Examining LC Spinoffs

Sons to Glory! · 04-21-2021, 01:59 PM

Recently something was mentioned about the Scottsdale gathering, which was once part of the LC system back in the mid-1980s. It’s been suggested that this group, and other groups that have left the LC/LSM orbit, are really just sort of a LC-lite, and therefore might be excessively steeped in unhealthy Lee-ism. I thought it might be beneficial to have a discussion, examining what the teachings and practices of these groups are.

A few basics to convey regarding my experience in Scottsdale: I have been with the Scottsdale gathering since 1998, and therefore know something of the teachings and practices here. I admit to being quite biased in that I love this gathering and, as I have stated before, I know that this is where the Lord has placed me . . . I’m most thankful for this on a continual basis! With certainly, I can say there is nothing to hide here, and I welcome all sincere inquiries. The meetings in Scottsdale do follow the open format as is the basic pattern with LC meetings. That is, anyone is welcome to speak something they believe will edify others in their pursuit of Christ, to call a song, etc. As far as whose ministry we are beholding to, I would say it is wide open as long as it is centered in the word of God and honors Christ. Six brothers rotate giving the Sunday message, typically from a book of the Bible we're going through. Lee’s teachings are rarely mentioned and generally only by a very few. Nee’s materials are discussed a little more from time to time, and a myriad of other Christian writers and speakers are shared regularly. Basically, there is NO rule about who or what can be shared . . . it is up to the individual as they are so led by the Spirit.

Personally, I have a small group of brothers I fellowship with regularly, at least a couple times a week. For us, everything is on the table and open for discussion. This kind of transparent fellowship is awesome in order to support one another and to pray for one another’s situations. We also have had many discussions about how our thinking has been affected – positively or negatively – from our time in the LC. Through this and the study of the word, many things have been brought to light that we now see were erroneous or unhealthy. Has there been a total rejection of all things from the LC cosmos? No, and again, there are no rules about that. Some are very strong in their distaste of much of Lee’s teachings, others not so much. Somewhat surprisingly (but I can certainly understand why), there are some here that are quite solid in their near total refutation of the Freemans, whom this group was generally centered around before Bill & Patsy Freeman left in 1998.

There are a few other off-shoots from the LC that I am aware of in this country and which I have had some interaction with. This includes the group in Moses Lake, Oregon, and a group in Raleigh, North Carolina, where Don Rutledge is. There is also a group in Westminster, California, where I believe John Ingalls was (before his passing). I have always experienced a really good and liberating time in Christ when ones from those places have come here for sharing, fellowship and worship. Any other off-shoots I am not so personally aware of, concerning their teachings and practices, etc. (A couple other spinoff groups to mention, but I don't know much about, are Grandview Christian Assembly near Columbus, Ohio, as well as the church in Toronto, Ontario.)

Again, I felt a discussion around this might be beneficial to some participating or viewing this forum. To those who are still be in the LC and are lurking out there, they could learn what these groups are like that have left the LSM orbit. To those who are regulars on here, it might help clear up any misconceptions. And, the Lord might also use it to shine light on hindering things I (and others) might still harbor unawares from the LC influence.

UntoHim · 04-21-2021, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

(A couple other spinoff groups to mention, but I don't know much about, are Grandview Christian Assembly near Columbus, Ohio, as well as the church in Toronto, Ontario.)

I think John Myer would take great exception to you calling GCA a "Local Church spinoff". Have you taken the time to watch any of the online Sunday services I have posted on numerous Sunday mornings? Have you taken the time to peruse his website "Bareknuckle Bible? (I have posted quotes from John's messages on BNB.org many times on LCD) I think you will find that Myer has done his best to completely divest himself, his ministry and those under his lead from Witness Lee and the religion of the Local Church of Witness Lee. Good for him and those under his care!

As far as the church in Toronto, Nigel Tomes et al have also pretty much done a 180 from all the false and heretical teachings and practices of the Local Church. The Sunday services at CIT have also been posted on most Sunday mornings here on LCD. Have you ever bothered to take a little time and see what God has done there? No? Well just go to Youtube and put in "Church in Toronto" - https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...rch+in+toronto

As a matter of fact, I was just going to be posting Nigel Tomes recent message in which he corrects Witness Lee's off-base (and totally unbiblical) interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:45. It is obvious that Tomes has put a lot of work on this subject. He checked into the teachings of a number of widely accepted and reputable scholars (something Never done by Lee and his followers) and found the correct understanding and interpretation of this very crucial passage. This only would have been possible if he had freed himself from the influence of the unqualified and uneducated ramblings of Witness Lee. Good for him and those who under his care!
-

Sons to Glory! · 04-21-2021, 05:11 PM

Those are the two groups (GCA & Toronto) listed as the ones I know the least about. I actually added them because someone (another regular poster, who is more familiar with them) I shared this with before posting, mentioned they thought these groups should be added.

Perhaps "spinoff" needs clarification. I also thought of different terms like "version" or "offshoot" or "derivations" or do you have another suggestion that would fit better?

And do you think these two shouldn't be in this discussion at all? To me, if they were once associated with the LC, but now aren't, they should be included. (which seems would still be all of them mentioned in that paragraph)

UntoHim · 04-21-2021, 07:13 PM

Sons to Glory!

Do you actually read my posts? After all this time how is it that you don't you know much about Grandview in Columbus or the Church in Toronto? News and information about the them have been featured on this forum for years. John Myers book, A Future and A Hope was a major topic of discussion for years. Very little information or discussion about Moses Lake or Westminster assembly has been a topic on this forum. And do you know why? It's because they are basically the Local Church version 2, or the Local Church lite. I'm sure that is attractive to you, but I would never recommend these places to any young person or new Christian. To my knowledge, neither place has repudiated and repented of the heresies and excesses of the Local Church of Witness Lee. Unless and until they do that I don't believe they are a healthy, sound place for any Christian to make their home.

How do you think that we are going to be "examining" things that you seem to be totally oblivious to? No the term "spinoff" does not need clarification. What needs clarification is why you would start a thread like this. If you have a good reason please make that a point of clarification, and maybe we can go from there.
-

PriestlyScribe · 04-21-2021, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

As a matter of fact, I was just going to be posting Nigel Tomes recent message in which he corrects Witness Lee's off-base (and totally unbiblical) interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:45. It is obvious that Tomes has put a lot of work on this subject. He checked into the teachings of a number of widely accepted and reputable scholars (something Never done by Lee and his followers) and found the correct understanding and interpretation of this very crucial passage. This only would have been possible if he had freed himself from the influence of the unqualified and uneducated ramblings of Witness Lee. Good for him and those who under his care!
-

Nigel Tomes seems to have completely obliterated the LSM Authority & Submission heresy in this 2017 writing:

"LSM’s ‘Authority & Submission’ Tampers with the Trinity"
https://blendedbody.com/NigelTomes/L...ithTrinity.pdf

That writing has helped me to connect many "dots". Here is the last two paragraphs...

"In contrast, among LSM Local Churches, Watchman Nee’s authority-submission doctrine, which mirrors the
EFS dogma, has survived for seven decades unchallenged. The lack of open discussion among LSM’s leadership
reflects a number of factors. First Local Church adherents have been thoroughly indoctrinated with this
authority doctrine. W. Nee assigned absolute authority to God’s deputy authority; they answer to God alone. He
taught: “God appoints authority...Whether or not a deputy authority is wrong is nobody else's business...We
have to...submit to deputy authority...If a deputy authority makes a mistake, we do not...bear any responsibility
for his mistake...God only requires [our] obedience.”89 To challenge an LSM doctrine is perceived as an affront
to “God’s oracle,” his deputy authority—an act of rebellion. Hence, the doctrine itself puts a “severe chill” on
discussion or debate, even when a teaching, like this one, is manifestly erroneous and does serious damage.
Second, I believe that, here again, we see the pervasive influence of Asian culture on the Local Church. Jackson
Wu observes that,90 “One of the most important authorities found in Chinese life...is the teacher...‘Education
is the acquisition of correct knowledge, not the...generation of new knowledge,’ hence, ‘the teacher is the
repository of knowledge, to be passed onto his students.’...‘Uniformity, rather than individualization, is sought.’
...Classrooms are primarily managed through criticism...this is meant to spur diligence and submission to the
teacher...In addition, persistence & proficiency in memorization is developed.” These Asian values, translated
into a Christian context, aptly describe the role of Witness Lee as “God’s oracle” within the “Lord’s Recovery.”
This top-down approach leaves no room for theological discussion or debate. As Don Rutledge said “fellowship
is like water, it flows downwards (not up)” in LSM’s Local Church. 20 years after Witness Lee’s departure Local
Church members don’t evaluate Witness Lee’s teachings, they only memorize & recite them as Witness Lee’s
“tape-recorders.” LSM’s publication, Affirmation & Critique, only affirms Witness Lee, it never critiques him.
Asian cultural norms are pervasive in the Local Church, even in 21st-century North America. A decade after the
Great Lakes Area [GLA] local churches parted ways with LSM, many of these characteristics remain. Most GLA
local churches are Asian churches. The “apple doesn’t fall far from the tree,” as John Myer said in this context."
Nigel Tomes, Toronto, CANADA. June, 2017.

P.S.

Sons to Glory! · 04-21-2021, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sons to Glory!

Do you actually read my posts? After all this time how is it that you don't you know much about Grandview in Columbus or the Church in Toronto? News and information about the them have been featured on this forum for years. John Myers book, A Future and A Hope was a major topic of discussion for years. Very little information or discussion about Moses Lake or Westminster assembly has been a topic on this forum. And do you know why? It's because they are basically the Local Church version 2, or the Local Church lite. I'm sure that is attractive to you, but I would never recommend these places to any young person or new Christian. To my knowledge, neither place has repudiated and repented of the heresies and excesses of the Local Church of Witness Lee. Unless and until they do that I don't believe they are a healthy, sound place for any Christian to make their home.

How do you think that we are going to be "examining" things that you seem to be totally oblivious to? No the term "spinoff" does not need clarification. What needs clarification is why you would start a thread like this. If you have a good reason please make that a point of clarification, and maybe we can go from there.
-

Wow and WOW! Why the immediate adversarial tone, bro? I wonder if you read my posts! Let me explain - what I said here is that I don't have firsthand knowledge of those two groups. I do have better firsthand knowledge of the others, and therefore have some basis to speak. I am certainly aware of John Myer and have read some of his materials (here and other places), but admittedly not in detail (I may have even known him while I was in the LC in Columbus in the early to late 80s, but I'm not sure. That was over 30 years ago.)

So for now, if you want, let's look at the other groups.

Since you think the remaining groups are merely LC V2, because they haven't openly "repudiated and repented" of all things WL/LC, let's talk about them. Otherwise, it sounds like you have passed summary judgement according to only your opinion - case closed! (And, as per recent discussion, is there not room for all opinions on the LC judgement spectrum here, or only those of the moderators, who don't seem very moderate these days!?)

And I wonder if you read the end of my opening post, as to what the intended purpose of this thread is about, so let me quote it here again: Again, I felt a discussion around this might be beneficial to some participating or viewing this forum. To those who are still be in the LC and are lurking out there, they could learn what these groups are like that have left the LSM orbit. To those who are regulars on here, it might help clear up any misconceptions. And, the Lord might also use it to shine light on hindering things I (and others) might still harbor unawares from the LC influence.

UntoHim, this goes directly to the three purposes of the forum, that I presented and which you affirmed less than two days ago on the other thread, right? Here they are again:

> Help those still in the LC;
> Help those who have been damaged by the LC (includes you and me) to hear the truth and receive the Lord's healing;
> And to provide and/or steer to healthy fellowship those considering leaving the LC.

I think this thread's open, honest and non-adversarial discussion would be helpful for those above three reasons. Does that not make sense?

UntoHim · 04-22-2021, 07:32 AM

StG.

I am not your adversary, I am your moderator. No one is forcing you to post here on this forum. There are unmoderated, free-for-all places on the Internet where anything goes. Anything does not go here.

One of the things that does not go here is the promotion of the teachings and practices of the Local Church of Witness Lee. Many of these are unbiblical and unhelpful at the very least, and many are heretical and dangerous to those who would imbibe and practice them. This has been my stance since day one. Nell is even more stout on this stance, and this is why I have commissioned her to come along side and assist me in administering and moderating the forum. If you haven't picked this up in the nearly 10 years that you've been on this forum, I'm not sure what I can tell you.

You are still not listening. I know you're hearing me. I know you read English. I have not said, nor have I ever said, that any Christian, or group of Christians, have to "openly repudiate and repent of all things Witness Lee/Local Church". (Personally, I would think this would be the healthiest and wisest thing for any former member)- What I have called for, what I have prayed for, what I have kept this little popcorn stand going for, is that anyone and everyone who has been influenced by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee and the Blended Brothers would repudiate and repent of the false teachings and harmful practices.

The Local Church of Witness Lee/Living Stream Ministry is a system of error. This system of error is comprised of the false teachings and unbiblical, harmful practices established by Nee and Lee over a period of 70+ years, and is now promoted, extolled and exalted by the Blended Brothers. To my knowledge and observation, these "spinoff" groups, to one degree or another, have remained in the system of error. They have removed the nametag off of the box of poison, and have mixed the poison with some biblical/orthodox things, but remain in the system of error. This is not my opinion. This is simply the truth. You have expressed a desire for all concerned "to hear the truth and receive the Lord's healing". Well, this is the truth. I know from personal experience that this truth is hard. This truth is cold. But it is the truth, and no healing can or will come without this truth.

My dear brother Sons to Glory! I am afraid that you are not interested in discussion about these spinoff groups, rather you are interested in promoting them as a healthy and acceptable place for former members. I am plainly and clearly telling you that this is not going to happen on this forum. I have plainly and clearly given you the reasons why, so please don't pretend that I have not given a reason.

Have I now become your adversary by telling you the truth? If so, I'm sorry to hear that, I really am. You have claimed to be interested in "providing and/or steering to healthy fellowship those considering leaving the LC." For better or for worse, I have been doing my very best to do as much providing and as much steering as I possibly can for the better part of 15 years now. Why God has called this poor old broken down sinner to lead this train of vanquished foes only he knows. And now my brother I will leave you with this. If you are going to stay on this train you will have to follow the rules of the train. And if you are going to stay on this train you will have to be headed in the same direction because this train is only headed in one direction.

Your brother who is desperately trying to be, unto Him.
-

PriestlyScribe · 04-23-2021, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

StG....They have removed the nametag off of the box of poison, and have mixed the poison with some biblical/orthodox things, but remain in the system of error.
-

Well said UntoHim, this is the actual fact of the matter. And the proof is seen increasingly in the group's obvious lack of Love and with no apparent desire to repent of anything!

If you replace the word "entertainment" with "Leeism" and jack up the active ingredient percentage from 3 to closer to 75% this video could apply to the mixed up system we are talking about.

I really appreciated what you wrote about the purpose of this forum.

P.S.

OBW · 04-23-2021, 12:38 PM

While I know that you are getting a lot of pushback on this topic, rather than just say this is a crazy topic, or that it shouldn’t be undertaken, let me ask you some questions that will need to be answered if this were to actually produce any meaningful information.

First, what are we trying to establish? Little actual influence by Lee and Nee? (Any of either will be an issue for some of us.)

Second, how are we to obtain evidence to make the determination? Do you know sources that could objectively provide what we need?

Third, to what extent can we be sure that we are speaking the same language (lexicon) when we obtain information and discuss it?

Fourth, while this particular enquiry is not stated as being an analysis of the teachings of Lee or Nee, what is the yardstick by which you would determine them (or those of any other teacher) to be acceptable or unacceptable? The reason for the question is that the basis for accepting or rejecting teachings is important to understand when deciding whether we can agree on the nature of the general state of teachings within any particular former LC, or otherwise non-LSM assembly of the LC.

You have to know that for other than the group where you are (Scottsdale?) we have little or no inside access, so where do we get the information?

As for Scottsdale, someone can correct me, but I was under the impression that it began with a couple (and a small following?) that broke away from the LC in Southern California maybe as far back as the late 70s or 80s. And part of the reason many have been something about wanting to have some teachings on something specific that the LC just wasn’t going to do. (I am open to being wrong on this.) But they still liked the overall LC experience, so they replicated it.

Whether I am right — totally or only partly— or completely wrong, do you know that the 6 who now rotate the messages are not relying in any material way on Nee and/or Lee? And while the amount could be important, you always have to consider any because “a little leaven leavens the whole lump.” Can you know at a detailed enough level to quantify?

And don't bother responding about Lee bashing. The stated purpose of this forum is the discussion of what are perceived to be significant errors of Lee. We do not accept the writings or sayings of Lee (or Nee) as a basis for anything. Instead, its truthfulness must be established through other non-LSM means.

Sons to Glory! · 04-23-2021, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

Well said UntoHim, this is the actual fact of the matter. And the proof is seen increasingly in the group's obvious lack of Love and with no apparent desire to repent of anything!

If you replace the word "entertainment" with "Leeism" and jack up the active ingredient percentage from 3 to closer to 75% this video could apply to the mixed up system we are talking about.

I really appreciated what you wrote about the purpose of this forum.

P.S.

Not sure . . . what video are you referring to here? This thread is about looking at LC spinoffs - is that what you're addressing?

Sons to Glory! · 04-23-2021, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

While I know that you are getting a lot of pushback on this topic, rather than just say this is a crazy topic, or that it shouldn’t be undertaken, let me ask you some questions that will need to be answered if this were to actually produce any meaningful information.

First, what are we trying to establish? Little actual influence by Lee and Nee? (Any of either will be an issue for some of us.)

Second, how are we to obtain evidence to make the determination? Do you know sources that could objectively provide what we need?

Third, to what extent can we be sure that we are speaking the same language (lexicon) when we obtain information and discuss it?

Fourth, while this particular enquiry is not stated as being an analysis of the teachings of Lee or Nee, what is the yardstick by which you would determine them (or those of any other teacher) to be acceptable or unacceptable? The reason for the question is that the basis for accepting or rejecting teachings is important to understand when deciding whether we can agree on the nature of the general state of teachings within any particular former LC, or otherwise non-LSM assembly of the LC.

You have to know that for other than the group where you are (Scottsdale?) we have little or no inside access, so where do we get the information?

As for Scottsdale, someone can correct me, but I was under the impression that it began with a couple (and a small following?) that broke away from the LC in Southern California maybe as far back as the late 70s or 80s. And part of the reason many have been something about wanting to have some teachings on something specific that the LC just wasn’t going to do. (I am open to being wrong on this.) But they still liked the overall LC experience, so they replicated it.

Whether I am right — totally or only partly— or completely wrong, do you know that the 6 who now rotate the messages are not relying in any material way on Nee and/or Lee? And while the amount could be important, you always have to consider any because “a little leaven leavens the whole lump.” Can you know at a detailed enough level to quantify?

And don't bother responding about Lee bashing. The stated purpose of this forum is the discussion of what are perceived to be significant errors of Lee. We do not accept the writings or sayings of Lee (or Nee) as a basis for anything. Instead, its truthfulness must be established through other non-LSM means.

Now this seems like a pretty level-headed response, not nearly as replete with preconceived notions about LC spinoffs. Thanks Mike! Let me respond to your four top questions first, as they were actually right along the lines of how I was thinking of responding to UntoHim's last post.

1. Yes, I think we would be trying to establish how much WN & WL influence remains in these spinoffs. And you are right that even a tad (now there's a measurable - LOL) would be too much for some!

2. A good question regarding how we would gain the evidence to determine point #1. I wondered how someone could make a summary judgement of all of these groups, without the person actually having firsthand knowledge, or some other in-depth knowledge, of each of them. Obviously, since I've been in Scottsdale for 22 years, I have firsthand knowledge . . . for what it's worth to those on here. Regarding other groups I can speak of my interaction with their members, but I haven't been to gatherings in the other spinoffs.

3. Regarding "speaking the same language," this reminds me of the current political climate - those on the left (for instance) get frustrated in trying to communicate with those on the right, because the words used convey different meanings to each side. (this seems to happen on here a lot!) I don't have a good answer to this yet and am open to suggestions.

4. If I understand this question, it's about how would we determine the threshold for what is acceptable or unacceptable, right? If so, then what teachings or practices would we consider as surpassing the acceptable threshold, that is, what would rise to the level of telling others: "Don't fellowship or interact with these groups as they should be considered off-limits"? (I have some ideas about what these "threshold" things could be, but will withhold until this point is clarified).

As far as getting information from the other groups besides Scottsdale, I suppose we could ask them and/or go to websites (if they had them), etc.

Regarding the origination of the Scottsdale group, my understanding is that people meeting with the Freemans broke away from the LC in the mid-1980s, after the decree came down that Bill (and others) was to abandon any writings or radio programs that were independent of LSM. There were some from California, I think, that went to Washington state around this time and met as the church in Seattle (and some perhaps in Tacoma and other places). Many of the ones in these churches were getting more and more clear about leaving the LSM orbit. Then around 1990 there was a burden to move to Scottsdale. It seems numerous people from Scottsdale were responding to the radio program and the monthly newspaper (titled, "The Christian"). So a fairly large number - maybe a hundred or more - moved to Scottsdale from the NW. (one brother here told me recently that he was in a Seattle church meeting where brothers from southern California were sent as something of a show of force. This was around 1988 perhaps. He said he got clear at that point that he was to leave the LC, because it was a suppressing atmosphere. That gathering, I think, impacted many others too, that eventually came to Scottsdale. Of course, ones that sided with the LC, stayed as the Church in Seattle.) Again, I may not have all the details or dates completely accurate, but that is my general understanding from those I've spoken with (and read some history about it on this forum).

Regarding the six brothers who rotate giving messages, I know each them pretty well. We are not a large group here, so we talk with each other a lot, and wind-up doing functions with each other quite a bit. If anything, they are influenced much more by Bill Freeman's approach of digging into the word, the Greek and context, historical background, etc., than by WL. This, how Bill taught them to study the word, is what is talked about a bit by these speaking ones. And I've seen the reference library used by some in the church office, and can say I've not seen any of WL's Life Studies there. The reference material used by these brothers includes commentaries from various ones. If I had to guess, combining all these six speaking ones referring to different source materials over the years, I'd say WN has been referenced perhaps 2% or less, and WL much less than 1%. Again, just my subjective opinion. (very occasionally, someone will mention the Recovery Version as a translation they like for a certain verse, but never any footnotes that I'm aware of)

BTW - I asked a brother who has been around a long time (and is one of the speaking bros) regarding the two paragraphs above, to fact check what I said. I will update this part as needed.

One thing perhaps more quantifiable is the church book library here. This was started a couple years ago by a some sisters and a brother, and people donated books to get it going. Now I'd guess there are around a thousand books shelved there from every Christian topic you can imagine, and hundreds of authors. I'd guess the percentage of LC related books there are about the same as I stated in the above paragraph - maybe 10 titles from both WN & WL are present.

So I hope that was a good start and hopefully it at least began to address what you asked. Thanks again for posting that well moderated message!

Sons to Glory! · 04-24-2021, 03:25 PM

As mentioned in my prior post, I contacted a brother who has been around the NW LCs and Scottsdale from early on, to see if I had things correct regarding the Scottsdale group. He said I was essentially correct about the history, but a couple dates were a little off. The original group that went to Seattle to establish the LC there happened in the late 60s, comprised of nearly 70 people. The burden for some to move to Scottsdale occurred around 1987 (not 1990). And the leaders from Anaheim, sent to Seattle as "a show of force" happened in 1986, according to this brother.

Regarding the sharing ones here, he said my summary was accurate. Concerning the reference material in the church office, he said almost all of it was sold to the church here by a very studious brother who was desperate for cash. He said there were hundreds of books in this purchase, which included a full set of the Complete Biblical Library, which many of the speaking bros have told me they refer to. He said as part of this purchase he thinks there was also a full set of WL's Life Studies, but he's not even sure if they are still around . . . he said that frankly he can't recall anyone referring to them or speaking of them in the last several years.

OBW · 04-24-2021, 04:37 PM

What exactly is the "Complete Biblical Library?" I've never heard of this particular title/collection.

And while I left the LC long before the standard Life Study series was complete, I believe that they ultimately covered all books of the Bible. Is this correct?

Sons to Glory! · 04-24-2021, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

What exactly is the "Complete Biblical Library?" I've never heard of this particular title/collection.

And while I left the LC long before the standard Life Study series was complete, I believe that they ultimately covered all books of the Bible. Is this correct?

Complete Biblical Library description from HERE:

Quote:

The Complete Biblical Library was a remarkably ambitious undertaking involving over 500 Bible scholars and researchers. It took over 20 years to produce an exhaustive reference set, unlike any other. The result was a 39-volume library detailing the entire Bible, blending all study tools into one resource. CBL books have been out of print since 2001, but they're exclusively available by Wordsearch. Demand for CBL books has remained high. Rare volumes have recently sold on eBay for over $200 per book!

And I think you're right that the Life Studies were on every book in the Bible, at least that's what I think I've heard.

OBW · 04-24-2021, 08:26 PM

It was hard to tell from that advertisement. Is it a collection of others' writings that are otherwise not commonly found anymore (they really didn't say who as much as say they had been found at high prices on Ebay)? Or a one-stop source collecting various commentaries, etc., into one place on various topics.

Not saying anything negative except to say that there was a lot of general talk about it and unclear reference to its technical value. But maybe it could be restated as a kind of written Wikipedia of commentaries and related resources?

Just trying to get a feel for it as a reliable source. I would know if they had said in included certain specific commentaries, word studies, etc. So is it the poor preacher's way to get as much as possible without springing for the expensive stuff? That could be fine as long as it is not too slanted in its collection of sources. They never really say what is included. Just that there is a lot there.

Sons to Glory! · 04-25-2021, 07:51 AM

I found this which is about a software version. There's a 9 minute video in which they go into the features of the software, and how it incorporates all the aspects of the Complete Biblical Library - appears to me to be an absolutely incredible amount of study resources! Now I know why I've heard about this so much from different bros.

As the narrator goes through the numerous features, it shows the contributors. Then at about the 6 minute mark it shows a bibliography for that section of scripture, of people contributing to the commentaries.

Looks like the software is $449. Not personally knowing Bible study software very well, does this look like a good resource to you?

https://www.accordancebible.com/cbl/

aron · 04-25-2021, 08:16 AM

One way to compare Grandview, Toronto, and Scottsdale is to see what degree they've publicly repented of association with Nee and Lee. I only know of them through the writings of John Myer, Nigel Tomes, and StG. The first two sources seem to have acknowledged and repudiated (repented) to some extent. Not sure about StG - he's still quoting uncritically from Bill Freeman as though he were a reputable source.

I'd add the TC GLA groupings and the DYL Brasil groupings as well. Have they in any degree publicly recognised the degree of ruin that these so-called teachers have brought to so many? Or are they trying to run Local Church V.2?

So I see 5 spinoffs here. Two apparently have tried to make it back to 'Christianity', damaged-goods as that is. One has pretended to, but without repentance which is the basis of the Christian journey (The first word of Jesus, coming up out of the desert, was 'Repent'. Same with John the Baptist. And this was repeated to the Christian churches in the apocalypse!). And two haven't even bothered trying to pretend that they've rejected the old system. It's simply too enticing. The command-and-control structure is apparently inbuilt into their socio-cultural dna, and they are incapable of considering anything else. Even if it's clearly laid in front of them, in the NT.

All the above are simply my impressions from afar, and may not be reflective of realities on the ground.

I'd ask the Scottsdale elders who still have Lee books on the shelf: How could you accept God's economy as taught by Lee? Where did Paul teach intensification? If Paul didn't, why do you have books that say he did? You're like an ex-Mormon group keeping the Book of Mormon on the shelf because Lehi had good advice on marriage. No - dump it.

Ask them, how could some psalms of imprecation be Christ defeating Satan, and some be the fallen psalmist in his natural mind? Ask them, how could Nee teach a local, independent church model in 1925, then do an about face and teach a centralised 'Jerusalem Principle' church model in 1945, and nobody questioned it? What domineering spirit is at work, here? Do you want to be oblivious to it, or do you want to be free?

Are they willing to be critical of the teachings coming out of Anaheim? Or do they hold many teachings - "LC Lite" - whilst rejecting the overt control? Because all the teachings were designed for control. Again, Bill Freeman is my case-in-point. His "mystical indwelling Christ" was the lure to get naiive young people into Patsy's orbit. Until you realise the two were inseparable, fronting the same dark force, and acknowledge this and repent (move away rapidly and decisively), your journey is compromised.

Ohio · 04-25-2021, 10:23 AM

I nominate aron as the official arbiter of Church orthodoxy.

Thankfully, we ex-LCers now meeting together all have someone we can definitively look to for our church creds.

But first, aron, would you please publish your own proof of repentance for those you are now meeting with?

UntoHim · 04-25-2021, 12:04 PM

So that's all you have for us Ohio? Sarcasm? aron hasn't even faintly implied that he is the arbiter of anything. And I don't believe he has ever mentioned where he meets (if he even meets anywhere), so that's a moot point as well.

So do you have anything of substance to contribute to the thread?
-

Sons to Glory! · 04-25-2021, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

One way to compare Grandview, Toronto, and Scottsdale is to see what degree they've publicly repented of association with Nee and Lee. I only know of them through the writings of John Myer, Nigel Tomes, and StG. The first two sources seem to have acknowledged and repudiated (repented) to some extent. Not sure about StG - he's still quoting uncritically from Bill Freeman as though he were a reputable source.

I'd add the TC GLA groupings and the DYL Brasil groupings as well. Have they in any degree publicly recognised the degree of ruin that these so-called teachers have brought to so many? Or are they trying to run Local Church V.2?

So I see 5 spinoffs here. Two apparently have tried to make it back to 'Christianity', damaged-goods as that is. One has pretended to, but without repentance which is the basis of the Christian journey (The first word of Jesus, coming up out of the desert, was 'Repent'. Same with John the Baptist. And this was repeated to the Christian churches in the apocalypse!). And two haven't even bothered trying to pretend that they've rejected the old system. It's simply too enticing. The command-and-control structure is apparently inbuilt into their socio-cultural dna, and they are incapable of considering anything else. Even if it's clearly laid in front of them, in the NT.

All the above are simply my impressions from afar, and may not be reflective of realities on the ground.

I'd ask the Scottsdale elders who still have Lee books on the shelf: How could you accept God's economy as taught by Lee? Where did Paul teach intensification? If Paul didn't, why do you have books that say he did? You're like an ex-Mormon group keeping the Book of Mormon on the shelf because Lehi had good advice on marriage. No - dump it.

Ask them, how could some psalms of imprecation be Christ defeating Satan, and some be the fallen psalmist in his natural mind? Ask them, how could Nee teach a local, independent church model in 1925, then do an about face and teach a centralised 'Jerusalem Principle' church model in 1945, and nobody questioned it? What domineering spirit is at work, here? Do you want to be oblivious to it, or do you want to be free?

Are they willing to be critical of the teachings coming out of Anaheim? Or do they hold many teachings - "LC Lite" - whilst rejecting the overt control? Because all the teachings were designed for control. Again, Bill Freeman is my case-in-point. His "mystical indwelling Christ" was the lure to get naiive young people into Patsy's orbit. Until you realise the two were inseparable, fronting the same dark force, and acknowledge this and repent (move away rapidly and decisively), your journey is compromised.

I couldn't quite figure out which group you referring to about exactly doing what . . .

Anyway, as said I can't speak much about firsthand knowledge of any place except Scottsdale. So LCD folks can choose whether to accept the threshold of "repent and publicly repudiate" all things WL as the only way to go on, or they can accept that we have endeavored to throw out the dirty bathwater and keep the "baby." It's your choice and I don't care to try and influence your thinking on this, because it's clear that many people's minds are already made up on here, that only the first approach is acceptable before the Lord. Let everyone be convinced in their own mind.

Regarding Bill Freeman, there are those in Scottsdale that like his teachings still (I for one), and others that don't so much (often because of the great personal turmoil caused by the infamous Patsy situation). The Freeman's were shown the door here, and there surely was a lot of damage. But most of us recognize that while there was a weakness of the flesh, yet his written ministry, and his studious approach in studying and dividing the word, was still good things to keep. You may think it's "mystical indwelling Christ" nonsense . . . I do not. So here we are - can we still fellowship as brothers? I hope so.

BTW - I'm reminded that there's probably still some John Myer tapes (yes, tapes) on the back wall of the Scottsdale meeting place, when he was here and spoke a few messages after the Freeman's left. I guess someone, if they have a mind to, might approach him about what he saw here in Scottsdale then, as that would be another firsthand account. (and Don Rutledge has been here several times, and he could be approached)

So let me convey my general, firsthand account of this morning's Lord's day in Scottsdale, with the purpose that it might give a clearer picture of things in a corporate gathering here. People started to arrive well before 10:00 and greeted one another (this feels like family interacting to me). Then the piano sister got us going on a couple songs of praise. Approximately 50-60 were there. There were a few testimonies about things different ones saw or experienced in the word and/or touched with the songs we were singing. Then another song was called, Then a couple more speaking and testifying of His love. Then another song was called while we took the Lord's table. Then a couple more saints spoke brief edifications. Then one of the 6 speaking bros stood up and gave a wonderful message on some things that impressed him in Colossians 1-3 about giving thanks. After about 40 minutes of speaking he sat down, and various ones got up to share encouraging things they saw from this brother's sharing in the word. There was such an outpouring of thanksgiving to God that we rather spontaneously launched into a song from Colossians 1:12, "Giving thanks unto the Father, Who has made us qualified . . . " Then a couple more shared related things about how this word tied into their daily life. Then the gathering was closed with a couple announcements around noon.

Very few left at that point as we got caught up fellowshipping with one another. A brother and his wife came up to a couple of us (we had been talking about how giving thanks is really an act of faith). They had been pastoring and "worship leading" with a local Calvary Chapel for some time, but recently started coming to the Sunday gatherings in Scottsdale. We got to talking about how much he appreciated that everyone functions and how edifying that is. (BTW - I do often seek out Calvary Chapel groups when I travel.) We both said we liked the gatherings and teachings there at CC, but also missed the open participation.

I should add that the name of WN or WL never came up in any speaking this morning. I know this, as I was somewhat sensitized to watch for it, since we have this thread going. In fact, to my knowledge, the only names mentioned (in an authority sense), were, "Father," "Jesus," and the "apostle Paul."

Lastly, I want to convey the sense of absolute freedom in Christ I consistently experience here. But freedom isn't alway an easy thing to relate, because it's the absence of something - rules, regulations, laws, barriers and other binding hinderances. I am hard pressed to name anything that anybody here has ever tried to lay on me, to manipulate my behavior. Does that sound anything like the LC? But, that includes that there are also no rules about not sharing something from WN or WL. The group here left the LC orbit long ago and doesn't care to move forward by looking in the rearview mirror. (Note - My intention is not to sell anybody on anything - just to give you my firsthand observation.)

Oh, one other thing - I don't know specifically about the elders shelves, but I still have a couple WL books on my shelf. One is that "Speciality, Practicality & Generality of the Church" (not sure if that's the exact title) book that we kicked around some on here a while ago. Some tried to convince me that I didn't have a real seeing and enjoyment of the Lord's purpose of the one body through that book, which was a futile attempt. As far as I'm concerned, it's the best thing Lee's written (and too bad the LC doesn't actually practice what it says in that book). The other one is "An Exposition of New Testament Words" . . . or did I donate that to the church library? . . . don't remember.

Hope that helps. And hopefully this is starting to address the questions OBW presented as I thought his questions were a decent, objective approach to the subject.

Ohio · 04-25-2021, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So that's all you have for us Ohio? Sarcasm? aron hasn't even faintly implied that he is the arbiter of anything. And I don't believe he has ever mentioned where he meets (if he even meets anywhere), so that's a moot point as well.

So do you have anything of substance to contribute to the thread?
-

Have you not read his post?

Don't you find it fascinatong that aron can now discern who has properly and adequately repented of their corporate past Lee sins, and now he can inform all ex-LC-members where they can meet? Or not.

Could you please read my post again, and not get stuck in the irony?

I was genuinely shocked at how far things had fallen. A poster who formerly encouraged all to follow the Lord as He led us back to our Heavenly Father is now determining which congregations have adequately repented based on how much they have publicly trashed Lee.

UntoHim · 04-25-2021, 08:26 PM

So this is your substance to contribute?

You are better than this my brother Ohio. Much better.

Nobody has trashed anybody. We're here on a public forum discussing the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church of Witness Lee. Our friend Sons to Glory! has introduced this notion of "Examining LC Spinoffs". I guess we're here doing some examining. Do you care to join us in the examination, or would you rather just bloviate and vent?

You are better than this my brother Ohio. Much better.
-

UntoHim · 04-25-2021, 09:54 PM

Sons to Glory!

We all know about the dirty bathwater of the Local Church of Witness Lee. Many of us barely escaped drowning in the stuff. I don't think there's much controversy about the dirty bathwater.

What I would like to know from you is this: What is this "baby" you speak of? I'm interested in knowing what you consider to be this baby that you and the saints with you there in Scottsdale have been able to preserve from the Local Church. This is a very pertinent question in light of your opening post. You are always saying that we misunderstand you. Here's your big chance to clear things up my brother!
-

Ohio · 04-26-2021, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

One way to compare Grandview, Toronto, and Scottsdale is to see what degree they've publicly repented of association with Nee and Lee. I only know of them through the writings of John Myer, Nigel Tomes, and StG. The first two sources seem to have acknowledged and repudiated (repented) to some extent. Not sure about StG - he's still quoting uncritically from Bill Freeman as though he were a reputable source.

I'd add the TC GLA groupings and the DYL Brasil groupings as well. Have they in any degree publicly recognised the degree of ruin that these so-called teachers have brought to so many? Or are they trying to run Local Church V.2?

So I see 5 spinoffs here. Two apparently have tried to make it back to 'Christianity', damaged-goods as that is. One has pretended to, but without repentance which is the basis of the Christian journey (The first word of Jesus, coming up out of the desert, was 'Repent'. Same with John the Baptist. And this was repeated to the Christian churches in the apocalypse!). And two haven't even bothered trying to pretend that they've rejected the old system. It's simply too enticing. The command-and-control structure is apparently inbuilt into their socio-cultural dna, and they are incapable of considering anything else. Even if it's clearly laid in front of them, in the NT.

All the above are simply my impressions from afar, and may not be reflective of realities on the ground.

I'd ask the Scottsdale elders who still have Lee books on the shelf: How could you accept God's economy as taught by Lee? Where did Paul teach intensification? If Paul didn't, why do you have books that say he did? You're like an ex-Mormon group keeping the Book of Mormon on the shelf because Lehi had good advice on marriage. No - dump it.

Ask them, how could some psalms of imprecation be Christ defeating Satan, and some be the fallen psalmist in his natural mind? Ask them, how could Nee teach a local, independent church model in 1925, then do an about face and teach a centralised 'Jerusalem Principle' church model in 1945, and nobody questioned it? What domineering spirit is at work, here? Do you want to be oblivious to it, or do you want to be free?

Are they willing to be critical of the teachings coming out of Anaheim? Or do they hold many teachings - "LC Lite" - whilst rejecting the overt control? Because all the teachings were designed for control. Again, Bill Freeman is my case-in-point. His "mystical indwelling Christ" was the lure to get naiive young people into Patsy's orbit. Until you realise the two were inseparable, fronting the same dark force, and acknowledge this and repent (move away rapidly and decisively), your journey is compromised.

UntoHim, would you please carefully read this post and discern the spirit of condemnation here. Aron judges numerous churches, not for what they teach from the Bible, but because of their guilt by association. 10-20-30 years ago some church members once were taught by Lee or Freeman or Dong or Chu or whoever. How do we know who aron meets with? What they teach? What their former church associations were?

This forum takes on the same stance as the Darby Exclusives of old. They would label and publicly trash any and all churches and members who once were associated with Newton or Muller. They had no tolerance for those who did not share their common hate. It went well beyond the bounds of biblical error. Those they met were not accepted for their faith and love towards God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, but whether their level of animosity towards Newton and Muller was sufficient.

Likewise with the recent LCD moderation. Now let's be clear, I love aron and his contributions on the forum. What seemed harsh in my recent posts was only to make a point. I have asked for Christian generosity and tolerance since my first post, and continually since then. I have asked that all be treated fairly according to the same standards, and our standard is scripture, not some hatred for Lee, regardless of how much each member feels hurt by him.

Nell · 04-26-2021, 03:21 AM

Ohio,

Aron has asked a lot of questions. This misguided topic calls for an examination of LC “spin-offs”. How do you conduct an examination without asking questions? You can’t read a “spirit of condemnation” into asking questions.

You can’t have it both ways.

Nell

aron · 04-26-2021, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Ohio,

Aron has asked a lot of questions. This misguided topic calls for an examination of LC “spin-offs”. How do you conduct an examination without asking questions? You can’t read a “spirit of condemnation” into asking questions.

You can’t have it both ways.

Nell

The last sentence of the opening post says, "The Lord might use it [this discussion] to shine light on hindering things that we might harbor unawares". And that is what my questions are designed to do. Shine light. Not condemn or judge. If my tone and language have been harsh then I apologize.

But Nigel Tomes seems to be asking questions, and my questions were (I thought) in the same vein. And I was asking, is there anyone at Scottsdale critically examining these teachings? My questions were representative, they always have been. There are other questions as important, perhaps moreso. But is anyone asking questions? If Tomes is asking in Toronto, and nobody is in Scottsdale, but our representative StG is avoiding questions, then forgive me if I point out the obvious. I'll try to do so politely, and with respect. But it still should be pointed out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I should add that the name of WN or WL never came up in any speaking this morning. I know this, as I was somewhat sensitized to watch for it, since we have this thread going. In fact, to my knowledge, the only names mentioned (in an authority sense), were, "Father," "Jesus," and the "apostle Paul."

There may be meetings of the Mormon assemblies where Joseph Smith and Brigham Young don't get mentioned either. But does that mean that their influence isn't there? Or that it's just been carefully placed out of sight? Unless you question these teachings, challenge them, they will influence you.

If I ask about God's economy and the sevenfold intensified spirit, and ask where Paul taught this such that it would be included in his charge to Timothy, and nobody answers my question, then I should feel the liberty to ask it again, until someone does. And if I ask, Why did someone teach such questionable theology without anyone challenging it, and wonder publicly what spirit is at work behind this dynamic, and nobody responds, then I will be free to draw my own conclusions.

Until people start answering questions, we should keep asking them. But yes, we should do so politely and with respect, and apologize if we are mean-spirited. I do apologize if my characterizations are out of line. But until I see answers I'm left to draw my own.

UntoHim · 04-26-2021, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Again, Bill Freeman is my case-in-point. His "mystical indwelling Christ" was the lure to get naiive young people into Patsy's orbit. Until you realise the two were inseparable, fronting the same dark force, and acknowledge this and repent (move away rapidly and decisively), your journey is compromised.

I would contend that not only the journey is compromised, the "baby" has been compromised as well. So much so, in fact, that the two are inextricably linked - separation is not possible. Not clear enough? PATSY FREEMAN IS THE BABY. Maybe she started out as just the bathwater way back in the early 70s in Seattle, but by the time the Freeman's unhitched their wagon from Witness Lee/LSM she had become the baby. Heck, even many of the Local Church brothers began to see that Patsy is the baby. Could this be the reason that they just let the Freeman's and their followers go without a fight?

And I'm sure you all see this one coming from a mile in the dark - PHILLIP LEE IS THE BABY. Speaking of "the same dark force". Witness Lee made himself inextricably linked to his alcoholic, porn addicted, abusive son by making him "my personal cook in my personal kitchen". John Ingalls et al clearly and strongly warned Witness Lee that his so-called ministry for the age had become corrupted and compromised. We know the story. Witness Lee chose Phillip over God and over the church. He chose his own flesh and blood over the Body of Christ. If Phillip Lee was not the Baby beforehand, he sure was that day.

Bill Freeman chose Patsy to be the baby. Witness Lee chose Phillip Lee to be the baby. Both Freeman and Lee are now dead. Phillip Lee is dead. Last I heard, Patsy is living in isolation, her kingdom being shredded to pieces. Both Freeman and Lee have left a trail of broken lives. Their so-called "rich ministries" have been found wanting by God and by man. Should any Christian, especially a young Christian, or a new Christian remain in the Local Church of Witness Lee? Should any Christian, especially a young Christian or a new Christian, remain in any spinoff of the Local Church?
-

Sons to Glory! · 04-26-2021, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

The last sentence of the opening post says, "The Lord might use it [this discussion] to shine light on hindering things that we might harbor unawares". And that is what my questions are designed to do. Shine light. Not condemn or judge. If my tone and language have been harsh then I apologize.

But Nigel Tomes seems to be asking questions, and my questions were (I thought) in the same vein. And I was asking, is there anyone at Scottsdale critically examining these teachings? My questions were representative, they always have been. There are other questions as important, perhaps moreso. But is anyone asking questions? If Tomes is asking in Toronto, and nobody is in Scottsdale, but our representative StG is avoiding questions, then forgive me if I point out the obvious. I'll try to do so politely, and with respect. But it still should be pointed out.

There may be meetings of the Mormon assemblies where Joseph Smith and Brigham Young don't get mentioned either. But does that mean that their influence isn't there? Or that it's just been carefully placed out of sight? Unless you question these teachings, challenge them, they will influence you.

If I ask about God's economy and the sevenfold intensified spirit, and ask where Paul taught this such that it would be included in his charge to Timothy, and nobody answers my question, then I should feel the liberty to ask it again, until someone does. And if I ask, Why did someone teach such questionable theology without anyone challenging it, and wonder publicly what spirit is at work behind this dynamic, and nobody responds, then I will be free to draw my own conclusions.

Until people start answering questions, we should keep asking them. But yes, we should do so politely and with respect, and apologize if we are mean-spirited. I do apologize if my characterizations are out of line. But until I see answers I'm left to draw my own.

Fair enough and thanks for your questions! It seems what you might be asking for is whether there has been some major, public examination in Scottsdale of all of Lee's teachings - is that correct? I am not aware of any event or program of that order. However, down through the years, (I have mentioned this several times here) we saints in Scottsdale have had light shed on several things that were erroneous from the LC. Let me see if I can list a few errors we have seen and freely acknowledge & repudiate among ourselves to hopefully satisfy your question:

1. The teaching of fear as the basis of performance - e.g., a thousand years in outer darkness or God being out to whack us for whatever is way off! (In reality, His banner over us is love and is the real reason why He has His eternal purpose)

2. The centralized control

3. The "God becoming Man so man can become God" teaching

4. The so-called "Ground of Oneness" which was really eletism

5. The degrading of other Christians

6. The myriad covert rules and regulations (albeit often conveyed by LC culture)

7. The focus on Lee as the one whatever

8. The teaching that God is not moving among any others; that no other Christian authors have a fresh experience of Christ or have received fresh revelation (therefore don't go looking for other good Christian sources, because there aren't any!)

I'm sure there are many more errors we have acknowledged in Scottsdale that I should list, but I think this is a good start on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sons to Glory!

What I would like to know from you is this: What is this "baby" you speak of? I'm interested in knowing what you consider to be this baby that you and the saints with you there in Scottsdale have been able to preserve from the Local Church. This is a very pertinent question in light of your opening post. You are always saying that we misunderstand you. Here's your big chance to clear things up my brother!
-

Thanks for the opportunity! I think one of the big things is the open meetings and overall encouragement for all to participate, as I described in my last post. And the ability of anyone to study the word for themselves and freedom to share that and their experiences of Christ as they see fit.

The liberty in Christ is remarkable to me here. As I said before, I believe no one here has ever laid some sort of hindering regulation on me - the focus is for each one to pursue Christ, and allow His indwelling life to be lived out through each member . . . functioning as they see fit.

Nell · 04-26-2021, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

The last sentence of the opening post says, "The Lord might use it [this discussion] to shine light on hindering things that we might harbor unawares". And that is what my questions are designed to do. Shine light. Not condemn or judge. If my tone and language have been harsh then I apologize.

But Nigel Tomes seems to be asking questions, and my questions were (I thought) in the same vein. And I was asking, is there anyone at Scottsdale critically examining these teachings? My questions were representative, they always have been. There are other questions as important, perhaps moreso. But is anyone asking questions? If Tomes is asking in Toronto, and nobody is in Scottsdale, but our representative StG is avoiding questions, then forgive me if I point out the obvious. I'll try to do so politely, and with respect. But it still should be pointed out.

There may be meetings of the Mormon assemblies where Joseph Smith and Brigham Young don't get mentioned either. But does that mean that their influence isn't there? Or that it's just been carefully placed out of sight? Unless you question these teachings, challenge them, they will influence you.

If I ask about God's economy and the sevenfold intensified spirit, and ask where Paul taught this such that it would be included in his charge to Timothy, and nobody answers my question, then I should feel the liberty to ask it again, until someone does. And if I ask, Why did someone teach such questionable theology without anyone challenging it, and wonder publicly what spirit is at work behind this dynamic, and nobody responds, then I will be free to draw my own conclusions.

Until people start answering questions, we should keep asking them. But yes, we should do so politely and with respect, and apologize if we are mean-spirited. I do apologize if my characterizations are out of line. But until I see answers I'm left to draw my own.

Aron. Thank you for your apology.

When someone doesn't like a question they may take offense at the mere asking. This was done and is still being done in LC v.1 with teachings like "don't say anything negative." It's a method of control.

To my observation, your posts have been polite and respectful, not harsh and judgmental. If you were direct and pointed, this is not disrespect. Noting that some won't like your tone if it puts them on the spot, or because it puts them on the spot, so they ignore your legitimate questions. So, Aron, ask again. Ask until you get a straight answer.

To be honest, I expected an apology from STG. What was I thinking? UntoHim has moderated STG's behavior and the disrespect he has shown by continual promotion of LC v.2...against forum rules. Instead, when OBW opened a door, STG did an end run around being moderated and offered this topic...a false flag that, in effect, continues promoting his spinoff.

This behavior continues after 22 years in Scottsdale. What does that say about LC v.2? We hear a lot about STG's "enjoyment" in Scottsdale, but where is his respect for UntoHim? UntoHim has provided a forum, and invites him to speak, requiring only that he follow the rules and behave himself in an orderly manner among the brothers. Is that too much to ask?

You, Aron, apologize when none is necessary, but STG does not apologize when he is given a serious warning to stop his promotion of LC v.2. Why is that?

More questions.

Nell

Ohio · 04-26-2021, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Ohio,

Aron has asked a lot of questions. This misguided topic calls for an examination of LC “spin-offs”. How do you conduct an examination without asking questions? You can’t read a “spirit of condemnation” into asking questions.

You can’t have it both ways.

Nell

Nell, aron's "questions" (actually more like judgments) were not about truth and practice, so-called orthodoxy and orthopraxy, rather they questioned whether former members in certain cities cited by StG had adequately repented of their association with WL.

Casting aspersions on other Christian congregations, holding judgments over others' heads, and demanding certain acceptable levels of repentance are the same devices WL and LSM have long used. These tactics are extremely manipulative. They are designed to hold others in fear and doubts. I cited how Darby Exclusives also used these same stratagems.

In light of the many ex-LC-members during the last half century who have forsaken any semblance of the faith, if this forum were true to its mission, operating with a generous spirit of God's love, the posters here would all rejoice to see other ex-members still assembling, worshiping God, studying the scriptures, and loving one another.

Ohio · 04-26-2021, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

There may be meetings of the Mormon assemblies where Joseph Smith and Brigham Young don't get mentioned either. But does that mean that their influence isn't there? Or that it's just been carefully placed out of sight? Unless you question these teachings, challenge them, they will influence you.

I find this comparison unacceptable. In today's contemporary culture, that's like calling me a racist and then demanding that I prove that I am not.

Nell · 04-26-2021, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nell, aron's "questions" (actually more like judgments) were not about truth and practice, so-called orthodoxy and orthopraxy, rather they questioned whether former members in certain cities cited by StG had adequately repented of their association with WL.

Casting aspersions on other Christian congregations, holding judgments over others' heads, and demanding certain acceptable levels of repentance are the same devices WL and LSM have long used. These tactics are extremely manipulative. They are designed to hold others in fear and doubts. I cited how Darby Exclusives also used these same stratagems.

In light of the many ex-LC-members during the last half century who have forsaken any semblance of the faith, if this forum were true to its mission, operating with a generous spirit of God's love, the posters here would all rejoice to see other ex-members still assembling, worshiping God, studying the scriptures, and loving one another.

Maybe they are rejoicing. We can’t really know who is doing what.

Yes, God is love, but He is also a Righteous God. I suggest that God’s love expresses His righteousness. One without the other doesn’t express His full nature.

Nell

Ohio · 04-26-2021, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Maybe they are rejoicing. We can’t really know who is doing what.

Yes, God is love, but He is also a Righteous God. I suggest that God’s love expresses His righteousness. One without the other doesn’t express His full nature.

Nell

Sorry Nell, but this is just basic misdirection. The righteousness of God has nothing to do with these current forum demands for ex-members to adequately repent for being "with Lee."

Since when does the righteousness of God allow the *unrighteousness* of those LSM leaders in Anaheim to be "transmitted" to ex-members around the globe, that they need to repent after leaving that system? Are you really attempting to resurrect some grotesque form of generational curses?

This smells a lot like demanding all white people today to repent for the sins of those who owned slaves in the 18th and 19th century.

Read John chapter 9. Did Jesus demand that the blind man repent for being with those heretical and hypocritical Jewish leaders? What scripture can you possibly use to justify the demand for repentance from those who were once connected with the scribes and priests? The Bible has no precedence here.

aron · 04-26-2021, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry Nell, but this is just basic misdirection. The righteousness of God has nothing to do with these current forum demands for ex-members to adequately repent for being "with Lee."

Since when does the righteousness of God allow the *unrighteousness* of those LSM leaders in Anaheim to be "transmitted" to ex-members around the globe, that they need to repent after leaving that system? Are you really attempting to resurrect some grotesque form of generational curses?

This smells a lot like demanding all white people today to repent for the sins of those who owned slaves in the 18th and 19th century.

Read John chapter 9. Did Jesus demand that the blind man repent for being with those heretical and hypocritical Jewish leaders? What scripture can you possibly use to justify the demand for repentance from those who were once connected with the scribes and priests? The Bible has no precedence here.

The original question, as I understood it, was how to characterize different groups who have left the LC orbit. Perhaps I spoke to strongly using words "repent", but the Bible uses those words, even to churches. So I used them.

But back to my point, which is this, and neither you nor StG have addressed. Why does Toronto and I believe also Grandview allow open critical examination of teachings to which they were once enslaved (and yes that is strong language, but look at what happened), and yet I see nothing of the sort out of Scottsdale? Two have 'turned away' from a path, whatever words one might characterise that turning away, and three (Scottsdale, GLA, Brasil) have not. Again, that is the view from afar, but until some data makes its way out, what other conclusion can be come to?

As for me, I repent of my association with the so-called ministry of Witness Lee, the Living Stream Ministry, the so-called Local Churches. I was seduced. I was told that I was the center of the universe. I was told that I was good building material. I was young, caucasian, college - educated male. Superior to non-caucasians to build the church. Superior to uneducated. Superior to females. I bought it, and now I repent. They played my ego and my ego responded, and now I repent.

I sat under curses, as Christians were called "poor, too poor" and "cows" and "darkened" and "satanic" and "devilish" and "twisted". I sat there passively as curses went forth on brothers and sisters. I took the curse, and now I reject it utterly. I repent for sitting there, silent. I reject the curse. I reject the satanic lie.

I could go on and on about the crap that I willingly swallowed. And then I left physically, but the programme still burned in my brain. And it continued to warp me until I saw it and rejected it, called it out for what it is.

I don't demand that anyone repent. I just say, if you want to compare groups, which StG apparently tried, and want to characterise them in some way, one way is to see how they deal with (or avoid dealing with) the teachings that held them it their grip. If they avoid clearance then I suspect that the grip is at least still partly there. The "influence" as StG put it. It's hidden, but there.

Nell · 04-26-2021, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry Nell, but this is just basic misdirection. The righteousness of God has nothing to do with these current forum demands for ex-members to adequately repent for being "with Lee."

No. It's basic nonsense. No one is making any demands. It's a conversation. A discussion.

Quote:

Since when does the righteousness of God allow the *unrighteousness* of those LSM leaders in Anaheim to be "transmitted" to ex-members around the globe, that they need to repent after leaving that system? Are you really attempting to resurrect some grotesque form of generational curses?

Seriously? This doesn't even make sense.

Quote:

This smells a lot like demanding all white people today to repent for the sins of those who owned slaves in the 18th and 19th century.

Read John chapter 9. Did Jesus demand that the blind man repent for being with those heretical and hypocritical Jewish leaders? What scripture can you possibly use to justify the demand for repentance from those who were once connected with the scribes and priests? The Bible has no precedence here.

Who are you? What have you done with Ohio? I need an aspirin.

Nell

Ohio · 04-26-2021, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Who are you? What have you done with Ohio? I need an aspirin.

Nell

May I suggest calling on the name of the Lord Jesus out of a pure heart? (II Tim 2.22)

Nell · 04-27-2021, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

May I suggest calling on the name of the Lord Jesus out of a pure heart? (II Tim 2.22)

Backatcha’

“Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.”

OBW · 04-27-2021, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

. . . Ask them, how could Nee teach a local, independent church model in 1925, then do an about face and teach a centralised 'Jerusalem Principle' church model in 1945 . . . .

I think you miss the point here. Whether a separate assembly or a collection that willingly adheres to a common creed of sorts is not an issue — except to the extent that Lee tried to make either an issue. You have to accept that even teachers can change their minds. We are not God and do not necessarily get everything right from the beginning. So simply pointing to a change is not necessarily proof of errors in teaching. Or at least it does not define which (if either) is right or wrong.

I am not defending Lee (you know I wouldn't). But if you want to discuss anything, you have to be more careful or you will find that you can't get agreement on what was error in the first place. It might be that (without the other issues of Nee and Lee that didn't stem from locality or variants thereof) a single, me and my private understanding of the bible is not necessarily any better than a collection with the primary act of finding the truth is in a "Jerusalem." each are subject to wandering into error, though I find a collective at least slower at doing it. The problem is what was it all about. For Lee and the LCs, separate assemblies relying on "ground" was really no better than a centralized government. Possibly worse in some cases. Well, maybe if you try to argue a controlled group of independent assemblies defined only by political boundaries is oxymoronic relative to any kind of collective of such assemblies, that would be something.

Sons to Glory! · 04-27-2021, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

The original question, as I understood it, was how to characterize different groups who have left the LC orbit. Perhaps I spoke to strongly using words "repent", but the Bible uses those words, even to churches. So I used them.

But back to my point, which is this, and neither you nor StG have addressed. Why does Toronto and I believe also Grandview allow open critical examination of teachings to which they were once enslaved (and yes that is strong language, but look at what happened), and yet I see nothing of the sort out of Scottsdale? Two have 'turned away' from a path, whatever words one might characterise that turning away, and three (Scottsdale, GLA, Brasil) have not. Again, that is the view from afar, but until some data makes its way out, what other conclusion can be come to?

Huh!? Was my last post invisible in which (at least I thought) I addressed this? For convenience here's what I presented:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Let me see if I can list a few errors we have seen and freely acknowledge & repudiate among ourselves to hopefully satisfy your question:

1. The teaching of fear as the basis of performance - e.g., a thousand years in outer darkness or God being out to whack us for whatever is way off! (In reality, His banner over us is love and is the real reason why He has His eternal purpose)

2. The centralized control

3. The "God becoming Man so man can become God" teaching

4. The so-called "Ground of Oneness" which was really eletism

5. The degrading of other Christians

6. The myriad covert rules and regulations (albeit often conveyed by LC culture)

7. The focus on Lee as the one whatever

8. The teaching that God is not moving among any others; that no other Christian authors have a fresh experience of Christ or have received fresh revelation (therefore don't go looking for other good Christian sources, because there aren't any!)

I'm sure there are many more errors we have acknowledged in Scottsdale that I should list, but I think this is a good start on it.

Then I also briefly addressed UntoHim's request to "show us the baby!", but nothing was said about that either. Instead of addressing the substance of what I posted, there was more of this "they should repent with sackcloth and ashes on their head!" (yes, I know that no one actually said those words - I'm exaggerating to make a point), and then UntoHim's divergence into something about Patsy Freeman being the "baby" (truly can't figure the point out there . . .) But what is repenting? "To change one's mind; To express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing." Is that not what's been done in places like Scottsdale? We here have repented of AT LEAST the 8 points I made above.

OBW · 04-27-2021, 07:33 AM

Can I suggest that rather than trying to define a bright line of acceptability, we instead look at it in terms of what is the content of the teachings and practices? I doubt we will agree on the qualification of these various groups that remain independent assemblies with various levels of current or former connection to the LCs of Lee/LSM. Even much of the form is suspect to some of us. Too much talk about some special preference that sounds like "ground lite" is out. Or just that they separated from the LSM is enough. Where is the line? We all have an opinion.

Maybe the most important thing is to realize how much any such group seems to possibly be "influenced by but no longer associated with" the original "local curches" in any way is the goal. Then a participant has a basis for determining for themselves how much their belief is influenced by Nee/Lee and whether the things they find from Nee/Lee are or are not part of the error.

You know my position. It is all touched by the error even when a specific statement is not error. And some get annoyed that I push that position so often. So clearly not everyone agrees. We have many participants here, past and present, that have differing levels of disagreement with standard Nee/Lee/LC teachings. And quite a few that still want to parse out what they think is good and repeat it rather than commit to any of the other Christians around them. We even have a major part of our discussion spearheaded by someone who wants everything about the LC, including Nee's and Lee's teachings, just without the abuses of leadership. So arguing that anyone needs to repent of Lee's teaching as a basis for anything seems harsh. Or at least hypocritical. Instead, show them where the error is in what they seem to be holding to that is not healthy. And be sure that we are speaking out against the teachings/errors, and not the persons still holding those errors.

I may fail at that last part at times, but it is my intent.

As for this particular thread, it might be that we really shouldn't be trying to parse out any group beyond Scottsdale, at least at the present. And maybe the issue there isn't just how much, if any, Nee/Lee remains, but how much there is a cloud from the Freemans. And they kept enough of the form and teachings of the LC that it is possible that even what you have from Bill is not entirely orthodox, but is still influenced by Nee/Lee. Maybe not always stated the same way, but in essence the same. I am suggesting that having a body of teaching from the Freemans might be every bit as problematic for true Christian faith, practice, and growth as Nee and Lee. And allowing your seemingly positive experiences with your group of brothers to dictate the correctness of the teachings you are receiving might be a problem for you.

aron · 04-27-2021, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Where is the line? We all have an opinion. Maybe the most important thing is to realize how much any such group seems to possibly be "influenced by but no longer associated with" the original "local churches" in any way is the goal. Then a participant has a basis for determining for themselves how much their belief is influenced by Nee/Lee and whether the things they find from Nee/Lee are or are not part of the error..

Assumedly the Church in Scottsdale at one point was open to the teachings of Lee. Then they broke off. Now there are still books on the shelf. My question is, Are the teaching brothers there in Scottsdale critically examining the teachings that they once held? Or are they just ignoring them, whilst the books still sit on the shelves? Apparently, the Toronto Church Assembly that meets with Nigel Tomes is critically examining their former teachings, which I think is healthy. One should always examine one's teachings. My question was, Is anyone examining the Nee/Lee corpus at Scottsdale? Are they quietly trying to forget it? Do they occasionally 'mix and match' to suit today's lectionary?

There was once influence. Does it still remain? I'm not going to judge or condemn, obviously. I'm not qualified. Were I to live in Scottsdale, it might determine how much if any fellowship I allowed myself. Otherwise the question is somewhat academic, and with our limited exposure, a challenge to answer. But how much they have publicly exposed the shortcomings of the teachings they once held (so I assume) is a valid question. If they didn't ever hold the teachings then they are not an LC spinoff, they're a ' gulp ' free group.

Sons to Glory! · 04-27-2021, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Assumedly the Church in Scottsdale at one point was open to the teachings of Lee. Then they broke off. Now there are still books on the shelf. My question is, Are the teaching brothers there in Scottsdale critically examining the teachings that they once held? Or are they just ignoring them, whilst the books still sit on the shelves? Apparently, the Toronto Church Assembly that meets with Nigel Tomes is critically examining their former teachings, which I think is healthy. One should always examine one's teachings. My question was, Is anyone examining the Nee/Lee corpus at Scottsdale? Are they quietly trying to forget it? Do they occasionally 'mix and match' to suit today's lectionary?

There was once influence. Does it still remain? I'm not going to judge or condemn, obviously. I'm not qualified. Were I to live in Scottsdale, it might determine how much if any fellowship I allowed myself. Otherwise the question is somewhat academic, and with our limited exposure, a challenge to answer. But how much they have publicly exposed the shortcomings of the teachings they once held (so I assume) is a valid question. If they didn't ever hold the teachings then they are not an LC spinoff, they're a ' gulp ' free group.

Serious question - do you see my posts or am I somehow blocked to you?

aron · 04-27-2021, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

We here have repented of AT LEAST the 8 points I made above.

I did see this, and tried to respond, but couldn't manufacture a coherent response and gave up. But I'll try again.

We were once under the thrall of a world-view manufactured by Nee and then Lee. Some parts of that world-view your church has abandoned, clearly. Some of the practices. But you say that some of the Nee/Lee books are on the shelves. So, some things you apparently have held.

Now, I say this because (I thought) you were trying to establish criteria to look for remaining influences in the various LC spinoffs, so-called. And Grandview and Toronto were named as examples. I then named the Titus Chu GLA consortium and the Brasil Dong YuLan consortium of assemblies as other examples.

The TC and DYL variants are/were more like the originals of WL and WN than are/were the current Blendeds of Anaheim, because in Cleveland/Brasil the Spiritual Giant still reigns/reigned supreme, albeit with new names. In Anaheim, they instead held that the Spiritual Giant has dead, and the age has turned (did this happen in Brasil with DYL passing?). Now in Anaheim it's the age of the Bureaucrats and Care Takers, the Small Potatoes and Page Turners. But in Cleveland the Giant still speaks.

In Toronto the Giant has not only left the building but they've publicly swept up at least some of the crumbs. I don't see any critical examination of the Lee/Nee corpus in Scottsdale, apart from the points you listed. This Forum has been titled Local Church Discussions -- Grandview and Toronto have apparently had at least some critical discussions, whilst Cleveland, Anaheim, Brasil have not, to my knowledge. Have you in Scottsdale openly discussed the points you noted, or just quietly dropped them? I haven't seen evidence of the former. And what teachings have remained? God's economy? (for that matter, I don't know if Toronto, Cleveland, or Brasil teach God's economy or some variant or have dropped it altogether. But they all clearly taught it, once)

I for one have benefitted from open discussion. I've presented an argument on this forum that "Only remember the poor" of Galatians 2 is a better candidate for interpreting this phrase 'oikonomea theou' in the writing of Paul to Timothy. Does anyone in Scottsdale teach some variant of the Lee interpretation: the Processed God becoming our subjective enjoyment, infilling, transformation, transfiguration? For that matter, does anyone in Grandview or Toronto? I don't know. But those are the types of examined teachings that I think might be beneficial.

Perhaps I'm skewed by my experience. I once left the LSM-affiliated church orbit, but brought the Nee and Lee books with me, and their world-views, and tried to put them on fellow believers outside the LC. Eventually I began to openly and critically examine the teachings here on this forum, and consequently no longer use them. I wonder if this process has happened to any degree at Scottsdale. I can easily use the term 'repent' to characterize my experience. But others may be offended. But I think of the epistle to Thyatira in John's Apocalypse. A genuine Christian assembly held teachings of Jezebel, and John called it out.

In my case, I don't 'call out' StG or Scottsdale as in need of repentance, and apologize if that was strongly implied. Rather, I've called out and repented of holding certain teachings published by LSM that I think injurious to the Christian journey and fellowship. Apparently there has been something like this at Scottsdale, but the degree is uncertain. Perhaps you want to leave it ambiguous - fine. But I don't see any evidence with your repeated promotions of Bill Freeman's work.

And that goes to my last point, perhaps the most important one. I don't separate the written teachings and the disasters that followed the person's ministry. StG seems to think that teachings communicated in formal published books are fine, but somehow the practices got skewed. I think the teachings were the vehicle for the practices. Perhaps there is a nuanced middle ground. Not sure. If you read the epistles to the seven churches in Asia, there doesn't seem to be much nuanced middle ground. But there is some - 'to those who don't hold the teachings' of Rev 2:24. So, to what extent do those in Scottsdale 'no longer hold the teachings' as compared to Grandview or Toronto?

aron · 04-27-2021, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Serious question - do you see my posts or am I somehow blocked to you?

I just posted in #43

Question: do you believe in 'God's economy' as taught by Lee? Were you ever influenced by it? If so, have you dropped, modified it? Or just sort of ignored it, let it sit quietly on the shelf?

I ask this for three reasons: first, that when I left the LC physically I continued to promote WL-sourced interpretations/teachings like this; second, Tomes' essays on this forum don't include this subject, which makes me wonder; and third, it was one of WL's most referenced notions and becomes a kind of bellwether for his lingering influence.

Did any of Freeman's teachings derive from WL's God's economy? Did Scottsdale ever hold it as truth? Does it still, in any form? You say that Scottsdale doesn't hold the "God becoming man to make man God" mantra, which was the capstone of Lee's construction. Did you all hold and/or promote any of the supporting structure, the "processed triune God for our subjective enjoyment" corpus of teachings?

Sons to Glory! · 04-27-2021, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

And that goes to my last point, perhaps the most important one. I don't separate the written teachings and the disasters that followed the person's ministry. StG seems to think that teachings communicated in formal published books are fine, but somehow the practices got skewed. I think the teachings were the vehicle for the practices. Perhaps there is a nuanced middle ground. Not sure. If you read the epistles to the seven churches in Asia, there doesn't seem to be much nuanced middle ground. But there is some - 'to those who don't hold the teachings' of Rev 2:24. So, to what extent do those in Scottsdale 'no longer hold the teachings' as compared to Grandview or Toronto?

Thanks for that. We seem to be going around and around the two basic questions of "How much is too much?" and "How much exactly do these places have?" To me, the 8 points I listed are the things that are "too much" and have been found wanting and discarded in Scottsdale. But I don't believe anyone here has decreed a particular rule for what someone can follow or not follow, and I don't think a survey along those lines has been done with Scottsdale members to find out.

I think it was seen that members in the body of Christ grow best when they aren't subjected to a lot of outward forms and rules. As I've said, there is a liberty here that is probably hard to convey. Part of that came, I think, when the Freeman's were ousted. It was pretty clear that having the one big kahoona, Lee or Freeman(s), was problematic. One of the good things about what's here now, is the freedom from all that!

The focus here really has been the pure word. We have been going verse by verse through various books in the NT here for years. (e.g., it took us over 8 months to get through Revelation) And there has been no overarching theme or teaching guiding this, as far as I can tell. God's economy/administration is talked about as oikonimea (sp?) is in the word. Since this has been brought up on this thread a number of times, is that a major sticking point? Here again, Lee's name is very, very rarely mentioned in those economy/administration conversations.

You mention Lee's & Nee's writings being around still. The little bit there is, I don't think they're magic and causing anything by sitting on a shelf somewhere, which I think is mostly where they stay. Maybe someday someone will be inspired to get rid of some of them - perhaps like a brother who decided to change the name on the sign out front to "Scottsdale Church." (I think it used to say, "A Meeting Place for The Church in Scottsdale," but don't quite remember) One day it just happened . . . at least that's as far as I know. Truly, there's so little mention of Lee around here, I've never heard newcomers ever ask who this Lee guy is. Now you can wonder how much influence there is of Lee below the surface . . . all I can tell you is that from my perspective it's quite minimal. Is that still too much? I think only individuals can decide that, and it's hard for me to convey what is the actual degree. (I can go weeks in Scottsdale without hearing Lees name - and often it's in the context of something not right.)

So again, as OBW pointed out in his post early on, we're still trying to decide about what is the threshold for "too much" and "how much is here." Do those 8 points I listed count for anything in your mind towards discarding the bad stuff? (I think there's more to list, but thought that would be good to start with as a focus.)

Sons to Glory! · 04-27-2021, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I just posted in #43

Question: do you believe in 'God's economy' as taught by Lee? Were you ever influenced by it? If so, have you dropped, modified it? Or just sort of ignored it, let it sit quietly on the shelf?

I ask this for three reasons: first, that when I left the LC physically I continued to promote WL-sourced interpretations/teachings like this; second, Tomes' essays on this forum don't include this subject, which makes me wonder; and third, it was one of WL's most referenced notions and becomes a kind of bellwether for his lingering influence.

Did any of Freeman's teachings derive from WL's God's economy? Did Scottsdale ever hold it as truth? Does it still, in any form? You say that Scottsdale doesn't hold the "God becoming man to make man God" mantra, which was the capstone of Lee's construction. Did you all hold and/or promote any of the supporting structure, the "processed triune God for our subjective enjoyment" corpus of teachings?

Ya know, I gotta be honest - I never actually got what "God's Economy" was all about when I was in the LC, and pretty much ignored it. I was young in my Berkeley days (18-22) and and in my early 30s in Columbus. God's economy pretty much went over my head then too.

My best seeing of God's administration was when we were going through Ephesians here a few years ago, and I saw that God has an order in His house, to ensure all His children get what they need, and this is fully out of His love for us - much like in a family. This made sense to me, but no one specifically taught me that - it was the Anointing showing it to me. When anyone mentions economy here, that is the lens I view it through. And I think others here hold that view too, as I've shared it with others a number of times . . . and they're in agreement.

So would you say that's influenced by Lee?

aron · 04-27-2021, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

... we're still trying to decide about what is the threshold for "too much" and "how much is here." Do those 8 points I listed count for anything in your mind towards discarding the bad stuff? (I think there's more to list, but thought that would be good to start with as a focus.)

The initial post had the rather nebulous goal of finding out "what these groups are like that have left the LC orbit" and "what lingering hidden influences might remain." My question was, to what extent have they been willing to openly question or critique the body of works by Mssrs Nee and Lee, which probably were at one point influential?

One thing I noticed was that the degree of slavish imitation and inculcation varied considerably. With some groups it was fairly loose, some rigid and militaristic.

So it might be very difficult to come up with some overarching criteria to understand them as in a related way. Number one, we have so little information, number two they are quite disconnected in space and interlocking influences. My only helpful thought was try to trace them back to their source and compare the degree of separation. But that may not be a tenable proposition.

The only strong and remaining impression in my mind is of Tomes publicly calling out at least some of the teachings in the Lee corpus. I don't see anyone else bothering save a few individuals on the internet. Scottsdale not calling out Lee may mean they remain influenced, or it may mean they don't bother. I only know from my experience that until I identified and consciously rejected the error, it remained at work within me.

aron · 04-27-2021, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

My best seeing of God's administration was when we were going through Ephesians here a few years ago, and I saw that God has an order in His house, to ensure all His children get what they need, and this is fully out of His love for us - much like in a family. This made sense to me, but no one specifically taught me that - it was the Anointing showing it to me. When anyone mentions economy here, that is the lens I view it through. And I think others here hold that view too, as I've shared it with others a number of times . . . and they're in agreement.

So would you say that's influenced by Lee?

No, I think that's probably the standard Christian view, if there is anything like a standard. And actually, that answers a lot for me, thanks. In my case, I was so brainwashed that if it wasn't God's economy as explained by Lee, I rejected it outright. It could be good, admirable, biblical, historically sound.... but 'not God's economy' [as held and promoted by WL] meant 'don't bother'.

Your indifference to the subject says a lot about the influence of Lee, that it was probably minimal. With other ex-members it's not. I've seen rigid, unquestioning adherence, even in those who left. And that goes to my point - they left physically, but couldn't get the WLMCP* out of their head. So the influence remained.

*Witness Lee Mind Control Programme

OBW · 04-27-2021, 12:14 PM

aron,

I wouldn't expect Scottsdale to hold to the "God became man to make man God" mantra since that came after their departure.

In any case, while I gave StG an opening to attempt the analysis of the Scottsdale assembly, I am not sure that trying to make a broad, one-thread analysis is really worth anything. Just as you note that you left and carried teachings of Nee and Lee with you that took years to clear out, do you think that these assemblies, being made up of many individuals with different connection (none to much) back to the LC, are so simple to analyze and classify? And in the middle of all of that, even what objective information we may be able to glean could be muddied by less-than-clear motives of the leaders and members of the group. If they survived years of subterfuge from others yet stayed, might they be prone to becoming part of an altered subterfuge of their own? I know I make it sound evil and ominous using "subterfuge," but my meaning is that can we assert that leaven in the former teachings won't affect the later teachings without anyone realizing it?

In short, while not saying this endeavor is useless, it might be that a point-by-point inner-assessment by StG of his own understanding of scripture, orthodoxy, orthopraxy, etc., might be more useful. Rather than just digging in his heels every time that someone says "what are you talking about?" he would be better served by taking the time to listen to what others are saying and do the Berean thing and see if the things being said by the other forum members, or the things he has come to believe better stand up against the scripture and truth.

And no matter how much we don't like hearing anyone speak favorably of old LC/Lee practices, statements, etc., rather than just saying "stop it," it might be more helpful to both StG and others if we challenge the "positive" statement rather than just say "stop." I am the first to say that it is sometimes difficult to argue that things that sound so "spiritual" might be wrong. But just because the words "Christ," "life," "church," "economy," "Spirit" (or "spirit"), etc., are included does not make it impenetrable.

And a feeling of joy, exuberance, "bubbling up," etc., does not make it untouchable because those are not simply fool-proof markers of the Spirit. I have felt joyous about the demise of certain kinds of people. (At least I had some sense that it was wrong and it didn't last.) And even then, when it comes to our feelings, they are not always clear. I've seen people become fearful because they mistook something for something else. And even after their incorrect perception was corrected, they continued to talk and act as if the first perception had been real. Not just being slow at dismissing the emotion, but remaining ruled by it as if real.

We can argue that these thoughts are irrelevant to "me" with respect to (whatever topic). But it is not true. If there is any objective yardstick, it should be referred to and the emotions be brought under control to truth, not truth be presumed to exist because of emotions. And there are people who learn how to manipulate others by using the emotions. Fear of a common enemy (real or imagined). Practiced manipulation of emotions.

(Want to talk about an LC practice that seems impossible to speak against? The litany of positive phrases spoken to garner loud, exuberant "amens" and "hallelujahs." The calls to clear your mind and just "call on the Lord." The examples of evil undertaken by the LC leadership that included breaks to "call on the Lord" proves that any real connection with God was either missing or merely turned on then back off. The Whistler meeting to excommunicate Titus Chu was a prime example. Listening to that audio, it was almost like it was inserted to convince anyone who was wavering that this had to be of God since they called on his name.

"Did we not cast out charlatans in your name? Stomp on sisters who were trying to help failing marriages?" "Depart from me, workers of iniquity.")

I included the above aside because having upbeat meetings and singing really positive songs is not a "good meeting." Neither are messages that bring you to the fourth heaven. Not saying that there is anything necessarily wrong with either. But those are not evidence of truth or spirituality.

StG: If you still want to analyze your Scottsdale assembly, this is more important than trying to ferret out the specific nuances of inclusion/exclusion of Nee/Lee. But I would suggest that we are all better off rejecting it all and returning to some form of existing Christianity that has survived for centuries. I realize that this is so ingrained in us to avoid. But where did we get that? Who taught us that the Methodists are just wrong. Or the Baptists. Or the Presbyterians. Or the Church of Christ. Or the Congregationalists. Or the Anglicans. While acknowledging some particular problems with the EOC and RCC, just like those 7 churches in Revelation, are we so sure that they really don't qualify as churches? That they don't actually preach a true gospel (even if not all in an evangelical, line-in-the-sand conversion manner)? Why do I say this? Because despite our desire for "new and fresh," the faith is not new. It is tested by time. It survives the drought. It even seems to hide in times of darkness. But it is still there. The only thing important that is fresh (or not fresh) is our current position with God. Our mode of practice is not it.

aron · 04-27-2021, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I am not sure that trying to make a broad, one-thread analysis is really worth anything. Just as you note that you left and carried teachings of Nee and Lee with you that took years to clear out, do you think that these assemblies, being made up of many individuals with different connection (none to much) back to the LC, are so simple to analyze and classify? And in the middle of all of that, even what objective information we may be able to glean could be muddied by less-than-clear motives of the leaders and members of the group.

I was trying to write the same thing in post #47 while you were writing this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

We can argue that these thoughts are irrelevant to "me" with respect to (whatever topic). But it is not true. If there is any objective yardstick, it should be referred to and the emotions be brought under control to truth, not truth be presumed to exist because of emotions. And there are people who learn how to manipulate others by using the emotions. Fear of a common enemy (real or imagined). Practiced manipulation of emotions.

An important point: find objective yardsticks that all can understand and work from. Otherwise we either dismiss actual, real, biblically-based input with, "That wasn't my (subjective) experience" or we continue to push our subjectively-based agenda past the point of futility.

Sons to Glory! · 04-27-2021, 12:56 PM

Thanks Aron and OBW for your thoughtful and balanced responses to this topic, and specifically your posts just now! I feel like we're having an honest and fairly unbiased-laden conversation (though we of course all have biases). As many of us have said, we are all in different stages of recovering from The Recovery. I've had many of those types of conversations with those on here and in Scottsdale. My experience is that I haven't so much gone after specific topics to see if I held erroneous teachings. Rather, as I have gotten into the word, pursued the Lord and fellowshipped in a more general way, the Lord has shown light to expose things that were off.

The first and biggest thing along these lines I experienced, was when I came to the Scottsdale gathering in 1998, the Lord soon after showed me clearly that the basis for what He does toward us is love. When He showed me that, a number of things I picked up from the LC quickly dissolved! Many of the fear-based and legalistic teachings I had absorbed in the LC, I was liberated from. And this realization opened up the word to me in a way like never before. So many things in the word started making sense, based upon the foundation of His love. That was Him showing me - not me trying to determine if something was off or not. And there have been a number of these instances since then.

And, to elaborate a little, I really wasn't around the LC all that much, and often not in localities that were completely in the LSM mainstream. I was so young in Bazerkely (3-4 years total there, off & on) and then met with a couple LCs in Ohio for maybe a cumulative 5-6 years. As Ohio often points out, LCs in Ohio were not so tightly in the LSM orbit. (one we participated in for maybe 1.5 years - Cambridge - was as far out of the orbit as maybe Pluto) So lumping all LC experiences together might be about a net 8 years, and much of the time I was kind of a back-seat participant at best, therefore I didn't get thoroughly steeped in all of it as many on here did.

But I really did like the open meeting concept and free participation aspects, and still do. To me, this is a huge part of "the baby" that I like to see kept. There is fruit to gathering in this way. So one thing specifically I'd like to comment on that you said Mike, was about chucking everything of the LC and going back to basic Christianity. I love saints in all the groups you mentioned and more, and gain a lot from them. However, the whole "pastor as CEO" thing doesn't work for me on a regular basis. Of course, Lee (and others) have attacked the clergy-laity thing, often going too far. So I see that various ministries are fine and are needed, but what I see lacking is the full and open participating of the members in most groups I've experienced in my travels, heard about, etc. So personally I wouldn't want to go back to that kind of system that seems prevalent in much of Christianity.

OBW · 04-28-2021, 02:35 PM

StG,

I know that various LCs are different even if they are loyal to the LSM. But the idea of being with the outliers, second-tier, v2, and wherever you figure those who left the LC but started their own group that looks a lot like them are, it seems like dancing on the edge of a cliff to me. At a minimum.

Not even a slippery slope.

While I don't want to speak beyond what might be true, at some level Bill Freeman was a significant player in the LC, and then pulled away one level, then another. But as a leader who went on to "do it again," (repeat the practice formula of the LC) I start to worry that he is his own set of teaching problems that has absorbed Nee's and Lee's teaching problems. He may not have repeated the LC's abuses. But the abuses were only an overt manifestation of the error that went on inside regardless of the abuses.

And the fact that you were (or think you were) shown something about love does not mean that your environment did it. It may have just been the separation from the full-on LC that allowed it, not simply the place you then found yourself.

Not saying it couldn't. But like a lot of analysis of data, correlation is not causation. Don't allow something positive to keep you from being just as Berean about where you now are just because a positive data point within your new environment. It could be true. Or it could just be coincidence.

Trapped · 04-28-2021, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

While I don't want to speak beyond what might be true, at some level Bill Freeman was a significant player in the LC, and then pulled away one level, then another. But as a leader who went on to "do it again," (repeat the practice formula of the LC) I start to worry that he is his own set of teaching problems that has absorbed Nee's and Lee's teaching problems. He may not have repeated the LC's abuses. But the abuses were only an overt manifestation of the error that went on inside regardless of the abuses.

Agreed.

The Freeman group are on this cult site:

https://culteducation.com/group/932-...man-group.html

Some descriptions of issues are taking advantage of members for personal and/or financial gain, extreme damage to numerous human lives, refusing to do anything about the extreme damaged caused, spiritual abuse, running from problems, and taking a cult following with them as they ran. This is not "weakness of the flesh" as described in an earlier post somewhere but false leadership. I'm confident that anything Bill may have gotten right can be found elsewhere by someone who does not have a compromised and unrepentant history.

My view is that it doesn't work to have proven false leaders' works remain on the shelf because they got some things right. Satan got something right when he spoke to Eve. But to keep a Freeman book around in order to retain the "Christ" that might or might not be in that book is to presume that that same "Christ" cannot be found elsewhere by an upright teacher and ties that "Christ" to a false leader.

Is this cancel culture? No. It's consequence culture, which is all over the NT for unrepentant abusive leaders and unrepentant professing believers. Expel the immoral person. Don't put up with false apostles. Treat them as tax collectors if they won't hear.

Throw out leavened teachings.

OBW · 04-29-2021, 07:29 AM

And I honestly believe that the culture of the group that supported such persons — whether talking about Nee and Lee or the Freemans — should also be suspect. It may have features that seem desirable. The open meeting style makes each person feel important.

But in a meeting, who is important? Me? My problems? My experience of joy?

And that last one is too often the problem. Everything seems to be designed to elicit a sense of joy. Not saying that joy is bad. Righteousness, peace, and Joy in the Holy Spirit is important. But it seems that righteousness is mostly missing. Even the peace with anyone but the group and toward God is missing.

And some of the above criticism can be laid at the doorstep of a lot of other Evangelical groups. And not just free groups. Worship has become an exercise in self-gratification for many. And the idea that they are ever called on to do any kind of "works" is demeaned, or even rejected outright as contrary to grace. Still, the LC and some of its spin-offs take this self-gratification to extremes. I think that the more mainstream aspects of Christianity can correct this without faliing apart. But it part of what keeps the LC faithful, well, faithful.

Sons to Glory! · 04-29-2021, 11:11 AM

So I've had some prayer, consideration and a little fellowship and here's what I thought to present to the forum.

In this thread, we've been looking mostly at the "dirty bathwater" that's been thrown out by Scottsdale, and some have set varying threshold levels of what they deem acceptable. I've presented 8 things I know we have repudiated from the LC, but to some, even 1% WL influence or 1 of his books sitting on a basement shelf is perhaps too much. That's fine - "Let every man be convinced in his own mind." (Rom 14:5)

(I was recently told about a YouTube video where Sean McDowell interviews his dad, Josh McDowell, about his thoughts on the Ravi Zacharias scandal. I haven't been able to watch it fully yet, but I was told by a leading bro this morning that Josh says something like, "If you have Ravi's books on your shelf and get help from them, then keep them. However, I would not recommend them to others, as they might become a stumbling because of the instances of Ravi's fleshly weaknesses." Again, that's coming to me secondhand from this bro. Might that advice serve as some guidance here regarding WL material? Here's the video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb9XDnPMGtM )

If any of you really want to determine the actual situation, apart from coming here and seeing for yourself, I've already suggested that certain ones can be contacted that know about Scottsdale firsthand. These ones have ongoing relationships with Scottsdale and perhaps would hold some weight with some on this forum. They include:

1. John Myer
2. Don Rutledge

Additionally, you could view a recent Scottsdale brother (1 of the 6 speaking ones) giving a message on Colossians 3, and see how much erroneous influence you think is there: Sunday Message Video: Raised with Christ to be the New Man

And I've had further consideration (and a little fellowship) about what is "The Baby" that we have retained in Scottsdale, as UntoHim inquired about. I would say some core things we've held onto here are:

1. The focus on Christ alone and His word
2. The focus on God's New Covenant way of the indwelling Christ operating in and through us - free from outward legalism and constraints
3. Allowing each member to function in various ways, including, but not limited to, the open meeting format

And as F. Gump would say, "That's all I got to say about that!"

UntoHim · 04-29-2021, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And as F. Gump would say, "That's all I got to say about that!"

Alrighty then! Sounds like we can wrap this thread up.

So unless anyone else has anything significant to add....

"You have to do the best with what God gave you" - Mrs. Gump

-

Sons to Glory! · 04-30-2021, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Alrighty then! Sounds like we can wrap this thread up.

So unless anyone else has anything significant to add....

"You have to do the best with what God gave you" - Mrs. Gump

-

Well AMEN to that! (and the best God has given us is His Son - what have we done with Him?)

If anybody needs contact info for either Don Rutledge or John Myer, just let me know (and I think UntoHim has that contact info too)!

It's a new day - Praise Him!

Trapped · 04-30-2021, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

(I was recently told about a YouTube video where Sean McDowell interviews his dad, Josh McDowell, about his thoughts on the Ravi Zacharias scandal. I haven't been able to watch it fully yet, but I was told by a leading bro this morning that Josh says something like, "If you have Ravi's books on your shelf and get help from them, then keep them. However, I would not recommend them to others, as they might become a stumbling because of Ravi's fleshly weaknesses." Again, that's coming to me secondhand from this bro. Might that be some guidance here regarding WL material? Here's the video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb9XDnPMGtM )

This post is mostly for anyone reading now or later on in the future. I want another video on the Ravi situation linked on this thread to balance out this viewpoint.

Josh says in the first few minutes regarding the Ravi Zacharias situation - "it can happen to anyone".

I patently disagree. Yes we all have sin. Yes we are all fallen and corrupt. Yes nothing good dwells in us.

But "it can happen to anyone" isn't what happened to Ravi.

This didn't "happen" to Ravi. He chose it. Repeatedly. Prolongedly. Intentionally. Manipulatively. In a planned way. Covered by countless lies. Professing publicly to speak for the truth, he spoke and lived a lie. Predatory, manipulative sexual abuse, using his influence and fame as a spiritual leader to violate women.

And then have them pray with him afterwards to thank God for the "gift" He gave both of them.......of Ravi violating the woman.

Josh also seems to say that just asking a victim of this kind of thing how they are doing and listening to them 2-3 times over the course of 2-3 weeks will cause a noticeable change in them. I don't think he understands the extensive harm that results from this kind of abuse.

The best response I've heard so far is from Mike Winger, here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcWeZS3cnNo

It's long; it's worth the length. He understands spiritual abuse. He has a domestic violence counseling background and understands power dynamics.

There is a point in the video where he throws Ravi's books in the trash, on camera. Might that also be some guidance here regarding WL's material.

Sons to Glory! · 04-30-2021, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

This post is mostly for anyone reading now or later on in the future. I want another video on the Ravi situation linked on this thread to balance out this viewpoint.

Josh says in the first few minutes regarding the Ravi Zacharias situation - "it can happen to anyone".

I patently disagree. Yes we all have sin. Yes we are all fallen and corrupt. Yes nothing good dwells in us.

There is a point in the video where he throws Ravi's books in the trash, on camera. Might that also be some guidance here regarding WL's material.

Thanks for the balancing word! Yes, Josh probably falls more on the side of grace than judgment, considering the books I've read by him. May the Lord speak to each one of us concerning what He would have us do!

OBW · 04-30-2021, 07:00 PM

OK. I listened to the entire message. And if you look at the post I just posted elsewhere about abiding in which I commented on the inner-life teachings, you will get most of my comments on the message.

My observations are that the message is almost entirely about the "spiritual" side of things, even spending so much time talking about them for most of the time, starting in a different book and then going back through significant parts of Colossians chapters 1 and 2 before getting to chapter 3 with only about 10 minutes left for the intended verses. And the practical things that are included in there are virtually ignored.

I must admit that I have not read or heard much of TA Sparks' writings, but as upbeat and positive as the segment(s) are, they are significantly skewed to purely inner-life thinking and a kind of passive opposition to any kind of active work. It is remarkable. And not in a positive way. From TAS and your speaker, the comments about a generic "Christianity" as "regulated" is bizarre. Even going so far as suggesting that managing to resist some aspect of the flesh is "not much." That it is not "in the risen life" (or that it needs to be).

When I read what Paul said, it seems more like yet another command to resist aspects of the flesh. Not something optional, or to be ignored until it just falls off "in resurrection life" or something like that.

What I find is that the message, for all its upbeatness, and the clear rapport within the group and a few amens (not as boisterously as would have occurred back in the Church in Dallas or Irving back in the 70s and 80s) ultimately danced around what I believe Paul was really trying to accomplish. To get the Colossian believers to reject the purveyors of Jewish laws and other odd teachings. To get them to consider how they were living, both negatively and positively, and do something about it. Why? Not just because that is what Paul said, but because it is seen as the way of God and is supported by these spiritual truths.

There is not anything that I noted as being a Lee error in the message. But its emphasis was mostly consistent with a Lee or old-school LC meeting. And even if you want to accept the inner-life skew as being "the whole gospel," one message does not a Lee-less group make. Maybe it is truly just a typical inner-life group and it really has dumped Lee. And even dumped its roots in Bill Freeman. But since the library for the speakers to use includes all the Life Study Messages, and Bill Freeman's writings as options, I have a hard time accepting that the negative aspects of either is materially omitted or excluded.

But rather than just trying to justify a whole group, why don't we take the same kind of thinking to specific teachings. To specific activities. And so on. You took significant issue with a challenge several years ago about something that "bubbled up" when reading from a book by Lee. For this to be a success, you can't just dig in your heels but instead must be willing to engage in meaningful discussion. Be honest and either just say "I am not willing to consider the possibility that there could be anything wrong at this time," or agree that you are ready to engage in assessment of positions. We are not suggesting to assess you, but just your positions. I hope that the two are not so intertwined that you cannot consider a change. I have changed many positions over the past 20 years.

So rather than trying to justify or sink your whole assembly upfront, let's look at specific things. And I don't mean pick through its teachings. Through every message for the next few months. Or anything like that. Instead, let's just go with where the forum is going, and when something comes up where some of the hard-core ex-LCers seem to disagree with something you think, let's set up a thread for discussion of the one issue. Not just to push you to change your mind, but to give reasons for why you/we/others think what we do. We don't ask that you ultimately agree . . . just that you be open to read what we provide. Give your reasons for disagreements. We will do the same.

We should try to stick to one topic at a time. Linked issues can be taken without a new thread if they resolve quickly, otherwise, they should be new threads. Keep on point. Etc.

Interested? It was a more active part of the forum many years ago and is how I found my way out of a lot of erroneous thinking.

Sons to Glory! · 05-01-2021, 07:29 AM

Thanks much, Mike, for taking the time to listen to the message and your honest assessment! Yes, in that message the brother was fired up more about so-called inner life aspects ("Christ in you"). However, as I mentioned on another thread, he did bring up the idea that in some situations you should just act or flee bad things, which is very practical and cannot be labeled as an inner-life thing, right? And I will tell you that other messages on this book (Colossians), by other brothers, do focus more on the practical aspects . . . as they are lead to speak. (There is no prescribed content or format these ones speak in - just what they are inspired to share.)

I'm sorta tempted to do a survey of the speaking brothers to see when the last time any of them even looked at a WL Life Study . . . just kidding. But maybe I will ask a couple of them at least . . .

Any way, thanks for your evenhandedness in all this. I think you are making a good effort to not let certain preconceived biases cloud things too much.

Nell · 05-01-2021, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks for the balancing word! Yes, Josh probably falls more on the side of grace than judgment, considering the books I've read by him. May the Lord speak to each one of us concerning what He would have us do!

How do you balance sin? Unrepentant sin calls for God's righteous judgment. Grace comes after repentance...otherwise the sin remains.

Here are a few words on grace:

"UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRUE GRACE & FALSE GRACE
Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his book, The Cost of Discipleship, sheds some light on the difference. He called false grace, “cheap grace.” He said cheap grace was preaching forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate. Costly grace (or true grace) is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has. Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again…costly because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ."

Regardless, this "Examination" of LC Spinnoffs cannot include the sinful Ravi Zacharias scandal, as Zacharias did not spinoff from the Local Churches of Witness Lee. It is therefore off topic and beyond the scope of the Mission Statement of this forum.

Nell

Trapped · 05-01-2021, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Regardless, this "Examination" of LC Spinnoffs cannot include the sinful Ravi Zacharias scandal, as Zacharias did not spinoff from the Local Churches of Witness Lee. It is therefore off topic and beyond the scope of the Mission Statement of this forum.

Nell

Can I ask for clarification on this? We aren't allowed to bring current semi-comparable situations in for the sake of comparison on a few posts within a larger thread on this site? That's news to me. And I think it would be a loss to the discussion if that's the case.

UntoHim · 05-01-2021, 09:16 AM

I think Nell is concerned about the risk of going off on a tangent. Ravi Zacharias was an itinerant Christian apologist who was not officially tied to any church, church group or para church ministry. (which was in large measure how his sin of abuse could go on for so long - he was unaccountable to anyone) So I think the Ravi situation is fair game for the "examination", but not to be used to draw any firm conclusions about any particular LC spinoff.
-

UntoHim · 05-01-2021, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

If any of you really want to determine the actual situation, apart from coming here and seeing for yourself, I've already suggested that certain ones can be contacted that know about Scottsdale firsthand. These ones have ongoing relationships with Scottsdale and perhaps would hold some weight with some on this forum. They include:
1. John Myer
2. Don Rutledge

Why would we contact these two brothers, who are thousands of miles away from Scottsdale, when we have someone who has been in Scottsdale for over 20 years? What is there about "the actual situation" that they could possibly tell us that you can't. Do you mean that they can give their approval or condone what is taught and practiced there?
-

Sons to Glory! · 05-01-2021, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Why would we contact these two brothers, who are thousands of miles away from Scottsdale, when we have someone who has been in Scottsdale for over 20 years? What is there about "the actual situation" that they could possibly tell us that you can't. Do you mean that they can give their approval or condone what is taught and practiced there?
-

I thought you said you knew John, or at least had some respect and/or contact with him. So I offered him and Don as more independent third parties that someone might source, if they had a mind to. Both have been here on various occasions and have ongoing communication with some here. Otherwise, I'm happy to convey what I can.

And I went in to do a little church maintenance this morning and wound-up pulling weeds with one of the six speaking bros. I told him about the dialogue we're having on here, and asked him (as I mentioned to OBW in my last post) if he ever references any WL Life Studies toward his Sunday sharing. He said he did not. Then he added, "Did you tell them we moved 1500 miles away (from the NW) to be seperate from all that?"

UntoHim · 05-01-2021, 11:13 AM

Sons to Glory! Please read my post again. Carefully. Your answer is a total nonresponse to my questions. Is it that you don't understand my question, or do you just prefer to sidestep them?

As far as "moving away 1,500 miles"...one could move to Pluto and still have a heart and a mind full of the very same unbiblical and harmful things.
-

OBW · 05-01-2021, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I think you are making a good effort to not let certain preconceived biases cloud things too much.

And recognizing bias is important. I have to admit that I have a bias. And some ex-LCers think my anti-Lee bias is beyond what it should be.

But the difference is that I at least somewhat acknowledge my bias and try to keep the fact of it in front of me. I know that I am prone to just rejecting what disagrees with it and instead try to give everything a fair hearing/reading. I do have a bias, but I try to defend it based on sound reasons and not just say it is true, or appeal to emotion or history to rely on it.

And while this may not entirely be relevant to any further discussions, I do have some "rules" that I will operate by:

1. Nee, Lee, the LSM, and to some extent even other former coworkers of either are not accepted as sources for purposes of truth related to orthodoxy or orthopraxy. This is because Nee and Lee (and therefore their "offspring") are the subjects of inquiry on this forum, so you have to actually defend what they say before we can take it any further.

2. What any of us feels about anything is not a basis for acceptance for it. The "feeling of the body" is not by itself a basis for anything. Same for personal feeling.

3. Lack of evidence against anything is not evidence that it is correct or acceptable. Likewise, lack of evidence for anything is not evidence that it is simply incorrect. But when there is a lack of evidence, there is no basis for anything to be insisted upon. There is no doctrine to be found. No error to declare. Rejecting any insistence where there is no evidence for that insistence is reasonable.

4. "Biblical" and "unbiblical" or "not biblical" are mostly useless terms. And this is mostly a relevant statement because of the "un" or "not" side of the equation. But either way, let the scripture speak for itself. If it speaks, we listen. If it is silent, we do not imply anything — especially as imperative to Christian belief and living.

These are not provided to intimidate, but to set expectations on both sides. I think you can see that they are not arbitrary and do not favor any particular outcome. If anyone can successfully establish a sound basis to accept that the "ground of the church is the boundary of the city it is in," then there are many of us that just might be willing to go along. Not because we secretly think it or want someone to bring it back, but because we are open to real scriptural evidence and are willing to abide by it. I have little expectation that this can happen, so I do not expect to be looking for the "Church in" the city I now live in.

Last, I agree with UntoHim and Nell that this particular thread to try to ferret out the true character of your Scottsdale assembly (with or without looking at any of the others) is not reasonable and has probably run its course. And to the extent that we have made any discovery, that is probably all we really are going to get. Even getting Don Rutledge's opinion on the matter will not help because he likely has limited real knowledge. He probably has an opinion but he is likely to feel compelled to refrain from giving it no matter how positive or negative it may be. And I am not faulting him for that.

OBW · 05-01-2021, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And I went in to do a little church maintenance this morning and wound-up pulling weeds with one of the six speaking bros. I told him about the dialogue we're having on here, and asked him . . . if he ever references any WL Life Studies toward his Sunday sharing. He said he did not. Then he added, "Did you tell them we moved 1500 miles away (from the NW) to be seperate from all that?"

So one out of six states their refusal to directly refer to Lee's teaching. But what was it that they moved 1,500 miles to get away from? The cultural turmoil of the times? Maybe some of the latest from Lee as the true Lee started to reveal itself. But they took the older parts of the culture with them. And that encapsulates some of the "early Lee" in it even if they do not refer to it in terms of written items.

In other words, I do not think you can really do the analysis that you seek. Not because they try to hide anything from you, but because they may not realize what is there.

Ohio · 05-01-2021, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sons to Glory! Please read my post again. Carefully. Your answer is a total nonresponse to my questions. Is it that you don't understand my question, or do you just prefer to sidestep them?
As far as "moving away 1,500 miles"...one could move to Pluto and still a heart and a mind full of the very same unbiblical and harmful things.

Since I can apparently post again ...

I found StG's response above perfectly on point. He offered you as a mature, Christian church referral, two well-respected, yet independent, brothers who have visited them, i.e. John Myer and Don Rutledge. If you respect JM and DR, then you should respect their opinion. If not, then just say so.

Secondly, any brother who will uproot and relocate his family 1500 miles to escape a bad system should also be respected. "With what measure you judge, you also will be judged."

I would like to ask an honest question: What do both of our current moderators have against StG and the Scottsdale church. Have either of you been there to visit? Why are they guilty by decades old association? StG has never even met WL or WF, yet you constantly critique his posts.

Why is it when there is no LSMer active on this forum, members start turning on one another? I'm sure that the LSM / DCP lurkers are having a great time laughing at this interrogation of StG. Sorry, folks, but Lee is still living in your heads, not StG's.

UntoHim · 05-01-2021, 12:13 PM

My brother Ohio. This thread is not about examining the moderators (as fun and exciting as that might be

), it is about "Examining Local Church Spinoffs". For better or for worse it has kind of evolved into an examination of the church in Scottsdale. If we had any forum members who are intimately familiar with some other spinoff we could probably have a wider discussion, but it seems that we don't. And as it turns out, we have only one person who is intimately familiar with the teachings, practices and history of the church in Scottsdale, and that is Sons to Glory! I don't see where anyone here on this forum has anything "against" StG or the church in Scottsdale, nor is anyone "interrogating" anyone.

I will ask you again Ohio. Do you have anything of substance to contribute to this thread? If so, I think we would all love to hear it. What we don't need is you to be flaming the moderators (as fun and exciting as that might be as well

) and taking the thread further off track than it already is.
-

Sons to Glory! · 05-01-2021, 12:33 PM

Ohio said exactly what my response would have been to your exhortation to "read my post again carefully." I did, it seemed simple, and I came up with the same answer. I'm not sidestepping anything, as far as I can tell - maybe you can rephrase it differently (so perhaps it can get through my thick head then).

Sons to Glory! · 05-01-2021, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

So one out of six states their refusal to directly refer to Lee's teaching. But what was it that they moved 1,500 miles to get away from? The cultural turmoil of the times? Maybe some of the latest from Lee as the true Lee started to reveal itself. But they took the older parts of the culture with them. And that encapsulates some of the "early Lee" in it even if they do not refer to it in terms of written items.

In other words, I do not think you can really do the analysis that you seek. Not because they try to hide anything from you, but because they may not realize what is there.

Well, the brother this morning actually did tell me something like, "In all honesty, that ministry from the 80s and before is in me, because I did see light through it. Just like everything someone experiences is part of them; things the Lord shows them stays with them, no matter how long ago." So he was very honest in bringing that up. Does he refer to WL now? Again, he said flatly, "No, I don't." And added, "I mainly use the Complete Biblical Library for references." (which I mentioned earlier)

Actually I think this would make two of the six speaking bros now, because I spoke to one about it after Thursday's breakfast, and he was a little fuzzy about where there might even be any Life Studies, and wasn't sure if they were even around or not! And if I was a betting man, I'd bet that at least one or two more of them would say they don't ever source WL. (one I know pretty well and we've had a number of discussions about leaving many WL teachings in the dust and how important it is to just let the word speak to us)

OBW · 05-01-2021, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well, the brother this morning actually did tell me something like, "In all honesty, that ministry from the 80s and before is in me, because I did see light through it. Just like everything someone experiences is part of them; things the Lord shows them stays with them, no matter how long ago."

And in that, I sense a lack of critical consideration of what it is that you and/or he thinks the Lord has shown. Just because you "see it" doesn't mean it was from the Lord.

Sons to Glory! · 05-01-2021, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

And in that, I sense a lack of critical consideration of what it is that you and/or he thinks the Lord has shown. Just because you "see it" doesn't mean it was from the Lord.

Right. And inversely, just because someone questions it, doesn't mean it wasn't.

UntoHim · 05-01-2021, 03:10 PM

Im quite certain that any good Mormon or Jehovah Witness would be making the very same claim.
-

OBW · 05-01-2021, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Right. And inversely, just because someone questions it, doesn't mean it wasn't.

I recognize that your response is correct. But it also doesn't mean it is correct. It is entirely in the realm of the unexamined. It was taken in inside of an environment that was salted with all manner of teachings, from mainstream orthodoxy to things that are, at best, borderline heresy. So saying that it is what has been believed for many years or that it was "from the Lord" is more likely a desire to not face the idea that he had been fooled and that God may not have revealed such a thing.

I know that there was a time that I was unlikely to admit that I had been wrong. I was more likely to declare that there was something wrong with the culture of the place, but that the teachings were really good. Now, if it were "PC" to say, I would declare "Hi. My name is Mike and I was once a member of a cult." At which point everyone else in the room would say "Hi Mike."

I understand that you may not really be ready to make that kind of leap. Not saying to declare you had been in a cult, but to admit that you have been fooled (even if unintentionally) and believed things not actually supported by the scripture. Ohio, Cal, and many others, including me, have had to make that admission. We may disagree on some specific items, but overall we have arrived at that kind of conclusion. Except for the possible exception of Nee and Lee, and maybe a few others, I do not say that those who spoke the lies we believed intended to do so. But they nonetheless did.

And many have come here for a while, from a few months to many years, who were considering their past in the LC, or the present participation with it in some form, and ultimately went back (or never left). Some we heard from while many others just lurked for a while. And a few came with the intent of trying to disrupt the forum. But if you understand that the point of the forum is the freeing of many from a system of error that we believe to be far worse than anything they charged "poor, poor Christianity" for, then you should understand that we do not say what we do to you or anyone else to shame you out of your belief, but to be blunt enough that maybe you will be at least a little bit "awakened" and then begin to see what we have come to see.

There is more I could say, but I will speak a little more concerning my own experience.

For the 14-1/2 years I was in the LC, Lee was only beginning to work at the ministry of the age idea. And he had never said anything about becoming God, just not in the Godhead. But there was plenty that dated back to the very beginning. From the ground to deputy authority. All the questionable teachings that separated us from the rest of Christianity and caused us to feel superior to them. I guess we were the ultimate "I am of" group that Paul tried to warn us all of in 1 Corinthians 1 - 4.

Nell · 05-02-2021, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

...So saying that it is what has been believed for many years or that it was "from the Lord" is more likely a desire to not face the idea that he had been fooled and that God may not have revealed such a thing.
...
I understand that you may not really be ready to make that kind of leap. Not saying to declare you had been in a cult, but to admit that you have been fooled (even if unintentionally)

OBW,

I like very much what you're saying. I'm suggesting another word for consideration. That is, instead of "fooled" the word "deceived". The definition of deception is that it is unintentional. Not only unintentional, if someone is deceived, they are unaware. They may think they believe the truth, but in fact, may not even KNOW the truth...and further, they don't KNOW...that they don't know the truth.

In Genesis, the woman admitted that she was deceived. The man did not. In fact, the NT points out clearly that the man was NOT deceived...yet he was in big...bigger...trouble. (I'm not starting a woman v. man thing.) Being deceived is a serious condition.

I believe that the best prayer I have made my own, to pray often and be constantly aware of, "Lord, please don't let me be decieved." It's God's great mercy to enlighten us to our condition, and He will never violate our free will. That is, choose to agree with Him that He would enlighten us to our true condition.

...So saying that it is what has been believed for many years or that it was "from the Lord" is more likely a desire to not face the idea that he had been deceived and that God may not have revealed such a thing.
...
I understand that you may not really be ready to make that kind of leap. Not saying to declare you had been in a cult, but to admit that you have been deceived (even if unintentionally)

If I may borrow your quote, the word "deceived" substituted for "fooled" really packs a wallop!

Then there's this:
1 Timothy 4:1 (KJV) Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

How do we become deceived? By believing the lies of seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. That's what seducing spirits do...deceive.

So. We can't pray this prayer for others. Only for ourselves. I frequently pray this prayer for myself. I can't and shouldn't tell anyone they are deceived. Only God can turn that light on for you. In choosing to follow Lee, God did not violate our free will to choose. Our need is to make another choice. Choose to be enlightened as to our own personal deception, if any.

Nell

Sons to Glory! · 05-03-2021, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I know that there was a time that I was unlikely to admit that I had been wrong. I was more likely to declare that there was something wrong with the culture of the place, but that the teachings were really good. Now, if it were "PC" to say, I would declare "Hi. My name is Mike and I was once a member of a cult." At which point everyone else in the room would say "Hi Mike."

I understand that you may not really be ready to make that kind of leap. Not saying to declare you had been in a cult, but to admit that you have been fooled (even if unintentionally) and believed things not actually supported by the scripture. Ohio, Cal, and many others, including me, have had to make that admission. We may disagree on some specific items, but overall we have arrived at that kind of conclusion. Except for the possible exception of Nee and Lee, and maybe a few others, I do not say that those who spoke the lies we believed intended to do so. But they nonetheless did.

As I've outlined before, I was in the LC in the 70s and 80s, and much of that time in places that were not as tightly in the LSM orbit as many were. So things weren't as strongly to all things WL, and certainly not as I've seen since the 80s, when it appears central control really tightened up much more. But with that said, I do describe the current LC as a cult of personality, and tell others it was certainly something with many cult-like tendencies when I was in. So yes, that probably does qualify it as a cult, or at least now. And no, I don't see it to the extremes that some see on here, based upon their experiences which were much more severe than mine.

On the topic of the speaking ones in Scottsdale, I did talk to a third speaking bro yesterday at our monthly potluck. I asked him how much he references WL when getting ready for his Sunday sharing (as one of the 6 sharing bros). He said, "Never. First of all, I was never part of the LC as I came into the Scottsdale church in 89." And he added, "Honestly I do have a few WL books on my my shelf, but frankly I never could get into them much as he often disparages other Christians, and that just puts me off."

What I'm seeing more and more through these discussions on here (this thread and others) is it's about freedom. Saints here have the freedom to go in whatever direction they choose. They can choose to stay or they can choose to go; they can choose to read WL or they can choose not to; they can choose to follow the Lord as their conscience sees fit. Leading and speaking ones here don't try to pursued that we should think or believe in a certain way. Is everyone influenced in some way or another based upon their experiences and outside influence? Sure. We all are. But let's pursue Christ together, and not get all wrapped around the axle by the things left in the rearview mirror, or a few of the things that may be in the trunk some where. So what! Given a high degree of scrutiny, how many groups of believers could emerge completely unscathed? I suspect very, very few - but that does depend on the "yardstick" we use to judge them with.

So ones on this forum can to choose put whatever yardstick on that that they want . . . I'm not here to try and pursued you one way or the other. My desire in this is just to be a good journalist (in the traditional sense) and just present things as I found them to be here.

(BTW - Nell, I thought that was a pretty balanced post you made in #78!)

OBW · 05-03-2021, 11:34 AM

StG,

From my preferred "scorched earth" policy with respect to Nee and Lee, finding one (or even 5) out of 6 that never was(were) in the LC, heard any LC tapes, or read any Nee or Lee books, would make the group too dangerous. Now that is my opinion. And it is probably not shared by all here.

But the things you speak about that bring you a "bubbling-up" or any other term of "enjoyment" related to things you read and so on is a huge red flag in my book. And being a red flag to me is not a basis for rejection. But even for some of the others whose bright-line falls below mine, it should be evident by the comments of others that we at least believe a substantial review of the support for some of those things is considered. That willful reading of books written by Nee or Lee for the purpose of getting anything good out of them and finding oneself in any kind of sense of spiritual elation, or the sense of having "seen" something special is actually spiritually dangerous.

In short, my assessment of your basis for sticking to what you have is more about emotions, familiarity, and so on than about actual sound teaching of scripture. And even without Nee or Lee, the kind of inner-life teachings that are your primary diet are like spiritual candy when taken in such extreme quantities relative to the rest of a complete spiritual diet — one that includes putting spirituality into practice in daily living and not just in parsing verses, getting giddy about them, having a lot of upbeat meetings, singing upbeat songs, etc.

And, at some level, the same complaints can be made in different ways to other groups as well. There is a tendency for too many Christians to do the same thing concerning other items.

And, I was just thinking back to something that came up in that message on Col 3 that you linked. At one point, either your speaker or in the passage he was quoting from TAS (which was essentially echoed in his own speaking) made comments about how Christianity was so poor on certain issues. And in saying that, he drove a wedge between your group and Christianity. Maybe not as strongly or completely as Nee or Lee did, but it is there. So your comments from one of the other speakers about how the LC made such disparaging remarks about other Christians are almost pointless. I have first-hand knowledge of disparaging comments about Christianity in general made by your leadership and only second-hand knowledge (hearsay) about one of them saying he does not like that about the LC.

We would be much better off trying to argue specific teachings, docrtrines, or practices, because it is discrete rather than a blob of stuff. I would argue that the blob that the Scottsdale assembly that you attend is not really so good. I would not choose them over other options in the area (though I do not personally know the other options). But trying to justify or disqualify them is nothing but an exercise in futility as long as you keep making it about grand themes. And to try to pick at the specific teachings is no different than just having those discussions without bringing them up in the process.

And so, again, the advice is to let this thread die. It is pointless since it cannot accomplish what any of us want. With each separate discussion (or research through older discussions archived here) you can check off item after item and decide for yourself where the group generally stands and then make a clearer decision whether it is the place for you.

But if you have already decided it is the place for you and just want to convince us it OK, you will not succeed in this manner. I can assure you that the places I have been since the LC — none of which are just like the others in all ways (and none of which are anything like the LC) — will surely get both positive and negative comments from other ex LCers. I do not feel compelled to be swayed in any of them. But if any of them has links back to the LC in any way, I would be hard-pressed to recommend them to anyone.

I was once involved in a bible study with quite a few people of similar age (maybe around 2005 or so) and they decided that the next study would be on Ephesians, and while they did not necessarily suggest everyone buy a copy, they were going to be referring some to Nee's Sit Walk Stand. I still had a copy in a box of LC stuff that should have been trashed, but at that point had not. When I read it, there was something that didn't sit right with me. And that was near the time that I first started trying to analyze the LC teachings. An early teaching I dismissed as being counter to so much clear NT teaching was the "wait for the dispensing" thing. And right there, in different words, was a precursor to that teaching. As nothing about the particular thing actually came up in the study that class did, I kept silent, but I realized that if it had, or if someone suggested another of Nee's books, I might be compelled to have a quiet conversation with someone about the unhealthy teachings often hidden in those books.

What I am saying in that is that responding to me to try to get my buy-in on your group is pointless. At least through this kind of means. You have already provided me with sufficient information to suggest that it is, at best, a compromised group. I cannot recommend it. I cannot say that you absolutely shouldn't be there. But from its founding to this day, there are too many things that are, to me compromising with respect to Nee, Lee, and the LCs, as well as other issues (even if thought to be just in the past).

Sons to Glory! · 05-03-2021, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

And so, again, the advice is to let this thread die. It is pointless since it cannot accomplish what any of us want. With each separate discussion (or research through older discussions archived here) you can check off item after item and decide for yourself where the group generally stands and then make a clearer decision whether it is the place for you.

But if you have already decided it is the place for you and just want to convince us it OK, you will not succeed in this manner. I can assure you that the places I have been since the LC — none of which are just like the others in all ways (and none of which are anything like the LC) — will surely get both positive and negative comments from other ex LCers. I do not feel compelled to be swayed in any of them. But if any of them has links back to the LC in any way, I would be hard-pressed to recommend them to anyone.

Well there ya go! Let the readers of this thread, now and in the future, decide for themselves. Thanks for yours, and others, contributions - we had a go of it!

BTW: I'm getting ready to post something over on the "What is God's Economy" thread that I think applies here too (regarding so-called "inner-life")

OBW · 05-03-2021, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well there ya go! Let the readers of this thread, now and in the future, decide for themselves. Thanks for yours, and others, contributions - we had a go of it!

Hard to tell if you are being serious or snarky (one of the problems with a written discussion with invisible participants). I didn't simply suggest that you could just decide for yourself (though you could). Instead I pointed out that the kind of analysis you seek is not a singular endeavor based on a few inputs from a few sources. It should be something that seeks to validate so much of what is taught and not taught. What is emphasized and what is de-emphasized. In short, it is a thorough vetting of everything, therefore hardly the topic for a single thread.

Now I could argue that finding certain problems could end the discussion as a clear "no." But I doubt many will see it as becoming that simple. Therefore, the single thread approach, if insisted upon, seems more like an attempt to short-change the analysis and rush to judgment. And if a rush to judgment is desired, then I would argue that the detailed analysis is what is needed.

UntoHim · 05-03-2021, 05:01 PM

Ok, stick a fork in it. Thread Closed. Many thanks to everyone who participated.

-

04-21-2021, 05:11 PM	#3
Sons to Glory! Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Scottsdale, AZ Posts: 2,614	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs Those are the two groups (GCA & Toronto) listed as the ones I know the least about. I actually added them because someone (another regular poster, who is more familiar with them) I shared this with before posting, mentioned they thought these groups should be added. Perhaps "spinoff" needs clarification. I also thought of different terms like "version" or "offshoot" or "derivations" or do you have another suggestion that would fit better? And do you think these two shouldn't be in this discussion at all? To me, if they were once associated with the LC, but now aren't, they should be included. (which seems would still be all of them mentioned in that paragraph) __________________ LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now Praise the Lord - HE'S GOT THIS!

04-23-2021, 12:38 PM	#9
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs While I know that you are getting a lot of pushback on this topic, rather than just say this is a crazy topic, or that it shouldn’t be undertaken, let me ask you some questions that will need to be answered if this were to actually produce any meaningful information. First, what are we trying to establish? Little actual influence by Lee and Nee? (Any of either will be an issue for some of us.) Second, how are we to obtain evidence to make the determination? Do you know sources that could objectively provide what we need? Third, to what extent can we be sure that we are speaking the same language (lexicon) when we obtain information and discuss it? Fourth, while this particular enquiry is not stated as being an analysis of the teachings of Lee or Nee, what is the yardstick by which you would determine them (or those of any other teacher) to be acceptable or unacceptable? The reason for the question is that the basis for accepting or rejecting teachings is important to understand when deciding whether we can agree on the nature of the general state of teachings within any particular former LC, or otherwise non-LSM assembly of the LC. You have to know that for other than the group where you are (Scottsdale?) we have little or no inside access, so where do we get the information? As for Scottsdale, someone can correct me, but I was under the impression that it began with a couple (and a small following?) that broke away from the LC in Southern California maybe as far back as the late 70s or 80s. And part of the reason many have been something about wanting to have some teachings on something specific that the LC just wasn’t going to do. (I am open to being wrong on this.) But they still liked the overall LC experience, so they replicated it. Whether I am right — totally or only partly— or completely wrong, do you know that the 6 who now rotate the messages are not relying in any material way on Nee and/or Lee? And while the amount could be important, you always have to consider any because “a little leaven leavens the whole lump.” Can you know at a detailed enough level to quantify? And don't bother responding about Lee bashing. The stated purpose of this forum is the discussion of what are perceived to be significant errors of Lee. We do not accept the writings or sayings of Lee (or Nee) as a basis for anything. Instead, its truthfulness must be established through other non-LSM means. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-24-2021, 03:25 PM	#12
Sons to Glory! Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Scottsdale, AZ Posts: 2,614	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs As mentioned in my prior post, I contacted a brother who has been around the NW LCs and Scottsdale from early on, to see if I had things correct regarding the Scottsdale group. He said I was essentially correct about the history, but a couple dates were a little off. The original group that went to Seattle to establish the LC there happened in the late 60s, comprised of nearly 70 people. The burden for some to move to Scottsdale occurred around 1987 (not 1990). And the leaders from Anaheim, sent to Seattle as "a show of force" happened in 1986, according to this brother. Regarding the sharing ones here, he said my summary was accurate. Concerning the reference material in the church office, he said almost all of it was sold to the church here by a very studious brother who was desperate for cash. He said there were hundreds of books in this purchase, which included a full set of the Complete Biblical Library, which many of the speaking bros have told me they refer to. He said as part of this purchase he thinks there was also a full set of WL's Life Studies, but he's not even sure if they are still around . . . he said that frankly he can't recall anyone referring to them or speaking of them in the last several years. __________________ LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now Praise the Lord - HE'S GOT THIS!

04-24-2021, 04:37 PM	#13
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs What exactly is the "Complete Biblical Library?" I've never heard of this particular title/collection. And while I left the LC long before the standard Life Study series was complete, I believe that they ultimately covered all books of the Bible. Is this correct? __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-24-2021, 08:26 PM	#15
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs It was hard to tell from that advertisement. Is it a collection of others' writings that are otherwise not commonly found anymore (they really didn't say who as much as say they had been found at high prices on Ebay)? Or a one-stop source collecting various commentaries, etc., into one place on various topics. Not saying anything negative except to say that there was a lot of general talk about it and unclear reference to its technical value. But maybe it could be restated as a kind of written Wikipedia of commentaries and related resources? Just trying to get a feel for it as a reliable source. I would know if they had said in included certain specific commentaries, word studies, etc. So is it the poor preacher's way to get as much as possible without springing for the expensive stuff? That could be fine as long as it is not too slanted in its collection of sources. They never really say what is included. Just that there is a lot there. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-21-2021, 01:59 PM	#1
Sons to Glory! Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Scottsdale, AZ Posts: 2,614	Examining LC Spinoffs Recently something was mentioned about the Scottsdale gathering, which was once part of the LC system back in the mid-1980s. It’s been suggested that this group, and other groups that have left the LC/LSM orbit, are really just sort of a LC-lite, and therefore might be excessively steeped in unhealthy Lee-ism. I thought it might be beneficial to have a discussion, examining what the teachings and practices of these groups are. A few basics to convey regarding my experience in Scottsdale: I have been with the Scottsdale gathering since 1998, and therefore know something of the teachings and practices here. I admit to being quite biased in that I love this gathering and, as I have stated before, I know that this is where the Lord has placed me . . . I’m most thankful for this on a continual basis! With certainly, I can say there is nothing to hide here, and I welcome all sincere inquiries. The meetings in Scottsdale do follow the open format as is the basic pattern with LC meetings. That is, anyone is welcome to speak something they believe will edify others in their pursuit of Christ, to call a song, etc. As far as whose ministry we are beholding to, I would say it is wide open as long as it is centered in the word of God and honors Christ. Six brothers rotate giving the Sunday message, typically from a book of the Bible we're going through. Lee’s teachings are rarely mentioned and generally only by a very few. Nee’s materials are discussed a little more from time to time, and a myriad of other Christian writers and speakers are shared regularly. Basically, there is NO rule about who or what can be shared . . . it is up to the individual as they are so led by the Spirit. Personally, I have a small group of brothers I fellowship with regularly, at least a couple times a week. For us, everything is on the table and open for discussion. This kind of transparent fellowship is awesome in order to support one another and to pray for one another’s situations. We also have had many discussions about how our thinking has been affected – positively or negatively – from our time in the LC. Through this and the study of the word, many things have been brought to light that we now see were erroneous or unhealthy. Has there been a total rejection of all things from the LC cosmos? No, and again, there are no rules about that. Some are very strong in their distaste of much of Lee’s teachings, others not so much. Somewhat surprisingly (but I can certainly understand why), there are some here that are quite solid in their near total refutation of the Freemans, whom this group was generally centered around before Bill & Patsy Freeman left in 1998. There are a few other off-shoots from the LC that I am aware of in this country and which I have had some interaction with. This includes the group in Moses Lake, Oregon, and a group in Raleigh, North Carolina, where Don Rutledge is. There is also a group in Westminster, California, where I believe John Ingalls was (before his passing). I have always experienced a really good and liberating time in Christ when ones from those places have come here for sharing, fellowship and worship. Any other off-shoots I am not so personally aware of, concerning their teachings and practices, etc. (A couple other spinoff groups to mention, but I don't know much about, are Grandview Christian Assembly near Columbus, Ohio, as well as the church in Toronto, Ontario.) Again, I felt a discussion around this might be beneficial to some participating or viewing this forum. To those who are still be in the LC and are lurking out there, they could learn what these groups are like that have left the LSM orbit. To those who are regulars on here, it might help clear up any misconceptions. And, the Lord might also use it to shine light on hindering things I (and others) might still harbor unawares from the LC influence. __________________ LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now Praise the Lord - HE'S GOT THIS!

04-21-2021, 07:13 PM	#4
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,800	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs Sons to Glory! Do you actually read my posts? After all this time how is it that you don't you know much about Grandview in Columbus or the Church in Toronto? News and information about the them have been featured on this forum for years. John Myers book, A Future and A Hope was a major topic of discussion for years. Very little information or discussion about Moses Lake or Westminster assembly has been a topic on this forum. And do you know why? It's because they are basically the Local Church version 2, or the Local Church lite. I'm sure that is attractive to you, but I would never recommend these places to any young person or new Christian. To my knowledge, neither place has repudiated and repented of the heresies and excesses of the Local Church of Witness Lee. Unless and until they do that I don't believe they are a healthy, sound place for any Christian to make their home. How do you think that we are going to be "examining" things that you seem to be totally oblivious to? No the term "spinoff" does not need clarification. What needs clarification is why you would start a thread like this. If you have a good reason please make that a point of clarification, and maybe we can go from there. - __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

04-22-2021, 07:32 AM	#7
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,800	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs StG. I am not your adversary, I am your moderator. No one is forcing you to post here on this forum. There are unmoderated, free-for-all places on the Internet where anything goes. Anything does not go here. One of the things that does not go here is the promotion of the teachings and practices of the Local Church of Witness Lee. Many of these are unbiblical and unhelpful at the very least, and many are heretical and dangerous to those who would imbibe and practice them. This has been my stance since day one. Nell is even more stout on this stance, and this is why I have commissioned her to come along side and assist me in administering and moderating the forum. If you haven't picked this up in the nearly 10 years that you've been on this forum, I'm not sure what I can tell you. You are still not listening. I know you're hearing me. I know you read English. I have not said, nor have I ever said, that any Christian, or group of Christians, have to "openly repudiate and repent of all things Witness Lee/Local Church". (Personally, I would think this would be the healthiest and wisest thing for any former member)- What I have called for, what I have prayed for, what I have kept this little popcorn stand going for, is that anyone and everyone who has been influenced by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee and the Blended Brothers would repudiate and repent of the false teachings and harmful practices. The Local Church of Witness Lee/Living Stream Ministry is a system of error. This system of error is comprised of the false teachings and unbiblical, harmful practices established by Nee and Lee over a period of 70+ years, and is now promoted, extolled and exalted by the Blended Brothers. To my knowledge and observation, these "spinoff" groups, to one degree or another, have remained in the system of error. They have removed the nametag off of the box of poison, and have mixed the poison with some biblical/orthodox things, but remain in the system of error. This is not my opinion. This is simply the truth. You have expressed a desire for all concerned "to hear the truth and receive the Lord's healing". Well, this is the truth. I know from personal experience that this truth is hard. This truth is cold. But it is the truth, and no healing can or will come without this truth. My dear brother Sons to Glory! I am afraid that you are not interested in discussion about these spinoff groups, rather you are interested in promoting them as a healthy and acceptable place for former members. I am plainly and clearly telling you that this is not going to happen on this forum. I have plainly and clearly given you the reasons why, so please don't pretend that I have not given a reason. Have I now become your adversary by telling you the truth? If so, I'm sorry to hear that, I really am. You have claimed to be interested in "providing and/or steering to healthy fellowship those considering leaving the LC." For better or for worse, I have been doing my very best to do as much providing and as much steering as I possibly can for the better part of 15 years now. Why God has called this poor old broken down sinner to lead this train of vanquished foes only he knows. And now my brother I will leave you with this. If you are going to stay on this train you will have to follow the rules of the train. And if you are going to stay on this train you will have to be headed in the same direction because this train is only headed in one direction. Your brother who is desperately trying to be, unto Him. - __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

04-25-2021, 07:51 AM	#16
Sons to Glory! Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Scottsdale, AZ Posts: 2,614	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs I found this which is about a software version. There's a 9 minute video in which they go into the features of the software, and how it incorporates all the aspects of the Complete Biblical Library - appears to me to be an absolutely incredible amount of study resources! Now I know why I've heard about this so much from different bros. As the narrator goes through the numerous features, it shows the contributors. Then at about the 6 minute mark it shows a bibliography for that section of scripture, of people contributing to the commentaries. Looks like the software is $449. Not personally knowing Bible study software very well, does this look like a good resource to you? https://www.accordancebible.com/cbl/ __________________ LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now Praise the Lord - HE'S GOT THIS!

04-25-2021, 08:16 AM	#17
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,637	Repentance as a measuring stick One way to compare Grandview, Toronto, and Scottsdale is to see what degree they've publicly repented of association with Nee and Lee. I only know of them through the writings of John Myer, Nigel Tomes, and StG. The first two sources seem to have acknowledged and repudiated (repented) to some extent. Not sure about StG - he's still quoting uncritically from Bill Freeman as though he were a reputable source. I'd add the TC GLA groupings and the DYL Brasil groupings as well. Have they in any degree publicly recognised the degree of ruin that these so-called teachers have brought to so many? Or are they trying to run Local Church V.2? So I see 5 spinoffs here. Two apparently have tried to make it back to 'Christianity', damaged-goods as that is. One has pretended to, but without repentance which is the basis of the Christian journey (The first word of Jesus, coming up out of the desert, was 'Repent'. Same with John the Baptist. And this was repeated to the Christian churches in the apocalypse!). And two haven't even bothered trying to pretend that they've rejected the old system. It's simply too enticing. The command-and-control structure is apparently inbuilt into their socio-cultural dna, and they are incapable of considering anything else. Even if it's clearly laid in front of them, in the NT. All the above are simply my impressions from afar, and may not be reflective of realities on the ground. I'd ask the Scottsdale elders who still have Lee books on the shelf: How could you accept God's economy as taught by Lee? Where did Paul teach intensification? If Paul didn't, why do you have books that say he did? You're like an ex-Mormon group keeping the Book of Mormon on the shelf because Lehi had good advice on marriage. No - dump it. Ask them, how could some psalms of imprecation be Christ defeating Satan, and some be the fallen psalmist in his natural mind? Ask them, how could Nee teach a local, independent church model in 1925, then do an about face and teach a centralised 'Jerusalem Principle' church model in 1945, and nobody questioned it? What domineering spirit is at work, here? Do you want to be oblivious to it, or do you want to be free? Are they willing to be critical of the teachings coming out of Anaheim? Or do they hold many teachings - "LC Lite" - whilst rejecting the overt control? Because all the teachings were designed for control. Again, Bill Freeman is my case-in-point. His "mystical indwelling Christ" was the lure to get naiive young people into Patsy's orbit. Until you realise the two were inseparable, fronting the same dark force, and acknowledge this and repent (move away rapidly and decisively), your journey is compromised. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

04-25-2021, 10:23 AM	#18
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 13,670	Re: Repentance as a measuring stick I nominate aron as the official arbiter of Church orthodoxy. Thankfully, we ex-LCers now meeting together all have someone we can definitively look to for our church creds. But first, aron, would you please publish your own proof of repentance for those you are now meeting with? __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

04-25-2021, 12:04 PM	#19
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,800	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs So that's all you have for us Ohio? Sarcasm? aron hasn't even faintly implied that he is the arbiter of anything. And I don't believe he has ever mentioned where he meets (if he even meets anywhere), so that's a moot point as well. So do you have anything of substance to contribute to the thread? - __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

04-25-2021, 08:26 PM	#22
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,800	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs So this is your substance to contribute? You are better than this my brother Ohio. Much better. Nobody has trashed anybody. We're here on a public forum discussing the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church of Witness Lee. Our friend Sons to Glory! has introduced this notion of "Examining LC Spinoffs". I guess we're here doing some examining. Do you care to join us in the examination, or would you rather just bloviate and vent? You are better than this my brother Ohio. Much better. - __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

04-25-2021, 09:54 PM	#23
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,800	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs Sons to Glory! We all know about the dirty bathwater of the Local Church of Witness Lee. Many of us barely escaped drowning in the stuff. I don't think there's much controversy about the dirty bathwater. What I would like to know from you is this: What is this "baby" you speak of? I'm interested in knowing what you consider to be this baby that you and the saints with you there in Scottsdale have been able to preserve from the Local Church. This is a very pertinent question in light of your opening post. You are always saying that we misunderstand you. Here's your big chance to clear things up my brother! - __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

04-26-2021, 03:21 AM	#25
Nell Admin/Moderator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 2,063	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs Ohio, Aron has asked a lot of questions. This misguided topic calls for an examination of LC “spin-offs”. How do you conduct an examination without asking questions? You can’t read a “spirit of condemnation” into asking questions. You can’t have it both ways. Nell

04-27-2021, 07:33 AM	#40
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs Can I suggest that rather than trying to define a bright line of acceptability, we instead look at it in terms of what is the content of the teachings and practices? I doubt we will agree on the qualification of these various groups that remain independent assemblies with various levels of current or former connection to the LCs of Lee/LSM. Even much of the form is suspect to some of us. Too much talk about some special preference that sounds like "ground lite" is out. Or just that they separated from the LSM is enough. Where is the line? We all have an opinion. Maybe the most important thing is to realize how much any such group seems to possibly be "influenced by but no longer associated with" the original "local curches" in any way is the goal. Then a participant has a basis for determining for themselves how much their belief is influenced by Nee/Lee and whether the things they find from Nee/Lee are or are not part of the error. You know my position. It is all touched by the error even when a specific statement is not error. And some get annoyed that I push that position so often. So clearly not everyone agrees. We have many participants here, past and present, that have differing levels of disagreement with standard Nee/Lee/LC teachings. And quite a few that still want to parse out what they think is good and repeat it rather than commit to any of the other Christians around them. We even have a major part of our discussion spearheaded by someone who wants everything about the LC, including Nee's and Lee's teachings, just without the abuses of leadership. So arguing that anyone needs to repent of Lee's teaching as a basis for anything seems harsh. Or at least hypocritical. Instead, show them where the error is in what they seem to be holding to that is not healthy. And be sure that we are speaking out against the teachings/errors, and not the persons still holding those errors. I may fail at that last part at times, but it is my intent. As for this particular thread, it might be that we really shouldn't be trying to parse out any group beyond Scottsdale, at least at the present. And maybe the issue there isn't just how much, if any, Nee/Lee remains, but how much there is a cloud from the Freemans. And they kept enough of the form and teachings of the LC that it is possible that even what you have from Bill is not entirely orthodox, but is still influenced by Nee/Lee. Maybe not always stated the same way, but in essence the same. I am suggesting that having a body of teaching from the Freemans might be every bit as problematic for true Christian faith, practice, and growth as Nee and Lee. And allowing your seemingly positive experiences with your group of brothers to dictate the correctness of the teachings you are receiving might be a problem for you. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-27-2021, 12:14 PM	#49
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs aron, I wouldn't expect Scottsdale to hold to the "God became man to make man God" mantra since that came after their departure. In any case, while I gave StG an opening to attempt the analysis of the Scottsdale assembly, I am not sure that trying to make a broad, one-thread analysis is really worth anything. Just as you note that you left and carried teachings of Nee and Lee with you that took years to clear out, do you think that these assemblies, being made up of many individuals with different connection (none to much) back to the LC, are so simple to analyze and classify? And in the middle of all of that, even what objective information we may be able to glean could be muddied by less-than-clear motives of the leaders and members of the group. If they survived years of subterfuge from others yet stayed, might they be prone to becoming part of an altered subterfuge of their own? I know I make it sound evil and ominous using "subterfuge," but my meaning is that can we assert that leaven in the former teachings won't affect the later teachings without anyone realizing it? In short, while not saying this endeavor is useless, it might be that a point-by-point inner-assessment by StG of his own understanding of scripture, orthodoxy, orthopraxy, etc., might be more useful. Rather than just digging in his heels every time that someone says "what are you talking about?" he would be better served by taking the time to listen to what others are saying and do the Berean thing and see if the things being said by the other forum members, or the things he has come to believe better stand up against the scripture and truth. And no matter how much we don't like hearing anyone speak favorably of old LC/Lee practices, statements, etc., rather than just saying "stop it," it might be more helpful to both StG and others if we challenge the "positive" statement rather than just say "stop." I am the first to say that it is sometimes difficult to argue that things that sound so "spiritual" might be wrong. But just because the words "Christ," "life," "church," "economy," "Spirit" (or "spirit"), etc., are included does not make it impenetrable. And a feeling of joy, exuberance, "bubbling up," etc., does not make it untouchable because those are not simply fool-proof markers of the Spirit. I have felt joyous about the demise of certain kinds of people. (At least I had some sense that it was wrong and it didn't last.) And even then, when it comes to our feelings, they are not always clear. I've seen people become fearful because they mistook something for something else. And even after their incorrect perception was corrected, they continued to talk and act as if the first perception had been real. Not just being slow at dismissing the emotion, but remaining ruled by it as if real. We can argue that these thoughts are irrelevant to "me" with respect to (whatever topic). But it is not true. If there is any objective yardstick, it should be referred to and the emotions be brought under control to truth, not truth be presumed to exist because of emotions. And there are people who learn how to manipulate others by using the emotions. Fear of a common enemy (real or imagined). Practiced manipulation of emotions. (Want to talk about an LC practice that seems impossible to speak against? The litany of positive phrases spoken to garner loud, exuberant "amens" and "hallelujahs." The calls to clear your mind and just "call on the Lord." The examples of evil undertaken by the LC leadership that included breaks to "call on the Lord" proves that any real connection with God was either missing or merely turned on then back off. The Whistler meeting to excommunicate Titus Chu was a prime example. Listening to that audio, it was almost like it was inserted to convince anyone who was wavering that this had to be of God since they called on his name. "Did we not cast out charlatans in your name? Stomp on sisters who were trying to help failing marriages?" "Depart from me, workers of iniquity.") I included the above aside because having upbeat meetings and singing really positive songs is not a "good meeting." Neither are messages that bring you to the fourth heaven. Not saying that there is anything necessarily wrong with either. But those are not evidence of truth or spirituality. StG: If you still want to analyze your Scottsdale assembly, this is more important than trying to ferret out the specific nuances of inclusion/exclusion of Nee/Lee. But I would suggest that we are all better off rejecting it all and returning to some form of existing Christianity that has survived for centuries. I realize that this is so ingrained in us to avoid. But where did we get that? Who taught us that the Methodists are just wrong. Or the Baptists. Or the Presbyterians. Or the Church of Christ. Or the Congregationalists. Or the Anglicans. While acknowledging some particular problems with the EOC and RCC, just like those 7 churches in Revelation, are we so sure that they really don't qualify as churches? That they don't actually preach a true gospel (even if not all in an evangelical, line-in-the-sand conversion manner)? Why do I say this? Because despite our desire for "new and fresh," the faith is not new. It is tested by time. It survives the drought. It even seems to hide in times of darkness. But it is still there. The only thing important that is fresh (or not fresh) is our current position with God. Our mode of practice is not it. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-27-2021, 12:56 PM	#51
Sons to Glory! Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Scottsdale, AZ Posts: 2,614	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs Thanks Aron and OBW for your thoughtful and balanced responses to this topic, and specifically your posts just now! I feel like we're having an honest and fairly unbiased-laden conversation (though we of course all have biases). As many of us have said, we are all in different stages of recovering from The Recovery. I've had many of those types of conversations with those on here and in Scottsdale. My experience is that I haven't so much gone after specific topics to see if I held erroneous teachings. Rather, as I have gotten into the word, pursued the Lord and fellowshipped in a more general way, the Lord has shown light to expose things that were off. The first and biggest thing along these lines I experienced, was when I came to the Scottsdale gathering in 1998, the Lord soon after showed me clearly that the basis for what He does toward us is love. When He showed me that, a number of things I picked up from the LC quickly dissolved! Many of the fear-based and legalistic teachings I had absorbed in the LC, I was liberated from. And this realization opened up the word to me in a way like never before. So many things in the word started making sense, based upon the foundation of His love. That was Him showing me - not me trying to determine if something was off or not. And there have been a number of these instances since then. And, to elaborate a little, I really wasn't around the LC all that much, and often not in localities that were completely in the LSM mainstream. I was so young in Bazerkely (3-4 years total there, off & on) and then met with a couple LCs in Ohio for maybe a cumulative 5-6 years. As Ohio often points out, LCs in Ohio were not so tightly in the LSM orbit. (one we participated in for maybe 1.5 years - Cambridge - was as far out of the orbit as maybe Pluto) So lumping all LC experiences together might be about a net 8 years, and much of the time I was kind of a back-seat participant at best, therefore I didn't get thoroughly steeped in all of it as many on here did. But I really did like the open meeting concept and free participation aspects, and still do. To me, this is a huge part of "the baby" that I like to see kept. There is fruit to gathering in this way. So one thing specifically I'd like to comment on that you said Mike, was about chucking everything of the LC and going back to basic Christianity. I love saints in all the groups you mentioned and more, and gain a lot from them. However, the whole "pastor as CEO" thing doesn't work for me on a regular basis. Of course, Lee (and others) have attacked the clergy-laity thing, often going too far. So I see that various ministries are fine and are needed, but what I see lacking is the full and open participating of the members in most groups I've experienced in my travels, heard about, etc. So personally I wouldn't want to go back to that kind of system that seems prevalent in much of Christianity. __________________ LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now Praise the Lord - HE'S GOT THIS! Last edited by Sons to Glory!; 04-27-2021 at 03:05 PM. Reason: Added a thought at the end

04-28-2021, 02:35 PM	#52
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs StG, I know that various LCs are different even if they are loyal to the LSM. But the idea of being with the outliers, second-tier, v2, and wherever you figure those who left the LC but started their own group that looks a lot like them are, it seems like dancing on the edge of a cliff to me. At a minimum. Not even a slippery slope. While I don't want to speak beyond what might be true, at some level Bill Freeman was a significant player in the LC, and then pulled away one level, then another. But as a leader who went on to "do it again," (repeat the practice formula of the LC) I start to worry that he is his own set of teaching problems that has absorbed Nee's and Lee's teaching problems. He may not have repeated the LC's abuses. But the abuses were only an overt manifestation of the error that went on inside regardless of the abuses. And the fact that you were (or think you were) shown something about love does not mean that your environment did it. It may have just been the separation from the full-on LC that allowed it, not simply the place you then found yourself. Not saying it couldn't. But like a lot of analysis of data, correlation is not causation. Don't allow something positive to keep you from being just as Berean about where you now are just because a positive data point within your new environment. It could be true. Or it could just be coincidence. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-29-2021, 07:29 AM	#54
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs And I honestly believe that the culture of the group that supported such persons — whether talking about Nee and Lee or the Freemans — should also be suspect. It may have features that seem desirable. The open meeting style makes each person feel important. But in a meeting, who is important? Me? My problems? My experience of joy? And that last one is too often the problem. Everything seems to be designed to elicit a sense of joy. Not saying that joy is bad. Righteousness, peace, and Joy in the Holy Spirit is important. But it seems that righteousness is mostly missing. Even the peace with anyone but the group and toward God is missing. And some of the above criticism can be laid at the doorstep of a lot of other Evangelical groups. And not just free groups. Worship has become an exercise in self-gratification for many. And the idea that they are ever called on to do any kind of "works" is demeaned, or even rejected outright as contrary to grace. Still, the LC and some of its spin-offs take this self-gratification to extremes. I think that the more mainstream aspects of Christianity can correct this without faliing apart. But it part of what keeps the LC faithful, well, faithful. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-29-2021, 11:11 AM	#55
Sons to Glory! Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Scottsdale, AZ Posts: 2,614	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs So I've had some prayer, consideration and a little fellowship and here's what I thought to present to the forum. In this thread, we've been looking mostly at the "dirty bathwater" that's been thrown out by Scottsdale, and some have set varying threshold levels of what they deem acceptable. I've presented 8 things I know we have repudiated from the LC, but to some, even 1% WL influence or 1 of his books sitting on a basement shelf is perhaps too much. That's fine - "Let every man be convinced in his own mind." (Rom 14:5) (I was recently told about a YouTube video where Sean McDowell interviews his dad, Josh McDowell, about his thoughts on the Ravi Zacharias scandal. I haven't been able to watch it fully yet, but I was told by a leading bro this morning that Josh says something like, "If you have Ravi's books on your shelf and get help from them, then keep them. However, I would not recommend them to others, as they might become a stumbling because of the instances of Ravi's fleshly weaknesses." Again, that's coming to me secondhand from this bro. Might that advice serve as some guidance here regarding WL material? Here's the video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb9XDnPMGtM ) If any of you really want to determine the actual situation, apart from coming here and seeing for yourself, I've already suggested that certain ones can be contacted that know about Scottsdale firsthand. These ones have ongoing relationships with Scottsdale and perhaps would hold some weight with some on this forum. They include: 1. John Myer 2. Don Rutledge Additionally, you could view a recent Scottsdale brother (1 of the 6 speaking ones) giving a message on Colossians 3, and see how much erroneous influence you think is there: Sunday Message Video: Raised with Christ to be the New Man And I've had further consideration (and a little fellowship) about what is "The Baby" that we have retained in Scottsdale, as UntoHim inquired about. I would say some core things we've held onto here are: 1. The focus on Christ alone and His word 2. The focus on God's New Covenant way of the indwelling Christ operating in and through us - free from outward legalism and constraints 3. Allowing each member to function in various ways, including, but not limited to, the open meeting format And as F. Gump would say, "That's all I got to say about that!" __________________ LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now Praise the Lord - HE'S GOT THIS! Last edited by Sons to Glory!; 04-29-2021 at 05:03 PM. Reason: Clarity

04-30-2021, 07:00 PM	#60
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs OK. I listened to the entire message. And if you look at the post I just posted elsewhere about abiding in which I commented on the inner-life teachings, you will get most of my comments on the message. My observations are that the message is almost entirely about the "spiritual" side of things, even spending so much time talking about them for most of the time, starting in a different book and then going back through significant parts of Colossians chapters 1 and 2 before getting to chapter 3 with only about 10 minutes left for the intended verses. And the practical things that are included in there are virtually ignored. I must admit that I have not read or heard much of TA Sparks' writings, but as upbeat and positive as the segment(s) are, they are significantly skewed to purely inner-life thinking and a kind of passive opposition to any kind of active work. It is remarkable. And not in a positive way. From TAS and your speaker, the comments about a generic "Christianity" as "regulated" is bizarre. Even going so far as suggesting that managing to resist some aspect of the flesh is "not much." That it is not "in the risen life" (or that it needs to be). When I read what Paul said, it seems more like yet another command to resist aspects of the flesh. Not something optional, or to be ignored until it just falls off "in resurrection life" or something like that. What I find is that the message, for all its upbeatness, and the clear rapport within the group and a few amens (not as boisterously as would have occurred back in the Church in Dallas or Irving back in the 70s and 80s) ultimately danced around what I believe Paul was really trying to accomplish. To get the Colossian believers to reject the purveyors of Jewish laws and other odd teachings. To get them to consider how they were living, both negatively and positively, and do something about it. Why? Not just because that is what Paul said, but because it is seen as the way of God and is supported by these spiritual truths. There is not anything that I noted as being a Lee error in the message. But its emphasis was mostly consistent with a Lee or old-school LC meeting. And even if you want to accept the inner-life skew as being "the whole gospel," one message does not a Lee-less group make. Maybe it is truly just a typical inner-life group and it really has dumped Lee. And even dumped its roots in Bill Freeman. But since the library for the speakers to use includes all the Life Study Messages, and Bill Freeman's writings as options, I have a hard time accepting that the negative aspects of either is materially omitted or excluded. But rather than just trying to justify a whole group, why don't we take the same kind of thinking to specific teachings. To specific activities. And so on. You took significant issue with a challenge several years ago about something that "bubbled up" when reading from a book by Lee. For this to be a success, you can't just dig in your heels but instead must be willing to engage in meaningful discussion. Be honest and either just say "I am not willing to consider the possibility that there could be anything wrong at this time," or agree that you are ready to engage in assessment of positions. We are not suggesting to assess you, but just your positions. I hope that the two are not so intertwined that you cannot consider a change. I have changed many positions over the past 20 years. So rather than trying to justify or sink your whole assembly upfront, let's look at specific things. And I don't mean pick through its teachings. Through every message for the next few months. Or anything like that. Instead, let's just go with where the forum is going, and when something comes up where some of the hard-core ex-LCers seem to disagree with something you think, let's set up a thread for discussion of the one issue. Not just to push you to change your mind, but to give reasons for why you/we/others think what we do. We don't ask that you ultimately agree . . . just that you be open to read what we provide. Give your reasons for disagreements. We will do the same. We should try to stick to one topic at a time. Linked issues can be taken without a new thread if they resolve quickly, otherwise, they should be new threads. Keep on point. Etc. Interested? It was a more active part of the forum many years ago and is how I found my way out of a lot of erroneous thinking. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

05-01-2021, 07:29 AM	#61
Sons to Glory! Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Scottsdale, AZ Posts: 2,614	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs Thanks much, Mike, for taking the time to listen to the message and your honest assessment! Yes, in that message the brother was fired up more about so-called inner life aspects ("Christ in you"). However, as I mentioned on another thread, he did bring up the idea that in some situations you should just act or flee bad things, which is very practical and cannot be labeled as an inner-life thing, right? And I will tell you that other messages on this book (Colossians), by other brothers, do focus more on the practical aspects . . . as they are lead to speak. (There is no prescribed content or format these ones speak in - just what they are inspired to share.) I'm sorta tempted to do a survey of the speaking brothers to see when the last time any of them even looked at a WL Life Study . . . just kidding. But maybe I will ask a couple of them at least . . . Any way, thanks for your evenhandedness in all this. I think you are making a good effort to not let certain preconceived biases cloud things too much. __________________ LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now Praise the Lord - HE'S GOT THIS!

05-01-2021, 09:16 AM	#64
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,800	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs I think Nell is concerned about the risk of going off on a tangent. Ravi Zacharias was an itinerant Christian apologist who was not officially tied to any church, church group or para church ministry. (which was in large measure how his sin of abuse could go on for so long - he was unaccountable to anyone) So I think the Ravi situation is fair game for the "examination", but not to be used to draw any firm conclusions about any particular LC spinoff. - __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

05-01-2021, 11:13 AM	#67
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,800	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs Sons to Glory! Please read my post again. Carefully. Your answer is a total nonresponse to my questions. Is it that you don't understand my question, or do you just prefer to sidestep them? As far as "moving away 1,500 miles"...one could move to Pluto and still have a heart and a mind full of the very same unbiblical and harmful things. - __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

05-01-2021, 12:13 PM	#71
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,800	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs My brother Ohio. This thread is not about examining the moderators (as fun and exciting as that might be), it is about "Examining Local Church Spinoffs". For better or for worse it has kind of evolved into an examination of the church in Scottsdale. If we had any forum members who are intimately familiar with some other spinoff we could probably have a wider discussion, but it seems that we don't. And as it turns out, we have only one person who is intimately familiar with the teachings, practices and history of the church in Scottsdale, and that is Sons to Glory! I don't see where anyone here on this forum has anything "against" StG or the church in Scottsdale, nor is anyone "interrogating" anyone. I will ask you again Ohio. Do you have anything of substance to contribute to this thread? If so, I think we would all love to hear it. What we don't need is you to be flaming the moderators (as fun and exciting as that might be as well ) and taking the thread further off track than it already is. - __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

05-01-2021, 12:33 PM	#72
Sons to Glory! Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Scottsdale, AZ Posts: 2,614	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs Ohio said exactly what my response would have been to your exhortation to "read my post again carefully." I did, it seemed simple, and I came up with the same answer. I'm not sidestepping anything, as far as I can tell - maybe you can rephrase it differently (so perhaps it can get through my thick head then). __________________ LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now Praise the Lord - HE'S GOT THIS!

05-01-2021, 03:10 PM	#76
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,800	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs Im quite certain that any good Mormon or Jehovah Witness would be making the very same claim. - __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

05-03-2021, 11:34 AM	#80
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs StG, From my preferred "scorched earth" policy with respect to Nee and Lee, finding one (or even 5) out of 6 that never was(were) in the LC, heard any LC tapes, or read any Nee or Lee books, would make the group too dangerous. Now that is my opinion. And it is probably not shared by all here. But the things you speak about that bring you a "bubbling-up" or any other term of "enjoyment" related to things you read and so on is a huge red flag in my book. And being a red flag to me is not a basis for rejection. But even for some of the others whose bright-line falls below mine, it should be evident by the comments of others that we at least believe a substantial review of the support for some of those things is considered. That willful reading of books written by Nee or Lee for the purpose of getting anything good out of them and finding oneself in any kind of sense of spiritual elation, or the sense of having "seen" something special is actually spiritually dangerous. In short, my assessment of your basis for sticking to what you have is more about emotions, familiarity, and so on than about actual sound teaching of scripture. And even without Nee or Lee, the kind of inner-life teachings that are your primary diet are like spiritual candy when taken in such extreme quantities relative to the rest of a complete spiritual diet — one that includes putting spirituality into practice in daily living and not just in parsing verses, getting giddy about them, having a lot of upbeat meetings, singing upbeat songs, etc. And, at some level, the same complaints can be made in different ways to other groups as well. There is a tendency for too many Christians to do the same thing concerning other items. And, I was just thinking back to something that came up in that message on Col 3 that you linked. At one point, either your speaker or in the passage he was quoting from TAS (which was essentially echoed in his own speaking) made comments about how Christianity was so poor on certain issues. And in saying that, he drove a wedge between your group and Christianity. Maybe not as strongly or completely as Nee or Lee did, but it is there. So your comments from one of the other speakers about how the LC made such disparaging remarks about other Christians are almost pointless. I have first-hand knowledge of disparaging comments about Christianity in general made by your leadership and only second-hand knowledge (hearsay) about one of them saying he does not like that about the LC. We would be much better off trying to argue specific teachings, docrtrines, or practices, because it is discrete rather than a blob of stuff. I would argue that the blob that the Scottsdale assembly that you attend is not really so good. I would not choose them over other options in the area (though I do not personally know the other options). But trying to justify or disqualify them is nothing but an exercise in futility as long as you keep making it about grand themes. And to try to pick at the specific teachings is no different than just having those discussions without bringing them up in the process. And so, again, the advice is to let this thread die. It is pointless since it cannot accomplish what any of us want. With each separate discussion (or research through older discussions archived here) you can check off item after item and decide for yourself where the group generally stands and then make a clearer decision whether it is the place for you. But if you have already decided it is the place for you and just want to convince us it OK, you will not succeed in this manner. I can assure you that the places I have been since the LC — none of which are just like the others in all ways (and none of which are anything like the LC) — will surely get both positive and negative comments from other ex LCers. I do not feel compelled to be swayed in any of them. But if any of them has links back to the LC in any way, I would be hard-pressed to recommend them to anyone. I was once involved in a bible study with quite a few people of similar age (maybe around 2005 or so) and they decided that the next study would be on Ephesians, and while they did not necessarily suggest everyone buy a copy, they were going to be referring some to Nee's Sit Walk Stand. I still had a copy in a box of LC stuff that should have been trashed, but at that point had not. When I read it, there was something that didn't sit right with me. And that was near the time that I first started trying to analyze the LC teachings. An early teaching I dismissed as being counter to so much clear NT teaching was the "wait for the dispensing" thing. And right there, in different words, was a precursor to that teaching. As nothing about the particular thing actually came up in the study that class did, I kept silent, but I realized that if it had, or if someone suggested another of Nee's books, I might be compelled to have a quiet conversation with someone about the unhealthy teachings often hidden in those books. What I am saying in that is that responding to me to try to get my buy-in on your group is pointless. At least through this kind of means. You have already provided me with sufficient information to suggest that it is, at best, a compromised group. I cannot recommend it. I cannot say that you absolutely shouldn't be there. But from its founding to this day, there are too many things that are, to me compromising with respect to Nee, Lee, and the LCs, as well as other issues (even if thought to be just in the past). __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

05-03-2021, 05:01 PM	#83
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,800	Re: Examining LC Spinoffs Ok, stick a fork in it. Thread Closed. Many thanks to everyone who participated. - __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11