What is Building Up?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

They also believe it edifys oneself...cause that what the Bible says.

Edify. This is one of those words that everyone knows what it means, but I think that most people treat it as if it means something else.

Edify. Essentially to build. An edifice is a building, and the modification into edify indicates the process of bringing a building to be. So "building."

Yet, in spiritual, emotional, psychological, etc., terms, what is "building"? It surely means to add to or improve the condition with a goal to a "correct" or "healthy" condition. But how do we gauge that?

By our feelings? We feel better. We are impressed. We have a sense of elation. We are joyous. We are euphoric.

But is this the true measure of "building" in the spiritual realm? Or is it a substitute? We accept a better feeling as the measure of something grounded and sober.

So what builds you? Euphoria or hardship? An unspeakable revelation or a solid revelation that you are not as righteous as you thought?

Just some examples.

I still assert that the Cessationist position is no better than the position that tongues and other miracles continue. But the "old school" version of the Pentecostal/charismatic gifts seems to place it way out of balance with respect to scripture. Just like Lee took "prophesying" and drove it way out of perspective.

And I know that last one still riles many of us who now despise the LRC. We really liked the kind of involvement that we got in our testimony times. But the pattern does not look like that. It looks like people gathering in mass to the Temple, then to other places where there were teachers to learn from.

No record of the listeners stepping up to speak out and "prophesy."

If we are just supposed to do our own "prophesying," then what is a teacher? Why are they mentioned in a positive sense? Not just in a negative sense. Paul didn't say to avoid teachers. He said to avoid certain kinds.

I agree that hearing from the body as a whole at times is a good thing. But insisting on it is not much better than insisting on tongues. Or piano and organ but no band, Or Band but no organ (unless it is a Hammond B-3). Or a single piece of unleavened, bleached flour bread broken immediately before the "table" v separate crackers (and layer in wine v grape juice; one cup v lots of little ones v dipping the bread in the "juice", and so on).

Personally, I cringe at the word "edifying" because it almost always ends out with a "feel good" aura around it rather than something that looks like either personal sanctification or the growing together of the members of the body.

And while I agree (even with my Dad a little) that it is probably not correct to pass the charismatic things off as relics of an ended time, too much of the visible evidence is that it is not about edifying, but about feeling good.

[Cal]

I hope OBW does not mind me starting a new thread with his post, because this subject of building up, edifying and building, and the legacy concepts left over from the LRC, are things that have been on my mind lately.

I recall several years ago, when SpeakersCorner was around, I made the claim that the LRC had largely missed the matter of relationships, both with God and with others. SC, whom I have a lot of respect for, but who was still very steeped in LRC concepts, took exception with me on this. I seem to remember he thought the idea was too touchy-feely and missed the main point of "God's economy." Now I know SC had relationships, because he talked about movie night with his "homies." I just think he was still under undo LRC influence about the "central matters" of God's economy.

Since then my view of the value of relationship, both with God and others, has only gotten stronger, and my view of the value of LRC substitutes for that (e.g., being constituted with God in your being) has only diminished.

I remember in the LRC we talked about "building," but no one knew what it was. I remember vaguely calling it the "mortar" of God between us, whatever that meant. Then Lee said in the John training that building was just the growth in life. But still it didn't add up. In the meantime, although the LRC emphasized being together with one another, it downplayed relationships, which is really weird when you think about it. The LRC would talk about "our walk with the Lord," but what is a walk if not a relationship? But they didn't like that word because of the personal, emotional aspect of it.

In recent years I've been fortunate enough to build real relationships with Christians in my life. We talk about things, we are friendly, we pray together and experience God together, we laugh and share personal struggles. Then it finally dawned on me. The building between one another is simply the relationships between us. It is your strong attachment and trust in those who you've let into your life. My relationship with my Christian friends, including some on this board, has formed a godly bond which would be hard to break.

But the bottom line with relationships is they have to, in some sense, be personal. The LRC resisted this. They wanted us to somehow be built together without ever getting personal or vulnerable with each other. But that's not the way human beings work. Real relationships always include some personal investment. When they are sanctified, that is the building. They are holy, but they are still very human, emotional and personal. Without that factor, the bond is not as strong as it might be.

[ABrotherinFaith]

I can't count the number of times I've been told NOT to have HUMAN relationships with brothers and sisters, not to have preferences among brothers and sisters... ostensibly this seems so right, so spiritual, so much according to God's economy, but my question is if this is even possible as a HUMAN--not to mention as a Christian. How can I avoid the love God has placed in my heart for my family, for my friends and those who He's brought into my life? Seems impossible. And to be built up don't we need precisely those relationships, those types of relationships to flourish?
One possible side effect of this type of mandate is the lack of care for those outside The Church, those not being "built up."

[OBW]

And there's that phrase again, ". . . according to God's economy . . . ." What does it mean? In our history, too much of its meaning was artificial mumbo-jumbo designed to elevate one set of teachings and demean all others.

And "Yes," Igzy, this is a great topic, even if not necessarily the best kick-off post. I expect better is still on the way.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by OBW

Edify. This is one of those words that everyone knows what it means, but I think that most people treat it as if it means something else.

Edify. Essentially to build. An edifice is a building, and the modification into edify indicates the process of bringing a building to be. So "building."

Yet, in spiritual, emotional, psychological, etc., terms, what is "building"? It surely means to add to or improve the condition with a goal to a "correct" or "healthy" condition. But how do we gauge that?

By our feelings? We feel better. We are impressed. We have a sense of elation. We are joyous. We are euphoric.

But is this the true measure of "building" in the spiritual realm? Or is it a substitute? We accept a better feeling as the measure of something grounded and sober.

So what builds you? Euphoria or hardship? An unspeakable revelation or a solid revelation that you are not as righteous as you thought?

Just some examples.

I still assert that the Cessationist position is no better than the position that tongues and other miracles continue. But the "old school" version of the Pentecostal/charismatic gifts seems to place it way out of balance with respect to scripture. Just like Lee took "prophesying" and drove it way out of perspective.

And I know that last one still riles many of us who now despise the LRC. We really liked the kind of involvement that we got in our testimony times. But the pattern does not look like that. It looks like people gathering in mass to the Temple, then to other places where there were teachers to learn from.

No record of the listeners stepping up to speak out and "prophesy."

If we are just supposed to do our own "prophesying," then what is a teacher? Why are they mentioned in a positive sense? Not just in a negative sense. Paul didn't say to avoid teachers. He said to avoid certain kinds.

I agree that hearing from the body as a whole at times is a good thing. But insisting on it is not much better than insisting on tongues. Or piano and organ but no band, Or Band but no organ (unless it is a Hammond B-3). Or a single piece of unleavened, bleached flour bread broken immediately before the "table" v separate crackers (and layer in wine v grape juice; one cup v lots of little ones v dipping the bread in the "juice", and so on).

Personally, I cringe at the word "edifying" because it almost always ends out with a "feel good" aura around it rather than something that looks like either personal sanctification or the growing together of the members of the body.

And while I agree (even with my Dad a little) that it is probably not correct to pass the charismatic things off as relics of an ended time, too much of the visible evidence is that it is not about edifying, but about feeling good.

Great points OBW! Next time I am around my charismatic friends, I am going to ask them what exactly it means to them when they say praying in tongues 'edifys' them.

You know what 'edifys' me? When I have passed a test or trial. Man, I rejoice! Because I 'got it!" I have a great story..uh testimony for you guys.

A few years ago, I left my wallet at the check out stand of the grocery store I was at. I put all my groceries in the shopping cart and left my wallet on the counter. On my way home, I stopped to put gas in my car. EEK!! No money..no wallet!

As I was racing back to the store...praying fervently no less, Phillipians 4:6-7 came to me. "Be anxious for nothing.

So I told the Lord: YOUR WORD says not to be anxious. So I am surrendering my anxiety to you. I have made my request with a heart filled with gratitude for receiving my supplication. I have asked You to place a hedge of protection around my wallet. I believe it will be there in tact. But if not, it is in Your Hands and I will not be mad at You. You will help me get through it all no matter what the outcome.

I was still anxious of course but I was Thanking the Lord all the way back to the store. And to Him be the Glory and Praise, it was there...everything in tact.

That was the first time in my entire life, I stood on Phillipians 4:6-7 even though we ALL know those scriptures by heart!

I learned a lesson!! Even though I was still scared and anxious, I was not focusing on my anxiety. I was focusing on the Word and by FAITH I was trying to obey. I think my efforts, yes MY EFFORTS pleased the LORD. I am still very, very human!!!

Try not to be anxious when in a scary situation! (speaking to all reading my post..not speaking directly to OBW.)

Shalom!

Carol G

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

I can't count the number of times I've been told NOT to have HUMAN relationships with brothers and sisters...

During the quarantines, LSM always recycles their pernicious teaching that the members should not have "natural love" one for another. You may have been close friends or years and years, as I was with many saints, but when these bro/sis are on the "wrong" side of a quarantine, then we must not let love get between us and their mandate to "quarantine them lepers."

The other night my wife rented a fictional video movie named Contagion about an expanding pandemic catastrophe. The virus was so contagious and deadly that all the sick were isolated and quarantined. The nurses even went on strike because no protective guidelines were in place. Bodies were buried in mass graves because funeral homes reused to take the corpses. All the workers wore full-body pressurized tyvek suits and masks. All because some Chinese pig got sick from a bat dropping.

This is the kind of scenario which LSM likes to portray about those who teach differently than the Blendeds. Why are they so dangerous? What is this "virus" which can so quickly contaminate the unsuspecting faithful? What does LSM so morbidly fear? The truth is they fear the truth. Especially the truth about what really happened behind the scenes. As long as you believe their "spin" on events, then you are immune from "sickness." And don't trust anybody, not even your own spouse, and especially not your friends. He/she might be sick too. The only ones that can be trusted are the Blendeds at LSM.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

I can't count the number of times I've been told NOT to have HUMAN relationships with brothers and sisters, not to have preferences among brothers and sisters... ostensibly this seems so right, so spiritual, so much according to God's economy, but my question is if this is even possible as a HUMAN--not to mention as a Christian. How can I avoid the love God has placed in my heart for my family, for my friends and those who He's brought into my life? Seems impossible. And to be built up don't we need precisely those relationships, those types of relationships to flourish?
One possible side effect of this type of mandate is the lack of care for those outside The Church, those not being "built up."

That's why there is no real LOVE in the LRC...even among themselves! They are afraid they are going to offend Lee and his cohorts! Of course we need relationships! I get what they are saying..."Don't let your relationships be in a constant carnal state of mind'. However they are conveying it all wrong!!

We are supposed to be spiritually minded but that does not mean LC minded! What is NORMAL about reading the life studies or HWMR booklets or anything Lee or LC centered? The other day at Walmart, there was this very small, very short older woman trying to reach for a blouse too high for her to reach. I was hesitant to help her because to MY SHAME...making a confession here... she had a bunch of tattoos! I hate tats! Anyway, I went right over to her and asked her if I could help her get the blouse down. She was very thankful and what a lovely woman she was. We began chatting. She told me about her health problems and her family.

As we started to go our seperate ways, I asked if I could pray over her. I placed my hand on her shoulder and prayed for her and her family. Now isn't this quite normal? It SHOULD be!!! Another time there at Walmart, I was standing in line to pay when a young man at the other lane began having a seisure. Falling to the ground, shaking, someone placed a towel under his head as the paramedics were called. I did not know initially what was happening to him but I stepped out of my line and walked over towards him, extending my hands over him and praying silently for him. Do you know another man joined me ? Several people stood right where they were in line and also prayed !!! When he came to, I went over to him and told him the paramedics were coming. I also told him I was standing right by him while he was having a seizure praying for him. He grabbed my arm and thanked me. He had never had a seizure before.

To be totally honest, I am most comfortable around hungry non-believers or believers who do not go 'to church'. I can be myself...my SELF... ahh...but this 'self' is IN Christ at all times. And this 'self' is being renewed day by day. I love thanking the LORD for constantly renewing mind! One day our minds in Christ is going to be manifested!!

Have FAITH brother! Faith that God has plans for you to prosper. Plans not to harm you but plans to give you HOPE and a (bright) Future!

Carol G

[james73]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

That's why there is no real LOVE in the LRC...even among themselves! They are afraid they are going to offend Lee and his cohorts! Of course we need relationships! I get what they are saying..."Don't let your relationships be in a constant carnal state of mind'. However they are conveying it all wrong!!

We are supposed to be spiritually minded but that does not mean LC minded! What is NORMAL about reading the life studies or HWMR booklets or anything Lee or LC centered? The other day at Walmart, there was this very small, very short older woman trying to reach for a blouse too high for her to reach. I was hesitant to help her because to MY SHAME...making a confession here... she had a bunch of tattoos! I hate tats! Anyway, I went right over to her and asked her if I could help her get the blouse down. She was very thankful and what a lovely woman she was. We began chatting. She told me about her health problems and her family.

As we started to go our seperate ways, I asked if I could pray over her. I placed my hand on her shoulder and prayed for her and her family. Now isn't this quite normal? It SHOULD be!!! Another time there at Walmart, I was standing in line to pay when a young man at the other lane began having a seisure. Falling to the ground, shaking, someone placed a towel under his head as the paramedics were called. I did not know initially what was happening to him but I stepped out of my line and walked over towards him, extending my hands over him and praying silently for him. Do you know another man joined me ? Several people stood right where they were in line and also prayed !!! When he came to, I went over to him and told him the paramedics were coming. I also told him I was standing right by him while he was having a seizure praying for him. He grabbed my arm and thanked me. He had never had a seizure before.

To be totally honest, I am most comfortable around hungry non-believers or believers who do not go 'to church'. I can be myself...my SELF... ahh...but this 'self' is IN Christ at all times. And this 'self' is being renewed day by day. I love thanking the LORD for constantly renewing mind! One day our minds in Christ is going to be manifested!!

Have FAITH brother! Faith that God has plans for you to prosper. Plans not to harm you but plans to give you HOPE and a (bright) Future!

Carol G

Great post! This is it in a nutshell, and what I am learning fast. Christianity, building the body, is sharing in small groups, loving neighbors and each other. A "home church" I feel may not even be necessary, it's just an institution invented to develop security and consistent income.

I felt sad reading some of the posts here, because I have no friends at the LC, after 18 months. I have tried; the reason mostly is control and fear from the elders. They want to "build up the body" but they are also afraid of damaging the body. Hence, brother James is forbidden to hang out with those sisters any more (Two of those sisters, aghast at being accused of wrongdoing in hanging out with a brother, no longer attend the church.) Any activity where an elder won't be present is discouraged - just as Satan prevented Paul from reaching his destination (Thessolonians 2:18), the few times I have arranged meet ups with the brothers outside the church, the elders have run interference to prevent the meet up happening. I truly see this interference as Satanic, because it is NOT from God, it is from fear, from control.

As for the social life in the group, Watchman Nee has a lot to answer for, writing like this in "Authority and Submission" (my bolds):

THE LONELINESS OF AN AUTHORITY

In order for us to learn to be an authority, we must also learn to set ourselves apart from the brothers and sisters. We need to refrain from many things which we otherwise could do or say. We should be separated in our speech and in our emotion. We may hold a certain attitude when we are by ourselves. But when we are with others, we have to set ourselves apart. We can only fellowship with the brothers and sisters to a certain extent. We cannot be flippant or frivolous. We need to give up our freedom and suffer loneliness. Loneliness is a mark of being an authority. All those who are frivolous among the brothers and sisters cannot be an authority. This is not pride. It merely means that for the sake of representing God's authority, we have to have certain limitations in our fellowship with the brothers and sisters. We cannot be too loose or easy-going. Sparrows fly in company, but the eagles fly alone. If we can only fly low and not suffer the loneliness of flying high, we are not qualified to be an authority. In order to be an authority, we have to be restricted and must separate ourselves. We cannot do what others can freely do. We cannot say what others can hastily say. We have to submit to the Spirit of the Lord. The Holy Spirit within us will teach us. This will make us lonely; it will strip us of excitement. We will no longer dare to joke around the brothers and sisters. This is the price that an authority has to pay. We must sanctify ourselves as the Lord Jesus did before we can be an authority.

As far as being a member in the Body is concerned, an authority has to be absolutely inconspicuous, being the same as the other brothers and sisters, in order to maintain the fellowship of the Body. However, in representing God, an authority has to be restricted by God and sanctified. He should be a pattern to the saints. But in acting as a member, he should coordinate and serve together with others, not setting himself apart as a special class.

Well, I am the most frivolous member there. I make jokes. I make jokes about the bread at Lord's Table and no-one laughs, I arrive at the meeting and tell people about the dumb guy I just saw driving a Lambo while reading a comic book or about a dog I just saw which looked like Elvis and everyone just looks at me waiting for the footnote, and when I read this Watchman Nee now I know why. Funny thing is, I am the one who feels lonely and ignored, yet I am the sparrow - they are all off being Eagles and enjoying being Eagles together, if that makes sense. Everybody secretly wants to be an authority so they all behave the way Nee tells them an authority should behave, even while denying they are "special" or wanting authority. Anyway... I can laugh about it now

By the way, Carol, I have a tattoo, just warning you Funny cos nobody at LC said anything, I forget about it myself usually, but one day over lunch with an elder/older I mentioned some difficulty I was having getting over my ex, and I pointed to the tattoo (a beautiful V for Vanessa) to emphasize how important she'd been to me, and the lady POUNCED on the comment and said "oh yes, you should have it removed", she practically had a list of removal clinics ready.

I feel a more loving way would be to at least try to understand the origins and the meaning of the tattoo, try to understand what it's like to have the name of a girl who's no longer around emblazoned on your arm... there's a lot of lessons about acceptance in that little bit of ink! Will the group who simply "prayed" that I have it removed (their desire, not God's) ever get to understand that? Nope - God may want them to understand it, but they know better.

Anyway, there you go Carol, you can add another tattooed guy to your list of friends!

[aron]

Originally Posted by james73

As for the social life in the group, Watchman Nee has a lot to answer for, writing like this in "Authority and Submission":

As far as being a member in the Body is concerned, an authority has to be absolutely inconspicuous, being the same as the other brothers and sisters, in order to maintain the fellowship of the Body. However, in representing God, an authority has to be restricted by God and sanctified. He should be a pattern to the saints. But in acting as a member, he should coordinate and serve together with others, not setting himself apart as a special class.

What a joke. My strong recollection of the LCs is that the "authority" there is very conspicuous. In other words, you find out pretty quickly who is not supposed to have an opinion, and whose opinion is equivalent to "the feeling in the Body", and "the will of the Lord".

WL clearly set himself apart as a "special class". So WN's advice here was towards everybody except the guy at the top of the system (and those who could have lunch with the top guy).

"Everything they tell you, observe and do, but do not imitate what they do." (Matt. 23:3).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

During the quarantines, LSM always recycles their pernicious teaching that the members should not have "natural love" one for another.

Right. "Love the church", "love the ministry", but don't love your neighbor.

Contrast this to:

"Greater love has no man, that he lays down his life for his friends". John 15

"Jesus loved the disciples to the uttermost" John 13

"One of the disciples, that Jesus loved, was reclining at his breast" John 13

"By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13

"Knowledge puffs up; love edifies." 1 Cor 8

And, an early Christian writer named Tertullian quoted a pagan official saying about the Christians: "look at how much they love each other!"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

What a joke. My strong recollection of the LCs is that the "authority" there is very conspicuous. In other words, you find out pretty quickly who is not supposed to have an opinion, and whose opinion is equivalent to "the feeling in the Body", and "the will of the Lord".

WL clearly set himself apart as a "special class". So WN's advice here was towards everybody except the guy at the top of the system (and those who could have lunch with the top guy).

"Everything they tell you, observe and do, but do not imitate what they do." (Matt. 23:3).

Ahhhh ... but they maintain a semblance of this by calling him "Brother" Lee.

Reminds me of today's Exclusive Brethren who use the phrase "our brother" when referring to their unique oracle. Plain words which convey "special status."

[OBW]

I still don't like the word because of its baggage. I would tend to re-translate it to something (like "build" or "builds"). But when aron posted this verse, I noticed something different.

"Knowledge puffs up; love edifies." 1 Cor 8

Here, knowledge is the contrast for building. And it seems that there is also a directional difference.

Knowledge affects yourself while love affects others. It builds up. Not only yourself but those who are loved.

Knowledge is inward (and negatively) while love is outward and positive.

[Ohio]

THE LONELINESS OF AN AUTHORITY -- Watchman Nee

In order for us to learn to be an authority, we must also learn to set ourselves apart from the brothers and sisters. We need to refrain from many things which we otherwise could do or say. We should be separated in our speech and in our emotion. We may hold a certain attitude when we are by ourselves. But when we are with others, we have to set ourselves apart. We can only fellowship with the brothers and sisters to a certain extent. We cannot be flippant or frivolous. We need to give up our freedom and suffer loneliness. Loneliness is a mark of being an authority. All those who are frivolous among the brothers and sisters cannot be an authority. This is not pride. It merely means that for the sake of representing God's authority, we have to have certain limitations in our fellowship with the brothers and sisters. We cannot be too loose or easy-going. Sparrows fly in company, but the eagles fly alone. If we can only fly low and not suffer the loneliness of flying high, we are not qualified to be an authority. In order to be an authority, we have to be restricted and must separate ourselves. We cannot do what others can freely do. We cannot say what others can hastily say. We have to submit to the Spirit of the Lord. The Holy Spirit within us will teach us. This will make us lonely; it will strip us of excitement. We will no longer dare to joke around the brothers and sisters. This is the price that an authority has to pay. We must sanctify ourselves as the Lord Jesus did before we can be an authority.

Contrast this with the Apostle Paul, who was a real pattern to the church.

For yourselves, brothers, know our entrance in to you, that it was not in vain: But even after that we had suffered before, and were shamefully entreated, as you know, at Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak to you the gospel of God with much contention. For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile: But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which tries our hearts. For neither at any time used we flattering words, as you know, nor a cloak of covetousness; God is witness: Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherishes her children: So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted to you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because you were dear to us. For you remember, brothers, our labor and travail: for laboring night and day, because we would not be chargeable to any of you, we preached to you the gospel of God. You are witnesses, and God also, how piously and justly and blamelessly we behaved ourselves among you that believe: As you know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father does his children. -- I Thess 2.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

[In 1 Cor. 8] knowledge is the contrast for building. And it seems that there is also a directional difference.

Knowledge affects yourself while love affects others. It builds up. Not only yourself but those who are loved.

Knowledge is inward (and negatively) while love is outward and positive.

Also I think the contrast between knowledge and love is an issue of substance, and permanence. Knowledge, if it "puffs up", creates a vacuous structure, of little solidity: "hot air", if you will. Any trouble, any wind and storm, and it will be gone. The "building up" of love, however, will endure.

"Love is patient; love is kind; love is long-suffering." Love endures.

I am slowly realizing that there is a whole nuther level of reality, which cannot be adequately presented in outlines, footnotes, and bullet points. And it is probably quite related to the idea of "building up".

[aron]

"Sparrows fly in company, but the eagles fly alone. If we can only fly low and not suffer the loneliness of flying high, we are not qualified to be an authority."

This seems to be some kind of "folk wisdom", unrelated to either the Bible or the Christian life. Every Christian who follows the Lord will be lonely and rejected at some point. To present some special "Christian in authority" who fulfills such statements in a unique way as above, seems to go against the gospel of Christ.

I may be reading WN out of context here. But these teachings don't seem to offer life, and potentially present the opposite: new doctrinal/behavioral chains.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Contrast this with the Apostle Paul, who was a real pattern to the church.

You know who I see as a pattern to the church? Dorcas. And Paul, similarly, lowered himself, and poured himself out for the saints. I don't see Paul "flying high and alone." Again, maybe I am misreading WN. But I don't see WN's imagery aligning with the Bible at all; either the letter OR the spirit.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

"Sparrows fly in company, but the eagles fly alone. If we can only fly low and not suffer the loneliness of flying high, we are not qualified to be an authority."

This seems to be some kind of "folk wisdom", unrelated to either the Bible or the Christian life. Every Christian who follows the Lord will be lonely and rejected at some point. To present some special "Christian in authority" who fulfills such statements in a unique way as above, seems to go against the gospel of Christ.

I may be reading WN out of context here. But these teachings don't seem to offer life, and potentially present the opposite: new doctrinal/behavioral chains.

You know who I see as a pattern to the church? Dorcas. And Paul, similarly, lowered himself, and poured himself out for the saints. I don't see Paul "flying high and alone." Again, maybe I am misreading WN. But I don't see WN's imagery aligning with the Bible at all; either the letter OR the spirit.

Talking to a former LC friend the other day. He mentioned that he has one Nee book by 4 different publishers, and they are all quite different.

I do believe that the Nee in the Recovery is strongly biased by the oft-times dominant Witness Lee. We have no idea what Nee really said, but it seems that Confucius and Chinese culture often supersedes the influence of the Bible. I have no other way to explain the extreme authoritarian views of Nee-Lee-Chu than to recall 5,000 years of dynasties in China.

The Apostle Paul that Nee-Lee espoused may appear to be "flying high and alone," but I don't see that in the Bible.

[countmeworthy]

I don't know if this was already mentioned but if it was, it is worth repeating says me --

Building up in my mind simply means to encourage others, spiritually and emotionally. It is giving someone a boost of confidence. That is what it means to me. And that is what I try to do with everyone I meet and hang out with.

Sometimes it's hard. And sometimes it is not right to do so either. If your child does not study or do his/her homework, a good parent is not going to boost their confidence of getting good grades by patting them on the back for not doing their homework or studying, right?

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by james73

Great post! This is it in a nutshell, and what I am learning fast. Christianity, building the body, is sharing in small groups, loving neighbors and each other. A "home church" I feel may not even be necessary, it's just an institution invented to develop security and consistent income.

Bingo! Personally, I like hanging out with friends and talking about the Lord and His Kingdom. I picture Jesus hanging out with Mary, Martha and Lazurus..His buds. He relaxed at their house...after preaching and teaching long hours. Imagine how blessed they were to have JESUS hang out with them at their house!! That's the kind of friendships I want and do have to some extent. We are still a work in progress. Still need some transformation, some more sanctification...still being refined!!

I felt sad reading some of the posts here, because I have no friends at the LC, after 18 months. I have tried; the reason mostly is control and fear from the elders. They want to "build up the body" but they are also afraid of damaging the body. Hence, brother James is forbidden to hang out with those sisters any more (Two of those sisters, aghast at being accused of wrongdoing in hanging out with a brother, no longer attend the church.)

James...my tattooed amigo...why are you still in the LC??? Are there really more pros than cons hanging with this church? Take a piece of paper. Divide it in 2 columns: Pros - What I LOVE and Cons: 'What I hate.

Which column is longer?

If the women who were your friends were/ARE real friends, that bond is stronger than the LC bond. I know. I have experienced it! When I was in the LC, I did not (was not allowed) to hang out with my unsaved friends unless I was going to bring them into the LC. I never brought them into the LC but you know what? After leaving the LC I led a couple of them to the LORD!! Of course, this has only been in the last 5-6 yrs.

My point is...if they are really good true-blue friends, don't let them go. But do be careful. Walk in S/spirit while having fun. Keep the Full Armour of God on at all times...even when kidding around and having fun.

Since you like jokes...here's one for you:
A very wealthy old man was on his deathbed. As he was getting ready to depart, he tells his endearing wife to bury him with all HIS money. PROMISE me you will bury me with all my money, he tells her while holding her hand. Of course I will honey! she replies. I promise. So he dies and so she keeps her promise. She writes him a check and places it in his pocket.

And one more to put in your pocket:

So there was this couple who had been married a very long time...and the time came when the wife died. She stands at the pearly gates being greeted by St Peter who welcomes her but tells her she must spell the word "Love" before she can enter in. So she spells it and all is well. As she enters, St Pete asks her to mind the gate and if anyone comes, they need to spell the word. He leaves and she is standing at the gate welcoming people when her husband shows up. To her surprise, he tells her he could not live w/o her! So she tells him he has to spell a word before he can enter the pearly gates.

What is the word he asks? Czechoslovakia she replies.

By the way, Carol, I have a tattoo, just warning you Funny cos nobody at LC said anything, I forget about it myself usually, but one day over lunch with an elder/older I mentioned some difficulty I was having getting over my ex, and I pointed to the tattoo (a beautiful V for Vanessa) to emphasize how important she'd been to me, and the lady POUNCED on the comment and said "oh yes, you should have it removed", she practically had a list of removal clinics ready.

I feel a more loving way would be to at least try to understand the origins and the meaning of the tattoo, try to understand what it's like to have the name of a girl who's no longer around emblazoned on your arm... there's a lot of lessons about acceptance in that little bit of ink! Will the group who simply "prayed" that I have it removed (their desire, not God's) ever get to understand that? Nope - God may want them to understand it, but they know better.

Anyway, there you go Carol, you can add another tattooed guy to your list of friends!

I may not like tattoos..and a lot of people go overboard. They gross me out. But I have friends with tats. One even prays in tongues. While I don't encourage anyone to get them, I would never tell anyone to get them removed unless there is something demonic on that tat and the person was growing in Christ. That is why we have the Holy Spirit.


One of my friend's James has a small tattoo on her shoulder blade of a heart with a lightening bolt piercing through it. She told me it symbolized all her heartaches. Don't feel sorry for her though.....she's a piece of work. I love her but she's a BIG THORN not only on my side but on everyone's side !!!

Blessings James and all!
Carol

[aron]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

...I like hanging out with friends and talking about the Lord and His Kingdom. I picture Jesus hanging out with Mary, Martha and Lazurus..His buds. He relaxed at their house...after preaching and teaching long hours. Imagine how blessed they were to have JESUS hang out with them at their house!! That's the kind of friendships I want and do have to some extent. We are still a work in progress.

I love hanging out with people and talking about the Lord and his kingdom. Occasionally, when we talk, we feel the "presence" come alongside us. There is no substitute for gathering in the name of JESUS and having his Holy Spirit in your midst.

Our problem is, I think, that we quickly act like Peter, on the holy mountain, and interject: "Lord, it is good for us to be here. Let's build some tents". Then, next thing you know, there are all sorts of "extras" built there as well.

WN tried to bypass this, and build a "better tent", but he merely started another organization. Full of clutter like the rest.

I still go "to church", but I often feel like Erasmus in the Roman Catholic Church, or like John writing to the angel of the church in Ephesus. Christ is there, but you really have to push through a lot of junk in order to find him.

Look at the conversations Jesus had with people: sometimes they wanted to argue with him about who got married with who in heaven; sometimes they wanted to ask him who sinned, that a man was born blind. Sometimes they wanted to call fire down from heaven. Sometimes he found them arguing with each other about who was first. Etc. He really put up with a lot of nonsense!

We also should be tolerant. Remember that our heavenly Father forgives us our trespasses, so we should also forgive one another. God has received us in Christ Jesus, so we also should receive one another to the glory of God. That 'receiving' may take place on Sunday morning, but it may take place at work, at school, at home, at the supermarket. And that receiving is, arguably, the "building up".

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

God has received us in Christ Jesus, so we also should receive one another to the glory of God [Rom 15:7]. That 'receiving' may take place on Sunday morning, but it may take place at work, at school, at home, at the supermarket. And that receiving is, arguably, the "building up".

I would like to comment on "receiving one another" as tied to "building up", and what happens when your view becomes distorted.

When I stopped meeting with the Recovery church, I still was full of the Recovery view. I felt like a "missionary" to "Christianity", to try and show them the "riches" I'd been enjoying.

For example, one time I was talking with a brand new believer. He was really appreciating my input, which was very heavily flavored by my time in the Recovery church. So I thought, How do I get this guy to come to a Recovery church meeting? What connection can I give him to put him in touch with the Recovery saints? I was thinking about what meetings might be near him, or whose phone number I could give him, and so forth.

Then the guy said to me, "When I was talking to you before, you were full of light. Suddenly you became full of darkness". I thought, Wow, where did that come from? I didn't understand his statement. But now I think that he saw me considering how to get him into the LCs system, and sensed my "spirit" shifting from light to dark.

It took a lot of years for me to learn to just receive people. Don't try to recruit them to some plan, theology, organization, work or ministry. Just receive them. Looking back, I can now see better, how I "shifted" from light to darkness, talking to that man. My focus went from the person of Jesus Christ to, "How do I get this guy into the LC system?"

Eventually I stopped looking past the person in front of me, and looking towards some hypothetical "meeting" or "teaching" which I thought they should or could be in. I began to simply receive them where they were, and as they were. In so doing, I found the presence of the Holy Spirit often become quite strong.

Is that presence (parousia) of the Holy Spirit of God related to "building up"? In other words, you have the Name in which you have received one another, and you have the promised, blessed presence: is this somehow lacking anything for the "building up"? Or is this in itself sufficient? If you try to add something beyond simply receiving of one another, can that frustrate the "building up"?

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I do believe that the Nee in the Recovery is strongly biased by the oft-times dominant Witness Lee. We have no idea what Nee really said, but it seems that Confucius and Chinese culture often supersedes the influence of the Bible.

I think this can be true of anyone studying and teaching the Bible. We bring our upbringing, culture etc. to bear on our interpretation. We are unavoidably influenced but it. Listening to some Americans talk you would think Jesus was a blond haired blue eyed guy who lived in the suburbs, had BBQs in his backyard, voted Republican, was a flag waving American patriot and was always on our side regardless of the conflict we got ourselves involved in.

However those who are more seriously engaged in Biblical scholarship understand that these biases exist and consciously try to be as objective as possible in their exegesis work. They use tools like the hermeneutical spiral. They work in teams of peers who can freely cross check and challenge one another. Etc.

Witness Lee did not do this which is why so much of his cultural baggage could influence his teachings and practice. There was no one there to stop him. And there was no "scientific" method to Bible study and interpretation. He was a one man show and so today the LC system does not ask themselves: what does this verse mean? They ask: what did Witness Lee say this verse means? This is their method of Bible study. And their team of peers (BB) is based on all agreeing on what Witness Lee said this verse means. That's the extent of it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Witness Lee did not do this which is why so much of his cultural baggage could influence his teachings and practice. There was no one there to stop him.

Talk about redundancy; look at this:

Proverbs 11:14 For lack of guidance a nation falls, but victory is won through many advisers.

Proverbs 15:22 Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.

Proverbs 24:6 Surely you need guidance to wage war, and victory is won through many advisers.

How many advisors did WL have? Whose guidance could "restrain the madness of the prophet"? ~ 2 Pet. 2:16

[countmeworthy]

Hi all..
Just a quick note to let you guys know I have been enjoying the last few threads.
They have been very insightful. Great input!!!!

Blessings to all,

Carol G

[aron]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

...those who are more seriously engaged in Biblical scholarship understand that biases exist and consciously try to be as objective as possible in their work. ...They work in teams of peers who can freely cross check and challenge one another. Witness Lee did not do this which is why so much of his cultural baggage could influence his teachings and practice. There was no one there to stop him. He was a one man show...

Here is a transcript of Witness Lee in San Diego, Ca in 1989.

"When I was told that I had deviated from the recovery, I checked with myself. Where? Where could I find my deviation? I couldn’t find [anything]. So I could not have anything to repent of. I’m not proud. I’m sincere. I’m honest. I’m open. To tell you the truth, I like to repent. I have repented to the saints openly at least two or three times. Right? I didn’t deviate from the recovery; rather I got into it more deeply. Right?"

Witness Lee only knew how to check with himself. He had no peers to check him and challenge his biases. So of course he couldn't find anything to correct. And any system built up around this kind of ministry is also going to be unable to correct itself.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

Here is a transcript of Witness Lee in San Diego, Ca in 1989.

[COLOR="Blue"]"When I was told that I had deviated from the recovery, I checked with myself. Where? Where could I find my deviation? I couldn’t find [anything]. So I could not have anything to repent of. I’m not proud. I’m sincere. I’m honest. I’m open. To tell you the truth, I like to repent. I have repented to the saints openly at least two or three tim
es. Right? I didn’t deviate from the recovery; rather I got into it more deeply. Right?

What strikes me about this is how it has nothing to do with anything that is real.

The recovery doesn't exist. And it certainly doesn't exist as a quantifiable standard that is objectively measurable. It's an artificial construct that only existed in the minds of those in the movement, and then probably not in the same form.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

What strikes me about this is how it has nothing to do with anything that is real.

The recovery doesn't exist. And it certainly doesn't exist as a quantifiable standard that is objectively measurable. It's an artificial construct that only existed in the minds of those in the movement, and then probably not in the same form.

You are so correct Igzy. The Bible never speaks of a "Recovery". Lee made up that word up for his movement.

The Bible speaks of ONE church. Had he truly had that vision and had a real relationship with God, he would have reached out to the Christan community and engaged in fellowship..real fellowship. If Lee had allowed the Holy Spirit to take charge, God's anointing, Presence and LOVE would have prevailed.

Blessings and Peace,
Carol Garza

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

Here is a transcript of Witness Lee in San Diego, Ca in 1989

"When I was told that I had deviated from the recovery, I checked with myself. Where? Where could I find my deviation? I couldn’t find [anything]. So I could not have anything to repent of. I’m not proud. I’m sincere. I’m honest. I’m open. To tell you the truth, I like to repent. I have repented to the saints openly at least two or three times. Right? I didn’t deviate from the recovery; rather I got into it more deeply. Right?"

Witness Lee only knew how to --check with himself--. He had no peers to check him and challenge his biases. So of course he couldn't find anything to correct. And any system built up around this kind of ministry is also going to be unable to correct itself.

Interesting wording: When Lee deviated from the recovery, he checked with himself. Was it more important for Lee NOT to deviate from the -recovery- than not to deviate from Almighty God? Did he love his ministry and the power that came from it more than his Creator? He checked with himself??? Did he forget to check with God the Spirit, Who guides us in all Truth?

In my first year or two in the LC, there was an emphasis to examine ourselves before the LORD. We were also taught the power of the Blood when we repent.

The Holy Spirit has also taught me to APOLOGIZE when I have wronged someone. It goes hand in hand with repentance for wronging someone. Did Lee teach that principle? Or was it only the leadership in San Diego who taught that between 1975-1977?

Carol

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

What strikes me about this is how it has nothing to do with anything that is real.

The recovery doesn't exist. And it certainly doesn't exist as a quantifiable standard that is objectively measurable. It's an artificial construct that only existed in the minds of those in the movement, and then probably not in the same form.

The concepts of both the Recovery and the lineage of MOTA's (Minister of the Age) are inextricably connected. You can't have one without the other. Supposedly the Recovery began with Martin Luther, the first MOTA of the Recovery. Both constructs are examples of historical revisionism.

Witness Lee sold himself and his ministry as the "MOTA Finale" and the consummation of the Recovery to prepare a bride for Christ and usher in the Millennial Kingdom. It all sounded so good to me when I was younger. I wholeheartedly believed in all of Lee's broken promises until what little common sense I had from God began to finally emerge. Witness Lee was not supposed to die! This age was supposed to be already over!

My love for church history created numerous contradictions between the facts of history and my fantasy of church history (or should I say Lee's fantasy.) Taking nothing away from the services of Luther, Guyon, or Zinzendorf, there is no way we can honestly conclude that they were Centennial MOTA's.

Andrew Miller, a diehard Darby exclusive, wrote an excellent church history. His work never cites Recovery/MOTA views of church history, though he was often with Darby, instead claiming that God always had a "silver lining" of grace among his people. Reading Plymouth Brethren history around the time of their first major split proved to me that Darby never was who Lee claimed he was. Reading our own history around the time of the quarantines proved to me decisively that Lee never was who I thought he was.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The concepts of both the Recovery and the lineage of MOTA's (Minister of the Age) are inextricably connected. You can't have one without the other. Supposedly the Recovery began with Martin Luther, the first MOTA of the Recovery. Both constructs are examples of historical revisionism.

Witness Lee sold himself and his ministry as the "MOTA Finale" and the consummation of the Recovery to prepare a bride for Christ and usher in the Millennial Kingdom. It all sounded so good to me when I was younger. I wholeheartedly believed in all of Lee's broken promises until what little common sense I had from God began to finally emerge. Witness Lee was not supposed to die! This age was supposed to be already over!

My love for church history created numerous contradictions between the facts of history and my fantasy of church history (or should I say Lee's fantasy.) Taking nothing away from the services of Luther, Guyon, or Zinzendorf, there is no way we can honestly conclude that they were Centennial MOTA's.

Andrew Miller, a diehard Darby exclusive, wrote an excellent church history. His work never cites Recovery/MOTA views of church history, though he was often with Darby, instead claiming that God always had a "silver lining" of grace among his people. Reading Plymouth Brethren history around the time of their first major split proved to me that Darby never was who Lee claimed he was. Reading our own history around the time of the quarantines proved to me decisively that Lee never was who I thought he was.

Ohio..this was a very good post! Of course, I am enjoying being enlightened by the last few threads, as I mentioned earlier

I would like to suggest a new thread on church history.

Ohio, I nominate you to start it since you brought it up & seem to have a pretty good handle on it...

Of course no vote is needed. Whoever us up to the task, go for it!! ...Please!

And thank you.

Carol G

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

Here is a transcript of Witness Lee in San Diego, Ca in 1989.

"When I was told that I had deviated from the recovery, I checked with myself. Where? Where could I find my deviation? I couldn’t find [anything]. So I could not have anything to repent of. I’m not proud. I’m sincere. I’m honest. I’m open. To tell you the truth, I like to repent. I have repented to the saints openly at least two or three times. Right? I didn’t deviate from the recovery; rather I got into it more deeply. Right?"

Witness Lee only knew how to check with himself. He had no peers to check him and challenge his biases. So of course he couldn't find anything to correct. And any system built up around this kind of ministry is also going to be unable to correct itself.

That's a remarkably revealing quotation with respect to WL's character. Since he is the MOTA, the ultimate authority on everything pertaining to God on this planet, if he was unaware of deviation, there must not be any. As God's emissary to us, he was more than an autonomous dictator. Please give a complete citation of the source of the quote so that it can be independently verified.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Here is a transcript of Witness Lee in San Diego, Ca in 1989.

"When I was told that I had deviated from the recovery, I checked with myself. Where? Where could I find my deviation? I couldn’t find [anything]. So I could not have anything to repent of. I’m not proud. I’m sincere. I’m honest. I’m open. To tell you the truth, I like to repent. I have repented to the saints openly at least two or three times. Right? I didn’t deviate from the recovery; rather I got into it more deeply. Right?"

Witness Lee only knew how to check with himself. He had no peers to check him and challenge his biases. So of course he couldn't find anything to correct. And any system built up around this kind of ministry is also going to be unable to correct itself.

Well actually, Witness Lee did have peers. He had the elders in Anaheim. He had leading brothers throughout the country who had been with him a quarter century. They had a lot to say, but he would not listen. Many wrote articles delineating the deviations. You couldn't find anything? John Ingalls met with you a dozen times. Here Lee was not being at all sincere or honest.

It was said that Lee never like to hear bad news about his ministry. To carefully listen to all news, especially when it comes from long-time associates, is real honesty and sincerity. Lee, however, only surrounded himself with cheerleaders. Ed Marks quickly rose in the ranks because his belly was filled with footnotes. Other brothers, whose consciences were protesting the abuses at LSM, were quickly silenced. They were "checking" not with "themselves," but with scripture.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's a remarkably revealing quotation with respect to WL's character. Since he is the MOTA, the ultimate authority on everything pertaining to God on this planet, if he was unaware of deviation, there must not be any. As God's emissary to us, he was more than an autonomous dictator. Please give a complete citation of the source of the quote so that it can be independently verified.

aron, don't worry about giving a complete citation of the source unless you have the inclination and time to do so. This quote from Witness Lee is well known to most of those on the forum...it's vintage Lee and he said things like this all the time.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Well actually, Witness Lee did have peers. He had the elders in Anaheim. He had leading brothers throughout the country who had been with him a quarter century. They had a lot to say, but he would not listen. Many wrote articles delineating the deviations. You couldn't find anything? John Ingalls met with you a dozen times. Here Lee was not being at all sincere or honest.

The problem is that the elders in Anaheim were not Lee's peers...they were appointed by him and beholden to his authority. Same went for all the elders and co-workers in the USA. If they were his peers Lee would of been forced to address all the issues that were brought up by Ingalls et al back in the late 80s. Instead all he had to do was throw them under the bus (like he had done many times before), discredit them, vilify them and then just sit back and let all his underlings do the real dirty work (quarantine them). And now, all these years later many of the younger LCers don't even know who these brothers are. It's like the Soviet Union communists who airbrushed all the former leaders out of all the old pictures. It's like they didn't even exist. May God have mercy.

[OBW]

Thanks for the quote, aron. But when I read it, I saw something a little different than what it seems others have.

"When I was told that I had deviated from the recovery, I checked with myself. Where? Where could I find my deviation? I couldn’t find [anything]. So I could not have anything to repent of. I’m not proud. I’m sincere. I’m honest. I’m open. To tell you the truth, I like to repent. I have repented to the saints openly at least two or three times. Right? I didn’t deviate from the recovery; rather I got into it more deeply. Right?"

Since Lee is the source of the teaching on recovery, he is the source of all data concerning it. Even if he were to claim to have discovered it within scripture, it is still the result of his own analysis of that scripture.

Then, if the definition of recovery is dependent upon his analysis of scripture, it would tend to follow that he would naturally find that he followed his own thinking on the subject. The analysis then becomes a classic begging of the question. Or maybe more correctly a classic case of circular reasoning.

You ask the one who defined something based on his own analysis whether he is still holding to his analysis. It will not matter whether his definition has morphed over time and you think you see that current actions are contrary to older definitions. Such a person will declare that the definition is what it currently is and that he must (by definition) be consistent with it.

And that is the way with virtually everything that is learned by reference to Lee. "Brother Lee once said that . . ." is all that is required to make something "true." It is what he says, so it is true.

And if you think he is not acting consistent with his statements, then you don't understand the statements. The fault is never with Lee.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

aron, don't worry about giving a complete citation of the source unless you have the inclination and time to do so.

The quote is from JI's STTIL, on this website. The older and experienced brothers tried to be an independent counsel of peers, and an objective set of "eyes" and "ears" to what was happening on the ground. JI wrote that when a number of brothers from various areas including S. Cal and the Southeast presented their concerns, WL didn't have a heart to listen to anything. Then JI quoted this speaking from San Diego to verify that WL wasn't going to take any external input as a basis of his judgment.

JI also wrote that WL's take-home message from the late '80s storm was that "older brothers" couldn't handle the "new way". That was the real problem; end of discusion. The oracle had spoken.

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

Please give a complete citation of the source of the quote so that it can be independently verified.

Please see post #35.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

JI also wrote that WL's take-home message from the late '80s storm was that "older brothers" couldn't handle the "new way". That was the real problem; end of discussion. The oracle has spoken.

Thus establishing himself, in the eyes of the loyal at least, as the one and only "older" brother who still remained open and flexible (his own definition of spiritual transformations and maturity) to the Lord and His up-to-date move.

I now find this statement quote troublesome, knowing all that I now know about the "new way."

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Lee is the source of the teaching on recovery... it is still the result of his own analysis of that scripture.

if the definition of recovery is dependent upon his analysis of scripture, it would tend to follow that he would naturally find that he followed his own thinking on the subject.

And if you think he is not acting consistent with his statements, then you don't understand the statements.

Good points, all.

"Brother Lee, there is concern that we have deviated from the path of recovery"

"Whose definition of recovery? Mine? We haven't deviated from it at all."

Even if we call it "The Lord's recovery", it is the Lord's recovery as defined by WL. And that definition isn't what JI thought that he bought into, at one time. As OBW points out, it's the definition that WL held onto until the end, and never deviated from.

But I suppose that's a subject for different thread.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Since Lee is the source of the teaching on recovery, he is the source of all data concerning it. Even if he were to claim to have discovered it within scripture, it is still the result of his own analysis of that scripture.

Then, if the definition of recovery is dependent upon his analysis of scripture, it would tend to follow that he would naturally find that he followed his own thinking on the subject.

Classic OBW at his best.

What he's saying is that if Lee invented the Recovery, then he is by definition the global expert on the Recovery.

Just like if I invented McFleebles, then I darn sure am the expert on McFleebles.

That was in essence Lee's mentality, and error. It is crucial to understand this to the core.

He called it "the Lord's recovery." But the fact is it was really Lee's recovery. It was his invention.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Classic OBW at his best.

What he's saying is that if Lee invented the Recovery, then he is by definition the global expert on the Recovery.

But Lee persuaded us that the brilliant Nee, standing on the shoulders of brothers gone before, reading and gleaning from mountains of books lining his bedroom, received this concept from others. Then Nee used the seven churches in Asia, contained in the book Orthodoxy of the Church, to prove how the Recovery proceeded from Sardis (Luther) to Philadelphia (Darby-Nee-Lee) to Laodicea (Exclusives) stuck on objective doctrines. Lee had a way of presenting the Recovery from every book of the Bible.

Like I have repeatedly said, "all church history told by Lee is suspect."

[OBW]

Without looking back, I recall that in the past few days, on some thread, there was a mention of Miller's Church History. It has been many years, but I recall reading it. It was mostly an accurate history of the things that happened.

But, in hindsight, I realize that the overlay of the chronology of churches in Revelation is just that . . . an overlay. It is an interesting perspective, but nothing substantive to force out of it as Nee/Lee did.

I believe that it is nothing more than a thought that was made into "reality" by pushing and stretching. It essentially discards three of the types as lost historical churches. None is recommended as simply being "as it was from the beginning." It presumes that there are none who are simply wandering into losing their first love but otherwise fine. It ignores the pattern of persecution that persists to this very day. (I believe that is because it is written by Westerners who do not experience the kind of persecution that many Christians in more distant lands do.)

If anything, the churches in Revelation do not simply define the right church. Rather, they point to a collection of problems. Even in the church that did not seem to have problems, we are not told what was right (as if there is a formula for it) but rather to hold on to what they had (whatever that was).

Those problems all persist to this very day. And even if we have no sense of problem in whatever group we are currently in, we need to hold onto it. And holding on does not mean keeping the formula set. Such a group could be, like any other, in danger of losing their first love, of becoming overconfident in their knowledge, of welcoming someone into their midst that slowly carries them off after some kind of error or idol (even a Bible idolatry).

In any case, I cannot recommend Miller's history as a tremendously insightful work because, other than the accurate descriptions of the actual events of church history, I'm not convinced that the chronology overlay is much more than a parallel that is seen because it is suggested as something to see. Like hearing words in records played backward or in the noise of electromagnetic static from the universe.

Or hearing words in your favorite song wrong because someone suggested it. Back when Grease was in the theaters, someone called into a radio station and suggest that they heard "You're the bull of the wall" where the song said "You're the one that I want" and I have heard it everytime that song plays ever since. Or that silly commercial about the line in Rocketman . . . "Burnin' up the room with cheap cologne."

We are wired to find patterns. Our brains fill in visual and auditory cues and clues constantly. And our minds love to find a pattern. It helped us stay alive when we lived out in tents and noticing wild animals hiding in the bushes was important. Our needs have diminished. But the fill-ins continue. That is why five eye-witnesses to a crime cannot describe the same scene. There are similarities (probably the real facts) mixed with what the brain added to complete the picture.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

But, in hindsight, I realize that the overlay of the chronology of churches in Revelation is just that . . . an overlay. It is an interesting perspective, but nothing substantive to force out of it as Nee/Lee did.

I believe that it is nothing more than a thought that was made into "reality" by pushing and stretching. It essentially ...

• discards three of the types as lost historical churches.
• None is recommended as simply being "as it was from the beginning."
• It presumes that there are none who are simply wandering into losing their first love but otherwise fine.
• It ignores the pattern of persecution that persists to this very day. (I believe that is because it is written by Westerners who do not experience the kind of persecution that many Christians in more distant lands do.)

OBW, Great points here!

Nigel Tomes brought out many more flaws in his paper Examining LSM's Eschatology -- Revelations's 7 Churches.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Edify. This is one of those words that everyone knows what it means, but I think that most people treat it as if it means something else.

Edify. Essentially to build. An edifice is a building, and the modification into edify indicates the process of bringing a building to be. So "building."

Yet, in spiritual, emotional, psychological, etc., terms, what is "building"? It surely means to add to or improve the condition with a goal to a "correct" or "healthy" condition. But how do we gauge that?
-----
I still assert that the Cessationist position is no better than the position that tongues and other miracles continue. But the "old school" version of the Pentecostal/charismatic gifts seems to place it way out of balance with respect to scripture. Just like Lee took "prophesying" and drove it way out of perspective.
---
Personally, I cringe at the word "edifying" because it almost always ends out with a "feel good" aura around it rather than something that looks like either personal sanctification or the growing together of the members of the body.

And while ... it is probably not correct to pass the charismatic things off as relics of an ended time, too much of the visible evidence is that it is not about edifying, but about feeling good.

I apologize for using OBW as a spring-board for my possibly irrelevant rant. But I will try to make it "quick and clear".

The idea of charismatic experience being linked to building up in God's kingdom has a long lineage, of which speaking in tongues and other "ecstatic" phenomena were merely parts. For example, I think of the prophets who became somewhat "mad" and channeled the Spirit of God who then instructed others through them.

I also think of the prophets who continually declared that they fell down as dead, and could not eat or drink or function normally after seeing a vision of God (Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, etc). This continued into the NT. See Paul (Acts 9:9) and John's (Rev. 1:17) testimonies for example.

So here is my "quick and clear" -- God comes to us in His Word, on the proverbial holy mountain, and shows us a pattern of the heavenly things (Hebrews 8:5). Everything we then do must be according to this pattern.

And seeing this pattern, I argue, places a holy flame upon us, in which we are both astonished beyond measure, and even become ourselves an astonishment and a byword of both mocking and awe to those around us. But whether this involves singing, dancing, praying, pray-reading, "prophesying", speaking tongues, hand-waving, guitars, music, rolling around on the floor, is irrelevant. What matters (to me) is:

#1 the Word of God. Ecstasy apart from the word is untrustworthy. We are today become like Aaron in Exodus 28:36-8: “Make a plate of pure gold and engrave on it as on a seal: holy to the Lord. Fasten a blue cord to it to attach it to the turban; it is to be on the front of the turban. It will be on Aaron’s forehead... It will be on Aaron’s forehead continually so that they will be acceptable to the Lord."

There is a spiritual 'engraved plate of pure gold' on our forehead. That is equivalent to the flame dancing upon the believers in Acts chapter 2: God's speaking to us in His Holy Word now separates us, forever, from everything else.

#2 This Word consumes us, and burns away everything else. We can hear or see nothing else. This is to enter the cloud of bright glory, what Jonathan Edwards called "the divine and supernatural light". We do not know where we are going, but we are on the Holy Mountain of God, and the Voice is speaking, and we can never go back. We can only go forward; our living should move into full accord with the vision we have received. We no longer can live like we used to. The universe has now changed for us, and we have to respond, and to abide in this 'new creation'.

Like OBW said, It is not about feeling good. It is about living according to what we see in God's Word.

#3 This flame of God should now touch the world. The people in darkness are crying out for light. Beyond that I don't want to add detail. I hope the point is made, nonetheless. Of course it involves coordination and fellowship with our fellow believers. But too many details might distract from the simple and obvious point.

[aron]

Mark 7:37 And they were astonished beyond measure, saying, “He has done all things well. He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak.”

Mark 10:36 And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?”

Look at how often the gospels portrays both the disciples and the people of Israel as being surprised and bewildered, even frightened, by Jesus the Nazarene. And in the preceding post (#43) I noted that the presence of the Divine Speaking, whether through intermediary angels or throught the Spirit of God, brought the same effect.

It is possible that the "outpouring of the Holy Spirit" on Azusa Street, the Toronto Blessing, the Lakeland Revival, et al, were unconscious attempts to manifest what people felt they should be experiencing in God's salvation. I don't know. But any charismatic or ecstatic experience should draw me deeper into the Word in both study and discipled living. If not, it is vain.

WL may have tried to tap into charismatic revival with his "eating Jesus" rhetoric of the late '60s & early '70s. Again, I don't know. But there's a danger if we end up chanting footnotes, outlines, musical stanzas, and so forth as a kind of spiritual stand-in; if we judge the "interpreted word" as of more interest than the Word itself.

And I feel that if WL realized that the Holy Word of God was truly of spirit and life as he feigned to do, he never would have dared to wave off dozens and dozens of chapters of the Bible as of no value.

Just because we may not see anything of value in God's Word doesn't mean God isn't speaking. Maybe it just means that "you have not yet struggled unto blood", a la Hebrews 12:4. Maybe we haven't struggled enough yet. With the Bible we shouldn't be like Aesop's fox, who walked away from the unreachable grapes and muttered to himself, "Well, they probably are not very good."

There is a lot of the Bible that I just don't get. For example, Job is largely an unassailable mystery. There are books that I have only a passing acquaintance with. I know they are there, and that is pretty much it. I haven't yet found "honey in the rock". But I believe the rock is there.

And likewise I believe the 'building up' is there. I may not have seen it, or entered deeply. But it is there.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by james73

I felt sad reading some of the posts here, because I have no friends at the LC, after 18 months. I have tried; the reason mostly is control and fear from the elders. They want to "build up the body" but they are also afraid of damaging the body. Hence, brother James is forbidden to hang out with those sisters any more (Two of those sisters, aghast at being accused of wrongdoing in hanging out with a brother, no longer attend the church.) Any activity where an elder won't be present is discouraged - just as Satan prevented Paul from reaching his destination (Thessolonians 2:18), the few times I have arranged meet ups with the brothers outside the church, the elders have run interference to prevent the meet up happening. I truly see this interference as Satanic, because it is NOT from God, it is from fear, from control.

In the LC, it's difficult to be honest and have depth because of the fear of man. If you don't fear man and aren't political about it, you find yourself experiencing the over reactive nature of some elders (maybe not all). In the professional work environment no one appreciates or likes being micro managed. Yet this is what certain elders and co-workers do in the church life. You find yourself being micro managed by elders maybe in part they can't trust you or questions being asked the elders can't handle your concepts? As much desire there is to build up the body, when the micromanagement issues in false accusation of wrongdoing, the elders or elder needs to get right with the sister. By the way a similar scenario did occur near my area a few years back so it's nothing new.

In the context of this thread a healthy action to issue in building up is through reconciliation.

The object of Building up is the Body of Christ, the temple of God.
The way of being built up is growing in the spirit and life of Christ which is indwelling in true believers.
The contents of building is the spirit and the life, the Christ in His believers.
The growing, which building up is growing of members of body.
Each members of the body shall grow in Christ, with Christ, in His life (being).
This is being built up as the spiritual house of God.
It's disappearing our selves, increasing Christ in the members, the body.

It never mean so called or quoted "relationship" with or among Christians.

Scriptures : Eph 4:15-16, 1Pet 2:5

[aron]

Originally Posted by TY

It never mean[t] so called or quoted "relationship" with or among Christians.

Scriptures : Eph 4:15-16, 1Pet 2:5

No; but it is often meant or called "love" among Christians.

As in the second greatest commandment is "love your neighbor as yourself". As in "by this shall men know that you are disciples, by the love you have for one another"

Scriptures: Matt 22:49, John 13:35

As in Paul referring to Onesimus as his very heart. Onesimus, a runaway slave, hardly "good building material". Yet Paul had a relationship with him, just as he did with Philemon.

Philemon 1:12

Now, some may feel that "love" is unrelated to building up. Perhaps even a hindrance (honey, anyone?). But for some reason I stubbornly cling to the notion that they are related. Intrinsically and essentially related.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by TY

The object of Building up is the Body of Christ, the temple of God.
The way of being built up is growing in the spirit and life of Christ which is indwelling in true believers.
The contents of building is the spirit and the life, the Christ in His believers.
The growing, which building up is growing of members of body.
Each members of the body shall grow in Christ, with Christ, in His life (being).
This is being built up as the spiritual house of God.
It's disappearing our selves, increasing Christ in the members, the body.

It never mean so called or quoted "relationship" with or among Christians.

Scriptures : Eph 4:15-16, 1Pet 2:5

Sorry, friend. But you don't know what you are talking about. You are just regurgitating Lee-speak. Love that is not willing to become vulnerable and relate to others is not love at all, and it certainly doesn't build anyone up. And all the pseudo-spiritual talk in the world doesn't change that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by TY

The object of Building up is the Body of Christ, the temple of God.
The way of being built up is growing in the spirit and life of Christ which is indwelling in true believers.
The contents of building is the spirit and the life, the Christ in His believers.
The growing, which building up is growing of members of body.
Each members of the body shall grow in Christ, with Christ, in His life (being).
This is being built up as the spiritual house of God.
It's disappearing our selves, increasing Christ in the members, the body.

It never mean so called or quoted "relationship" with or among Christians.

Scriptures : Eph 4:15-16, 1Pet 2:5

Reading this, I thought of Paul's word to Corinth ...

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.

Then the apostle made this matter very clear when he said ...

Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

Witness Lee could talk about Building Up in his sleep, but whom did he ever love? Whom did he ever treat with respect?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Sorry, friend. But you don't know what you are talking about. You are just regurgitating Lee-speak...all the pseudo-spiritual talk in the world doesn't change that.

One problem I have with "Lee-speak" is that I find it ephemeral and subjective.

Look at "The way of being built up is the growing in the spirit and life of Christ which is indwelling in true believers", for example. How do you really know if you are "growing in the spirit and life of Christ"?

I mean, it sounds good. If I was to say that stuff to a Christian on the street, or hand them a tract saying such, they might be impressed with my verbiage. But really, what does it mean? Do I have any assurance at all that at the end of my course I will be measured and found to have grown in the spirit and life of Christ?

The only true, practical measuring stick that I can use is my standing in the Lee-run church. If the elder whom Lee has appointed to watch over my affairs approves me as a member in good standing, then I simply have to hope in the reality behind Lee's words. In other words, if I am going to the meetings, the trainings, buying the literature, and supporting whatever "move" is coming out of headquarters, I must trust that the shepherds watching over my soul are not leading me astray, but instead are leading me into all the reality.

Basically, all I get from Lee & Co that I am "growing in the spirit and life of Christ" is "Trust us. If you do what we say, then you are indeed growing in the spirit and life of Christ." Not much to hang my hat on, as I approach the Judgment Seat. My relationship with a publishing house in Anaheim California has become the de facto equivalent of my standing before God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The only true, practical measuring stick that I can use is my standing in the Lee-run church. If the elder whom Lee has appointed to watch over my affairs approves me as a member in good standing, then I simply have to hope in the reality behind Lee's words. In other words, if I am going to the meetings, the trainings, buying the literature, and supporting whatever "move" is coming out of headquarters, I must trust that the shepherds watching over my soul are not leading me astray, but instead are leading me into all the reality.

There was a time when "building up" was all about who you were connected with; like bricks in a wall, we should be surrounded by "the brothers." So we all got excited about that, since we were together so much, and one had to practically sneak away one night of the week to do laundry, lest he be considered a back-slider or worse.

Then, we had the so-called "Max" rebellion, and many saints left holding on to the ones around them. Vast numbers of saints departed. Well ... that's not working out! Better change that definition. First we needed to be inoculated from any thought that the building up is being connected to those around you. Since friendships are such a bad thing, let's decide that "honey" in the Levitical offerings refers to "natural relationships." We can't be having any of those, now can we? That teaching subsequently became quite valuable to the Recovery since storms, departures, and quarantines have become such a regular feature.

As a result, all the saints have learned the hard way that the only "safe" relationship on earth, tried and tested of a truth, is our standing with "the ministry." Marriages can collapse, families can war with each other, all of which has been foretold in scripture, yet never ... let me repeat never ... drop your stand for the ministry. Don't even trust your own conscience, since you can be self-deceived, but the ministry alone is supposedly "faithful" to Him who promised.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There was a time when "building up" was all about who you were connected with; like bricks in a wall, we should be surrounded by "the brothers." So we all got excited about that, since we were together so much, and one had to practically sneak away one night of the week to do laundry, lest he be considered a back-slider or worse.

Then, we had the so-called "Max" rebellion, and many saints left holding on to the ones around them. Vast numbers of saints departed. Well ... that's not working out! Better change that definition. First we needed to be inoculated from any thought that the building up is being connected to those around you. Since friendships are such a bad thing, let's decide that "honey" in the Levitical offerings refers to "natural relationships." We can't be having any of those, now can we? That teaching subsequently became quite valuable to the Recovery since storms, departures, and quarantines have become such a regular feature.

As a result, all the saints have learned the hard way that the only "safe" relationship on earth, tried and tested of a truth, is our standing with "the ministry." Marriages can collapse, families can war with each other, all of which has been foretold in scripture, yet never ... let me repeat never ... drop your stand for the ministry. Don't even trust your own conscience, since you can be self-deceived, but the ministry alone is supposedly "faithful" to Him who promised.

And years later...what is the fruit of that thought process?

Doesn't everyone desire and need friends? REAL friends? Christians and non-Christians? I do. I am very grateful and thankful for the friends I have! And not all of them are saved either! Jesus Himself had lots of friends. His disciples were His friends and Martha, Mary and Lazurus who didn't even go everywhere like the other 12 were probably among His closest friends. They may not have been 'chosen' to be among the 12 but how He loved them and they HIM. He loved hanging out with them at their house. By visiting and hanging out with them, He "built" them up with His Love and Friendship and they did the same to Him.

Yet all we knew from Lee's teachings was that Martha "worked" to serve the Lord while, Mary sat at His Feet. Martha was the 'fleshly works'.

Building up in my experience simply means encouraging people, making them feel comfortable, putting a smile on their face..making them laugh, praying over them, for them and with them, listening to them and pointing them to Christ with Love. Hopefully it is reciprocated. If not in this earthly life, surely in heaven and most certainly in the Holy City New Jerusalem.

I wonder who were Lee's wife's friends? I bet she lived a lonely life with only the Lord and some of her children comforting her.

Are any of Lee's kids, grandkids, great grandkids even in 'the Recovery' I wonder? We know about Philip and Timothy's shenanogans. Wonder what has now become of them? Hopefully they repented. Their father may never have taught them the need to repent. But the Holy Spirit is a wonderful Teacher.

More importantly....so many of you posters have parents, siblings, relatives in the 'recovery' while you all are truly in the REAL recovery room, getting well, and growing strong in spirit, mind, emotions, and hopefully physically to those who need physical healing.

I left out the 'will'. That is everyone's challenge! Surrendering our will is not an easy feat. Our Lord Jesus was pretty Wise when He was instructing the people to pray "THY WILL be done."

Blessings to everyone !

Carol Garza

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Since friendships are such a bad thing, let's decide that "honey" in the Levitical offerings refers to "natural relationships." We can't be having any of those, now can we? That teaching subsequently became quite valuable to the Recovery since storms, departures, and quarantines have become such a regular feature...As a result, all the saints have learned the hard way that the only "safe" relationship on earth, tried and tested of a truth, is our standing with "the ministry."

Witness Lee was a master at directing people's loyalties away from anyone but himself and his ministry. Eventually loyalty to others in normal relationships erodes away and is replaced with an abnormal, impersonal and weird relationship with this thing called "The Ministry". I would even go further to say this plainly: some in the LC system love "The Ministry" more than their spouse, children, extended family, saints in their locality, etc. And BTW their spouses know it and so do their children, etc. It's damaging and hurtful.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

Basically, all I get from Lee & Co that I am "growing in the spirit and life of Christ" is "Trust us. If you do what we say, then you are indeed growing in the spirit and life of Christ." Not much to hang my hat on, as I approach the Judgment Seat. My relationship with a publishing house in Anaheim California has become the de facto equivalent of my standing before God.

Originally Posted by Ohio

As a result, all the saints have learned the hard way that the only "safe" relationship on earth, tried and tested of a truth, is our standing with "the ministry." Marriages can collapse, families can war with each other, all of which has been foretold in scripture, yet never ... let me repeat never ... drop your stand for the ministry. Don't even trust your own conscience, since you can be self-deceived, but the ministry alone is supposedly "faithful" to Him who promised.

Both these responses nail it.

It's ironic. The LRC claims to have such an understanding of the Triune God. But what is the Triune God but a relationship? The Trinity tells us that at the heart of reality are... relationships. The Father and the Son relate, and the Spirit is their relationship.

Yet LRCers don't get this, to the point that they discredit relationship itself, as TY did in his post! This shows that despite their spiritual rhetoric they are actually clueless about what the Trinity is essentially about.

The Bible tells us to know God. But knowing a person requires a relationship. Yet LRCers dismiss relationships. Go figure. Building without relationship is entirely theoretical. TY's definition of building is entirely theoretical. How do you know you are built with others other than knowing that because of what you've been through together you would go to the wall for each other? I don't know of anything. I believe I'm built with some brothers who are still in the LRC. But the only reason is because of what we went through together, not because they read the ministry and I did too.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

... what is the Triune God but a relationship? The Trinity tells us that at the heart of reality are... relationships. The Father and the Son relate, and the Spirit is their relationship.

When UntoHim recently wrote that we need to return fully to the Word of God, my "amen" was in this vein: at the heart of the divine revelation is a relationship between the Father and His Firstborn Son. And we can, and I think should, spend our lives exploring this relationship in the scriptures.

The more we explore it, the more it changes us. It changes our relationships with each other. Did the Holy Spirit ever argue with the Son? Did the Son ever reject the Father? Then why do we argue with each other(Gal 5:15)? Why do we posture for position (Mark 9:33, Luke 9:46), and receive one another for the purpose of passing judgment (Rom 14:1)? And why do we so quickly and easily lord it over each other (1 Pet 5:3)?

The more we explore it, it changes our relationship with God. If we see the Spirit's relationship with the Father and the Son, how can we still act in a way that we know grieves the Spirit (Eph 4:30)? The Spirit wants to guide us into all the reality. What lies between Father and Son is real, it is solid. It is more real than anything in the universe, and it has been clearly communicated to us, and presented right in front of us on the printed pages of scripture.

Etc, etc.

I don't recall any of this in the LCs. All I recall are some vague ideas about "growing in life", which was whatever Lee said it was, and continuous, fervent, and unabated exhortations to build up the organization. All of which was held to be somehow concomitant with the kingdom of God.

[aron]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Doesn't everyone desire and need friends? REAL friends? Christians and non-Christians? I do. I am very grateful and thankful for the friends I have! And not all of them are saved either! Jesus Himself had lots of friends. His disciples were His friends and Martha, Mary and Lazurus who didn't even go everywhere like the other 12 were probably among His closest friends. They may not have been 'chosen' to be among the 12 but how He loved them and they HIM. He loved hanging out with them at their house. By visiting and hanging out with them, He "built" them up with His Love and Friendship and they did the same to Him.

The importance of this statement cannot be overlooked. Jesus "wasted Himself" on His friends, and they in turn wasted their lives on Him. At the end, what did any of them have from it? Teachings? Trainings? An organization? Nothing, except friendship. True, enduring, eternal friendship. They loved one another. And that is all that really matters. As Paul said, without love you just have a clanging gong.

Something of the love that Jesus had for His Father, and the Father had for Him, He brought to earth and gave to Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, and to so many others. It is given without money and without price, and it is available to all. In this world of scarcity, God's love is free and available to all. It is available in the Son. It is the love of His Father. We don't have to "do" anything for God's building, just see and recognize and appreciate how much the Father loves us, each one. When we see this love it changes us forever. How can we be self-centered, when we see that God has carefully counted your hairs on your head, and on your neighbors' as well?

When we begin to touch the love the Father has for His Son, and the Son has for His Father, the Holy Word changes for us, forever. Mary and Martha and Lazarus (and the rest) touched something of this love. How could they turn away? At its core the Bible is a testament to the Father's love for His children. It is so tangibly demonstrated!

When they saw Jesus, they felt the Father's love. They felt the Son's peaceful, harmonious relationship (John 14:27; 20:21) with His Father; they felt the joy (Heb 12:2) of the obedient Holy Spirit. This revelation surely flows to us from our Father (John 3:2). When we come to the Word should we not also feel such peace, should we not sense His love? Should we not desire to overflow our joy toward one another, even to the uttermost parts of the world (John 4:29; 16:21,22)? If it pleases God to "build up" something in our joyful expression, that is not our business (Luke 17:9,10). Our only business is to joyfully and recklessly waste our lives pursuing a relationship with this wonderful person, who is peeking at us through the lattice (Song 2:9) of scripture.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The more we explore it, the more it changes us. It changes our relationships with each other. Did the Holy Spirit ever argue with the Son? Did the Son ever reject the Father? Then why do we argue with each other(Gal 5:15)? Why do we posture for position (Mark 9:33, Luke 9:46), and receive one another for the purpose of passing judgment (Rom 14:1)? And why do we so quickly and easily lord it over each other (1 Pet 5:3)?

At some point we must ask ourselves whether the leaders at LSM have a relationship with God at all?

How can they sue their brothers, play politics like it was a cross word puzzle, wine and dine those who will give them a good report, back stab their brothers who stand up for morality and righteousness, use the bully pulpit for any suspected rival, misuse offerings for personal benefits, etc.

Yet they can hold endless trainings filled with esoteric and objective theology totally useless to most normal believers. They have perfected the objective theology of the experiential knowledge of God. Their teachings have successfully undermined any ability to personally follow the leading of the Shepherd.

Instead of discussing what is building up, we must ask what are they building up?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

At some point we must ask ourselves whether the leaders at LSM have a relationship with God at all?

I am not sure I want to attempt to judge anyone's relationship with God, or lack thereof. Who knows; I may be worse.

Rather, I would say that the powers running this present age of darkness love to hide themselves. They try to obscure their doings, so that we instead say "bad Lee; bad blendeds", and likewise the LSM'ers say "bitter anonymous internet writers", and so forth.

Everyone sees what a mess everyone else is, and they're at least partly right. But the forces running this world don't want you to notice what is behind the mess. God, however, wants to unmask these agents of hell, and to set us free from their patterns of deception (see e.g. Mark 5:9).

So I would ask, what force(s) got in between Lee and his faith in God? It's not ego, not self, not the old man. It is seen in these, but it lies deeper.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Instead of discussing what is building up, we must ask what are they building up?

This is a good and practical question. Remember that high tower they tried to build up in Genesis 11, which rose and rose until they became confounded with the altitude and started shouting nonsense at each other? Babble, with associated Confusion, Rancor and Scattering.

Later editions of the same tower, renamed as Babble-On, tried to use edicts (Rev 13:17) to hold the tottering mess together. They were afraid to fall, so they forced everyone to get branded and made them bring bricks to the building. If you don't get a brand and a brick you don't get to eat.

So you can see clear evidence of Fear, and Coercion. It's quite revealing: by their fruits these forces are indeed made known.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

A
Yet they can hold endless trainings filled with esoteric and objective theology totally useless to most normal believers. They have perfected the objective theology of the experiential knowledge of God. Their teachings have successfully undermined any ability to personally follow the leading of the Shepherd.

In other words, it has become more important to them to get the theory right than to have the experience.

Which means of course that their theory is wrong.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

At some point we must ask ourselves whether the leaders at LSM have a relationship with God at all?

How can they sue their brothers, play politics like it was a cross word puzzle, wine and dine those who will give them a good report, back stab their brothers who stand up for morality and righteousness, use the bully pulpit for any suspected rival, misuse offerings for personal benefits, etc.

Yet they can hold endless trainings filled with esoteric and objective theology totally useless to most normal believers. They have perfected the objective theology of the experiential knowledge of God. Their teachings have successfully undermined any ability to personally follow the leading of the Shepherd.

This hits the nail on the head! Talking about experiencing God is different than actually experiencing God. Over time it is easy to confuse the two and eventually equate talking about experiencing God with actually experiencing God.

So the Lord in His wisdom taught us to look at the fruit not just the talk. When we look at the fruit we see arrogance, pride, mistreatment of God's people, small-heartedness, lack of love, etc. And that tells all we need to know.