways" can be good for the church, but no way is "the" way. Only Jesus is "the" way. He told us that.

I like your answer. But what does it mean? There seem to be more Jesuses than there are believers. Who decides which one if any is the true? Same with the spirit. How does one determine if a meeting is Spirit-led or not? There seems to be no way to get beyond mere opinion. No wonder Jesus said "if two of you shall agree..." Maybe he recognized it was nearly impossible for his followers to agree on anything.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I like your answer. But what does it mean? There seem to be more Jesuses than there are believers. Who decides which one if any is the true. Same with the spirit. How does one determine if a meeting is Spirit led or not. There seems to be no way to get beyond mere opinion. No wonder Jesus said "if two of you shall agree..." Maybe he recognized it was nearly impossible for his followers to agree on anything.

That saying came out of the "New Way" fiasco, with WL in his FTTT "laboratory" looking to "recover" the "way" to end all ways, as if the Spirit of God would once for all decide that "one way," other than Jesus Himself, could be the "way" to meet the needs of all God's people on earth, whether they be university scholars, street kids, African nations, housewives, the persecuted or the affluent.

Never in church history did the Spirit of God mandate just one "way" for all God's children. Each believer must find the "way" from the Lord to meet his/her needs. Each eldership must find a way or ways to meet the needs of their church flock.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Having open meetings some of the time is all well and good....
....And while just loyalty to Mel is not necessarily a good way to chose your lieutenants, finding a way to shepherd a meeting along that is not overly obtrusive or seen (unless you already know it is going on) is not necessarily bad. I'm not saying that Mel didn't go too far with it. But you are treating it as if the fact that he did anything was unChristian.

I grew up with structured meetings and services. And most church services today are structured and spelled out. Most provide a Program at the door that spells it all out. The Church of Christ I attended here for a couple of years spelled out even who would say what prayer and when.

And what I learn most from these types of structured meetings is, the meaning of eternity. Cuz it seems like they last for an eternity. Such structure is literally painful for me to sit thru.

One thing that attracted me to the local church was that their meetings were not spelled out. Those meetings were the high peaks to me.

It may have been unexpected in the face of the way the LRC had gone before. But that presumes that the free-for-all of the former days was actually good. I'm not sure it really was.

Say what you want, but Spirit led meetings were sweet meetings. Much preferred by me than structured meetings, which is like eating sticks and straw to me.

Someone had to stand up in a meeting in Dallas and tell people to quit bringing the green and white pom poms to the meetings. It may have been a little annoying to people like me (who went to the high school where the green and white pom poms came from), but it was absolutely consistent with the "flow" that had been going on in Dallas (and it seems in some of the other Texas cities) for some time. So there should have been no control? There absolutely should have been some control over the chaos that came. (BTW, it was either JI or JB that cast out the pom poms.)

Pom poms? Funny. Glad I missed out on that flow.

You have a problem with Mel. And it is probably rather legitimate. But, like Lee, it doesn't make his entire existence wrong. He may not have been a good elder. He may not have been one apt to teach. That doesn't make all aspects of his attempts to reign-in some of the chaos wrong. Maybe he wasn't the best choice for elder. But he was what you had.

Praise the Lord for Mel Porter. He made it very plain and impossible to not to admit that I was in a cult and had to leave the local church. Mel, if by chance you are reading this, thank you, thank, you, thank you!!!

And by the way. Where does it say that a meeting of the church cannot be somewhat spelled-out? That negative is a declaration of Lee and the LRC. But I do not find it stated in such terms in scripture. Instead, I find something about "in order." About restraint. In fact, the liturgy of a "high church" looks more like what Paul described in 1 Cor 14 than the LRC.

Yes Paul says " Let all things be done decently and in order," But says nothing about scripted meetings.

And you know I don't defend the LRC. But I don't just bash it either. Neither should you. It is not good for your blood pressure. Or your spiritual condition. Help us in the process of providing useful feedback on the LRC. Don't just rant. (OK. Rant occasionally. Just not all the time.)

The body needs the function of all members. Yours maybe a Pollyanna function. And perchance mine is the function of the immunity system of the body.

Pollyanna's father gave her crutches for a Christmas present, so that she would learn to "be glad" that "we don't need them."

And that's where I identify with Pollyanna. God gave me the local church so that I'd be glad that I don't need it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That saying came out of the "New Way" fiasco, with WL in his FTTT "laboratory" looking to "recover" the "way" to end all ways, as if the Spirit of God would once for all decide that "one way," other than Jesus Himself, could be the "way" to meet the needs of all God's people on earth, whether they be university scholars, street kids, African nations, housewives, the persecuted or the affluent.

Never in church history did the Spirit of God mandate just one "way" for all God's children. Each believer must find the "way" from the Lord to meet his/her needs. Each eldership must find a way or ways to meet the needs of their church flock.

OK then Jesus isn't really THE WAY? Church history may not be the best guide for practicing the church life. According the record the historic church is a mess.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK then Jesus isn't really THE WAY? Church history may not be the best guide for practicing the church life. According the record the historic church is a mess.

It's precisely because there is not one way in terms of doctrine or practice that Jesus said He was the way. Yes, Jesus is the way. But Ohio meant doctrine and practice. You should have realized that.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Say what you want, but Spirit led meetings were sweet meetings. Much preferred by me than structured meetings, which is like eating sticks and straw to me.

You have created a dichotomy that you presume to be true. But there is no evidence that it is anything but a false dichotomy.

And a sweet meeting was not necessarily "Spirit led." And some of those "sticks and straw" structured meetings may have been fully "Spirit led."

Don't confuse the form, or lack of form, as indicating the presence/leading of the Spirit. It is a learned preference. There are many good Christians that would flee from a LRC-type meeting for their liturgy because they find God in it. Anyone who says differently is simply selling their way as "the way." Once again, the only "way" is Jesus. Everything else is a form. And there are different forms. None are definitionally "more Jesus" than another or "more Spirit" than another.

I find it funny that we are so often determined that to resurrect the form that allowed the problems that we now complain about so strongly. It almost seems like the person who continually gets into bad relationships like the one they just got out of. Seems that way down inside there is something in them that thinks the kind of person that ultimately is wrong for them is actually right for them. I'm not saying that LRC-style meetings are simply wrong or bad. But we get burned by what happens over time with one of them but are so enamored with how it started up that we are willing to risk it again to get that feeling back. Like that first hit of cocaine or heroin. "If we could just return to Eldon Hall in the 60s." Or "Plainview in 65." (Don't ask. Plainview is a blip on the map between Lubbock and Amarillo with a Baptist college.)

We all want the "good ole days" but don't recall that at the time they were referred to as "these tryin' times."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's precisely because there is not one way in terms of doctrine or practice that Jesus said He was the way. Yes, Jesus is the way. But Ohio meant doctrine and practice. You should have realized that.

So I should have realized that when we get down to the business of doctrine and practice, Jesus is not the way. So is "I am the Way" just a slogan?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I like your answer. But what does it mean? There seem to be more Jesuses than there are believers. Who decides which one if any is the true? Same with the spirit. How does one determine if a meeting is Spirit-led or not? There seems to be no way to get beyond mere opinion. No wonder Jesus said "if two of you shall agree..." Maybe he recognized it was nearly impossible for his followers to agree on anything.

I recently read a book in which the author early on describes the "seven Jesuses I have known." And he was right. So many groups sub-define Jesus through their lens, highlighting certain attributes and ignoring or downplaying others. But if we take a look at the highlights in the various groups, we actually get a more robust view of Jesus than any one of them.

And which one is true? All of them. (Well, there may be something false to be found somewhere, but we are talking about true Christianity.) Jesus is the Savior, Redeemer. He is the leader and servant. He is our elder brother and the one who makes us brothers (something that seems more father-like). He said to abide and to obey. He said to disciple, to baptize, and to teach. He said to love everyone like you love yourself. He said to care for the widow, orphan and the poor. He said to love God with your whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. He was a child born of a virgin. He is the mighty God. He is meek and he cleared the Temple.

If you only want one of those, or only the ones that display certain attributes, then you are seeking only part of what God is.

[zeek]

Here's some doublespeak for ya. We are all just brothers and sisters. The clergy-laity system is part of poor poor Christianty. It ain't happening in the local churches. It just happens that the "saints" are provding a stipend, paying the rent and maintaining the homes of some of the "brothers" who give messages (read sermons), fellowship with the "saints" (read counsel them) and make the important decisions. In other words, some of the Brothers were clergy in everything but name.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

So I should have realized that when we get down to the business of doctrine and practice, Jesus is not the way. So is "I am the Way" just a slogan?

"The way" is a term that has different meanings. When Jesus said he was/s "the way" he was referring to the gateway to God ( in so many words). But there are many "ways" to do things. Those are not "the way" but merely "ways." Sounds confusing. But chairs in a circle is a way to meet. But it is not a way to get to God. Singing songs selected by a song leader and accompanied by a band is a way to worship. It is not "the way to God" but it might be "a way" if in doing it you contact God.

"I am the Way" is not a slogan. It just has different meaning from other uses of the term "way." When people try to push them together as if they are talking about the same thing, it is a form of equivocation. Not necessarily and intentional ruse, but an erroneous treating of two different definitions or uses as if they are one and the same. A confusion caused by the fact that the same word is used in more than one way.

So if someone says that they do something a certain way and you respond with "our only way is Jesus" you are confused about the use of the term "way," or you are trying to create a confusion in the other person for the purpose of lifting up yourself or making an argument. Either is equivocation. The latter was practiced by Lee on many occasions. The former was probably practiced by the rest of us in our ignorance due to the teachings of Lee.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I recently read a book in which the author early on describes the "seven Jesuses I have known." And he was right. So many groups sub-define Jesus through their lens, highlighting certain attributes and ignoring or downplaying others. But if we take a look at the highlights in the various groups, we actually get a more robust view of Jesus than any one of them.

And which one is true? All of them. (Well, there may be something false to be found somewhere, but we are talking about true Christianity.) Jesus is the Savior, Redeemer. He is the leader and servant. He is our elder brother and the one who makes us brothers (something that seems more father-like). He said to abide and to obey. He said to disciple, to baptize, and to teach. He said to love everyone like you love yourself. He said to care for the widow, orphan and the poor. He said to love God with your whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. He was a child born of a virgin. He is the mighty God. He is meek and he cleared the Temple.

If you only want one of those, or only the ones that display certain attributes, then you are seeking only part of what God is.

The problem comes when some of those Jesuses are contradictory and therefore mutually exclusive. Like the pacifist Jesus and the one who leads Christians into war. Or how about the reticent Jesus of the synoptic gospels and the self preaching Jesus of the Gospel of John? These are problems for people who find contradictions illogical. The greatest of these is the problem of the claims that Jesus was both man and God. I maintain that there is no rational way of explaining that claim.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here's some doublespeak for ya. We are all just brothers and sisters. The clergy-laity system is part of poor poor Christianity. It ain't happening in the local churches. It just happens that the "saints" are providing a stipend, paying the rent and maintaining the homes of some of the "brothers" who give messages (read sermons), fellowship with the "saints" (read counsel them) and make the important decisions. In other words, some of the Brothers were clergy in everything but name.

Yep. That is classic double-speak.

"We don't have clergy. We just have full-timers."

"We don't have clergy. We just have leadership."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

The problem comes when some of those Jesuses are contradictory and therefore mutually exclusive. Like the pacifist Jesus and the one who leads Christians into war. Or how about the reticent Jesus of the synoptic gospels and the self preaching Jesus of the Gospel of John? These are problems for people who find contradictions illogical. The greatest of these is the problem of the claims that Jesus was both man and God. I maintain that there is no rational way of explaining that claim.

Virtually all of the aspects of Jesus that you describe as contradictory are overlays. Jesus was not decidedly pacifist or leading to war. "Onward, Christian Soldiers" is metaphorically questionable. But those who declare a pacifist Jesus are also extending beyond what is written. As for reticence v self-preaching, that is a matter of topic and coverage. Neither is an absolute to the exclusion of the other. They are all aspects of Jesus.

Where is the contradiction? Taking one position in a certain set of circumstances and a different position in different circumstances does not create a contradiction. It provides an insight to a complex truth that is coherent and non-contradictory. We may not fully understand it. But to assert otherwise is to suggest that God is random, arbitrary and capricious.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

"The way" is a term that has different meanings. When Jesus said he was/s "the way" he was referring to the gateway to God ( in so many words). But there are many "ways" to do things. Those are not "the way" but merely "ways." Sounds confusing. But chairs in a circle is a way to meet. But it is not a way to get to God. Singing songs selected by a song leader and accompanied by a band is a way to worship. It is not "the way to God" but it might be "a way" if in doing it you contact God.

"I am the Way" is not a slogan. It just has different meaning from other uses of the term "way." When people try to push them together as if they are talking about the same thing, it is a form of equivocation. Not necessarily and intentional ruse, but an erroneous treating of two different definitions or uses as if they are one and the same. A confusion caused by the fact that the same word is used in more than one way.

So if someone says that they do something a certain way and you respond with "our only way is Jesus" you are confused about the use of the term "way," or you are trying to create a confusion in the other person for the purpose of lifting up yourself or making an argument. Either is equivocation. The latter was practiced by Lee on many occasions. The former was probably practiced by the rest of us in our ignorance due to the teachings of Lee.

That's a pretty standard teaching. It's a bit more complicated. Everything else being equal, simplicity is a good truth criteria. So according to your interpetation, Jesus is the way to God, but he's not the way to live, or meet, think, or sing, etc. Do you have scriptural support for your narrower application of the saying? How would you square that with Paul's saying that he can do all things through Christ?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

So I should have realized that when we get down to the business of doctrine and practice, Jesus is not the way. So is "I am the Way" just a slogan?

No, it's that one should know the difference between doctrine/practice and Jesus. Or at least you should know when someone is referring to one or the other.

In any case, Jesus said he was the way to the Father's house (Jn 14:6). He didn't say he was the way to have meetings, sing songs or teach. He did say we should meet in Spirit. But he never said he was the practice.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's a pretty standard teaching. It's a bit more complicated. Everything else being equal, simplicity is a good truth criteria. So according to your interpetation, Jesus is the way to God, but he's not the way to live, or meet, think, or sing, etc. Do you have scriptural support for your narrower application of the saying? How would you square that with Paul's saying that he can do all things through Christ?

If you can tell us how to do everything by just looking to Jesus, and never have any set practices, then I'm all ears. But I doubt you can. I'm sure you have all kinds of habits and practices you do simply from memory. Or do you have to learn directly from Jesus again every day how to brush your teeth?

You are talking idealist theory. Until you can demonstrate someone who has achieved what you are arguing for, it's silly to argue for it. What's the point?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here's some doublespeak for ya. We are all just brothers and sisters. The clergy-laity system is part of poor poor Christianty. It ain't happening in the local churches. It just happens that the "saints" are provding a stipend, paying the rent and maintaining the homes of some of the "brothers" who give messages (read sermons), fellowship with the "saints" (read counsel them) and make the important decisions. In other words, some of the Brothers were clergy in everything but name.

The clergy/laity doublespeak always rubbed me the wrong way. We said we had no clergy/laity system but that wasn't true at all. We just arranged it differently than the traditional Christian clergy/laity systems.

Our clergy/laity system was based around Witness Lee. He was our top clergy, with Lee appointed co-workers clergy on the payroll.

Our hypocritical clergy/laity system never did sit right with me.

And what did the co-workers that left the local church do? They went on to become clergy elsewhere.

No clergy/laity system? What a joke? Now the Blended Bummers are the clergy in the Living Stream Ministry local churches ... and Ron Kangas is the lead clergy....

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's a pretty standard teaching. It's a bit more complicated. Everything else being equal, simplicity is a good truth criteria. So according to your interpretation, Jesus is the way to God, but he's not the way to live, or meet, think, or sing, etc. Do you have scriptural support for your narrower application of the saying? How would you square that with Paul's saying that he can do all things through Christ?

I would argue that saying "Jesus is the way to live" is meaningless because it ignores the specificity of the question/issue. It takes the focus off the question. That does not mean that, at some level, you can't say that the answer is consistent with Jesus. But to simply say "the answer is Jesus" is no better than saying that the answer is going to more meetings.

This is a lot like Lee's "grace is just Jesus" teaching. It removes the meaning of grace from the discussion. It masks any evidence that there actually is grace by ignoring it. That does not mean that Jesus is not grace. But it means that we understand the grace of Jesus by actually observing/experiencing that grace. Grace is something that is only realized when it is actually realized. If I "refuse grace and just take Jesus" (or something like that) I don't really know what I have. It is just something that I call Jesus. And I might be wrong.

And we find that Jesus is the way by discovering the actual, practical ways that are consistent with Jesus. With the scripture. With God's righteousness. Etc. We don't find it by just saying it is Jesus. That is the problem with over generalizations. Lee said everything was just the dispensing of God. So you don't have to obey. Just get dispensing. Just get Jesus as the way. Whatever that means.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are you saying that ClemR was just like KR and EM?

No. I'm saying that a church meeting in which "all can prophesy" can be done in a way that results in mature saints who are able to bear responsibility in the church.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

The clergy/laity doublespeak always rubbed me the wrong way. We said we had no clergy/laity system but that wasn't true at all. We just arranged it differently than the traditional Christian clergy/laity systems.

Our clergy/laity system was based around Witness Lee. He was our top clergy, with Lee appointed co-workers clergy on the payroll.

Our hypocritical clergy/laity system never did sit right with me.

And what did the co-workers that left the local church do? They went on to become clergy elsewhere.

No clergy/laity system? What a joke? Now the Blended Bummers are the clergy in the Living Stream Ministry local churches ... and Ron Kangas is the lead clergy....

BTW. I doubt that there is even a small home church that does not have some kind of clergy. It might not even be one of the participants. But there is someone(s) that they look to for stability, guidance, etc.

This whole "bad clergy/laity" thing is a boogeyman propped-up to shoot at while the one propping it up is becoming your clergy. Much better to be open about who is and is not clergy. And have expectations of your clergy. And accountability.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No. I'm saying that a church meeting in which "all can prophesy" can be done in a way that results in mature saints who are able to bear responsibility in the church.

The real question is whether a church meeting in which "all can prophesy" is described in scripture. I'm not saying that it is a bad idea. Just wondering if the scripture that is used to support it really says that.

And beyond that, whether it is possible for "all" to actually prophesy in the context of the use of the term in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. It seems that there is a gift of prophesying — it is not everyone's gift. And that 2 or 3 were to be designated to prophesy in a meeting — not all.

Is "all prophesying," meaning everyone present (whether you want to say can or should), actually taught? Or is that a misinterpretation? Not saying that it is always bad for any meeting to have what we would now call "open mic" or a testimony meeting. Just that I don't see it defined as the normal case.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

You have created a dichotomy that you presume to be true. But there is no evidence that it is anything but a false dichotomy.

And a sweet meeting was not necessarily "Spirit led." And some of those "sticks and straw" structured meetings may have been fully "Spirit led."

Don't confuse the form, or lack of form, as indicating the presence/leading of the Spirit. It is a learned preference. There are many good Christians that would flee from a LRC-type meeting for their liturgy because they find God in it. Anyone who says differently is simply selling their way as "the way." Once again, the only "way" is Jesus. Everything else is a form. And there are different forms. None are definitionally "more Jesus" than another or "more Spirit" than another.

I find it funny that we are so often determined that to resurrect the form that allowed the problems that we now complain about so strongly. It almost seems like the person who continually gets into bad relationships like the one they just got out of. Seems that way down inside there is something in them that thinks the kind of person that ultimately is wrong for them is actually right for them. I'm not saying that LRC-style meetings are simply wrong or bad. But we get burned by what happens over time with one of them but are so enamored with how it started up that we are willing to risk it again to get that feeling back. Like that first hit of cocaine or heroin. "If we could just return to Eldon Hall in the 60s." Or "Plainview in 65." (Don't ask. Plainview is a blip on the map between Lubbock and Amarillo with a Baptist college.)

We all want the "good ole days" but don't recall that at the time they were referred to as "these tryin' times."

It has nothing to do with the form. When you go to a meeting and some testimony meets your need you are very thankful that that person was able to speak, and you may realize that in other church services you would never have even had a chance to hear that testimony.

2nd, you get to know people by their testimonies. When I met with the LRC I would feel like I knew many more saints than where I meet today. The reality is I don't hear many personal testimonies where I am today, even if we get together for dinner or a barbecue, it still seems you don't hear many testimonies.

However, if the testimonies are dominated by "amateur actors" as mentioned in one post and by 3 yr old Christians running the meeting (as alluded to in another post) the entire experiment can be a disaster. The only way a testimony meeting can succeed is if you have strong leadership, and not from a single brother, but preferably from a core of 20-50 saints. If these saints are committed to it, then it can act as an opportunity for new saints to exercise their gifts, for every member to minister to every other member, and for the Body to be knit together. On the other hand there can easily be the temptation to settle for the appearance of a testimony meeting (which is the way I understand the whole Mel Porter discussion).

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

The real question is whether a church meeting in which "all can prophesy" is described in scripture. I'm not saying that it is a bad idea. Just wondering if the scripture that is used to support it really says that.

And beyond that, whether it is possible for "all" to actually prophesy in the context of the use of the term in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. It seems that there is a gift of prophesying — it is not everyone's gift. And that 2 or 3 were to be designated to prophesy in a meeting — not all.

Is "all prophesying," meaning everyone present (whether you want to say can or should), actually taught? Or is that a misinterpretation? Not saying that it is always bad for any meeting to have what we would now call "open mic" or a testimony meeting. Just that I don't see it defined as the normal case.

I already responded in detail to this and explained my use of the term "all can prophesy" in post #31

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I already responded in detail to this and explained my use of the term "all can prophesy" in post #31

Not really. You say that you think "all can prophesy" means. . . But you don't provide anything that really explains how you conclude that anything actually says that all (meaning the whole assembly) can prophesy.

OK. So you simply accept that Lee was correct to suggest that this one sentence following a detailed discussion about 2 or 3 prophesying (and effectively in the same paragraph) means everyone? It mocks the purpose of the 2 or 3.

But, it is more enjoyable. And I guess that is better than sound teaching and in order. And if it takes strong leadership, then it is not quite true that all can prophesy because the strong leadership can sit you down.

I'm just pushing a button to see if anyone is catching what is screaming at me. The context of "all" is 2 or 3 speaking in order. If one suddenly has something important, the one already speaking should sit down first then the other start. But in the end, they all can prophesy. But it is in a context. 2 or 3.

I honestly think that to conclude that Paul pulled another ADHD "squirrel" and jumped from 2 or 3 to the whole assembly without any warning is highly unlikely. Just like he didn't do it in 1 Cor 15:45. If there is an obvious reading, it would seem to be that "all" refers to the 2 or 3 and that any other reading needs more than "that's the way I read it." That is essentially what Nee and Lee did.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The problem comes when some of those Jesuses are contradictory and therefore mutually exclusive. Like the pacifist Jesus and the one who leads Christians into war. Or how about the reticent Jesus of the synoptic gospels and the self preaching Jesus of the Gospel of John? These are problems for people who find contradictions illogical. The greatest of these is the problem of the claims that Jesus was both man and God. I maintain that there is no rational way of explaining that claim.

You put it so well and plainly bro Zeek. Thanks.

I've been saying that for a long time, many times and in many ways. But speaking to those that are zealots for pet doctrines is like speaking to an addict. There's no getting thru to them.

In the end, as far as God is concerned, we just have to let them construct God in their heads as they want. Better a God/Man concept than a Warrior/God concept ... I think, maybe. Then again, the history of the God/Man concept, down thru the ages, isn't pretty either ...

For this reason I proclaim (another rant bro Mike-perchance) all religions, philosophies, and psychologies have failed us, when it comes to controlling human nature. The one constant, the one persistence, the one commonality, since the beginning of man, even in the paradise garden, is : HUMAN NATURE. It's been so persistent, overriding all human systems of morality, that we could call it 'super-human.' It never dies.

That Old Man/New Man of Paul is catchy in the abstract (Col 3:9-10). But in the real world, I've seen many baptisms, but never have I seen the actual putting off of the old man. Not that stuck for very long.

Methinks Paul was seeing the old man/new man thru his own experience. After all Paul went from Saul the killer of Christians to, Paul the master builder of Christianity. That's quite an old man/new man contrast. Not all of us fit the extreme of that transformation ... Paul's "Old Man" is certainly not our "Old Man." Few of us are murderers.

But we do share that ever present/persistent human nature.....

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It has nothing to do with the form. When you go to a meeting and some testimony meets your need you are very thankful that that person was able to speak, and you may realize that in other church services you would never have even had a chance to hear that testimony.

2nd, you get to know people by their testimonies. When I met with the LRC I would feel like I knew many more saints than where I meet today. The reality is I don't hear many personal testimonies where I am today, even if we get together for dinner or a barbecue, it still seems you don't hear many testimonies.

However, if the testimonies are dominated by "amateur actors" as mentioned in one post and by 3 yr old Christians running the meeting (as alluded to in another post) the entire experiment can be a disaster. The only way a testimony meeting can succeed is if you have strong leadership, and not from a single brother, but preferably from a core of 20-50 saints. If these saints are committed to it, then it can act as an opportunity for new saints to exercise their gifts, for every member to minister to every other member, and for the Body to be knit together. On the other hand there can easily be the temptation to settle for the appearance of a testimony meeting (which is the way I understand the whole Mel Porter discussion).

And this is probably one of the benefits of going to the Temple for the Apostle's teaching and then breaking bread from house to house. You get the firm foundation from those with a firm foundation and can share among yourselves while breaking bread. It does not appear to be given as combined in one meeting in any place I can read. Neither in Acts nor in 1 Cor 14.

Maybe somewhere else?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you can tell us how to do everything by just looking to Jesus, and never have any set practices, then I'm all ears. But I doubt you can. I'm sure you have all kinds of habits and practices you do simply from memory. Or do you have to learn directly from Jesus again every day how to brush your teeth?

You are talking idealist theory. Until you can demonstrate someone who has achieved what you are arguing for, it's silly to argue for it. What's the point?

So I'm guessing you are no longer "taking Christ as your person" as WL used to advocate.

[Cal]

The idea that Jesus being the way precludes doctrines and practices is a mistaken thought. Perhaps in the next age that might be so. But in this age we, as Paul said, "see through a glass darkly." We needs these helpers of doctrine and practice. The real issue is whether we are engaging in these things "in Spirit and in truth," as Jesus told us.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

So I'm guessing you are no longer "taking Christ as your person" as WL used to advocate.

I do my best to follow the Lord in spirit. But the Bible never tells us to "take Christ as our person," whatever that means.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would argue that saying "Jesus is the way to live" is meaningless because it ignores the specificity of the question/issue. It takes the focus off the question. That does not mean that, at some level, you can't say that the answer is consistent with Jesus. But to simply say "the answer is Jesus" is no better than saying that the answer is going to more meetings.

This is a lot like Lee's "grace is just Jesus" teaching. It removes the meaning of grace from the discussion. It masks any evidence that there actually is grace by ignoring it. That does not mean that Jesus is not grace. But it means that we understand the grace of Jesus by actually observing/experiencing that grace. Grace is something that is only realized when it is actually realized. If I "refuse grace and just take Jesus" (or something like that) I don't really know what I have. It is just something that I call Jesus. And I might be wrong.

And we find that Jesus is the way by discovering the actual, practical ways that are consistent with Jesus. With the scripture. With God's righteousness. Etc. We don't find it by just saying it is Jesus. That is the problem with over generalizations. Lee said everything was just the dispensing of God. So you don't have to obey. Just get dispensing. Just get Jesus as the way. Whatever that means.

That all sounds pretty reasonable. But on the other hand, Paul could say something like "Christ in me the hope of glory" and it supposedly meant something. Or John of Patmos could say "I was in Spirit on the Lord's day" and apparently think that meant something. If these New Testament expressions have become too vague, general, meaningless, or idealized for us, maybe we have lost the "simplicity that is in Christ".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK then Jesus isn't really THE WAY? Church history may not be the best guide for practicing the church life. According the record the historic church is a mess.

He is the way, but the way He leads is not "the" way. I hope this does not sound confusing. The goal for me is to find the Lord and the way He leads me, but human tendency passes on the details of the "way" I was given as "the way."

Often I heard this little transition in personal testimonies. The sharing was great until the one giving the testimony began telling me how to repeat his/her testimony. At that point the person tried to make the way the Lord led him/her "the way" for others to take.

[Thankful Jane]

Hi,

I have a question (or two). I just tuned in late today and read this long discussion. Admittedly, I have read through it somewhat rapidly and I probably should re-read it before posting, but if I do I won't have time to post. So, if I totally missed something, feel free to let me know (as if anyone needed my permission ). One thing kept standing out to me, so I want to ask about it. I think it was OBW that said in context the verses in I Corinthians 14 do not support all prophesying in a meeting. Since, I have been working on loving the words of the Bible, and I have also been cultivating, somewhat, a habit of digging into those words when I have a question, I just read I Cor 14:23 to 14:33 again. It seemed to me that there was more support there for all prophesying than for just two or three (noting verses 24 and 26).

Also, in v. 29, (which I think must be the verse that was referred to as support for the interpretation that just two or three should prophesy) it says, let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge. I was wondering what "let the others judge" might mean. In other words, just how would "the others" judge? Silently? Or would they speak in order to question, confirm, etc.

Okay, there you have my questions. Now I'll go cook dinner for the hungry at my house and check back later for the good feedback that I'm sure you all will give.

Thankful Jane

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Ohio

He is the way, but the way He leads is not "the" way. I hope this does not sound confusing. The goal for me is to find the Lord and the way He leads me, but human tendency passes on the details of the "way" I was given as "the way."

Often I heard this little transition in personal testimonies. The sharing was great until the one giving the testimony began telling me how to repeat his/her testimony. At that point the person tried to make the way the Lord led him/her "the way" for others to take.

My thoughts also.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not really. You say that you think "all can prophesy" means. . . But you don't provide anything that really explains how you conclude that anything actually says that all (meaning the whole assembly) can prophesy.

OK. So you simply accept that Lee was correct to suggest that this one sentence following a detailed discussion about 2 or 3 prophesying (and effectively in the same paragraph) means everyone? It mocks the purpose of the 2 or 3.

But, it is more enjoyable. And I guess that is better than sound teaching and in order. And if it takes strong leadership, then it is not quite true that all can prophesy because the strong leadership can sit you down.

I'm just pushing a button to see if anyone is catching what is screaming at me. The context of "all" is 2 or 3 speaking in order. If one suddenly has something important, the one already speaking should sit down first then the other start. But in the end, they all can prophesy. But it is in a context. 2 or 3.

I honestly think that to conclude that Paul pulled another ADHD "squirrel" and jumped from 2 or 3 to the whole assembly without any warning is highly unlikely. Just like he didn't do it in 1 Cor 15:45. If there is an obvious reading, it would seem to be that "all" refers to the 2 or 3 and that any other reading needs more than "that's the way I read it." That is essentially what Nee and Lee did.

I do not disagree that the word "all" can mean two or three in order. What I see the word meaning is that it can be anyone who has a burden, not the 2 or 3 chosen by the Pastor.

So if a Christian assembly follows a sermon with two or three testimonies / prophecies by a select few that are preapproved for this function, that to me is not what Paul was saying. On the other hand, If everyone in the assembly knows that they can stand up and speak at some point, if so moved by the spirit, then it doesn't matter if they actually do. It doesn't matter that for a congregation of several hundred that only two or three ever do get up in any particular meeting.

I agree that the word "all" does not imply that everyone is supposed to get up and speak, or that everyone should get up and speak. I am pretty sure I said exactly this in the previous post, so why do you now say that "I simply accept that a discussion about two or three prophesying means everyone"?

I understand that "all can prophesy" means that there is no prerequisite to speak in a church meeting. You don't have to graduate from seminary before speaking. Just as in a family "all can speak". That does not mean that during a church meeting you want "everyone to speak". What it means is that if someone is moved by the Lord to speak, their should be an opportunity to do this. Once again, saying this doesn't mean that the church leadership has abdicated their authority or control over the meeting. It doesn't mean that some individual can hijack the meeting. Those who take the lead continue to do so, but they provide an opportunity and environment that promotes the attitude that all can speak.

I thought I already shared this in the previous post, so I don't understand what it is that still needs to be defined.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I do my best to follow the Lord in spirit. But the Bible never tells us to "take Christ as our person," whatever that means.

The verse is "put on Christ" -- whatever that means.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK then Jesus isn't really THE WAY? Church history may not be the best guide for practicing the church life. According the record the historic church is a mess.

It depends what part of the historic church you examine. Some of it was worse than "a mess," but some of it was glorious. It also depends on how we define "the mess." I have read a few church history books that were indeed inspiring.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The verse is "put on Christ" -- whatever that means.

Put on Christ implies put on Christ as your outward clothing, meaning imitate his character in your behavior, i.e. "be imitators of God."

Again, I still have no idea what "take Christ as your person" means, whatever it means.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

"If we could just return to Eldon Hall in the 60s." Or "Plainview in 65." (Don't ask. Plainview is a blip on the map between Lubbock and Amarillo with a Baptist college.)

Or Akron in 69. After that Seven Spirits Conference in Erie. Being from Ohio, I often heard about that. Never was there though.

I have found that "how good a meeting is" to us often is unrelated to the meeting at all, whether free form or structured. Being in the LC's for so many years, I was in all kinds of meetings, all kinds of places, all kinds of shapes and sizes.

The meeting format can help a little. Good messages can help. Exciting attendants can help too. But the primary ingredient is our heart, how hungry our heart is for the Lord. A hungry heart can find the Lord richly in any place.

Actually spending all our time on meeting formats can be just a waste of time. We researched that topic to death. No one ever spent more time examining meeting formats than we did.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

So I should have realized that when we get down to the business of doctrine and practice, Jesus is not the way. So is "I am the Way" just a slogan?

Jeremiah 29.13 says, "You will seek Me and find Me when you seek Me with all your heart." He is the way. When we find Him, we have the way. So it's not a slogan but a promise.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here's some doublespeak for ya. We are all just brothers and sisters. The clergy-laity system is part of poor poor Christianty. It ain't happening in the local churches. It just happens that the "saints" are providing a stipend, paying the rent and maintaining the homes of some of the "brothers" who give messages (read sermons), fellowship with the "saints" (read counsel them) and make the important decisions. In other words, some of the Brothers were clergy in everything but name.

The real tragedy of the LC program is to be discouraged by all the hypocrisy. Everything I once believed about the Recovery got shattered almost over night. Literally thousands of others have also left because the hypocrisy got exposed to them. If the light shined brightly on LSM, every last one of them in the LC's would depart from that system. All the doublespeak just highlights the hypocrisy.

But Jesus is not a hypocrite. He's the only straight-shooter. He alone is honest and trustworthy. Romans 3.4 says, "Let God be true, and every man a liar." I may not trust anyone like I once did, but I can still trust Jesus. He has proven Himself repeatedly.

"Ebenezer" is a saying from the Bible that I love. I found this in the hymnal during my bleakest time. The hymn (#716) said, "each sweet Ebenezer," so I researched it to find what it meant. Israel came to some difficult trial, fearing their enemies, and God saved them ... again. They named the place Ebenezer meaning, "up until now, God has been with us." It is our tendency to forget that God is with us when we face new trials. But the story of Ebenezer is a huge encouragement, because it reminds us that God has been with us until now, so we have nothing to fear.

Personally, and I think others will confirm this also, after leaving the LC program, with so many confusing things going on, I found it best to reduce my reading to just the gospels. Just read and reread the stories about Jesus. There's joy and encouragement in the gospel stories to restore us to the joy of our salvation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

This whole "bad clergy/laity" thing is a boogeyman propped-up to shoot at while the one propping it up is becoming your clergy. Much better to be open about who is and is not clergy. And have expectations of your clergy. And accountability.

Yes, I believe so. And the whole Nicolaitan system should refer to "lording it over the saints" rather than just having a title of Pastor or Elder.

We had a good thread about that topic.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And the whole Nicolaitan system should refer to "lording it over the saints" rather than just having a title of Pastor or Elder.

We had a good thread about that topic.

This, of course, assumes that "Nicolaitan" has anything to do with clergy and/or laity. Seems this was also a significant part of the thread about that topic.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

We may be long gone from the LRC, but do we still use it and its meetings as a yardstick for the "flow of the Spirit" without discovering whether the Spirit was, in fact, flowing in those meetings? Or have we presumed that what we called the Spirit in those days was actually the Spirit and not just our personal enjoyment of freedom from old forms?

OBW, this reminds me of the beginnings of a discussion we once had on "the works of the Nicolaitans". I referred to Witness Lee's teachings on the subject, and his condemnations of "Christianity" for their "clergy-laity system", in light of their own hierarchical system which oversees the Recovery. I pointed this out, much like zeek has just pointed out this same thing as an example of double-speak.

You then launched into a refutation of Lee's "works of the Nicolaitans" teaching, as if I or anyone else had even been defending it. Yet all anyone had been doing (as I recall) was considering the LRC's own behavior in light of their own (strong, clear, oft-repeated) teachings.

I think that's the same thing that's happening here. awareness, ZNP, and I addressed the "behind-the-scenes" maneuvering that dominates some prophesying meetings, in the name of this thing called "the flow of the Spirit".

OBW, I'm not using LRC teachings/attitudes/claims as a yardstick for the "flow of the Spirit" -- I'm using LRC teachings/attitudes/claims as a yardstick for their own goofy behavior!

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

This, of course, assumes that "Nicolaitan" has anything to do with clergy and/or laity. Seems this was also a significant part of the thread about that topic.

.... ....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

This, of course, assumes that "Nicolaitan" has anything to do with clergy and/or laity. Seems this was also a significant part of the thread about that topic.

Since the word itself implies "ruling the people," that interpretation should more be in line with the rest of the Bible. Of course, some still point to some guy named Nicolas, and we don't know what his "deeds" were.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Since the word itself implies "ruling the people," that interpretation should more be in line with the rest of the Bible. Of course, some still point to some guy named Nicolas, and we don't know what his "deeds" were.

Why, he gave gifts to all the good little boys and girls, of course!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Why, he gave gifts to all the good little boys and girls, of course!

Oh is that the same guy?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Since the word itself implies "ruling the people," that interpretation should more be in line with the rest of the Bible. Of course, some still point to some guy named Nicolas, and we don't know what his "deeds" were.

That's right : we don't know.

So let's invent something and call it a fact. Let's break the Greek name down into components of Nike & Laity, or victory over laity, and bring in from "nowhere" in the name, clergy.

So who were the laity and who were the clergy? And which was the most wrong, or most hated by the Lord?

Given the 90% illiteracy rate back then, only 10% could have been clergy that was required to read to the 90% that couldn't read. So maybe the works of the Nicolaitans, that the Lord hated, was reading. Or maybe the Lord hated the literacy rate.

We fool ourselves into thinking we know what was going on back then.

And Witness Lee pretended very well that he knew. All to enhance his power trip. Witness Lee should know. He was Nike.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's right : we don't know.

So let's invent something and call it a fact. Let's break the Greek name down into components of Nike & Laity, or victory over laity, and bring in from "nowhere" in the name, clergy.

It sures seems like the assault on the whole clergy-laity system was unwarranted and self-serving. What hypocrisy is that to remove all pastors and give us Phillip Lee instead?

If we have to base our entire understanding of the "works (v2.6) and the teachings (v2.15) of the Nicolaitans" on the word meaning alone, then I would suggest that "lording it over the saints," as Peter warned us in vv5.1-3, is a far better explanation.

WN and WL taught their interpretation as definitive, but even the simple reading of the text in context does not fit their interpretation well. What a shame that the Recovery has based their entire ecclesiology upon the questionable interpretation of these two verses, only to replace it with a far more obnoxious one.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Since the word itself implies "ruling the people," that interpretation should more be in line with the rest of the Bible. Of course, some still point to some guy named Nicolas, and we don't know what his "deeds" were.

Or it means conqueror "for" the people. Possibly another of those "presume the one of two or more readings because it supports a position you hold" kind of things that Lee did all the time.

Nicolaitan = clergy/laity is a minority position held mostly by leaders of exclusivist sects like the LRC. I don't say this because I don't like Lee. I did one of those searches that Lee challenged but no one probably ever did and found that virtually all of the mainstream sources refer to some evidence of a subset of people involved in some kind of pagan practice mixed in with their Christian worship. While one or two supporting the clergy/laity reading were more reputable sources, the vast majority were leaders of groups I had never heard of. Several had web sites that reeked of exclusivism, "the rest of Christianity is demonic" kind of rhetoric, "we are the remnant," etc. Not what I consider reliable sources.

And rayolitta: I didn't just jump onto something not defended. I jumped onto something that was stated in a manner as if it was simply so. No consideration that there might be error in it. When taken in the light of whether we should or should not simply reject Lee (as a false prophet, according to someone else), then

And the whole Nicolaitan system should refer to "lording it over the saints" rather than just having a title of Pastor or Elder.

should set off warning bells in the minds of everyone, including the one who said it. That thinking came from Lee.

The only way we had ever heard of the Nicolaitans was from Lee. I can almost be safe to bet that none of us had heard of it before him. So our first hearing was from the false prophet. He might have been right on this one. Or was it that when we first heard of it, we liked someone calling those clergy cursed by the letters to the churches in Revelation? Did Lee tickle our ears on a subject we had never before considered? Or on one that we had personal reason to think there was a problem with?

Or do we just want to keep believing everything Lee taught and only be involved in groups that bring back those feelings and emotions from our early days in the LRC, yet reject only the person of Lee. There is a reason to reject certain teachers. And it isn't just because their personal life is a mess. It is because that is an indicator that there is reason to distrust their teaching.

And everyone of you are knee-jerking to just keep Lee's teaching on this. You almost refuse to consider that he might be wrong. We've collectively sent the former shepherd off in handcuffs, yet we are now following the paddy wagon as if there is nowhere else to get good pasture.

Rant at me if you will. But at least let this sink in over time. The other voice suggesting that Lee was a false prophet did it in an almost LRC-kind of spiritual voice. And several thought it was worthy of consideration. I say it directly with sound reasoning and it is rejected because . . . well, because why? Because I don't sound spiritual enough as I do it? Sort of like Lee?

Sheep without a shepherd comes to mind. Coupled with demons returning to an empty, clean house. You cast out Lee but can't accept that you need to fill the void with something different. So he effectively comes right back in. Point-by-point. We simply start with the presumption that whatever he taught was good even though he shouldn't have been allowed to open his mouth to teach.

I probably should just leave. But I have hope that despite my obviously abrasive manner that something will sink in eventually. A different kind of planting and watering. I can't make it grow. But should I just abandon it all?

I bet a bunch of you are saying "yes" right about now. And there is a side of me that is ready to leave you wandering in your wilderness panting for the leeks and garlic of Lee. And maybe I should. It surely is doing nothing for me. I'm not trying to win friends. And if I am, I am doing a terrible job of it.

Much of the double-speak on this forum is the claim of leaving the LRC when the only thing abandoned are the meetings. Too many just go outside the door and long to go back inside. Back to the exclusivist teachings that made you feel so good. So superior. I'm not sure many of us really have any idea of what the leading of the Spirit is. (Not saying I do either.) We just know the path carved out by Lee. We do just like the Concerned Brothers and argue for a better reading of Lee. But do we really think that Lee was wrong? Or just a bad business-man and father. And it is all irrelevant to his teaching?

Paul would disagree. So should we.

I would like to believe that these harsh words will get past the veneers and cause us to think. But I have probably just made it so that nothing I say will be truly read. Take note of how many older people had any significant theological training prior to joining the LRC. Or rather how few there are. Most started off within their college years, so even if that was a bible college, or even a seminary, they were still formulating. They were still susceptible to Lee.

Seek out the comforting words and reject the harsh ones. Don't even consider that they might be right. I may be proving that I don't have the gift of exhortation. But no one seems to be doing it here. It is a desert in that regard.

[OBW]

P.S. to my previous post:

There is hope. I see that a couple of posts while I was writing finally come some distance toward rethinking Nicolaitan. But I probably need to refocus my efforts elsewhere anyway.

I do not mean to attack anyone. I do consider you my friends. But while it may not be my place to point out the errors in thinking . . . but who is doing it at all? We don't like to be talked at harshly. That does not mean it shouldn't happen. It might not be my place. But whose is it? We don't want anyone to do it. We want to be left to figure it out on our own.

Without any input from clergy.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

He is the way, but the way He leads is not "the" way. I hope this does not sound confusing. The goal for me is to find the Lord and the way He leads me, but human tendency passes on the details of the "way" I was given as "the way."

Often I heard this little transition in personal testimonies. The sharing was great until the one giving the testimony began telling me how to repeat his/her testimony. At that point the person tried to make the way the Lord led him/her "the way" for others to take.

If Christ is the Way but the way you are being led is not The Way, then it seems questionable that the one who is leading you is Christ. You know what they say, "the devil is in the details."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you can tell us how to do everything by just looking to Jesus, and never have any set practices, then I'm all ears. But I doubt you can. I'm sure you have all kinds of habits and practices you do simply from memory. Or do you have to learn directly from Jesus again every day how to brush your teeth?

You are talking idealist theory. Until you can demonstrate someone who has achieved what you are arguing for, it's silly to argue for it. What's the point?

It seems you are close to remembering WL's teaching regarding "taking Christ as your person". It wasn't just a matter of looking to Jesus. It also had to do with Jesus looking back. WL identified the Greek word for person with the inner gaze of Christ as in "beholding and reflecting the Lord" via which the believer is transformed. Now y'all please explain to me how this is a shallow, off, or worthless teaching. Tell me that it has no connection with genuine inner Christian life. On the basis of this teaching alone, I think we should not be hasty to throw out Mr. Lee's teaching all together. I'm stating right here that this teaching corresponds with my experience of the presence of God.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

It seems you are close to remembering WL's teaching regarding "taking Christ as your person". It wasn't just a matter of looking to Jesus. It also had to do with Jesus looking back. WL identified the Greek word for person with the inner gaze of Christ as in "beholding and reflecting the Lord" via which the believer is transformed. Now y'all please explain to me how this is a shallow, off, or worthless teaching. Tell me that it has no connection with genuine inner Christian life. On the basis of this teaching alone, I think we should not be hasty to throw out Mr. Lee's teaching all together. I'm stating right here that this teaching corresponds with my experience of the presence of God.

To me taking Christ as my person meant my person disappears and only Christ is left. Like I said, I don't know what that means because I've never been able to experience it.

If taking Christ as your person simply means being focused on Christ as the special person in your life, to the point you respond to his gaze then I have no problem with that. But why not just say so, rather than the vague "take Christ as your person," which could be interpreted any number of ways?

I remember Lee saying that taking Christ as your person was higher than taking Christ as your life. But I think that was a misteaching because Christ is life.

I think Lee spent to much time thinking up new teachings when he should have been preaching the gospel or working in service groups or something like that.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

It seems you are close to remembering WL's teaching regarding "taking Christ as your person". It wasn't just a matter of looking to Jesus. It also had to do with Jesus looking back. WL identified the Greek word for person with the inner gaze of Christ as in "beholding and reflecting the Lord" via which the believer is transformed. Now y'all please explain to me how this is a shallow, off, or worthless teaching. Tell me that it has no connection with genuine inner Christian life. On the basis of this teaching alone, I think we should not be hasty to throw out Mr. Lee's teaching all together. I'm stating right here that this teaching corresponds with my experience of the presence of God.

To me taking Christ as my person meant my person disappears and only Christ is left. Like I said, I don't know what that means because I've never been able to experience it.

If taking Christ as your person simply means being focused on Christ as the special person in your life, to the point you respond to his gaze then I have no problem with that. But why not just say so, rather than the vague "take Christ as your person," which could be interpreted any number of ways?

I remember Lee saying that taking Christ as your person was higher than taking Christ as your life. But I think that was a misteaching because Christ is life.

I think Lee spent too much time thinking up new teachings when he should have been preaching the gospel or working in service groups or something like that.

Further, following the gaze of Christ does not imply that Christ teaches you everything about everything day in and day out. We do many things from memory, experience, tradition, agreement and convention. That doesn't change the fact that Christ is the way to the Father's house in our daily experience.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

To me taking Christ as my person meant my person disappears and only Christ is left. Like I said, I don't know what that means because I've never been able to experience it.

If taking Christ as your person simply means being focused on Christ as the special person in your life, to the point you respond to his gaze then I have no problem with that. But why not just say so, rather than the vague "take Christ as your person," which could be interpreted any number of ways?

I remember Lee saying that taking Christ as your person was higher than taking Christ as your life. But I think that was a misteaching because Christ is life.

I think Lee spent too much time thinking up new teachings when he should have been preaching the gospel or working in service groups or something like that.

Further, following the gaze of Christ does not imply that Christ teaches you everything about everything day in and day out. We do many things from memory, experience, tradition, agreement and convention. That doesn't change the fact that Christ is the way to the Father's house in our daily experience.

I'm recounting how I remember Lee's teaching on taking Christ as your person from 25 years ago. If my recollection serves me, it wasn't a matter of personality replacement. Beyond that, I won't quibble with you about the details. We each have to work out our own salvation right?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm recounting how I remember Lee's teaching on taking Christ as your person from 25 years ago. If my recollection serves me, it wasn't a matter of personality replacement. Beyond that, I won't quibble with you about the details. We each have to work out our own salvation right?

Right. Meanings are not in words, they are in the understanding of those words, which can vary.

[Thankful Jane]

Hi again. After doing some catch up reading on the forum this morning, I see that the air outside my window isn’t the only place there is a lot of heat. Wondering if there some verses in the Bible that can help us in our forum interactions, I find myself back at the ones I asked about a number of posts ago (a post which either got lost in the fray or wasn’t of interest to anyone.)

1Co 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

When we come together, God wants us to have a lot of interactions with one another based on what we have from Him. He’s not specific about what shape the coming together takes, but just about what should happen among those who come together. Actually, this forum could be considered a way of coming together. (The Bible leaves a lot of freedom with regard to the shape our coming together takes. I’m using the word “shape” here because can’t think of a better word to get across my meaning.) Back to the verse. It says to me that He wants all of us to interact with one another in a way to edify each other with what we have from Him.

Co 14:30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
1Co 14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
1Co 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

Verse 31 leaves the door open for all to participate. It seems verse 30 makes provision for someone, other than the one speaking, to have something revealed to them, something which might add to, or maybe even correct, what the first one says. In that case, the first one needs to give way to the other. Again, the reason for these interactions is plainly stated: so that all may learn and be comforted.

V 32 says to me that we all need to be in control of ourselves and that God has made us in such a way that we have the capacity to do that.

I have seen lots of good communication and interaction on the LC forums over past years. I’ve also seen things get heated. The heat is usually due to misunderstandings. Sometimes it’s due to egos clashing or wrong motives at work. Sometimes it’s due to some who intend to make things hot. I’ve seen some of these conflicts be resolved and peace be restored. I’ve also seen some conflicts that have been left unresolved. In those cases, participants who were not willing to suffer the discomfort that was needed to follow through and resolve the conflict just folded and left. (Yes, I’m guilty of that.) It’s kind of like when a husband and wife have conflict and one refuses to talk anymore. Shut down mode is really “the problem will surface again later” mode.

I heard somewhere recently (maybe here?) that the Bible says peacemakers, not peacekeepers, are blessed, and that peacemakers are those who are willing to suffer through a conflict with a goal of reaching a place of peace, to stay the course until peace is made. (Jesus was a peacemaker.) Those who just want the conflict to stop, who go away just so there can be silence, which to them seems like peace, are not peacemakers.

Okay, all this to say, let’s keep interacting. Nobody leave in the middle of conflict. Let's control ourselves, respect one another, seek to understand, not misunderstand each other, and learn together how to speak the truth in love. According to the chapter before the one about interacting together, love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.

Yes, I need to take my own advice.

I will say that my personal interactions with the Lord and the Bible are greatly enhanced and stimulated by reading and participating on this forum or by being in any kind of Christian environment where there is freedom to discuss the Bible with others. The fact that we have the freedom to do this is, in itself, a great blessing.

Thankful Jane

[UntoHim]

As to the second to last paragraph AMEN!

[zeek]

Without mutual respect civil discourse is impossible. When discourse becomes uncivil, why bother continuing it? That said, I haven't seen disrespect or uncivil discourse here...yet.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Much of the double-speak on this forum is the claim of leaving the LRC when the only thing abandoned are the meetings. Too many just go outside the door and long to go back inside. Back to the exclusivist teachings that made you feel so good. So superior.

What's all this talk of leaving? I'm more worthy of leaving than all of you. Have y'all lost yer senses. Are ya gonna leave everyone that stays in the grip of my wiles without yer balance? What are ya thinking? Don ya love the brothers and sister out here? Why are the good guys, wearing the white hats, thinking of leavin?

And concerning "going outside the door longing to go back in," I've seen it in those that have left or been pushed out. They just can't let go. It produces such a heft of cognitive dissonance they become alcoholics to deal with it. They just can't let go, even when their life speaks of everything opposite of a Christian lifestyle. Their ideal is the local church. Upon leaving a void was created, that they think can only be filled with the local church. After the local church it's hard to be happy without it.

So exLCers find ways of dealing with this "void." Like one brother friend of mine, who was an elder in the LC, but now is an American Indian Shaman. Or a sister friend of mine, who now pursues a syncretized solution, by blending religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, and Christianity.

We all deal with the fallout of coming out of the local church differently. But the void is the same for us all....

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

What's all this talk of leaving?...

You are probably at least a little correct that you need some balance. But several others do a pretty good job of keeping you in check.

My problem is that we have finally come to a point where there is a discussion about whether to just dump Lee and rethink it all, or just face the Lee issues as they arise, followed by what would appear to be a lot of push-back whenever something that is almost completely Leeville teaching is questioned. No discussion. Just complain that it was questioned.

And no one really seems interested in dissecting the teachings. They just fall right back in line with Lee. They like them.

The love "all can prophesy." No contrary reading is really considered.

They love Nicolaitan = clergy/laity.

They love just abide. Don't obey. (not usually said quite that strongly.)

They love the way the meetings are held and refrain from joining mainstream Christianity because it is just too different. (Not all, but a lot.)

Some presume that every practical error in the LRC is proof that the LRC didn't go far enough. They want no elders.

They want to rely on the inner sense and not care for the fact that it is fickle and can easily take us to places contrary to scripture. (And I do not hold scripture in a true "inerrant" standing. I just believe that to the extent that it has spoken, things that are contrary cannot be made correct by waving the wand of the "leading of the Spirit" or some artificial overlay like "dispensing.")

They want Christ but don't want his people. (That one is pointed at those who just meet infrequently with only a few similar minds. There is a purpose in assembling together. I realize that "where 2 or 3" does give a little comfort for the really small group. But I have a general sense (there I go violating my own rule) that it is inadequate for real assembling.)

They are clear that Lee incorrectly lambasted Christianity, but will have nothing to do with it.


My purpose is for escape and healing for those caught in the LRC's system of error, and for moving forward for those that do escape. There seems to be little heart to talk as if anything other than a Reformed LRC is an acceptable place to move to. And there are several who have testified to their more serious moving on. Yet even some of those come here talking doctrines in a manner that places them right back at the door of the LRC. Talking about their current assembly as if it is tolerated as a second choice to a Reformed LRC.

None of this is for the purpose of belittling or slandering anyone. Yet some are looking at every disagreement as a personal challenge while they constantly disagree with others. They take every point as a personal jab. They do not accept that discussion of positions is not a discussion of the person who holds the position. And my comments about the way some have responded is not for the purpose of attacking their character or person, but to show that positions are too often held too dearly. Too closely. We tend to think that the position is us, so someone disagreeing on the position is attacking me personally.

And despite my interest in this forum (and its counterpart) I also find myself too drained from spending so much time dealing with people who assume that I am accusing them of something just because I disagree. Or start griping because I point at a potential error in teaching/position. Like Nicolaitan just may not have anything to do with clergy/laity. And several people immediately desire to shut that kind of talk down. They don't want to consider it. So either I'm obligated by some unwritten code to just let it go, or I speak up.

Or I get frustrated with the double-speak and take some time off. As usual, it will probably be only for a while. But I recently stopped looking at facebook. It's been at least a couple of weeks. And that little farm that I was tending to for a while died a couple of months ago. I suddenly realized it was probably dead and didn't even care to go look. Might get the same way about this forum. It really isn't interested in the kind of deep analysis that is somewhat regenerative to my somewhat (overly??) analytical mind. I seldom wear down from it, but recuperate because of it. But it isn't happening. We would rather rank the LSM/nonLSM status of some particular assembly. Or listen to the same old conversation between Lee and Sal and second-guess what what said in certain places and what was meant by certain things, like a chuckle.

Or try to figure out where Daystar's money really went. We can guess. We can assert. But don't really know and can't really know. But it occupies most of the time when Daystar is brought up. The analysis of whether the existence of Daystar and its SEC-violating sales of investments suggest that Paul would simply muzzle Lee is not hardly mentioned. That is more important that the money trail. That is the thing that would have eliminated Lee from the whole process long before Memorial Day, 1977, or the New Way, or the expulsion of John I, John So, Bill Mallons, etc., or the fabrication of lies by the so-called oracle of God to hide the truth about those expulsions.

[zeek]

OBW--

It's doubtful that every ex-local church member is going to agree on everything. Look what happened in Yugoslavia after the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc. The various ethnic groups had been prevented from killing each other by oppressive Soviet control. Once the Soviet thumb was removed strife reigned. It's possible that without the controlling influence of Big Brother Lee, we won't be able to find the "oneness" among each other.

To me your idea of order sounds a lot like the Southern Baptist Church. If I'm going to "the church of my choice" [admittedly my current choice is not to go] it won't be the Baptist one. But I'm willing to consider your point of view.

As far as Witness Lee, it would be nice if, for the sake of simplicity, we could simply dump all of his teachings. However, real life is not that simple. He was human like the rest of us. The problem is that he and we seemed to lose sight of that. Above I recalled a teaching of Lee's that still rings true for me. That suggests to me that for all of his flaws, Lee knew what it was to have a genuine relationship with Christ. Unless we feel that we need to demonize the man, I suppose that's a possibility.

[OBW]

And I will pick a little on this "all" reading one more time before I leave. While there is no mystery who wrote this, I am not attacking or belittling. I am trying to point to what seems to me to be straightforward reading.

Co 14:30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
1Co 14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
1Co 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

Verse 31 leaves the door open for all to participate. It seems verse 30 makes provision for someone, other than the one speaking, to have something revealed to them, something which might add to, or maybe even correct, what the first one says. In that case, the first one needs to give way to the other. Again, the reason for these interactions is plainly stated: so that all may learn and be comforted.

V 32 says to me that we all need to be in control of ourselves and that God has made us in such a way that we have the capacity to do that.

What is missing is that v 29 says "Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said." Then comes the portion quoted above.

But does verse 31 really leave the door open for all to participate? Do we intend to presume that a "prophet" and "prophesying" are general things? Do we not consider that if Paul meant for all, then he wouldn't have used a term that only 2 chapters earlier he has defined as applying to only some.

Chapter 12:29-30 "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?"

Have we not understood the answer to each of these questions to be "no"? Why then do we come to the portion of the letter in which Paul is toning-down their meetings and assume that on this one thing 12:29 really should have been answered "yes"?

Paul is busy telling them to limit the tongues-speaking. He starts the section with "when you come together, each of you has. . . ." Then he follows that with restrictions. Only two or three speak in tongues and only if there is an interpreter. 2 or 3 should prophesy. The spirits of prophets are subject to the prophet. Women should keep silence (not saying we should necessarily follow this now). Do it in order. Be orderly.

And our conclusion is that "prophet" suddenly is everyone. If you are not a prophet, you cannot prophesy. And if everyone does not have the gift of prophecy, then everyone cannot prophesy.

But I guess we are too taken with the freedom that was provided in the LRC for non-prophets like me to do it anyway. We want it to be true so badly. We almost seem to be taking the position that since it is "freedom" (since we are so sincere) then it just must be true. I need more than a desire for the context, grammar, etc., to be wrong. I need a reason that is there. A sound reading that arrives at the conclusion without first assuming it is true. And that is the only way I can get there — to have concluded that it is true and be trying to make it fit despite the context and grammar.

I honestly think that we need to overcome the context and structure of Paul's letter to arrive at a general declaration that all of the assembly can prophesy. And while it is not impossible that it is what he meant, there is way too much going against it to simply declare that it is so (in my opinion).

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's doubtful that every ex-local church member is going to agree on everything.

. . . .

To me your idea of order sounds a lot like the Southern Baptist Church.

First, it is entirely OK that every ex-local church member doesn't agree on everything. But one of the most limiting things about integrating with all those Christians we used to despise is retaining so much of Lee's teachings. Even when we join them we keep running into disagreements that we have without so much as thinking about it. "They have a choir. How Babylonian!" If I think there is something wrong with that kind of thinking, then it is definitely to my benefit in interaction with those Christians that I deal with it. If not, then maybe a Reformed LRC is the answer.

As to sounding like the Southern Baptist Church, on what basis do you think that is wrong? Because you've been in a place that did it differently? Without regard to whether it was really correct? Without considering that Paul might have been pointing much more in that direction than in the direction that Lee took it and we learned it from him?

I do not condemn meetings in which all participate. I question the insistence upon that without evidence that there is any such directive in scripture while I seem to be reading something that suggests quite (or at least somewhat) the opposite. And just saying it again with more emphasis doesn't make it read differently. Discovering that the translations are missing the nuance of a word such that what we have in front of us in English is not really telling the story right might change my mind. It wouldn't be the first time. But no one is suggesting that. They are just saying "all" must be a universal "all" when there is a context in which "all" would seem to have only a local scope. (And I don't mean local in terms of Corinth, but in terms of the paragraph.)

Show me why the third sentence in a discussion of how 2 or 3 should carry out their prophesying suddenly is talking about the whole congregation. In my assembly, that would be 4,000 or so (although present over three services and not all at one time). They carry it out in a manner in which there is order (not chaos) as they speak and they all (all of the 2 or 3) get to speak. That would seem to be the obvious way to read it. To read it another way would seem to need some kind of indicator that the context had changed. It is not there (that I can see).

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

And I will pick a little on this "all" reading one more time before I leave. While there is no mystery who wrote this, I am not attacking or belittling. I am trying to point to what seems to me to be straightforward reading.
What is missing is that v 29 says "Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said." Then comes the portion quoted above.

But does verse 31 really leave the door open for all to participate? Do we intend to presume that a "prophet" and "prophesying" are general things? Do we not consider that if Paul meant for all, then he wouldn't have used a term that only 2 chapters earlier he has defined as applying to only some.

Chapter 12:29-30 "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?"

Have we not understood the answer to each of these questions to be "no"? Why then do we come to the portion of the letter in which Paul is toning-down their meetings and assume that on this one thing 12:29 really should have been answered "yes"?

Paul is busy telling them to limit the tongues-speaking. He starts the section with "when you come together, each of you has. . . ." Then he follows that with restrictions. Only two or three speak in tongues and only if there is an interpreter. 2 or 3 should prophesy. The spirits of prophets are subject to the prophet. Women should keep silence (not saying we should necessarily follow this now). Do it in order. Be orderly.

And our conclusion is that "prophet" suddenly is everyone. If you are not a prophet, you cannot prophesy. And if everyone does not have the gift of prophecy, then everyone cannot prophesy.

But I guess we are too taken with the freedom that was provided in the LRC for non-prophets like me to do it anyway. We want it to be true so badly. We almost seem to be taking the position that since it is "freedom" (since we are so sincere) then it just must be true. I need more than a desire for the context, grammar, etc., to be wrong. I need a reason that is there. A sound reading that arrives at the conclusion without first assuming it is true. And that is the only way I can get there — to have concluded that it is true and be trying to make it fit despite the context and grammar.

I honestly think that we need to overcome the context and structure of Paul's letter to arrive at a general declaration that all of the assembly can prophesy. And while it is not impossible that it is what he meant, there is way too much going against it to simply declare that it is so (in my opinion).

1Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
Surely the use of the word “Ye” here by Paul must refer to everyone in the church in Corinth, not to a select few gifted prophets. There is nothing to suggest that this chapter was written specifically for a gifted few.
2For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
3But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
Earlier Paul asked a rhetorical question “are all prophets” and I think we all agree the answer is no. But here he says that he that prophesieth speaks edification, exhortation and comfort. So I will ask “Can all Christians speak words of edification, exhortation and comfort” and again, I think we all will agree the answer is yes. So I completely disagree with your basic assumption that since all are not prophets then “all can prophesy” cannot refer to all believers. Instead I will repeat my example “Are all baseball players? No. Can all play baseball? Yes.”
4He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
Can Paul state his burden any more clearly? The church in Corinth was full of saints seeking spiritual gifts and they had latched onto speaking in tongues. His burden was that they would cut back on the speaking in tongues and instead focus on speaking words of edification, exhortation and comfort that could be clearly understood. He referred to this type of speaking as “prophesying”.
…12Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
13Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
14For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
Now I think this word is clearly directed at all of the saints in Corinth. Many were getting up and speaking in tongues and Paul is saying he would rather they spoke five words with their understanding. That does not mean this is the only way or the best way to have a meeting, but it certainly means that one option is that any and all brothers could speak in a meeting, if only for a very short period of time.
20Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
24But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
I cannot possibly see any basis to say that when Paul says “if all prophesy” he is limiting this to two or three gifted prophets. This is not the context.
25And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
26How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
“Every one hath” to me clearly means every single member that is in the meeting. This is clearly a continuation of what Paul has been sharing concerning prophesying. So, to have a teaching or a psalm, or a tongue, or a revelation, these are all words of edification, hence his conclusion “let all things be done unto edifying. Also, I think it is reasonable to equate words of edification as “prophesying”.
27If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
29Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
Now this is the verse which you have hung your hat on. I think it is fair to say that “prophets” here may refer to gifted members. By limiting them to two or the most three Paul is trying, in my understanding, to prevent them from completely dominating the meeting. So for example, you may have a meeting with two or three gifted speakers, elders, preachers, etc. But they should be limited to two or at the most three. However, whenever you come together “each one has” would be pointless if you are not allowed to share. So, you might not be a gifted “prophet” yet you still have some experience of Christ that you can share.
30If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
To me this means that the meetings should not be so formal that you only have one speaker and a whole lot of spectators. Everyone and anyone in the meeting might receive an instant speaking of the Lord and they should be allowed to share it.
31For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
Verse 29 uses the word “prophets”, the noun form of the word, and verse 31 uses the verb form. Again, I have heard that the “all” must refer to 2 or 3 because of verse 29 but I am completely unconvinced. I believe that this “all” is a direct reference to verse 30, not verse 31, as evidenced by the word “for” explaining verse 30. If you have a meeting and a gifted speaker, say John Ingalls is giving a conference, and the Lord suddenly reveals something to some small brother, that brother should be able to stand up and speak and JI should hold his peace. The reason for this is that “you all can prophesy”. Yes JI is “a prophet”, but the Lord can speak through any member of the Body.
…39Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
40Let all things be done decently and in order.

[rayliotta]

OBW, what's all this talk of leaving? Methinks you're goofin' on Elvis again.

In any case, I surely hope it has nothing to do with our recent conversation. And if it does, I think I can honestly say there's been a real misunderstanding.

[Thankful Jane]

My thinking is in line with what ZNP has presented.

Originally Posted by OBW

And I will pick a little on this "all" reading one more time before I leave. While there is no mystery who wrote this, I am not attacking or belittling.

I don't feel attacked or belittled. The topic is some verses in the Bible, not me. I think you said something like this earlier concerning your postings.

In the future (which means please don't leave) if you quote something from a post by me, I’d like it better if you just said so, rather than saying something like, “there is no mystery who wrote this." That way of making a reference to me made me feel a bit strange.

Originally Posted by OBW

I am trying to point to what seems to me to be straightforward reading. What is missing is that v 29 says "Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said." Then comes the portion quoted above.

I didn't purposely leave out v. 29. I could have included it and also have included v. 27 which says let those who speak in tongues be two or three at the most. Here is how I see these verses: Paul mentioned two or three in v 27 with the purpose of limiting those who were speaking in tongues. Then in v. 29 he again mentioned two or three, but this time, instead of limiting prophesying, he encourages others sitting by and listening to speak up if they have something to say.

In chapters 12 to 14, the overall context is Paul’s advocating that when they come together people should speak words that can be understood and that comfort and edify (one of the meanings of prophesy is to speak inspirational words. ZNP made good points regarding this meaning). In my opinion, Paul said that “all” could prophesy in order to encourage more to do what they were capable of doing, instead of letting the meetings be overrun by tongue speaking which would cause people to say the Corinthian believers were mad.

I hear you saying that v 29 means there are only a few who are gifted as prophets and only they should speak. In my view, this doesn’t fit well in the overall context. Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but you seem to be saying others should sit silently and just think about what is said. I am not insisting that all must speak, but just pointing out that the Bible says all “can,” and this indicates that there should be the possibility for them to do so.

Paul also says that the Corinthians should covet earnestly the best gifts (12:31) and that they should covet to prophesy (14:39). Why would Paul tell them to covet something they weren’t supposed to have or use?

Also, the two or three in v 29 might not necessarily refer to the same two or three people in every meeting. It could mean that two or three speak in one gathering and the next time they gather, two or three different ones speak. As you said, there are other ways these verses can be read. It just seems too much to go so far in interpretation that you leave no place for verses like 24 and 26 which clearly talk about “all” and “every one” and which do fit well in the overall context of Paul’s message.

Thankful Jane

P. S. Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not promoting or defending the LC form of meeting or Lee/Nee's teaching about it (or any form or way of meeting for that matter). I have had a variety of meeting experiences since leaving. I have been in situations where 2 or three speak (more like 1 or 2) and in situations where all can participate. I’ve been in these long enough to see their fruit. We were in a Bible church for multiple years. (And, for the record, while there, we weren’t looking down on anyone; we were being loved and cared for by them. I was actually looking up to them from a very low place.) Over time, however, we watched things deteriorate as the leadership became focused on making everyone into leaders. Everything they spoke headed this way. The repitition of the words “leaders” and “leadership” coming from the 1 or 2 was reminiscent for me of the many times I heard the words “God’s economy” in the LC. (I started missing hearing that wonderful name above all names ...) Everyone sat silently as the 1 or 2 rode the leadership teaching horse into the ground. No one seemed to believe they had the right to say “whoa” to that horse. I think Paul would have said they had not only the right but the responsibility. I learned a lot from both experiences, but, as you might guess, I prefer the participatory one.

[zeek]

As to sounding like the Southern Baptist Church, on what basis do you think that is wrong? Because you've been in a place that did it differently? Without regard to whether it was really correct? Without considering that Paul might have been pointing much more in that direction than in the direction that Lee took it and we learned it from him?

I didn't say it was wrong OBW, only that I wouldn't choose it. Is it a legal matter how the church meets? Let us for the moment suppose that your interpretation of Corinthians is the one correct one possible. Are Paul's words to the Corthinians law? That would contradict his words in Galatians and elsewhere regarding grace wouldn't it? What did Paul say there, "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. " So if not law, then what? Could Paul's words to the Corinthians be practical guidance on how to meet that were suited to that one church at that time? If there is a basis for concluding that Paul's teaching about meeting must be practiced universally, what is it?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I didn't say it was wrong OBW, only that I wouldn't choose it. Is it a legal matter how the church meets? Let us for the moment suppose that your interpretation of Corinthians is the one correct one possible. Are Paul's words to the Corthinians law? That would contradict his words in Galatians and elsewhere regarding grace wouldn't it? What did Paul say there, "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. " So if not law, then what? Could Paul's words to the Corinthians be practical guidance on how to meet that were suited to that one church at that time? If there is a basis for concluding that Paul's teaching about meeting must be practiced universally, what is it?

We've turned Paul's letter to the Corinthians into a universal message never intended by Paul, who could never have dreamt that his letter would be considered scripture two thousand years later.

So it's a stretch beyond imagination that Paul's letter to the Corinthians applies to us, in the 21st century. If so, then we have turned Paul's letter to the Corinthians into law, and that would likely make Paul spin in his grave ... if he's still in the grave, which is doubtful ... bones maybe.

[OBW]

Jane,

I never considered that you would think I was picking on you. I was just making sure that others didn't think that.

And I wasn't suggesting that you were intentionally leaving out v.29 to make some point.

But in totally different contexts I keep reading how we are prone to finding what we think we want to find. And while theology is not science, there is an aspect of dealing with words, contexts, structure, etc., that does provide some kind of bounds. And it is being observed that even scientific study is often full of people expecting a result and looking for it, even to the exclusion of data that disagrees. That is why it is generally required that more than one study be performed. Without accusing the original study, others begin to replicate it. Even study the structure of the study, looking to find fault in it. Not to debunk it, but to establish that it is truly telling us something of value.

And it is found that the human brain is excellent at finding patterns. For example, the number of background noises that can sound like voices saying words to the human mind is,well, mind-boggling. And it is even more prevalent when we are looking for it.

And when coupled with some recent studies concerning use and misuse of context that suggest that once we think something says something specific, it is difficult to see beyond that even if it is found that the context would suggest a different meaning, I question how quickly we find a way to ditch the context of order, and even restriction, that starts before v. 31 and continues beyond it to read this one verse as an open-ended invitation to everyone to speak.

As I mentioned before, I do not think that more open meetings are simply wrong. But it would seem that Paul is saying that it should not be the rule. And I provided the initial example — the apostle's teaching in the Temple and breaking bread from house to house. In that pattern was a clear delineation between the work of the teachers and the fellowship among the believers.

And even if Paul suggests that they all seek to be prophets (among the various gifts) that does not mean that they can simply be it if they set their minds on it. Gifts are given as the Spirit determines, not as we dictate or desire. Even if we are really sincere about it. (Still looking for that tongue-in-cheek smilie.)

And what I keep seeing/reading from so many who hold this "all meaning everyone" view of v. 31 is that assemblies that do not follow that reading are just not so good. They are deficient. And the LRC, or a Reformed LRC is the only real way to go. And we lower the superiority of the LRC from "the only place God blesses" to "the best place around although God blesses others." And we get off-the-cuff comments like the one about a Southern Baptist congregation. It doesn't meet our "all participate" standard so it is inferred to be deficient and unacceptable — followed by a retraction in which we say "I didn't mean to judge them" or something like that.

I fear that we seek to make this teaching right because it is our preference. And in the process find ourselves excuse to look down a little on all the places that don't measure up. It seems such an awful shame to be judging so many excellent Christians in excellent assemblies just because one verse might suggest that everyone should have the opportunity to speak in the meeting. Especially when it is at least as likely that the context might actually be saying the exact opposite. Maybe everyone shouldn't speak in a meeting in which they all come together. Everyone shouldn't be inserting the song that really impresses them. Maybe there should only be 2 or 3 speaking, and possibly 2 or 3 allowed to speak in tongues (if there is an interpreter).

I wouldn't go so far as to say that such open meetings are deficient and contrary to 1 Corinthians 14. But they might be closer to it than the ones down the street at that Southern Baptist assembly. Not praising all things Southern Baptist. I'm not one. And probably won't be. But I don't have a problem with them or their meetings.

I'm beginning to think that all the emphasis on the form of a meeting, from openly participative, to somewhat participative in portions, to structured, to liturgical, is a distraction from what really matters. And it is not the form of the meeting. It is not definitionally wrong to "do church" the way the Lutherans, Anglicans, (even RCC, excluding the prayers to Saints and Mary), the Eastern Orthodox, Methodists, Presbyterians/Reformed, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Pentecostals/Charismatics, Brethren, Baptists (all of them), Mennonite, Bible churches, or any number of different nondenominational/free groups, and home groups do it. Even the LRC. A particular form might be a distraction to me. And my form may be a distraction to someone else.

It is said that tradition is the living faith of the dead. Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. No matter how we do it, we have the choice of either. We can be living, and alive in Christ, and using any of those forms. Or we can be doing any of those forms and be dead. It is not the form/tradition. It is the participant. We may argue that the more extremely lively forms are more likely to be undertaken only by the truly living. But that is not really true. We can be living as we practice in entirely new ways, like the previous generation, or those 500 years ago, or those 2,000 years ago. The way is not the key. It is the participant.

My purpose in digging into what I think that Paul is saying here is not to say the LRC is simply wrong (although they might be). It is to demonstrate that they weren't simply right. And there is ample evidence that other ways easily meet Paul's standard of "order." Leaving the LRC removes us from a place of forced uniformity and dumps in a place of great diversity. Surely there are potential errors all around, just as there was in the LRC. But the fact of diversity in almost everything is not an error. The discussion about "all can prophesy" has not been about "I like churches that practice that. . . . other churches that do it different are just as good, but not my preference." Instead it has been more about proving the point that it is some kind of preference of Paul's and that doing it a different way is a spiritual problem. That may not be your position, but it permeates the underlying rhetoric I have been reading. The manner and structure of the comments would be read by most as a kind of insistence on it for true spirituality even if not outright stated.

I thought we were trying to purge out that kind of leaven. More seriously spiritual people engage in worship in Lutheran churches every week than in the LRC. But the LRC almost relegates them to Hell. Have we done much more that graduate them to the 1,000 years of summer school?

And do I catch myself on these kinds of things? All the time. What I just wrote about those other groups would not be what I would have written just two years ago. Do I think they don't have problems? Clearly they do. Just like the LRC and just like us. And I have found that in accepting that it is "just like us" is quite liberating and enlightening.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by zeek

I didn't say it was wrong OBW, only that I wouldn't choose it. Is it a legal matter how the church meets? Let us for the moment suppose that your interpretation of Corinthians is the one correct one possible. Are Paul's words to the Corthinians law? That would contradict his words in Galatians and elsewhere regarding grace wouldn't it? What did Paul say there, "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. " So if not law, then what? Could Paul's words to the Corinthians be practical guidance on how to meet that were suited to that one church at that time? If there is a basis for concluding that Paul's teaching about meeting must be practiced universally, what is it?

It seems that history teaches us we are headed for trouble when we start making church form and church meetings the main thing, as if that was the main thing in the Bible.

Lee convinced me that the right kind of "church" was the most important thing to God, one for which I was supposed to give myself. My bad for being so easily persuaded. I was convince-able because I was dissatisfied. I thought it was "church" that I was dissatisfied with, but the truth is that I wasn't satisfied because I wasn't walking with Jesus.

I no longer think Christian meetings are the main thing. They have a place and they serve a purpose, but there is a lot of flexibility as to things like how, when, where, how many, how long, etc., etc. We have flexibility in this because there is nothing clearly or rigidly defined in scripture, as some have pointed out.

I really agree with what Awareness had to say about one church. The church just is, because it is, because Christ died so it could be. There is no possibility of two churches in the same way there is no possibility of Christ having two bodies. Meetings? Well, that's another matter, the flexible, not clearly defined one. One thing for sure, our oneness with one another is not defined or produced by meetings in all their shapes and sizes.

I am more and more convinced each day that I am on this earth, that the big deal is to walk with God one day at a time and do the things he has for me to do with Him that day.

Every day is exciting to me because of this, even if I am just working in the yard and praying for His kingdom to come, asking for it to be now on earth as it is in heaven.

I love being surprised by Him in big ways and little ways. I love seeing Him work in answer to prayer. I have even learned (a little bit) that part of walking with Him is learning to persevere in prayer even through times of suffering and wait for Him to answer the way He wants to.

I love reading my Bible and making new discoveries about who He is and what He is like.

Because of this, whenever I talk to, or gather with other Christians, I have something to tell about Him and His working in and around me. I hope by this to encourage other Christians to make living every day with Jesus the "big deal."

Well, it is occurring to me that this probably belongs on the "What I've Learned" thread, but I don't want to take the time to do that 'cause it's easier just to hit Submit.

Then again maybe this does fit on the "double-speak" thread. In the LC we said that Christ was the main thing, but we practiced that the meetings and the church formula developed by Lee/Nee were the main thing--to the point that we couldn't be "practically" one with those who didn't make our church meeting formula their main thing. (Of course, we always said we were one with those who didn't take our way, but we can see pretty plainly today just how that double speaking has worked out.)

Glad to be past that time of my life.

Thankful Jane

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

We've turned Paul's letter to the Corinthians into a universal message never intended by Paul, who could never have dreamt that his letter would be considered scripture two thousand years later.

So it's a stretch beyond imagination that Paul's letter to the Corinthians applies to us, in the 21st century. If so, then we have turned Paul's letter to the Corinthians into law, and that would likely make Paul spin in his grave ... if he's still in the grave, which is doubtful ... bones maybe.

I wouldn't say that it is a stretch to say that this letter applies. But the question is how does it apply? If you ask the Church of Christ, they would point to some verse (not in this letter) that suggests that singing should be a capella. I don't see it. While their insistence on it is a problem, doing it that way is not.

But there is a lot that can be applied even if little can be called "law." It might even be universal because despite some clear direction, it was not given in terms of "do it precisely this way, in this order, and end with a prayer and the Doxology." The "rules" of order we are currently discussing are applicable to the Lutheran, the Baptist, the Pentecostal, and the LRC. And it can still look quite different without violating those rules.

The real problem is trying to dictate everyone based on them, or any other part of this particular letter. Or any other portion of scripture that is not decidedly prescriptive in detail. (And I'm not sure where that would be, if anywhere.)

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by OBW

Jane,

I never considered that you would think I was picking on you. I was just making sure that others didn't think that

That was kind of you, Mike. Thanks. Sorry I misunderstood.

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm beginning to think that all the emphasis on the form of a meeting, from openly participative, to somewhat participative in portions, to structured, to liturgical, is a distraction from what really matters. And it is not the form of the meeting.

I think you can see by my last post which I wrote before I read yours, that we are on the same page here. I no longer think I know anything about what God wants with regard to church meetings. I only have some level of assurance that I am where He wants me at this point in my life. I give other Christians all kinds of leeway in how, where, etc. they meet and what they believe about the church matter. This has absolutely nothing to do with my ability to receive, love, appreciate, and fellowship with them.

Jane

[OBW]

Jane and I may disagree on some things. But we agree on what matters.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

It seems that history teaches us we are headed for trouble when we start making church form and church meetings the main thing, as if that was the main thing in the Bible.

Despite the volume of Paul's writings concerning issues of the church, the real core of the NT — the real heart of the divine revelation — was in the actions and words of Christ in the four gospels. While there are a couple of references to the church, and a few more to our unity as "brothers," the bulk of it was in our living. It was not about worship. It was not about meetings. It was about your interactions with your neighbor. Your love for others. Your obedience. That is why the letters directed to the Jews were so much more about how they lived, about their works, than about their theological standing or positions. If their theology wasn't affecting their lives, it didn't matter what they believed. In fact, it could prove or disprove your claim of belief.

We are too prone to argue our belief based on what we think in our minds rather than what affects our lives. If I don't follow it, I don't really believe it. I'm still in the process of getting the two aligned. They were way out of alignment in my LRC days. (Or maybe they were actually in alignment, with the problem being what I believed at the time.)

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by OBW

My purpose in digging into what I think that Paul is saying here is not to say the LRC is simply wrong (although they might be). It is to demonstrate that they weren't simply right. And there is ample evidence that other ways easily meet Paul's standard of "order." Leaving the LRC removes us from a place of forced uniformity and dumps in a place of great diversity. Surely there are potential errors all around, just as there was in the LRC. But the fact of diversity in almost everything is not an error. The discussion about "all can prophesy" has not been about "I like churches that practice that. . . . other churches that do it different are just as good, but not my preference." Instead it has been more about proving the point that it is some kind of preference of Paul's and that doing it a different way is a spiritual problem. That may not be your position, but it permeates the underlying rhetoric I have been reading.

That's not my position. My purpose in raising the questions I did was just to have some more discussion about this chapter and what you had said about it. It seemed to me you came down too hard on the other end of the see-saw and were jettisoning the idea of all being able to participate. I just wanted to get it back on the see-saw since it seems to me to be in the Bible. Anyway, I think there has been some good discussion.

You are right that we need to try to set aside our assumptions and preformed constructs when we come to the Bible. It's not easy to do, but important. That is one of the things I think I have enjoyed the most (about reading the Bible) since finding a measure of freedom from all the interpretive overlays I acquired while under Lee's teaching.

Jane

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by OBW

Jane and I may disagree on some things. But we agree on what matters.
Despite the volume of Paul's writings concerning issues of the church, the real core of the NT — the real heart of the divine revelation — was in the actions and words of Christ in the four gospels. While there are a couple of references to the church, and a few more to our unity as "brothers," the bulk of it was in our living. It was not about worship. It was not about meetings. It was about your interactions with your neighbor. Your love for others. Your obedience. That is why the letters directed to the Jews were so much more about how they lived, about their works, than about their theological standing or positions. If their theology wasn't affecting their lives, it didn't matter what they believed. In fact, it could prove or disprove your claim of belief.

We are too prone to argue our belief based on what we think in our minds rather than what affects our lives.

Amen and Amen.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

And what I keep seeing/reading from so many who hold this "all meaning everyone" view of v. 31 is that assemblies that do not follow that reading are just not so good. They are deficient. And the LRC, or a Reformed LRC is the only real way to go.

Perhaps we should discuss other options. The church I meet with has several thousand on the Lord's day. Sometimes they have over 3,000. So it is clearly not practical or really feasible that "all" speak. Not only that but we are located in the inner city of NYC, on numerous occasions we have had troubled people wander into the meeting and up to the podium during a meeting. So a style of meeting that might work very well for 100 saints and part time clergy is certainly not going to work the same for us. Instead, there is a very big emphasis on "ministries". I think we have something on the order of 26 ministries. These ministries are usually around 20 or so saints, so in those meetings you generally have a situation where all can speak and most everyone does.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm beginning to think that all the emphasis on the form of a meeting, from openly participative, to somewhat participative in portions, to structured, to liturgical, is a distraction from what really matters. And it is not the form of the meeting. It is not definitionally wrong to "do church" the way the Lutherans, Anglicans, (even RCC, excluding the prayers to Saints and Mary), the Eastern Orthodox, Methodists, Presbyterians/Reformed, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Pentecostals/Charismatics, Brethren, Baptists (all of them), Mennonite, Bible churches, or any number of different nondenominational/free groups, and home groups do it. Even the LRC. A particular form might be a distraction to me. And my form may be a distraction to someone else.

In schools the way in which you teach is very critical. Studies have proven that students will learn more and retain more when they are active participants in the learning and not merely passive spectators. Teachers will be rated unacceptable and fired if they lecture for more than 15 minutes as a regular practice. In the same way I think it is important, and not merely a distraction, that the leaders in the church emphasize the active participation of the saints. That is merely a general principle. The practical working of that can be something quite different. In Odessa many of the church meetings were held in living rooms, so obviously it was easy to have a meeting in which all can speak. Where I am now the hall can hold over 3,000 and is generally at least half full, so it is a very different situation. Still, I think the emphasis where I am now is also on the active participation of the saints.

[awareness]

Okay "the ground" is local church double-speak.

Here's another : "Turn to your spirit."

Eventually I learned what turn to your spirit meant. It meant : get with the program.

I noticed that as long as I went along with the program, or appeared to, I was never chided to turn to my spirit. Even if I wasn't in my spirit.

And there were times when I was in my spirit but not going along with the program. Then I was chided to turn to my spirit.

Being "in your spirit" actually meant devotion to Witness Lee.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Perhaps we should discuss other options. The church I meet with has several thousand on the Lord's day. Sometimes they have over 3,000. So it is clearly not practical or really feasible that "all" speak. Not only that but we are located in the inner city of NYC, on numerous occasions we have had troubled people wander into the meeting and up to the podium during a meeting. So a style of meeting that might work very well for 100 saints and part time clergy is certainly not going to work the same for us. Instead, there is a very big emphasis on "ministries". I think we have something on the order of 26 ministries. These ministries are usually around 20 or so saints, so in those meetings you generally have a situation where all can speak and most everyone does.

Sounds a lot like IBC. Irving, while a suburb, is really quite inner-city in many ways, right up to the rich, almost resort-like neighborhoods. You know some of it from the early 80s. But a lot has changed since then.

[zeek]

Eventually I learned what turn to your spirit meant. It meant : get with the program.

[rayliotta]

How's this as an example of double-speak, Kerry Robichaux's response to questions about the "one publication" (Dec 2005):

"...The matter of one publication is not a matter of the common faith at all but something related to the one ministry in the Lord's recovery. There is no reason to confuse the two, nor to apply the standards of the one to the other. We feel that the ministry is the sounding of the trumpet among us in the Lord's recovery and that there should be no uncertain sounding of this trumpet, as Brother Lee has mentioned on a number of occasions. The one publication is not the basis of our accepting or rejecting any persons in the communion of faith; thus, it should not be insisted on as an item of the faith. However, while the common faith is general and inclusive, there must be more discipline and speciality among the ministers of the Word to maintain the one voice in the ministry of the truth..."

http://onepub.robichaux.name/2005/12...tions_a_1.html

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

How's this as an example of double-speak, Kerry Robichaux's response to questions about the "one publication" (Dec 2005):

"...The matter of one publication is not a matter of the common faith at all but something related to the one ministry in the Lord's recovery. There is no reason to confuse the two, nor to apply the standards of the one to the other. We feel that the ministry is the sounding of the trumpet among us in the Lord's recovery and that there should be no uncertain sounding of this trumpet, as Brother Lee has mentioned on a number of occasions. The one publication is not the basis of our accepting or rejecting any persons in the communion of faith; thus, it should not be insisted on as an item of the faith. However, while the common faith is general and inclusive, there must be more discipline and speciality among the ministers of the Word to maintain the one voice in the ministry of the truth..."

http://onepub.robichaux.name/2005/12...tions_a_1.html

Classic, really classic. We don't use the "one ministry" to receive new believers, but we can use it to excommunicate the mature ones. Think of the hypocrisy, a sliding scale that changes based on the whims of those that use it is by definition an uncertain trumpet. Why is justice blind?

Surely KR understands that deriving the "one publication" teaching from "no uncertain trumpet" cannot be a hard and fast rule. Who is to say that "no uncertain trumpet" means one publication, or that one publication results in a clear trumpet sound? But even so you could never take this teaching to then use a yardstick to excommunicate TC. Now it is clear the KR is trying to justify what happened to TC while also explaining why new members are not measured by the same standard.

This has to be the classic example of double speak. Nice to know that all of that higher learning that KR has did not go to waste, now he can spin the truth with the best of them. Isn't it a shame that so many think that the purpose of elite schools is to train you how to be a better liar?

[ZNPaaneah]

ICor 14:7-8 “Even things without life that give sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction of sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle? So likewise you, except you utter by the tongue plain speech, how shall it be known what is said? For you shall be speaking into the air.

Now this word is spoken in 1 Corinthians 14 within the context of talking about saints speaking in tongues in a meeting. It is an interesting analogy. The trumpet is used by the military because the sound can be heard above the din of warfare. Also, a song can have a meaning: “gather together”, “go to sleep”, “go to war”. So when the trumpet plays the song you don’t have to hear the entire song, just a few notes and you know exactly what to do. This analogy is used by Paul to explain his burden that the believers would speak a few clear words that everyone could understand rather than to speak in tongues that no one can understand.

But that is merely what the average simpleton might glean from their superficial reading of this passage. You have to really be impressed with the LSM brain trust and the depth of their revelation to see the high peaks vision that “an uncertain sound” really means that there should be one publisher. You see speaking in tongues is like using different publishers, not because the publishers publish in different languages that no one can understand, but because…they publish words that are speaking into the air. But speaking words of edification is like using the LSM publisher because that is what the LSM does, their focus is words of edification.

I was reading this passage and it occurred to me that I would never, (and I do not like to say the word never), but I would never have seen that an “uncertain trumpet sound” in 1 Cor was actually a charge by Paul (on penalty of being excommunicated) to have one publisher. It is examples like this that demonstrate once again that we should leave Bible exposition to the experts that can explain this stuff to us, it almost make you want to get a RcV for the footnotes.

Anyway I just thought I’d throw this out there. I know there must be a lot of others on this site who also want to marvel at these high peaks truths, the way they see things in the Bible that the common man just cannot see.

[awareness]

Good exegesis bro ZNP...

.

[OBW]

ZNP,

Great job.

I bet KR, DS, and a number of others are wishing they had come up with that way to describe it so clearly.

Too bad they really think it is clear and correct. Oh, it's clear. Just not correct.

[zeek]

People we contacted were referred to as "good material" or "bad material". This expression seemed to reduce persons to objects whose only value was to be used for "the building." Needless to say it was very judgmental to evaluate people this way. As if we knew how God evaluates people or anything for that matter.

Practically speaking the success of "building" was largely a numbers game. The more people, the more successful you were. It was a matter of quantity not quality. From what I read, that seemed to be the case right up until the end for WL as he seemed to be disappointed by the lack of growth in numbers over his last decade.

[awareness]

Sad to say, but the good material, more often than not, was people with money, or with potential to bring in money.

I can't tell you how many churches I've bumped into that give most sway to those with the most money in the church. Their wrongs, and even their immorality, are forgiven very quickly, if not completely overlooked.

I read a ton of WL's writings and found so many non-biblical and contrary concepts. Quotes will be from memory and paraphrased.

For instance, WL said "Don't say Witness Lee said ... That means nothing" then proceeded to speak as if he was the second coming of Christ in half his Life studies, intepreting every word of the Bible with no at times no regard for the context of the verse.

WL said "you can't be too intellectual and still be in the spirit". He at other times slanders believers for not being intellectually rigorous enough with their bible study habits, reading, and interpretations.

WL said things like "if you don't think there will be chastisement after death then you think there are no unresolved issues between you and God". Showing he did not believe the gospel that Christ became accursed for us that we might be counted as the righteousness of God.

WL straight up encouraged people being excommunicated, banned, ostracized, and marked and avoided for being different than the rest of the body but prided himself and his movement on "not creating division in the body of Christ". Are you kidding? It doesn't get anymore double minded than this one.

There are probably many more examples given how much WL and WN wrote, but I hope these examples show how litered and grevious the double talking is. I only engaged for six months so there is probably so much I haven't encountered as well. But the way some of the members spoke about other believers who weren't in the clan indicated to me that when the Word says "My word will not come back to me void, it will accomplish what I want it to accomplish" they do not believe it for a second... They think they need to work their butts off and become an "overcomer" for any of the Bible's word to become remotely profitable. Its funny too how they are obsessed with the BEMA seat but everything they build down here is not of faith. Its of their own vision and experience. So long as they have something to show of their "faith" down here, they deem it spiritual. Well, hope that is seen is not hope. A LC member told me he doesn't care about the rapture cuz this life is a perfect place to live out the Christian life, as well. I'll let you be the judge, but when you read some of Paul's words about being present with the Lord, does it seem like he's excited to you? Or ambivalent? I know I am excited to be with Christ, appearantly they are doing just fine without Him?