Taking the Ground

[Freedom]

With respect to Lee's "ground of locality" doctrine, I was wondering what the practice of "taking the ground" actually means and how it came about. I understand what it is supposed to mean, but in my experience, it is a phrase that is thrown about quite loosely. My understanding from reading through different threads is that this practice of "taking the ground" is some type of addendum that came sometime after Lee came to the U.S.

To clarify my question, I will give a little bit of background. There are at least two (maybe more) LC's near me that meet as the church in X, however, they haven't "taken the ground" yet. For past LC's I have seen start, this action of "taking the ground" has usually been signified by a "ground-breaking" meeting, where LC's from the area will gather together.

This issue recently caught my attention when the church in X wasn't listed as one of the numerous LC's in a certain area. The church in X has been meeting together for quite some time, but hasn't "taken the ground", so they aren't officially called the church in X, and I don't think they have any problem with not being recognized as an official LC yet.

In other cases, I have seen LC's that haven't "taken the ground" where they are merely a "satellite" church of a larger nearby LC. Saints in one city merely start meeting with the new LC, and suddenly there are now saints meeting in that city (even though non-LC saints have been meeting there long before). It seems to me that this whole idea of a LC needing to "take the ground" shows a big hole in Lee's "ground of locality" doctrine.

With these LC efforts like GTCA, "taking the ground" seems to merely involved some pro-LSM saints moving to a city with no LSM church, meeting there for a period of time, gaining a few new people, then declaring that they are the church in X.

At any rate my best guess as to what taking the ground really means is that it is some type of stamp of approval that comes from headquarters. This might possibly involve choosing elders and insuring that the church is supportive of the ministry. Other than that, I can't really determine what it really means.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

At any rate my best guess as to what taking the ground really means is that it is some type of stamp of approval that comes from headquarters. This might possibly involve choosing elders and insuring that the church is supportive of the ministry. Other than that, I can't really determine what it really means.

I think you hit the mark or at least hit fairly close. I had been told of an incident that happened years before I moved to the Northwest. A brother had a burden for Bellevue before there was a church in Bellevue. Problem was he followed through on his burden (taking the Church in Bellevue) without the stamp of approval. As a result he found himself quarantined/excommunicated. When the ground was officially taken in Bellevue, they had to use a different name until The Church in Bellevue name became available.
I may not have the facts completely accurate, but the outcome was the same.
What it really means, taking the ground is just a pretentious display. If the name is available, anyone can register as the Church in _____ if they're willing to pay the fees.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

With respect to Lee's "ground of locality" doctrine, I was wondering what the practice of "taking the ground" actually means and how it came about. I understand what it is supposed to mean, but in my experience, it is a phrase that is thrown about quite loosely. My understanding from reading through different threads is that this practice of "taking the ground" is some type of addendum that came sometime after Lee came to the U.S.

To clarify my question, I will give a little bit of background. There are at least two (maybe more) LC's near me that meet as the church in X, however, they haven't "taken the ground" yet. For past LC's I have seen start, this action of "taking the ground" has usually been signified by a "ground-breaking" meeting, where LC's from the area will gather together.

This issue recently caught my attention when the church in X wasn't listed as one of the numerous LC's in a certain area. The church in X has been meeting together for quite some time, but hasn't "taken the ground", so they aren't officially called the church in X, and I don't think they have any problem with not being recognized as an official LC yet.

In other cases, I have seen LC's that haven't "taken the ground" where they are merely a "satellite" church of a larger nearby LC. Saints in one city merely start meeting with the new LC, and suddenly there are now saints meeting in that city (even though non-LC saints have been meeting there long before). It seems to me that this whole idea of a LC needing to "take the ground" shows a big hole in Lee's "ground of locality" doctrine.

With these LC efforts like GTCA, "taking the ground" seems to merely involved some pro-LSM saints moving to a city with no LSM church, meeting there for a period of time, gaining a few new people, then declaring that they are the church in X.

At any rate my best guess as to what taking the ground really means is that it is some type of stamp of approval that comes from headquarters. This might possibly involve choosing elders and insuring that the church is supportive of the ministry. Other than that, I can't really determine what it really means.

Taking the ground usually meant the inaugural Lords Table meeting, normally accompanied by many outside guests and a celebratory love feast. Prior to that, the regional "Bishop" had already determined that the fledgling church had adequate numbers and maturity to survive as an independent LC. The necessary work to obtain iRS tax exempt status was then undertaken, though not always. I know of a few places that felt that their bank account in the name "church in x" was sufficient for donations.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

What it really means, taking the ground is just a pretentious display. If the name is available, anyone can register as the Church in _____ if they're willing to pay the fees.

A long time ago I was trying to explain the "ground of locality" to a friend, that is why we meet as the church in X. He immediately pointed out something very similar. What is to stop any other church from registering as the church in X? For LSM churches, what makes them the church in X is that they have claimed that name. The assumption is that no one will take that name first.

I remembered I read somewhere that when the was the GL split, there were two churches in Toronto. When I google it, there are two links thechurchintoronto.org and thelocalchurchintoronto.org, I wonder which one is which? Actually, it looks like the first is the non-LSM one and the second is the LSM one.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Freedom

A long time ago I was trying to explain the "ground of locality" to a friend, that is why we meet as the church in X. He immediately pointed out something very similar. What is to stop any other church from registering as the church in X? For LSM churches, what makes them the church in X is that they have claimed that name. The assumption is that no one will take that name first.

I remembered I read somewhere that when the was the GL split, there were two churches in Toronto. When I google it, there are two links thechurchintoronto.org and thelocalchurchintoronto.org, I wonder which one is which? Actually, it looks like the first is the non-LSM one and the second is the LSM one.

And when they increase, they create districts, "Hall 1," "Hall 2," and so forth. (Of course, this is very, very different from names like "First Baptist Church" and "Second Baptist Church"!)

Perhaps when Toronto experiences a really big increase, they can follow this model: IBEW Local 353.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Taking the ground usually meant the inaugural Lords Table meeting, normally accompanied by many outside guests and a celebratory love feast. Prior to that, the regional "Bishop" had already determined that the fledgling church had adequate numbers and maturity to survive as an independent LC. The necessary work to obtain iRS tax exempt status was then undertaken, though not always. I know of a few places that felt that their bank account in the name "church in x" was sufficient for donations.

From my experience, the only visible thing associated with taking the ground has been the inaugural Lord's Table meeting. I find it all very confusing how they use the terminology, and I would guess most LCers just accept it as fact, as did I. Meetings of a new LC may supersede the inaugural meeting by many months or even years. This makes me wonder, according to LC doctrine, was a church was not "standing on the ground" before such a meeting occurred?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Freedom

From my experience, the only visible thing associated with taking the ground has been the inaugural Lord's Table meeting. I find it all very confusing how they use the terminology, and I would guess most LCers just accept it as fact, as did I. Meetings of a new LC may supersede the inaugural meeting by many months or even years. This makes me wonder, according to LC doctrine, was a church was not "standing on the ground" before such a meeting occurred?

Absolutely not. They're not "standing on the ground" until they're given the green light by the representatives of the Apostle of the Age, even if they're thousands of miles away. And these representatives, as we all know, are not part of any human organization, they eschew hierarchy, and they respect the "administration local" of the church, even as they care for the "Body universal."

Oh, and all of your questions, Freedom (and mine, too) -- they're shaped like boogie-serpents.

Lions, tigers, and bears, oh my! Be afraid, be very, very afraid...

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

And when they increase, they create districts, "Hall 1," "Hall 2," and so forth. (Of course, this is very, very different from names like "First Baptist Church" and "Second Baptist Church"!)

Perhaps when Toronto experiences a really big increase, they can follow this model: IBEW Local 353.

In my mind, the whole Hall 1, Hall 2 business is just playing with words. It's exactly the same thing they accuse others of. Maybe they should consider adopting the union model, they just might be able to get away with that.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I remembered I read somewhere that when the was the GL split, there were two churches in Toronto. When I google it, there are two links thechurchintoronto.org and thelocalchurchintoronto.org, I wonder which one is which? Actually, it looks like the first is the non-LSM one and the second is the LSM one.

When some of us on this forum were involved on thebereans.net forum, this was discussed. When the directorship was up to vote, those pro-LSM wanted to be elected. DCP was also involved in this local matter.
As we witnessed the events unfold via the internet, it became apparent in the Great Lakes area, the split within churches and among churches was:
A. The ground being LSM
B. The ground being Titus' ministry
C. The ground being Christ

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

When some of us on this forum were involved on thebereans.net forum, this was discussed. When the directorship was up to vote, those pro-LSM wanted to be elected. DCP was also involved in this local matter.
As we witnessed the events unfold via the internet, it became apparent in the Great Lakes area, the split within churches and among churches was:
A. The ground being LSM
B. The ground being Titus' ministry
C. The ground being Christ

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that what used to be the old church in Toronto became the non-LSM church in Toronto. The LSM saints started a new church in Toronto, so these two churches co-exist, each claiming to be standing on the ground of locality. It's almost comical in a way, because it exposes the ground of locality doctrine for what it really is. If the LSM saints did indeed start a new "church in Toronto", then according to their doctrine, how could they "take the ground", if the ground is already taken? Wouldn't both sides claim that they were "standing on the ground" before the split? Then after the split each would claim the other is not standing on the ground.

[OBW]

Taking the ground is a fiction. Plain and simple. It is built upon a fiction that being Christ-believers and followers is not enough. That somehow the city must be claimed for Christ (and the church). As if a city will ever be for Christ.

More important than the number of Christians in a city, or the correctness of the doctrines they hold to is the testimony of their lives before the rest of the citizens. God is not looking for the right doctrines or stance in a city. He is looking for people who will testify of Him by bearing his image in their lives.

But the LCM is all about meetings and lexicons and doctrines and dirt.

They are more interested in thinking that God finally has a lampstand in a large city of millions when they "take the ground" no matter how many Christians have been meeting there for years, even centuries. A recent example was when they claimed to have had the first Lord's table in Rome in centuries.

Yeah. Right.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

They are more interested in thinking that God finally has a lampstand in a large city of millions when they "take the ground" no matter how many Christians have been meeting there for years, even centuries. A recent example was when they claimed to have had the first Lord's table in Rome in centuries.

I may be wrong, but it seemed to me from the greetings in chapter 16, that Paul was acknowledging the simultaneous existence of multiple ekklesia/churches in one urban area. There was the church in Rome, to which the letter was addressed and also the church that met in so-and-so's house. No indication that they were the same thing; on the contrary, the wording indicates distinction. Not a different geographical location, just the church meeting in someone's house.

I don't recall Nee or Lee covering this point? Funny how carefully they looked for anything to support their formulations, then with conflicting points they either waved them away or studiously avoided them. Seems to me like they avoided the idea multiple ekklesia in Rome.

At least Paul didn't call them "District 2" and "Meeting Hall #3". He just called it what it was. The church that met in so-and-so's house.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that what used to be the old church in Toronto became the non-LSM church in Toronto. The LSM saints started a new church in Toronto, so these two churches co-exist, each claiming to be standing on the ground of locality. It's almost comical in a way, because it exposes the ground of locality doctrine for what it really is. If the LSM saints did indeed start a new "church in Toronto", then according to their doctrine, how could they "take the ground", if the ground is already taken? Wouldn't both sides claim that they were "standing on the ground" before the split? Then after the split each would claim the other is not standing on the ground.

If I understand history correctly, it gets even more complicated. Isn't there a third church of former LC brothers and sisters who left around 1990? If it isn't obvious, the ground doctrine only results in division and is folly.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

I may be wrong, but it seemed to me from the greetings in chapter 16, that Paul was acknowledging the simultaneous existence of multiple ekklesia/churches in one urban area. There was the church in Rome, to which the letter was addressed and also the church that met in so-and-so's house. No indication that they were the same thing; on the contrary, the wording indicates distinction. Not a different geographical location, just the church meeting in someone's house.

I don't recall Nee or Lee covering this point? Funny how carefully they looked for anything to support their formulations, then with conflicting points they either waved them away or studiously avoided them. Seems to me like they avoided the idea multiple ekklesia in Rome.

At least Paul didn't call them "District 2" and "Meeting Hall #3". He just called it what it was. The church that met in so-and-so's house.

Actually, I think Nee tried to in Further Talks. But he mostly declared that it could not mean that because of the ground of locality rule. The rule is raised to dismiss the evidence that the rule could be wrong. The ultimate begging of the question.

As for whether the church in Rome was something different from the house church mentioned, that is debatable on several levels. It could be that the reference to the chruch in Rome is a generic greeting to all the Christians there, but the fact that the letter was delivered to certain persons gave Paul cause to request that they specifically say something to some of the others for him.

In one sense the church is not limited by assemblies. In another the assembly is the church. But if you are not concerned with the distinction, then it isn't even a point of equivocation. It is only for those who want to make the two instances into one and declare that they own the patent to the correct "church" that it is suddenly important.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that what used to be the old church in Toronto became the non-LSM church in Toronto. The LSM saints started a new church in Toronto, so these two churches co-exist, each claiming to be standing on the ground of locality. It's almost comical in a way, because it exposes the ground of locality doctrine for what it really is. If the LSM saints did indeed start a new "church in Toronto", then according to their doctrine, how could they "take the ground", if the ground is already taken? Wouldn't both sides claim that they were "standing on the ground" before the split? Then after the split each would claim the other is not standing on the ground.

Freedom, this article posted on Concerned Brothers dot com highlights the almost comical hypocrisy that exists in Toronto. Take a read. Talk about groping around in the darkness of night.

THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE for taking the ground, the doctrine of locality, and the practical oneness among LC's was Nee's book The Normal Christian Church Life. Compare what we have today with what Nee states. It's almost comical. Not to say that his teaching here was scriptural, but neither did Nee nor Lee ever adhere to their own teaching. "Taking the ground" was merely a guise to attract seekers.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Freedom, this article posted on Concerned Brothers dot com highlights the almost comical hypocrisy that exists in Toronto. Take a read. Talk about groping around in the darkness of night.

THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE for taking the ground, the doctrine of locality, and the practical oneness among LC's was Nee's book The Normal Christian Church Life. Compare what we have today with what Nee states. It's almost comical. Not to say that his teaching here was scriptural, but neither did Nee nor Lee ever adhere to their own teaching. "Taking the ground" was merely a guise to attract seekers.

So "The Local Church in Toronto" is a General Partnership Business, run by the two elders?!?!? Now that is pretty funny.

I really had no idea that things were so convoluted in Toronto. I don't even think these brothers have any idea how far they have strayed from the Nee/Lee view of the local church. If the Nee/Lee model was bad, then how much more what they are doing now.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Freedom, this article posted on Concerned Brothers dot com highlights the almost comical hypocrisy that exists in Toronto. Take a read. Talk about groping around in the darkness of night.

Thanks for the link Ohio. I had not read this before. What hypocrisy:

In April 2007 a group of believers affiliated with Living Stream Ministry (LSM)
separated themselves from the Church in Toronto and began meeting independently in a nearby RAMADA hotel.

In Fermentation, there was the same criticism on those who separated from the Church in Anaheim and began meeting independently in a hotel.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

So "The Local Church in Toronto" is a General Partnership Business, run by the two elders?!?!? Now that is pretty funny.

I really had no idea that things were so convoluted in Toronto. I don't even think these brothers have any idea how far they have strayed from the Nee/Lee view of the local church. If the Nee/Lee model was bad, then how much more what they are doing now.

LSM sent their paid operatives to Toronto in the aftermath of the TC quarantine to hold "training sessions" with local discontents in order to topple the eldership there. It was totally pathetic. Most of the play-by-play was posted on the net and cited on this forum. What really disgusted me was not just that LSM paid thugs would stoop to this level of activity, but that their wordsmiths could "spiritualize" it and sell it to their people. The hypocrisy is too painful. Shall i cry or shall i laugh?

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, I think Nee tried to in Further Talks. But he mostly declared that it could not mean that because of the ground of locality rule. The rule is raised to dismiss the evidence that the rule could be wrong. The ultimate begging of the question.

So the passages in scripture meant what they seemed to say when they supported the proposed interpretive rule, while other passages didn't mean what they seemed to say, simply because they couldn't be used to support the proposal? Sorry but I'm not impressed.

Originally Posted by OBW

As for whether the church in Rome was something different from the house church mentioned, that is debatable on several levels. It could be that the reference to the church in Rome is a generic greeting to all the Christians there, but the fact that the letter was delivered to certain persons gave Paul cause to request that they specifically say something to some of the others for him.

In one sense the church is not limited by assemblies. In another the assembly is the church. But if you are not concerned with the distinction, then it isn't even a point of equivocation...

But someone who is concerned with making distinctions should be true to the rules of their own proposal. Don't make words mean one thing somewhere, and mean something different elsewhere, simply because this is convenient to the argument. Ultimately, the main support for Nee's proposal of the church ground is that he saw it. Nee was the Seer of the Age, right? If Nee saw it, then it was a revelation from God, and who are we to question revelations from God?

Here's the rationale, as I get it: Nee was the seer of God's revelation for the present age. So if Nee saw the so-called ground of the church, this was God's speaking to us today, God's present oracle. And how, pray tell, do we know that Nee was the seer of the divine revelation? Because he gave us the truth! There's only one church per city! Everybody knows that! It's so obvious... don't be dense, folks -- get with the program!

Both statements, that Nee was the seer of divine revelation, and that what he saw was God's uncovered truth for the present age, depend on assumptions that shouldn't be questioned. Don't be negative, right? The whole thing, at its root, seems to be little more than a personality cult. Don't question the Boss. The Apostle is always right. God has spoken to us through His present oracle. That seems to be the foundation of the whole enterprise.

If one critically cross-examines the idea itself, on its own terms, it begins to lose credibility and motive force; instead, one has to simply take it on faith, that it's actually a revelation from God. This is how religions start, and religious movements, for that matter. Brother or Sister So-and-so is God's revealed Person of the Hour. "Then God raised up So-and-so, and the light of truth shone upon us all, and rescued us from the darkness of the present evil age." Sound familiar?

[Cal]

What's the point of defining what is a church and what isn't, at anything but the most general level, other than to point out who isn't a church and to give them the thumbs-down?

The church is an assembly, right? So suppose two Christians meet together in a home and call themselves a church. What purpose would it serve to tell that assembly that, no, you are not a church? Where's the overall benefit? I see none; and I see a lot of downside.

The fact is the Bible doesn't define clearly what exactly is a church and what isn't. We know it has certain characteristics, but we don't know enough to state unequivocally that the two Christians meeting in a home are not a church. Those who say they do are kidding themselves.

We probably can say that one person meeting alone isn't a church, because one person isn't an assembly. But beyond that, if you are meeting in the Lord's name and you call yourself a church, I don't see how anyone has ground (pun intended) to disagree.

All Nee and Lee and the LCM's disagreement brought on was division, confusion, arrogance, isolation, weirdness, inbreeding, abuse and eventually irrelevance. Bad fruit.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The church is an assembly, right? So suppose two Christians meet together in a home and call themselves a church. What purpose would it serve to tell that assembly that, no, you are not a church? Where's the overall benefit. I see none. And I see a lot of downside.

It is so ironical that the supposed first Lord's Table meeting in the Recovery was with W.Nee, his mother, and two sisters. And we heard all along how blessed and glorious that was. Maybe it was. I don't know, I was not there.

But God forbid that a handful of other Christians do the same thing. And if you say it was blessed, then you must be deceived. What Nee was allowed to do, no one else was permitted to do. Look at today's situation. LSM has effectively outlawed hundreds of existing LC's in the GLA and Brazil for not being under their controls. God made up special rules for his young MOTA?

As a brilliant young Chinese Christian, Nee developed an exclusive system which proved to all (supposedly) that only he was right, and that all foreign missionaries and denominations were wrong. How very convenient. There is no possible way that such honor -- like being today's Apostle Paul -- could be handled by such a proud young man.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is so ironical that the supposed first Lord's Table meeting in the Recovery was with W.Nee, his mother, and two sisters. And we heard all along how blessed and glorious that was. Maybe it was... But God forbid that a handful of other Christians do the same thing...

If a handful of other Christians do the same thing, then it's called a "free group", which is supposedly not "the church" and thus outside the promised blessing.

At least, that's what our "Apostle" told us, and since he's the Apostle he must be right. If we do it, it's the church, and if someone else does it, then it's a free group or a denomination, neither of which is blessed by God's favor.

[aron]

If we do it, it's the church, and if someone else does it, then it's a free group or a denomination, neither of which is blessed by God's favor.

The thing that is really amazing, to me, is that this interpretive rule, the "ground of the church", which doesn't hold up well to critical examination, and has been unequivocally disastrous in implementation, has held so many people firmly in its thrall.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill on the Battle of Britain, "Rarely has so much been given by so many, for so long, for so little."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

If a handful of other Christians do the same thing, then it's called a "free group", which is supposedly not "the church" and thus outside the promised blessing.

I have mentioned before the vicious, scathing attacks which Lee leveled at "free groups" in the Genesis Life Study message (#54?). Lee declared all such "free groups," so prevalent during the Jesus people movement of the 60's and 70's which btw was a genuine revival of the Holy Spirit in the USA, to be the incestuous and illegitimate children of the drunken Lot conceived in the cave following God's judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah.

For Lee to assault the rebirth and salvation of thousands of new believers simply looking for living fellowship with like-minded children of God in their homes is one of the most disgusting messages I have ever read. Could that not be considered as the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? How in the world can a preacher de-legitimize the salvation experience of thousands, per millions, of new believers by publicly declaring them to be illegitimate and incestuous?

Read that message. I would post some of Lee's quotes again, but I no longer have those LS messages anymore.

Originally Posted by aron

The thing really amazing that the ground of the church has held so many people firmly in its thrall.

No one's allowed to question it. Remember how emotional WL got when TAS challenged the ground? Anyone asking questions, or making comments, gets emotional responses. Don't make the apostle angry.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

No one's allowed to question it. Remember how emotional WL got when TAS challenged the ground? Anyone asking questions, or making comments, gets emotional responses. Don't make the apostle angry.

Not only is no one allowed to question it, no one else is even allowed to practice it! How may groups which claim to be standing on locality and which don't align with LSM does the movement recognize. Zippo. Zero.

Like I said, it has nothing to do with oneness. It's all about control.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have mentioned before the vicious, scathing attacks which Lee leveled at "free groups" in the Genesis Life Study message (#54?). Lee declared all such "free groups," so prevalent during the Jesus people movement of the 60's and 70's which btw was a genuine revival of the Holy Spirit in the USA, to be the incestuous and illegitimate children of the drunken Lot conceived in the cave following God's judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah.

. . . . Could that not be considered as the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

While I have generally come to the conclusion that blasphemy is generally not that easy to find, you may have won the explorer of the year award. It sure sounds like declaring the work of God to be of Satan, and that is what I understand the fall under the definition of blasphemy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

No one's allowed to question it. Remember how emotional WL got when TAS challenged the ground? Anyone asking questions, or making comments, gets emotional responses. Don't make the apostle angry.

Somehow I think frequent temper tantrums would disqualify him from even entering the discussion.

Compare Paul's attitude, a real apostle, while serving the church, "how I was with you all the time, serving the Lord as a slave with all humility and tears and trials ..."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

No one's allowed to question it. Remember how emotional WL got when TAS challenged the ground? Anyone asking questions, or making comments, gets emotional responses. Don't make the apostle angry.

Same can be said of the infamous 1987 Pasadena Conference.

Also a verse to consider:

For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain,
Titus 1:7

Just wanted to share that Lord’s Recovery has new target city’s and college campuses for this year. The list as follows:

Target Cities:

Columbus, OH
Virginia Beach, VA
Nashville, TN

Campuses:

Columbus, OH
Columbia, SC
St. Louis, MO
Tampa, FL

The following universities and colleges campuses are the targets for their deception:

Ohio State University.

University of South Carolina.

Washington University & Missouri University.

University of South Florida.


Please pray that the Lord protects youngsters and new freshmen that are starting school this week.

Info from:
https://gtca.us/

[Nell]

Originally Posted by UnfilteredSkeptic

Just wanted to share that Lord’s Recovery has new target city’s and college campuses for this year. The list as follows:

Target Cities:

Columbus, OH
Virginia Beach, VA
Nashville, TN

Campuses:

Columbus, OH
Columbia, SC
St. Louis, MO
Tampa, FL

The following universities and colleges campuses are the targets for their deception:

Ohio State University.
University of South Carolina.
Washington University & Missouri University.
University of South Florida.

Please pray that the Lord protects youngsters and new freshmen that are starting school this week.

Info from:
https://gtca.us/

Does anyone have an idea whether any of these schools are or have been targeted by woke activists among students, faculty and administration?

Nell