Attempting to SEEM inclusive

[boughtbyJesus]

Not sure under which category to put this attachment under. My husband has started changing his verbiage a little, and even though I was initially a little pleased, I soon realized he was once again regurgitating was is been spoon fed to him to repeat!:crazy

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by boughtbyJesus

Not sure under which category to put this attachment under. My husband has started changing his verbiage a little, and even though I was initially a little pleased, I soon realized he was once again regurgitating was is been spoon fed to him to repeat!:crazy

It is not at all uncommon for LCers to pay lip service in order to make others happy. For example, when I was a college student and we had a LC Christian club, newcomers always wanted to know our affiliations. Our response was usually along the lines of "we are Christians of various backgrounds". It was a misleading statement that while not false, gave people the answers that they wanted to hear.

The LC pretends to be inclusive, but their actions are indicative of exclusiveness. They can color things any way they want, but I think most people can see the LC for what it really is.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The LC pretends to be inclusive, but their actions are indicative of exclusiveness. They can color things any way they want, but I think most people can see the LC for what it really is.

As relayed by Indiana in recent past, a brother from the Church of Moses Lake (which broke it's affiliation with LSM in 1986) went to visit the Church in Ephrata, this brother was not welcome to meet.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

As relayed by Indiana in recent past, a brother from the Church of Moses Lake (which broke it's affiliation with LSM in 1986) went to visit the Church in Ephrata, this brother was not welcome to meet.

The LC is anything but inclusive. They can put a spin on it any way they want, but the facts speak otherwise. How could a group that kicks out members for publishing their own materials be considered to be inclusive? How could a group that kicks out members for failing to only use LSM materials be considered to be inclusive?

I'm afraid that many of those who join the LC think they are joining a group other than what it really is. Just look at any website for LC campus clubs these days. They try hard to obscure any linkage to the LC, that fact is only made known gradually after people have been involved for some amount of time. It is both dishonest, and it also is a subtle admission of the fact that the LC image promoted publicly is not the LC known to longtime members.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The LC is anything but inclusive. They can put a spin on it any way they want, but the facts speak otherwise. How could a group that kicks out members for publishing their own materials be considered to be inclusive? How could a group that kicks out members for failing to only use LSM materials be considered to be inclusive?

The LRC has only been inclusive when it steals people, songs, or teachings from the greater body of Christ.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The LC is anything but inclusive. They can put a spin on it any way they want, but the facts speak otherwise. How could a group that kicks out members for publishing their own materials be considered to be inclusive? How could a group that kicks out members for failing to only use LSM materials be considered to be inclusive?

In all fairness, I feel and believe as many as 99% meeting with the local churches want to be inclusive. It's the 1% who aren't inclusive that happen to be the decision makers (coworkers/elders). In localities, there may be deacons and elders who are part of the 99% don't want to "upset the apple cart" so they go along with the program. Besides after 30-40 years meeting with the local churches, where would they go?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

In all fairness, I feel and believe as many as 99% meeting with the local churches want to be inclusive. It's the 1% who aren't inclusive that happen to be the decision makers (coworkers/elders). In localities, there may be deacons and elders who are part of the 99% don't want to "upset the apple cart" so they go along with the program. Besides after 30-40 years meeting with the local churches, where would they go?

I do think that many of the rank and file members want to and strive to be "inclusive", but they are limited both by leaders and their notions about what the LC should be. By its very definition, the LC purports to be something better than it is. They think they express "oneness" and everyone else is in division. That kind of mindset leads to exclusivity whether or not anyone wants to be exclusive.

It's not that LCers sought out to be that way, it's just the principle upon which they are founded is exclusive. The notion of "recovery" implies everyone else is degraded. So naturally, that is how everyone on the outside is viewed.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I do think that many of the rank and file members want to and strive to be "inclusive", but they are limited both by leaders and their notions about what the LC should be. By its very definition, the LC purports to be something better than it is. They think they express "oneness" and everyone else is in division. That kind of mindset leads to exclusivity whether or not anyone wants to be exclusive.

Who wants to be the one to tell their elder(s), you're being exclusive in your speaking?
Of course elders may not see their speaking as being exclusive, but being "absolute for the ministry".

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Who wants to be the one to tell their elder(s), you're being exclusive in your speaking?
Of course elders may not see their speaking as being exclusive, but being "absolute for the ministry".

I will repost here what I posted on HERn's thread yesterday, because I think it is pertinent. These are descriptions of what I've seen elders/leading brothers do:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Some time back, there was a community church that sent out flyers about an event they were holding for the community. A brother brought this flyer to a meeting and used it to attack what they were doing, saying how in the LC we don't have such "gimmicks". It made me feel sick inside to hear him speak that way. Here was a community church opening their arm to the community to have such an event. In contrast, the LC is so exclusive that they hardly have any contact wit the community. They think they're too good for that. Sad, sad, sad!

I remember being in a meeting where a brother stood up to say how we don't speak the "low gospel" like Billy Graham, Greg Laurie or Rick Warren. When I think about how often I've seen empty seats in LC meeting halls, it disgusts me to think they would criticize others like that. They criticize the so-called low gospel, yet their "gospel" isn't relevant to most people. What hypocrites LCers are!

[Intothewind]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The LRC has only been inclusive when it steals people, songs, or teachings from the greater body of Christ.

Ah, this would be great in the double standards thread.

Note also that in rv hymnals those written by WL are denoted with an asterisk, nee by across (please correct if wrong)

A great example of inclusivity lip service was that on our campus all the christian clubs tried having an interclub gathering. Christians on campus was not present....save a member or two not repping the club. a couple other groups reach out to us to collaborate on such things as public prayer open to any passing students, public singalongs etc.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

A great example of inclusivity lip service was that on our campus all the christian clubs tried having an interclub gathering. Christians on campus was not present....save a member or two not repping the club. a couple other groups reach out to us to collaborate on such things as public prayer open to any passing students, public singalongs etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFXlsK3CX6g

The link is another good example of being inclusive.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

A great example of inclusivity lip service was that on our campus all the christian clubs tried having an interclub gathering. Christians on campus was not present....

Christians on campus is such an inclusive group that they won't meet with anyone not as inclusive as they are. Which unfortunately means everyone.

But hey, someone has to testify for the oneness of the body of Christ.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Christians on campus is such an inclusive group that they won't meet with anyone not as inclusive as they are. Which unfortunately means everyone.

But hey, someone has to testify for the oneness of the body of Christ.

I probably sound like a broken record when it comes to Christians on Campus, but it just disgusts me how disingenuous they are. I was involved at one point, as a minion for the church elders (yes elders) on the campus, all the while claiming that we were "just Christians" with no outside contentions. LCers know very well that the campus work is run by full-timers or elders. I knew it was wrong, but what could I say or do? Eventually I just had to "disappear". And that was my reaction as a "church kid", not as a student who didn't understand the group.

Those who meet Christians on Campus are innocent students seeking a Christian fellowship. Instead they are presented with LSM literature, and with teachings that are brand new to them. I've heard it said on a number of occasions that the goal of the LC campus work is to get students, bring them into the church life and then send them to the training. What if new members were told of their predetermined path at the onset? How many would run away? Of course that doesn't happen, because they are gradually warmed up to the group, so it doesn't trigger the reaction that it really should.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I probably sound like a broken record when it comes to Christians on Campus, but it just disgusts me how disingenuous they are. I was involved at one point, as a minion for the church elders (yes elders) on the campus, all the while claiming that we were "just Christians" with no outside contentions. LCers know very well that the campus work is run by full-timers or elders.

Seems your campus wasn't much difference than UW. Christians on Campus was essentially run by serving ones/deacons or elders in training.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I've heard it said on a number of occasions that the goal of the LC campus work is to get students, bring them into the church life and then send them to the training. What if new members were told of their predetermined path at the onset?

Suppose one does meet with the Church in ____ as their assembly for Sunday services, but as a prospective FTTA trainee is not part of their future.
I think the perception will be they're meeting with the Local churches, but not part of the Body of Christ.

[Intothewind]

I like how they act like their is no pressure to attend the training.

I actually got called up to stage at the suggestion of an elder in my locality by the speaking brother at a college conference. He was talking about the training and about how we should pray about what to do after college. Called me up there and asked me what I wanted to do...had the whole group of students sing and pray something...

"So what are you doing after college?"

"I don't know"

"Lets try that again"(cue crowd)

Speaking brother did come up and apologize for putting me on the spot-which I suppose would not have been necessary had I just shouted "I'm going to the FTTA!!!". But I had one trainee that I didn't even know come up, poke me in the ribs, offer some small talk and then say "see ya next term"

I feel like once it was realized that I was not going to go I was sort of tossed by the wayside.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

I like how they act like their is no pressure to attend the training.

I actually got called up to stage at the suggestion of an elder in my locality by the speaking brother at a college conference. He was talking about the training and about how we should pray about what to do after college. Called me up there and asked me what I wanted to do...had the whole group of students sing and pray something...

"So what are you doing after college?"

"I don't know"

"Lets try that again"(cue crowd)

Speaking brother did come up and apologize for putting me on the spot-which I suppose would not have been necessary had I just shouted "I'm going to the FTTA!!!". But I had one trainee that I didn't even know come up, poke me in the ribs, offer some small talk and then say "see ya next term"

I feel like once it was realized that I was not going to go I was sort of tossed by the wayside.

My observation while meeting with a nearby locality regarding FTTA trainees..."we are equal, but some ( for example FTTA trainees) are more equal than others". As a result I saw a class system developing. Be mindful this observation was circa 1995.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

I like how they act like their is no pressure to attend the training.

I actually got called up to stage at the suggestion of an elder in my locality by the speaking brother at a college conference. He was talking about the training and about how we should pray about what to do after college. Called me up there and asked me what I wanted to do...had the whole group of students sing and pray something...

"So what are you doing after college?"

"I don't know"

"Lets try that again"(cue crowd)

Speaking brother did come up and apologize for putting me on the spot-which I suppose would not have been necessary had I just shouted "I'm going to the FTTA!!!". But I had one trainee that I didn't even know come up, poke me in the ribs, offer some small talk and then say "see ya next term"

I feel like once it was realized that I was not going to go I was sort of tossed by the wayside.

It really does disgust me how they utilize group pressure. It seems whenever they need compliance from someone, they just put them on the spot in front of everyone to get a desired response.

Maybe it's for the better that those who don't go to the FTTA get tossed by the wayside. I think that experience can be eye-opening. When I was in college, after it became clear I had no intention of going to the FTTA, people became a lot less interested in me. It helped me to realize how the LC really works. Sure, I had good times in college with my LC peers, but that all faded away as soon as they realized I wasn't going to attend the Witness Lee duplication center.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It really does disgust me how they utilize group pressure. It seems whenever they need compliance from someone, they just put them on the spot in front of everyone to get a desired response.

This disease is systemic.

Just this year I was in my own home with a group of ex-LC family members. (We have all been out for years.) After breaking bread and fellowshiping in the word, the oldest one, a long-time former elder, out of the blue asks all the others one-by-one, "do you think Ohio should do such-n-such?" How about you, "do you think Ohio should do such-n-such?" And how about you, "do you think Ohio should do such-n-such?"

Yet ... they can go on for hours about each one of us following the Lord in our spirit.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This disease is systemic.

Just this year I was in my own home with a group of ex-LC family members. (We have all been out for years.) After breaking bread and fellowshiping in the word, the oldest one, a long-time former elder, out of the blue asks all the others one-by-one, "do you think Ohio should do such-n-such?" How about you, "do you think Ohio should do such-n-such?" And how about you, "do you think Ohio should do such-n-such?"

Yet ... they can go on for hours about each one of us following the Lord in our spirit.

This is the pattern set forth by leaders, so that's what people learn to do. It's interesting how even ex-members could still not see past it.

Group pressure is one of the easiest ways to get someone to do something, so it isn't surprising that they utilize it. I remember this time there was a small training for the churches in the area, and the elders were having trouble getting people to register. So what they did was just register a bunch of people without asking them. Then, during a meeting, they said they needed payments from everyone who is signed up for the training. Yeah, nice try, but didn't work on me.

I think that over the years, I learned to resist the group pressure somewhat, but it was never easy. It's completely understandable why so many people cave into it.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Group pressure is one of the easiest ways to get someone to do something, so it isn't surprising that they utilize it. I remember this time there was a small training for the churches in the area, and the elders were having trouble getting people to register. So what they did was just register a bunch of people without asking them. Then, during a meeting, they said they needed payments from everyone who is signed up for the training. Yeah, nice try, but didn't work on me.

I've heard stories of some of the Chinese saints exerting pressure on their "contacts" in a forceful manner to make them get baptized, even arguing with them until they cave. This is why I find it so concerning that offshoot groups like the EL exist. When the EL killed someone in McDonalds for refusing to comply, that is the same principle of pressuring someone. The difference is in the amount of pressure and whether or not consequences are imposed.

Most LC members know that declining to do something can potentially get someone a label of being "negative" or "opposing", so going along with the pressure seems like a no-brainer to most. Being labeled as "negative" can have a particularly damaging effect on someone. It is a defamation of character, and if someone has family/relatives in the LC, it makes it even worse. In the LC there are consequences for refusing pressure, that is made clear to most members. Until members strike up the courage to resist pressure, the LC will become an uglier and uglier monster.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I've heard stories of some of the Chinese saints exerting pressure on their "contacts" in a forceful manner to make them get baptized, even arguing with them until they cave. This is why I find it so concerning that offshoot groups like the EL exist. When the EL killed someone in McDonalds for refusing to comply, that is the same principle of pressuring someone. The difference is in the amount of pressure and whether or not consequences are imposed.

Most LC members know that declining to do something can potentially get someone a label of being "negative" or "opposing", so going along with the pressure seems like a no-brainer to most. Being labeled as "negative" can have a particularly damaging effect on someone. It is a defamation of character, and if someone has family/relatives in the LC, it makes it even worse. In the LC there are consequences for refusing pressure, that is made clear to most members. Until members strike up the courage to resist pressure, the LC will become an uglier and uglier monster.

Which is exactly what happened to their predecessors, the Darby exclusives.

Back in the late 90's, Titus Chu of Cleveland and Jim Reetzke of Chicago visited some of them in the UK. TC told us publicly of two of their present day ordinances. First, they could not eat at the same family dinner table with any unsaved family member 12 years or older. Second, they could not live in a house that shared a sewer line with an unbeliever. I'm sure they have verses to support their abuses.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Which is exactly what happened to their predecessors, the Darby exclusives.

Back in the late 90's, Titus Chu of Cleveland and Jim Reetzke of Chicago visited some of them in the UK. TC told us publicly of two of their present day ordinances. First, they could not eat at the same family dinner table with any unsaved family member 12 years or older. Second, they could not live in a house that shared a sewer line with an unbeliever. I'm sure they have verses to support their abuses.

It's really sad when you consider that the exclusives became is something completely different than what they set out to be. And it could have all be avoided. The LC continued in that path and became the exact same thing. There was the inability to learn from history, because they thought themselves to be something different, something better than the brethren.

Most LC members I know are completely ignorant to how exclusive they actually are. They might think that they are inclusive and "open to everyone", however, their actions speak to the opposite. It's a sad state to be in. If they were open to critical feedback, maybe there would be the opportunity for change.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's really sad when you consider that the exclusives became is something completely different than what they set out to be. And it could have all be avoided. The LC continued in that path and became the exact same thing. There was the inability to learn from history, because they thought themselves to be something different, something better than the brethren.

Most LC members I know are completely ignorant to how exclusive they actually are. They might think that they are inclusive and "open to everyone", however, their actions speak to the opposite. It's a sad state to be in. If they were open to critical feedback, maybe there would be the opportunity for change.

All exclusives begin with a return back to the scriptures, which becomes a source of blessing. Then the lust for power takes over which begins their demise. All of these strange ordinances are simply vehicles to control their people.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Most LC members I know are completely ignorant to how exclusive they actually are. They might think that they are inclusive and "open to everyone", however, their actions speak to the opposite. It's a sad state to be in. If they were open to critical feedback, maybe there would be the opportunity for change.

Inclusive in the context of Luke 6:32, but not in the context of Romans 15:7.
After all "fellowship" in the LC concept is an all or nothing proposition. The basis of fellowship is LSM publications.

[Intothewind]

In reply to a brother arguing that the Christians on Campus club was inclusive.

Sure, "de jour" you guys may be inviting to Christians from all backgrounds

But "de facto" this is a fringe group hiding behind the idea of commonality with other Christians while presenting an environment/doctrine that it not conducive for togetherness.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

In reply to a brother arguing that the Christians on Campus club was inclusive.

Sure, "de jour" you guys may be inviting to Christians from all backgrounds

But "de facto" this is a fringe group hiding behind the idea of commonality with other Christians while presenting an environment/doctrine that it not conducive for togetherness.

It's kind of hard for any CoC group to claim that they are inclusive when they pride themselves in possessing "unique" doctrines (ground of the church, human spirit, etc, etc). That is really their whole goal is to introduce students to these things. It's significant that they never make a point to interact with any other Christian clubs or see what exists before starting a new club.

I'm aware of multiple campuses that have a faculty member serving as the advisor for the club. Maybe if a LC faculty member wasn't on the campus, the club would have trouble getting someone to play that role for them. I have wondered about that before. It's not like CoC is an "average" club.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's kind of hard for any CoC group to claim that they are inclusive when they pride themselves in possessing "unique" doctrines (ground of the church, human spirit, etc, etc). That is really their whole goal is to introduce students to these things. It's significant that they never make a point to interact with any other Christian clubs or see what exists before starting a new club.

My impression is there's more of a focus on inviting 17/18 year old freshman rather than 21-22 year old seniors and juniors. Probably due to having more time to indoctrinate and inspire them for FTTA.
On other campuses there might be more of a focus on foreign exchange students....say Chinese and Korean speaking.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

In reply to a brother arguing that the Christians on Campus club was inclusive.

Sure, "de jour" you guys may be inviting to Christians from all backgrounds

But "de facto" this is a fringe group hiding behind the idea of commonality with other Christians while presenting an environment/doctrine that it not conducive for togetherness.

And one more thing. Their inclusiveness is one-way. You can come to us, but we will never darken your doorway.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

And one more thing. Their inclusiveness is one-way. You can come to us, but we will never darken your doorway.

Recently, I came across a few CoC Facebook posts for what they are calling an "intercollegiate meeting". Obviously, it's a term that's meant to sound inclusive, but what they're really saying is that CoC clubs from various campuses are going to have a joint meeting together. It's a bit deceptive as I see it. They have no trouble "connecting" to clubs outside their campus, but can't seem to work together with the other clubs that exist on the same campus. The sad thing is, most innocent students don't even realize the sleight of hand that's occurring.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Recently, I came across a few CoC Facebook posts for what they are calling an "intercollegiate meeting". Obviously, it's a term that's meant to sound inclusive, but what they're really saying is that CoC clubs from various campuses are going to have a joint meeting together. It's a bit deceptive as I see it. They have no trouble "connecting" to clubs outside their campus, but can't seem to work together with the other clubs that exist on the same campus. The sad thing is, most innocent students don't even realize the sleight of hand that's occurring.

I think that the average CoC member is less dogmatic than the official position, but they still think they are the only true church.

You know the joke about the wall in heaven. St. Peter advises to be quiet as you pass it. The CoC's members are on the other side and they think they are the only ones there.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that the average CoC member is less dogmatic than the official position, but they still think they are the only true church.

You know the joke about the wall in heaven. St. Peter advises to be quiet as you pass it. The CoC's members are on the other side and they think they are the only ones there.

That's funny, and it's true, they think they're the only ones....

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Freedom

That's funny, and it's true, they think they're the only ones....

I'm pretty sure LSM teaches that there will be at least a few overcomers from the RCC and the denominations that make the rapture and become the Bride of Christ, and that all believers will eventually be together in the new earth and new earth as the wife of the Lamb. I think their exclusivity is that they think they are the only ones on earth now doing it right and pleasing the Father.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

I'm pretty sure LSM teaches that there will be at least a few overcomers from the RCC and the denominations that make the rapture and become the Bride of Christ, and that all believers will eventually be together in the new earth and new earth as the wife of the Lamb. I think their exclusivity is that they think they are the only ones on earth now doing it right and pleasing the Father.

Those in the LC do seem willing to make certain admissions, especially if it involves the opportunity to warm people up to the LC. I know I have heard the same as what you mentioned about overcomers, LCers will admit that Christians outside their Lee sect can be overcomers too. I vaguely remember asking an LCer about this for clarification, only to receive a blank stare.

What it really boils down to is that many LCers are just paying lip service. I do think there are also some members who aren’t as exclusive as the rest, but their idea is more along the lines of thinking that 99.9% of anything “good” is in the LC. The “others” do exist, they just make up .1% or whatever minuscule fraction they imagine it to be.

Consider the following statement that Lee once made: "In every denomination, including the Roman Catholic Church, there are real, saved Christians.” What was he really saying there? It seems to me that the underlying implication is that he assumes the vast majority of Christians outside the LC to be either false or carnal Christians. Otherwise what need would he have to clarify that other groups have “real, saved Christians”? I can’t say that I’ve met any Christians outside the LC that go around questioning the sincerity/genuineness of all other groups but their own.

I don’t have the right to judge WL’s heart, but what I think is fair to say is that his emphasis on certain teachings created a problem for him in terms of receiving others. He equated practicing the ground of the church as the only way for Christians to bear a proper testimony for the Lord. He claimed that his practices of spiritual exercise to be the only way to have a genuine relationship with the Lord. He thus left no door open for other possibilities with respect to those who didn’t practice his teachings.

[OBW]

I made mention of one-way inclusiveness the other day. I think that a more viable understanding is that:

• They are not one with anyone that is not taking their way.
• They include only those who will come to them to be included.

It would appear that at this time, the RCC is more truly inclusive than the LCM. The RCC, like the brother pushing the EO at times, thinks that they are the original church and therefore should be the only church, but they do not deny the status as "church" for others or deny their salvation.

But the LCM would refer to any group that is not them as "so-called" churches. They do not recognize the assembly of believers outside of themselves as being churches. Especially within a city in which there is an LCM assembly.

To get a feel for the kind of sectarianism that prevails in the LCM, several years ago when I was still keeping up with Facebook, there was a post announcing that there was once again a church in Rome since there were followers of Lee that had "taken the ground." Not exactly their words, but it was precisely what was meant.

Really?!? No church in Rome for all these centuries? If that does not say enough about it, I don't know what would!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

To get a feel for the kind of sectarianism that prevails in the LCM, several years ago when I was still keeping up with Facebook, there was a post announcing that there was once again a church in Rome since there were followers of Lee that had "taken the ground." Not exactly their words, but it was precisely what was meant.

Really?!? No church in Rome for all these centuries? If that does not say enough about it, I don't know what would!

I saw the same. For all we know, that assembly could constitute of 6 brothers and sisters and that's your expression of the church in Rome. Of a city more than 4 million, I doubt that's all the Christians in Rome.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

I'm pretty sure LSM teaches that there will be at least a few overcomers from the RCC and the denominations that make the rapture and become the Bride of Christ, and that all believers will eventually be together in the new earth and new earth as the wife of the Lamb. I think their exclusivity is that they think they are the only ones on earth now doing it right and pleasing the Father.

I know LSM has a teaching you could be meeting with the local churches and not be practically part of the Body of Christ. They could take to another level and make the correlation, if you're absolute for "the ministry" aka LSM publications, that alone enhances your possibility of becoming an overcomer.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

I saw the same. For all we know, that assembly could constitute of 6 brothers and sisters and that's your expression of the church in Rome. Of a city more than 4 million, I doubt that's all the Christians in Rome.

It's funny how confidently those in the LC can make such claims. Yet, they don't know any better. This is what they believe. Something that I have come to realize is that those in the LC have really devloped different semantics for what the word 'church' means. As an example, in the footnote for Matt 16:18 on the word 'church', the RcV states the following:
Gk. ekklesia, meaning an out-calling. This word is used in reference to a called-out congregation. My church indicates that the church is of the Lord, not of any other person or thing; it is not like the denominations, which are denominated according to some person's name or according to some matter.

So, LCers believe the church to be primary an out-calling, and importantly it seems that this out-calling is supposed to primarily from none other than denominations. It's no wonder that 'church' has become a loaded term to them. They can't view any normal assembly as being part of the church, their assembling only occurs by dividing and separating themselves from other Christians - as an "out-calling" from everything they chose to criticize.

If we replace the word 'church' with assembly, and apply that to their nomenclature, what we get is them saying things like "we are THE assembly in Rome." Their whole one church one city rule works for them because their semantics differ from everyone else. It is obvious that within a city, there are numerous Christian assemblies, and for any one group to claim that they are the only assembly or the most important assembly is both ignorant and prideful.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

[I]Gk. ekklesia, meaning an out-calling. This word is used in reference to a called-out congregation. My church indicates that the church is of the Lord, not of any other person or thing; it is not like the denominations, which are denominated according to some person's name or according to some matter.

Based on your RcV quote, it appears they're calling the local churches a denomination...."or according to some matter". When I was last at a LC LTM
in 2014, one of the utterances coming out of the HWFMR is fellowship is according to the ministry publications. Whatever LSM publishes, that is the basis for fellowship.
While attempting to call themselves inclusive, they necessarily don't want to be held by inclusiveness. Rather, it's conditional in practice. If you have a vision of the brand of theology LSM publishes, of course there's inclusion. If you're one who wants scripture only, you will be viewed unfavorably. Maybe even escorted from the LTM.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

I saw the same. For all we know, that assembly could constitute of 6 brothers and sisters and that's your expression of the church in Rome. Of a city more than 4 million, I doubt that's all the Christians in Rome.

And I bet that a major portion of them attend mass regularly at one of the many RCC places each week.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

[/I]So, LCers believe the church to be primary an out-calling, and importantly it seems that this out-calling is supposed to primarily from none other than denominations. It's no wonder that 'church' has become a loaded term to them. They can't view any normal assembly as being part of the church, their assembling only occurs by dividing and separating themselves from other Christians - as an "out-calling" from everything they chose to criticize.

If we replace the word 'church' with assembly, and apply that to their nomenclature, what we get is them saying things like "we are THE assembly in Rome." Their whole one church one city rule works for them because their semantics differ from everyone else. It is obvious that within a city, there are numerous Christian assemblies, and for any one group to claim that they are the only assembly or the most important assembly is both ignorant and prideful.

There's the thought just because the words "local", "locality", or using the phrase "Christians meeting as the church in" invokes inclusion, generality, etc. Yet in practice basing fellowship on a ministry makes in fact a ministry church. There is no way for a general visiting Christian to sense any inclusion. In reality churches that base fellowship on a ministry should realize their meetings are not for anyone except those who share the vision the ministry promotes.