Open - Interactive Letter to The Co-Workers in The Lord's Recovery

[UntoHim]

This thread will serve as an open, interactive letter of sorts. It is "interactive" because it is expected that the brothers of the Living Stream Ministry, AKA "The Co-Workers in the Lord's Recovery", AKA "The Blended Brothers", will finally interact and open an honest line of communication with current and former Local Church members.

***Responses and retorts by the Local Church brothers will be presented and prominently displayed, unabridged and unedited here on this thread.***

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brothers, why do you now refer to Witness Lee as an apostle when he never referred to himself as an apostle? As a matter of fact, in a sworn deposition, under penalty of perjury, Witness Lee clearly denied that he considered himself as an apostle, and swore under oath that he asked his followers not to refer to himself as an apostle.

Many of us who sat at the feet of Witness Lee for decades can testify that we never heard him declare himself to be an apostle. In fact, on more than one occasion he publicly admonished us to not refer to him as an apostle. Many of us knew you brothers who now refer to yourselves as "Co-Workers in the Lord's Recovery" long before you became co-workers or employees of the Living Stream Ministry, and none of you brothers ever referred to Witness Lee as and apostle while he was alive. So what you brothers are doing is declaring Witness Lee to be an apostle posthumously. This is not biblical. This is not even logical. Nor does this align or comport with what has been taught and practiced among evangelical, orthodox Christians over the past 2,000+ years. Please explain your unbiblical stance before the brothers and sisters in the Local Churches, and to the rest of the Christian public.

You brothers have opined that "some have misguidedly demanded a list of apostles in the Lord’s recovery". No one is demanding anything. What we are doing is requesting that you do what the apostles Paul, Peter, John and many others did - Clearly state that they were apostles by name. It is altogether biblical and reasonable that those who exercise, enforce and reinforce apostolic authority (by appointing, disciplining and removing elders and conducting extra-local ministering and direction) be known by name. Why do you brothers feel that you are excused from this biblical mandate?

In your Site Introduction you brothers state: "Those who sincerely seek answers to questions can find them through genuine fellowship." Well, my brothers, "genuine fellowship" is not a one-way street. Genuine fellowship is not a monologue. The questions and contentions that have been posed here are not "rumors" or so-called "questionings". In the Declaration of Independence, the authors stated that "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." If you brothers have a decent respect for the rest of the members of the Body of Christ you must come to the table of open fellowship and make the same kind of declarations as founding fathers of the Christian church.
-

[ABrotherinFaith]

It seems their response is beginning. In the first 3 minutes Minoru distances himself and this message from any "official" relation to the LC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZF8...ature=youtu.be

[Nell]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

It seems their response is beginning. In the first 3 minutes Minoru distances himself and this message from any "official" relation to the LC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZF8...ature=youtu.be

I don’t think I’ve ever heard an acknowledgment that the rest of the world existed in any other context but “poor, degraded, Christianity.” I would be curious to know if they will open their coffers to help, even their own, financially as surely there is unemployment among those in the churches. In fact, this could be a litmus test to see if they truly have compassion on others.

Nell

[UntoHim]

"In the New Testament, among God’s people there is no unique, definite, official, or permanent leadership; such a leadership would be an insult to the unique headship of Christ"
Practicing the Church Life under the Unique Headship of Christ - 2010 ITERO Outline

"The Lord's Recovery does not have an official, permanent, organizational, or positional leader. The only leader in the Lord's recovery is Christ."
Witness Lee - Crucial Principles for the Christian Life and the Church Life

Brothers. Why do you continue to hold up Witness Lee as an apostle on the order of the apostle Paul? Witness Lee has been dead for almost 23 years now. Why do you brothers hold Lee up as the unique, definite, official and permanent leader? Please explain your actions and your standing to the brothers and sisters in the Local Churches, to former members, and to the rest of the Body of Christ.
-

[UntoHim]

Brothers,
Over the past couple of decades, since his passing, you brothers have ascribed to Witness Lee numerous apostolic titles, such as "The One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age", "Deputy Authority" and "Acting God". As you are well aware, none of these titles are found in the New Testament. Additionally, there is no biblical prophesy that God would raise up such a person(s) in post-canonical Christianity. As a matter of fact, church history has clearly demonstrated the dangers and damage that is wrought upon the church when such lofty titles of honor and authority are bestowed upon any man.

My dear brothers, the onus is on you to show that Witness Lee's claim that God only uses one man in any one "age" is biblical. The burden is on you to show how Witness Lee demonstrated that he was an apostle in the order of the apostle Paul, who was appointed directly by God as a gift to the Body of Christ. If you are going to hold up Witness Lee as such an apostle to the Body of Christ, it is your obligation to show that Lee clearly demonstrated the "signs and wonders and power" of apostleship, and not just to the sect/denomination/movement of the Local Church, but to the Body of Christ as a whole.
-

[UntoHim]

"In the New Testament, among God’s people there is no unique, definite, official, or permanent leadership; such a leadership would be an insult to the unique headship of Christ"
Practicing the Church Life under the Unique Headship of Christ - 2010 ITERO Outline
"The Lord's Recovery does not have an official, permanent, organizational, or positional leader. The only leader in the Lord's recovery is Christ."
Witness Lee - Crucial Principles for the Christian Life and the Church Life

Brothers,
Not long after Witness Lee's passing, a small group of brothers associated with the Living Stream Ministry, A California 501c(3) Corp owned by Lee, claimed to have been charged/authorized by Lee himself, shortly before his death, to take over the leadership of the LSM, and by extension, leadership and control of the Local Church movement.

No official document, signed by Witness Lee, expressing his desire that any man/men take over at the LSM, much less the Local Church movement, has ever been produced - only the specious claim that "notes of such a private meeting with Lee expressing his wishes" exist at LSM. After a few years, a small cadre of men unofficially proclaimed that they were "the Blended Brothers", and that all elders, co-workers and churches throughout "The Lord's Recovery" were to follow and submit to them. Any elder, co-worker or local church that was not fully cooperative was bad-mouthed and shunned at best, and in many cases were publicly and officially "quarantined", which for all rights and purposes is actually an insidious form of excommunication.

Recently, these same cadre of men, now enlarged and bolstered by a number of other men, all proteges promoted by the original group of Blended Brothers, have proclaimed themselves de facto apostles of the Local Churches/Lord's Recovery. While they do not use the actual term "apostles", they lay claim to have the authority to appoint, discipline and remove local church elders. They have also taken it upon themselves to exercise extra-local authority to minister to and set the direction of all Local Churches within the Lord's Recovery movement.

This "leadership" practiced by you brothers at the LSM sure seems to be "unique, definite, official, and permanent". Brothers, is there some overseer group or outside board (such is common with many para-church or non-profit entities) which is in place to protect from conflicts of interest, fraud and other forms of malfeasance? Brothers, this is 2020 America and not 1920 China - There are expectations, standards and guidelines that are to be followed, even by those who consider themselves "The Universal Government of God".
-

[UntoHim]

You "Co-Workers in the Lord's Recovery" have held yourselves out to being some sort of representatives of "The Universal Government of God". Presumably, you brothers feel you have inherited this mantle of authority from Witness Lee. I ask you again, where in the New Testament are there any prescriptive, or even descriptive, passages that show us that there would be such a continuation of the apostleship on the order of the original Scripture-writing apostles? What man or men have shown the "The signs of a true apostle ...with signs and wonders and mighty works"? (2 Cor 12:12) Who has demonstrated such signs, wonders and mighty works to the Body of Christ in toto, and not just in the confines of a sect or movement in which the supposed "apostle" is exercising his irresistible will against a captive audience of fanatically loyal and decidedly myopic followers of his person and work?
-

[UntoHim]

"In the New Testament, among God’s people there is no unique, definite, official, or permanent leadership; such a leadership would be an insult to the unique headship of Christ"
Practicing the Church Life under the Unique Headship of Christ - 2010 ITERO Outline
"The Lord's Recovery does not have an official, permanent, organizational, or positional leader. The only leader in the Lord's recovery is Christ."
Witness Lee - Crucial Principles for the Christian Life and the Church Life

Many of us who sat at the feet of Witness Lee for decades can testify that we never heard him declare himself to be an apostle. In fact, on more than one occasion he publicly taught us to not refer to him as an apostle. Many of us knew you brothers who now refer to yourselves as "Co-Workers in the Lord's Recovery" long before you became co-workers or employees of the Living Stream Ministry, and none of you brothers ever referred to Witness Lee as and apostle while he was alive. So what you brothers are doing is declaring Witness Lee to be an apostle posthumously. This is not biblical. This is not even logical. Nor does this align or comport with what has been taught and practiced among evangelical, orthodox Christians over the past 2,000+ years. Please explain your unbiblical stance before the brothers and sisters in the Local Churches, and to the rest of the Christian public.
-

[Raptor]

I saw a video on YouTube (can´t find it) about a year ago or so where WL spoke to FTTA trainees. The first part of the video was actually quite good, describing how to go to the word and how to look to the Lord to get light and His shining on the word.

But then around mid-way or so, he changed topics to the matter of how God used one minister in every age to accomplish His move for that age. And he kept talking about it and giving examples, like Noah, etc. Of course he never said I am the MOTA now, but he just put all the pieces there so that you would inevitably come up with that conclusion yourself.

Wish I could find the video.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Raptor

I saw a video on YouTube (can´t find it) about a year ago or so where WL spoke to FTTA trainees. The first part of the video was actually quite good, describing how to go to the word and how to look to the Lord to get light and His shining on the word.

But then around mid-way or so, he changed topics to the matter of how God used one minister in every age to accomplish His move for that age. And he kept talking about it and giving examples, like Noah, etc. Of course he never said I am the MOTA now, but he just put all the pieces there so that you would inevitably come up with that conclusion yourself.

Wish I could find the video.

That's essentially what's going on in The Vision of the Age book too. Lee traces through the "ministers of the age" and then at a certain point says something like "I'm not tooting my own horn here, but....."

And then he paints a nice little portrait of himself as the minister of the age without explicitly stating it.

There are leading brothers who take the stance that Witness Lee was so pure and humble, and it's the blended brothers who have exalted him too far. That one book alone flies in the face of that stance. WL exalted HIMSELF too far.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I ask you again, where in the New Testament are there any prescriptive, or even descriptive, passages that show us that there would be such a continuation of the apostleship on the order of the original Scripture-writing apostles?

One the one hand there's "the Lord gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers" from Paul in Ephesians 4, which seems to indicate an 'office' or 'role' that must be filled by an actual, living breathing human being. Apostolic wanna-be's have clung to this verse as their raison d'etre for decades, generations even.

However, Paul also says that he is "apostle to the gentiles" even as Peter is "apostle to the circumcision". Until we colonize Mars or Saturn, and find ungospelised inhabitants, the need for apostles as Paul and Peter were, to the gentile and Jew, is over.

The Lord picked twelve, the twelve gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul. Notice that the eleven drew lots when Judas departed, to replace his office ("let his office be taken by another") but when James died by the sword they didn't. Because the office was already taken. The quota was filled.

Also of note for all would-be MOTAs or MOTA-trumpeters... if you want to be great, be the least. Don't declare yourself MOTA, or hint to your followers that you just might be The Man. Jesus was that person, and God raised him from the dead, furnishing proof to all. Any others who presume such pride of place before the Bema, are being self-deceived, and in turn deceiving others.

[Boxjobox]

I was looking recently at the web site for the church in San Diego and noticed in the Meeting section two directional notes concerning meeting during the Covid pandemic. One was from “The North American Coworkers” to the “Dear responsible brothers of the North American Churches” and the other from “ The coworkers in the Lords Recovery” to “ all The dear saints in all the churches in the Lords Recovery”.

Who are these North American coworkers, and who are the coworkers in the Lords Recovery. Has the LC system adopted a form of Bishops, Arch Bishops, Cardinals and maybe even Pope.

I see no names mentioned, and I assume all of this started after the death of Lee. My curiosity is is there a pecking order, how are they elevated to such positions, is it written or contracted that an LC must be subservient to these anonymous people? They now seem to use the term responsible brothers in place of elders- is this a new development? How exactly does this North American coworkers and coworkers in the Recovery work? Are they elected, is there a ladder to climb, does the North American answer to the recovery coworkers? Do all have LSM non profit corporation affiliation?
I can kind of see safety in not naming names- you don’t want a name to gain recognition and then have to erase it from appearing if the person leaves such as the John Ingals case.
But putting a name identifies a person and persons and holds accountability.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I was looking recently at the web site for the church in San Diego and noticed in the Meeting section two directional notes concerning meeting during the Covid pandemic. One was from “The North American Coworkers” to the “Dear responsible brothers of the North American Churches” and the other from “ The coworkers in the Lords Recovery” to “ all The dear saints in all the churches in the Lords Recovery”.

Who are these North American coworkers, and who are the coworkers in the Lords Recovery. Has the LC system adopted a form of Bishops, Arch Bishops, Cardinals and maybe even Pope.

I see no names mentioned, and I assume all of this started after the death of Lee. My curiosity is is there a pecking order, how are they elevated to such positions, is it written or contracted that an LC must be subservient to these anonymous people? They now seem to use the term responsible brothers in place of elders- is this a new development? How exactly does this North American coworkers and coworkers in the Recovery work? Are they elected, is there a ladder to climb, does the North American answer to the recovery coworkers? Do all have LSM non profit corporation affiliation?
I can kind of see safety in not naming names- you don’t want a name to gain recognition and then have to erase it from appearing if the person leaves such as the John Ingals case.
But putting a name identifies a person and persons and holds accountability.

In this non-hierarchical organic move of God, below is the general hierarchy as I understand it. For the most part it seems to be subsets within subsets as you get higher in the pyramid.

This may be a little outdated, I'm not sure.

1. Co-workers in the Lord's recovery - cover the whole world
>>a. Senior co-workers
>>b. Junior co-workers
2. North America co-workers - includes some regional co-workers, deals only with N.A.
3. Regional co-workers - cover various regions in the U.S., some of whom are North America co-workers, some of whom are not but are elders.
4. Elders in each locality.
5. Responsible brothers in each locality (includes both elders as well as the brothers under them, say, who head up various services in the church, or various district meetings, or handle the HWMR sharing, etc).
6. All the other brothers.
7. All sisters, no matter the age, maturity, responsibility, weightiness, expertise, etc.

7 is a little tongue in cheek, but not really far off from reality as I have observed it.

#nohierarchy

Yes, the ones above do "consider" and "fellowship about" and "notice" and "select" various ones below them to be "brought in" to the next level of fellowship. There is extreme subservience from the "new" or "junior" ones who were just brought in, even if AARP would consider them a senior citizen.

It's not written or contracted that an LC must be subservient to these anonymous people, but when they blow into town, boy you'd better believe the brown-nosing revs up real fast. This is often where the beloved brothers turn into bullies, as they fall in line with the bullying that the previously nameless co-workers who came into town make them carry out.

No, not all of them in the 3 top co-workers rings have LSM affiliation. I believe it is accurate to say that all LSM board members are co-workers, but not all co-workers are LSM board members. If "all" is too much, then 99% will cover it.

This means, for the record, that when the co-workers make a decision, it BY DEFAULT means that LSM has also made a decision, since all LSM board members are co-workers. It's a complete conflict of interest, mixing church and business, appearance of evil, mess.

The not naming names thing is not some humble move. It's totally to avoid accountability and to make it easier to make people disappear and whitewash the tomb over again as if their dead bones aren't inside.

[Boxjobox]

Thanks Trapped.

Do we know the purpose of the Anaheim Palms Telecom Center LLC?

Linked entities to LSM
Raymond J. Graver
Living Stream
Andrew Yu
Kerry Robichaux
Edward Marks
Ronald Kangas
Richard Scatterday
James Miller
Anaheim Palms Telecom Center, LLC
The Church In Irving
Benson Phillips
Hackberry Creek Getaways, LLC
Global American English School
The Church In San Francisco

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Thanks Trapped.

Do we know the purpose of the Anaheim Palms Telecom Center LLC?

The APTC, LLC 2004 initial corporation filings (articles of organization with the secretary of state) indicate "asset management". Name of initial agent or organizer was Laurence Tolmie. I've personally never heard that name.

In 2016 a statement of information filed with the secretary of state describes it as "data center", and Laurence Tolmie is described as "president". Curt Kennard is listed as a manager. Kerry Robichaux, Michael Jones, and Yorke Warden are also listed as managers.

(Curt is a co-worker and on the board of LSM. Kerry is a co-worker and LSM board. Yorke is LSM board, not sure about co-worker. Not sure about Michael Jones at all.)

What comes to mind when thinking of APTC is a vague recall from when the La Palma property was being purchased decades ago. One of the big "God has blessed us" selling points they announced at the live trainings was not only its immediate proximity to a main freeway in southern California, but also some massive bundle of fiberoptic cables (or something similar) that apparently landed somewhere right at the property. Like the "information superhighway" was right there. That's my guess as to what it's about, but it's just conjecture.

Edit: Ah. It's a DBA. It's LSM doing business as APTC.

1. Go to this link: http://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/.../Documents.htm
2. You can see at the very top it's LSM dba APTC.
3. According to the three links it does look like the LSM property owns the fiberoptic cables and is leasing their access out to the city of Anaheim.

If I recall correctly, they may have created a number of companies due to the complexity of the LSM property, etc, one of the companies probably being in order to act as landlord for the property as a whole. They used to lease out some of the other buildings to colleges, etc.

Hackberry Creek Getaways is apparently related to Benson Phillips' son, Ben. It seems Ben and his wife Anna own it or run it. Not sure why it should be related to LSM AT ALL. Edit again: I looked it up. Benson and his wife, plus Ben and his wife, are all managers of it. Still not sure why it should be related to LSM though.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I was looking recently at the web site for the church in San Diego and noticed in the Meeting section two directional notes concerning meeting during the Covid pandemic. One was from “The North American Coworkers” to the “Dear responsible brothers of the North American Churches” and the other from “ The coworkers in the Lords Recovery” to “ all The dear saints in all the churches in the Lords Recovery”.

Who are these North American coworkers, and who are the coworkers in the Lords Recovery. Has the LC system adopted a form of Bishops, Arch Bishops, Cardinals and maybe even Pope.

I see no names mentioned, and I assume all of this started after the death of Lee. My curiosity is is there a pecking order, how are they elevated to such positions, is it written or contracted that an LC must be subservient to these anonymous people? They now seem to use the term responsible brothers in place of elders- is this a new development? How exactly does this North American coworkers and coworkers in the Recovery work? Are they elected, is there a ladder to climb, does the North American answer to the recovery coworkers? Do all have LSM non profit corporation affiliation?
I can kind of see safety in not naming names- you don’t want a name to gain recognition and then have to erase it from appearing if the person leaves such as the John Ingals case.
But putting a name identifies a person and persons and holds accountability.

It did not start after the death of Lee. Have you read the account of Don Rutledge?

Back in 1978 a little blue pamphlet came out titled, "The Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches," put out by "the Co-workers in the Lord's Recovery."

I still have a couple of those. Many brothers at the time, including Don, wondered who these nameless brothers were. Who was now deciding what were the "proper" beliefs and practices of all local churches, other than the Bible and the Spirit of God?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It did not start after the death of Lee. Have you read the account of Don Rutledge?

Back in 1978 a little blue pamphlet came out titled, "The Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches," put out by "the Co-workers in the Lord's Recovery."

I still have a couple of those. Many brothers at the time, including Don, wondered who these nameless brothers were. Who was now deciding what were the "proper" beliefs and practices of all local churches, other than the Bible and the Spirit of God?

I do recall that pamphlet and kind of even remember some grumbling about it. I think I too have a couple of copies. I don’t recall it staying around as an important thing.
It seems LSM has really walled themselves in; their premise is that all light the scripture could offer is to be found only in LSM material, which is WL and WN writings or in case of WL audio and video. Anything apart from that is of no real value. They seem to constantly repackage the same material. So, if after, let’s say the past 50 years, the saints have read all the LSM material and constantly reinforced it in their various meetings and conferences and trainings, why would LSM even be necessary? Shouldn’t everyone have been enlightened, straightened out, constituted, or whatever one would want to say so that the average little saint has no need of anything else than Just the Bible and the Spirit. Shouldn’t the saints be so clear about all biblical matters so that they would all do the work of propagating this great enlightenment? Any new ones should just fall into the hands of the enlightened saints that are so perfectly practicing the NT economy and Gods eternal purpose, and so filled with the Spirit that there is on longer any need for LSM to repackage the same stuff. It seems by now, LSM would be a useless entity to the local churches. But instead, it seems LSM is now replacing the Bible and Spirit and it appears the headship of Christ and the God given local overseers. I don’t recall in any WN writings the need for such an all encompassing extra-scriptural entity. I don’t recall seeing it set up in the NT either. How do the LCs and the saints not react to this? If no one can question the validity of LSM because they have set themselves up as the only clear speaking concerning the Bible, what will happen in 20 or 30 more years with their marketing plan? How often does one need to repurchase the same material or hear a different voice say the same things? If the business/ government they have set up failsdoes that mean a return to the dark ages?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I do recall that pamphlet and kind of even remember some grumbling about it. I think I too have a couple of copies. I don’t recall it staying around as an important thing.

Before the Midwest LC's were quarantined and divided by LSM/DCP operatives (~2002 to 2004 in the year of our Lord Jesus) every Midwest LC had new copies of that booklet circulated to remind us of the liberties we once enjoyed in the Recovery, and how things had radically changed.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Before the Midwest LC's were quarantined and divided by LSM/DCP operatives (~2002 to 2004 in the year of our Lord Jesus) every Midwest LC had new copies of that booklet circulated to remind us of the liberties we once enjoyed in the Recovery, and how things had radically changed.

I still have a copy of the LA Times that riled up WL, concerning the mindbenders. There was going to be a big church meeting in Anaheim where reporters would come to observe and a lot of us from San Diego went to support- you know- large numbers impress. At that meeting, I remember the elders calling old Christian hymns one after another so the wild saints would not have a chance to shout out lines or give the Oh Lord Jesus, or any of the typical LC performances. Then WL gave a nice Christian message, then a few leading ones gave a couple of nice testimonials, then the meeting was over. The impression they wanted to give reporters was that we were just average dear Christians. That was one of the first times I started to see the phoniness, and made a strong mental note of it.

I also still have a copy of the deposition WL gave- just a little bible preacher. It was shortly after that that he really started turning on the deputy authority thing and going after the malcontents.

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I still have a copy of the LA Times that riled up WL, concerning the mindbenders....I also still have a copy of the deposition WL gave- just a little bible preacher.

Boxjobox referenced some documents that interest me. Does anyone know where these can be found online?

P.S.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

Boxjobox referenced some documents that interest me. Does anyone know where these can be found online?

P.S.

I think the deposition was posted here or on the old Bereans site.

The "tract wars" between WL and the Bible Answer Man were published in the Orange County Register.

If I find anything I'll let you know. I've thrown so much away.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Yes, the ones above do "consider" and "fellowship about" and "notice" and "select" various ones below them to be "brought in" to the next level of fellowship. There is extreme subservience from the "new" or "junior" ones who were just brought in, even if AARP would consider them a senior citizen.

It's not written or contracted that an LC must be subservient to these anonymous people, but when they blow into town, boy you'd better believe the brown-nosing revs up real fast. This is often where the beloved brothers turn into bullies, as they fall in line with the bullying that the previously nameless co-workers who came into town make them carry out.

This means, for the record, that when the co-workers make a decision, it BY DEFAULT means that LSM has also made a decision, since all LSM board members are co-workers. It's a complete conflict of interest, mixing church and business, appearance of evil, mess.

The not naming names thing is not some humble move. It's totally to avoid accountability and to make it easier to make people disappear and whitewash the tomb over again as if their dead bones aren't inside.

I've experienced this. They constantly say there's no position or hierarchy in the church, but like you said when a "high up" level coworker comes to your locality and speaks the entire atmosphere changes and they look at this speaking or "blending" brother with a air of reverence. It's bizarre. I've seen this happen many times and I've been caught up in it myself too. I remember once when Ed Marks stopped by our locality to do a speaking I was in awe of him. I did feel like he had a lot of Christ, but at the same time I caught myself kind of revering him like you would a celebrity and looking back that was strange that I and others had that type of behavior and atmosphere. He was treated like a king

Another time there was a brothers meeting and an elder in a locality was absolutely bashing another brother who had visited their locality (he wasn't a coworker or speaking brother, he was just visiting because he was considering moving there). This brother was recently divorced and the elder was just full of venom against this guy. And I knew this guy personally and the divorce was extremely hard on him. So not only was it not fair how the elder was talking about this guy, but the whole atmosphere was just so fleshly and like a klan rally almost. It was super bizarre. What the brothers do and talk about behind closed doors or in their little elder meetings and important brother meetings is very different from how they present themselves to the general church body

Once more I remember listening to a recording of Brother Lee speaking in a elders and coworker meeting and I'd never heard him so much in his flesh than on that tape. We all have our flesh and can get fleshly if we're not careful, but the way he was talking was like that's how they always do it. I remember he was bashing the American culture and character and uplifting the Chinese character in this tape. He was all like "The American character is too too poor, but the Chinese are so superior and they are fine and detailed and deep and etc." and was just so full of pride it was wild

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Nell

I don’t think I’ve ever heard an acknowledgment that the rest of the world existed in any other context but “poor, degraded, Christianity.” I would be curious to know if they will open their coffers to help, even their own, financially as surely there is unemployment among those in the churches. In fact, this could be a litmus test to see if they truly have compassion on others.

Nell

I have two stories about this topic. Regarding two different brothers in one particular locality. The first brother came in from the world and was more or less very much seeking God. His name is Eric. He got baptized with us, he would stand up and prophecy, and he came to home meetings from time to time. We all knew him, knew his name, and he was a pretty nice guy who was fairly social and easy to get along with. Well he ran into some trouble with his roommate who ended up kicking him out and he was living in his work van. It was really rough on him. In his past he made some large mistakes and he did a little bit of jail time. He told me in great detail what those mistakes were, and how they happened. He was a foster child and he had been abused in the foster care system. His mistakes were not in cold blood but he paid his debt to society for them. I knew this guy personally, he rode in my car several times, I was with him in prayer meetings, and he was just always around the church for that year or so he met with us

Well his roommate was abusing his son, not Eric's son, but the rommate's son. And Eric basically beat him up for it. And the roommate kicked him out. That's how Eric became homeless. Anyway, Eric's fault was that he was too open about his past and it scared some people in this locality. I have been through a lot in my life, like a LOT, so for me to hear his stories was not incredbly shocking. And I believed him. I can usually tell when someone's lying. Eric has a good heart, but he has been thrown into a lot of messed up scenarios in his life. Anyway, Eric's mistake was that he was reaching out and yearning for shepherding and he needed a counselor to talk to and dump his problems onto. All he knew to do was to give it all up to the church. But it backfired because when he went homeless the church just turned their back on him

At one point I was in a prayer meeting with some elder brothers, right before a gospel preaching with Bibles for America. Well Eric called one of the brothers on the phone during this meeting and asked for help so he wouldn't be homeless anymore. The brother essentially just passed the buck onto someone else and recommended Eric to call a brother from a close by locality who may have had a room open for him. This seemed ok, but when this older brother got off the phone he goes "we are not a salvation Army" and laughed it off. I was really upset about that and it still sticks with me to this day

Eric was calling around to all the saints and asking for help and everyone just ignored him and let him continue to be homeless. And they went on with the church meetings and praising God and calling on the Lord joyfully like nothing at all had happened. They didn't seem to care at all about Eric's problems. They only liked him when he was sitting at their table and when he would come to meetings. But when he needed real help they just ignored him and acted like he never existed. When Eric was fresh and new and getting baptized everyone was shouting and praising God, and everyone said "AMEN" with extra emphasis when Eric would stand up to prophesy. But the moment he ran into trouble and had a need everyone turned their back on him. As far as I know no one helped him financially at all. It's possible someone helped him behind the scenes, but as far as I know nobody did anything for him

The second story is in the same locality. A brother who is disabled but couldn't get help from the state went to the elders and leading brothers to ask for financial help. They basically just deflected him back to the world and told him to keep trying to get help in the world. He had been applying for disability for over a decade and kept getting rejected. He had been trying to work several jobs and go to school and he kept having mental breakdowns until he just totally stopped trying because he didn't want to have anymore breakdowns. The brothers essentially just told him to keep trying and said they wouldn't help him. And yet LSM has millions of dollars to buy land for their full timers, trainees, and to purchase million dollar plots of land to bury their elite members

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Raptor

I saw a video on YouTube (can´t find it) about a year ago or so where WL spoke to FTTA trainees. The first part of the video was actually quite good, describing how to go to the word and how to look to the Lord to get light and His shining on the word.

But then around mid-way or so, he changed topics to the matter of how God used one minister in every age to accomplish His move for that age. And he kept talking about it and giving examples, like Noah, etc. Of course he never said I am the MOTA now, but he just put all the pieces there so that you would inevitably come up with that conclusion yourself.

Wish I could find the video.

What's funny is that if you actually read the Bible there are many instances of God using two or three people to accomplish something, not just one person. He even uses women at certain times, when men are too weak to take the lead or too wrong to be chosen by God. And many times God also comes in and deals with rulers or leaders who have become corrupted. Also there isn't really any words on "deputy authority" per se, or lifelong position and authority for any "speaker of the age." Not that I can see in my Bible. It stands to reason that if a leader is wrong or corrupted or makes some type of huge mistake or sin that harms the congregation that he should step down and depending on the error it may need to be exposed to the local government

There is a sister who had a testimony about one of her friends being sexually assaulted by a leading brother who was heading up the young people's work. That brother was not quarantined, that brother was not excommunicated, and they "covered" him, which really they just did a cover up of his crime. That sister was told that the brother would be removed from his position over the young people, but it turns out it never actually happened. This is extremely dangerous, and from her letter (it can be found here- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...Ci4/edit?pli=1), it says that several years later she found out that this offending brother was still a leader of the young people. This is where the "covering brothers" become complicit in a crime. That brother should have been turned over to the law in addition to being excommunicated, but he wasn't. I'm sure it was due to his being in good with the high up brothers in that church. Anyway she also said that church had a meeting about her, and the letter she wrote exposing the offending brother and they called her a rebel and said she wouldn't be an overcomer. Just horrible

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Jay

I've experienced this. They constantly say there's no position or hierarchy in the church, but like you said when a "high up" level coworker comes to your locality and speaks the entire atmosphere changes and they look at this speaking or "blending" brother with a air of reverence. It's bizarre. I've seen this happen many times and I've been caught up in it myself too. I remember once when Ed Marks stopped by our locality to do a speaking I was in awe of him. I did feel like he had a lot of Christ, but at the same time I caught myself kind of revering him like you would a celebrity and looking back that was strange that I and others had that type of behavior and atmosphere. He was treated like a king

Another time there was a brothers meeting and an elder in a locality was absolutely bashing another brother who had visited their locality (he wasn't a coworker or speaking brother, he was just visiting because he was considering moving there). This brother was recently divorced and the elder was just full of venom against this guy. And I knew this guy personally and the divorce was extremely hard on him. So not only was it not fair how the elder was talking about this guy, but the whole atmosphere was just so fleshly and like a klan rally almost. It was super bizarre. What the brothers do and talk about behind closed doors or in their little elder meetings and important brother meetings is very different from how they present themselves to the general church body

Once more I remember listening to a recording of Brother Lee speaking in a elders and coworker meeting and I'd never heard him so much in his flesh than on that tape. We all have our flesh and can get fleshly if we're not careful, but the way he was talking was like that's how they always do it. I remember he was bashing the American culture and character and uplifting the Chinese character in this tape. He was all like "The American character is too too poor, but the Chinese are so superior and they are fine and detailed and deep and etc." and was just so full of pride it was wild

Jay,

I’ve been reading your posts for the past few days and I’m not sure if you realize it, but you’ve painted quite a picture. Taking your 30+ posts together, you have described the local churches like this:

1. preaches a “minister of the age” doctrine which isn’t backed up by the Bible
2. covers and protects sexual perpetrators/criminals and destroys the reputation of those who speak up
3. leaders who laugh when turning away those in need (homeless member of the church)
4. members who praise God and call on the Lord joyfully while ignoring the homeless brother
5. leaders who refuse to help a disabled/needy member when the headquarters have bountiful millions of dollars at their disposal
6. double-speak that there is no hierarchy when there definitely is
7. leaders venomously bashing a depressed divorced man
8. the top leader fleshly bashing the character of people based on country of origin
9. top leader potentially plagiarized others’ works giving general credit but not specific
10. delegated authority teaching being problematic
11. speaking against clergy-laity while having what is in practice elders who are like a special class of people
12. judgmental of genuine believers in denominations while hypocritically ignoring own behavior/son
13. top leader being a poor example in “dissing the denominations”
14. prevailing belief that those in recovery are more special than other believers
15. cult-like homogenous thinking, mantras and maxims that are not really biblical in nature
16. being cult-like in telling people they will die by the hand of God if they leave, and that leaving is rebellion
17. members being told not to go online to read about ‘storms’ so they never get the real details
18. appointing unworthy sons to high positions who misused those positions to abuse others
19. top leaders getting away with protecting immorality because they are revered to almost a deity status, ruining lives
20. False application of the story of Noah and his sons in order to protect criminal behavior and sexual predation
21. top leader misusing his position, and those under him being complicit
22. revere of top leader as if he is a king
23. doctrine being used as a scapegoat for things, to brainwash people into being automatons and live robotic lives
24. treating poor people without love
25. top leader taking money from members and his subordinates hiding his involvement in it, no apology ever issued, no admission to this day
26. top leader gaslighting, leadership above criticism when it does something wrong
27. leadership lying to the members saying they are trying to protect them from dissent and rebellion when they are really trying to cover up serious allegations

All of this is what you described or concluded. What a pit of garbage the local churches are!

Yes, I know the common response is “the churches in the Bible are filled with problems” or “no church is perfect”, but let’s stop and think for a minute. Those who behaved this way in the Bible were called out, rebuked, and driven out if they did not genuinely repent and change. But in the local church, this is the behavior that is continually propagated, and those who rebuke it are the ones who have to leave the cesspool in order to take care of their conscience!

The local church is not the church. The local church is what the genuine church has to depart from!

The problem comes from the top, dead and decayed Witness Lee, and gets replicated down to the co-workers and then to the local elders who obey the ministry, on down. It is what has marked and characterized the local churches for what…..75 years? The entire system has been called out and warned and admonished and rebuked over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, and yet those who should be driven out continue to remain in control and in darkness.

God does not remain in a place like that. Yes, God can save anyone, and yes God continues to love everyone and desires that no man perish. But when a situation of sewage like this continues on unabated, and where sin and lies and evil and falsehoods are continuously DEFENDED, God gives people up to their own desires to slip around in their own filth and vomit. I’m thrilled that you are willing to be honest in describing so many of the problems in the local church. But consider all those problems and arrive at the right conclusion about them! Please rethink your stance that the local churches are somehow definitely what God is doing on the earth today. They are some of the furthest things from it.

I’m being strong in my tone because behind all these 27 points I see the suffering of all the real human beings who have been destroyed by those who stand on stage as “God’s delegated representatives” in the Lord’s recovery, who are not God’s deputy authority at all, but are really just sons of their father, the devil.

You have mentioned a few times that the doctrines are biblically sound and essentially impenetrable. Have you come across any of the videos on the youtube channel “The Lord’s Recovery Unchained”? There are videos on God’s economy, the ground of oneness, and numerous others in which Lee’s teachings are tested against the Word, and Lee comes out short over and over. I think I listened to them on 1.5 speed because some are a bit slow, but if you are willing to hear some disagreement with the doctrines while looking at the Bible, I would recommend them.

Trapped

[TheStarswillFall]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Jay,
I’ve been reading your posts for the past few days and I’m not sure if you realize it, but you’ve painted quite a picture. Taking your 30+ posts together, you have described the local churches like this:
1. preaches a “minister of the age” doctrine which isn’t backed up by the Bible
2. covers and protects sexual perpetrators/criminals and destroys the reputation of those who speak up.............................
All of this is what you described or concluded.

O voice of reason. Thank you for taking the time to mine out these "crucial points"
Gives an excellent "bird's eye view"
Anyone to PSRP these 27 points with me?
Then we can all prophesy!

Originally Posted by Trapped

You have mentioned a few times that the doctrines are biblically sound and essentially impenetrable. Have you come across any of the videos on the youtube channel “The Lord’s Recovery Unchained”? There are videos on God’s economy, the ground of oneness, and numerous others in which Lee’s teachings are tested against the Word, and Lee comes out short over and over... but if you are willing to hear some disagreement with the doctrines while looking at the Bible, I would recommend them.

The Lord’s Recovery Unchained youtube channel has been a bit of an oasis to me.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Jay,
I’ve been reading your posts for the past few days and I’m not sure if you realize it, but you’ve painted quite a picture. Taking your 30+ posts together, you have described the local churches like this:
1. preaches a “minister of the age” doctrine which isn’t backed up by the Bible
2. covers and protects sexual perpetrators/criminals and destroys the reputation of those who speak up....................
I’m being strong in my tone because behind all these 27 points I see the suffering of all the real human beings who have been destroyed by those who stand on stage as “God’s delegated representatives” in the Lord’s recovery, who are not God’s deputy authority at all, but are really just sons of their father, the devil.

Can someone please give this bro a real bullhorn, so he can sound the reality check trumpet worldwide? I concur with this assessment, and reading some things in the last couple days here, took me back to the training sessions where the spin is so lethal that unless you see the web that’s being built there, you will fall in it all over again!

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Jay,

I’ve been reading your posts for the past few days and I’m not sure if you realize it, but you’ve painted quite a picture. Taking your 30+ posts together, you have described the local churches like this:

1. preaches a “minister of the age” doctrine which isn’t backed up by the Bible
2. covers and protects sexual perpetrators/criminals and destroys the reputation of those who speak up
3. leaders who laugh when turning away those in need (homeless member of the church)
4. members who praise God and call on the Lord joyfully while ignoring the homeless brother
5. leaders who refuse to help a disabled/needy member when the headquarters have bountiful millions of dollars at their disposal
6. double-speak that there is no hierarchy when there definitely is
7. leaders venomously bashing a depressed divorced man
8. the top leader fleshly bashing the character of people based on country of origin
9. top leader potentially plagiarized others’ works giving general credit but not specific
10. delegated authority teaching being problematic
11. speaking against clergy-laity while having what is in practice elders who are like a special class of people
12. judgmental of genuine believers in denominations while hypocritically ignoring own behavior/son
13. top leader being a poor example in “dissing the denominations”
14. prevailing belief that those in recovery are more special than other believers
15. cult-like homogenous thinking, mantras and maxims that are not really biblical in nature
16. being cult-like in telling people they will die by the hand of God if they leave, and that leaving is rebellion
17. members being told not to go online to read about ‘storms’ so they never get the real details
18. appointing unworthy sons to high positions who misused those positions to abuse others
19. top leaders getting away with protecting immorality because they are revered to almost a deity status, ruining lives
20. False application of the story of Noah and his sons in order to protect criminal behavior and sexual predation
21. top leader misusing his position, and those under him being complicit
22. revere of top leader as if he is a king
23. doctrine being used as a scapegoat for things, to brainwash people into being automatons and live robotic lives
24. treating poor people without love
25. top leader taking money from members and his subordinates hiding his involvement in it, no apology ever issued, no admission to this day
26. top leader gaslighting, leadership above criticism when it does something wrong
27. leadership lying to the members saying they are trying to protect them from dissent and rebellion when they are really trying to cover up serious allegations

All of this is what you described or concluded. What a pit of garbage the local churches are!

Yes, I know the common response is “the churches in the Bible are filled with problems” or “no church is perfect”, but let’s stop and think for a minute. Those who behaved this way in the Bible were called out, rebuked, and driven out if they did not genuinely repent and change. But in the local church, this is the behavior that is continually propagated, and those who rebuke it are the ones who have to leave the cesspool in order to take care of their conscience!

The local church is not the church. The local church is what the genuine church has to depart from!

The problem comes from the top, dead and decayed Witness Lee, and gets replicated down to the co-workers and then to the local elders who obey the ministry, on down. It is what has marked and characterized the local churches for what…..75 years? The entire system has been called out and warned and admonished and rebuked over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, and yet those who should be driven out continue to remain in control and in darkness.

God does not remain in a place like that. Yes, God can save anyone, and yes God continues to love everyone and desires that no man perish. But when a situation of sewage like this continues on unabated, and where sin and lies and evil and falsehoods are continuously DEFENDED, God gives people up to their own desires to slip around in their own filth and vomit. I’m thrilled that you are willing to be honest in describing so many of the problems in the local church. But consider all those problems and arrive at the right conclusion about them! Please rethink your stance that the local churches are somehow definitely what God is doing on the earth today. They are some of the furthest things from it.

I’m being strong in my tone because behind all these 27 points I see the suffering of all the real human beings who have been destroyed by those who stand on stage as “God’s delegated representatives” in the Lord’s recovery, who are not God’s deputy authority at all, but are really just sons of their father, the devil.

You have mentioned a few times that the doctrines are biblically sound and essentially impenetrable. Have you come across any of the videos on the youtube channel “The Lord’s Recovery Unchained”? There are videos on God’s economy, the ground of oneness, and numerous others in which Lee’s teachings are tested against the Word, and Lee comes out short over and over. I think I listened to them on 1.5 speed because some are a bit slow, but if you are willing to hear some disagreement with the doctrines while looking at the Bible, I would recommend them.

Trapped

Good assessment I suppose

"God does not remain in a place like that" - could be true. or like Lee always says "There's always the remnant. Not all in the local churches will be overcomers." But then that would lend to plausible deniability to not deal with the major problems, which it doesn't sound like they are. And I agree with you that they should. But how do you deal with the main guy who started the whole thing, is highly revered, and literally owns the LLC of the incorporation? Also if they publicly outed him wouldn't the entire thing become defunct? Or maybe it would still stand who knows? All food for thought, you're right

As far as I know the doctrines are all biblical. I'll check out that channel though thanks

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

But consider all those problems and arrive at the right conclusion about them! Please rethink your stance that the local churches are somehow definitely what God is doing on the earth today. They are some of the furthest things from it.


Trapped

Doctrinally speaking I have a hard time believing that there is anything else. I do believe God wants to get his bride, this is seen in Revelation. How could he get his bride if there's not a corporate people being built up together in his life? I do believe that the local church idea is biblical. And I believe that Christianity is degraded. So the concept of a recovery is biblically correct. It makes sense. But you're right about the other stuff. If leadership is wrong it stands to reason that those particular leaders shouldn't be allowed to continue in their position

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Jay,



You have mentioned a few times that the doctrines are biblically sound and essentially impenetrable. Have you come across any of the videos on the youtube channel “The Lord’s Recovery Unchained”? There are videos on God’s economy, the ground of oneness, and numerous others in which Lee’s teachings are tested against the Word, and Lee comes out short over and over. I think I listened to them on 1.5 speed because some are a bit slow, but if you are willing to hear some disagreement with the doctrines while looking at the Bible, I would recommend them.

Trapped

I just watched about a third of his video questioning the local church ground, it's entitled "Is the Lord's recovery right about the ground of the church?"

I can't agree with him, I don't think he's correct. He's actually conflating the genuine ground of oneness and the ground of the church. Those are two separate things. His main argument is that the ground of the church is not necessary because the ground of oneness is all that's needed according to his estimation of the Bible. However this isn't fundamentally sound if we look at the what the Bible actually says and what the Bible actually practiced. Deuteronomy 12:11 says that we do not have a choice where we meet, it's wholly up to God, and we have to go where his choice is. Otherwise we are in the principle of division. This one verse alone blows the denominations out of the water because they are in the principle of division. They are separatists who separate themselves based on disagreements in doctrine and practices. They are by default not one, and they themselves would probably even tell you that they can't be one with Christians they don't agree with or share similar practices with

He sidesteps the necessity for a ground of the church in leu of his concept that all is needed is simply metaphysical or spiritual oneness. This is pretty subtle, but the affects are large. To disregard the grounds of the church is very very serious and undermining to God's blueprint in the word

But we don't have to go that deep. It's rather silly to conflate the ground of oneness with the ground of the church. One is a spiritual matter that all believers share in a metaphysical sense as long as they are within the uniting bond of the spirit. The other is the ground of location which God clearly makes a big deal about in the word. Not only can we quote God literally saying this in Deuteronomy 12:11, but he implemented its practice in the book of Acts where we see the practical church life in each city, and the epistles, which were addressed to the ONE church in the ONE city that Paul was writing his letter to. Not ONE in the metaphysical spiritual sense, but ONE in location. Meaning there is only supposed to be ONE church per city

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Jay

I just watched about a third of his video questioning the local church ground, it's entitled "Is the Lord's recovery right about the ground of the church?"

Gotta hand it to you, Jay: you've probably picked the funnest one. I suggest watching it all. Maybe even read some of the comments. I'll be providing you some feedback on your thoughts regarding this video and the video itself as soon as I can.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Gotta hand it to you, Jay: you've probably picked the funnest one. I suggest watching it all. Maybe even read some of the comments. I'll be providing you some feedback on your thoughts regarding this video and the video itself as soon as I can.

Ha ha ok. Well it was literally the first video that popped up in search. The guy talks in circles which is usually something people who don't know what they're talking about do

[ACuriousFellow]

I can't agree with him, I don't think he's correct. He's actually conflating the genuine ground of oneness and the ground of the church. Those are two separate things.

-Jay

You are always free to disagree.

You made a statement that this YouTuber is conflating the doctrine of the “Ground of Oneness” and the doctrine of the “Ground of the Church” which is sometimes referred to as the “Ground of Locality.” To say that one can be conflated with the other in this particular case is like saying water and H2O can be conflated. They may have different names, but they are essentially the same thing. You don’t even have to just take my word for it. Let’s take a look at a primary source on the matter:

Our Need to Meet on the Ground of Oneness

We all who are outside the “small circles” need to meet together, but on what ground should we meet? If we are clear concerning the truth, we will say that we should meet on the ground of oneness. The reason that we do not go to a Baptist or Presbyterian denomination is that they are on divisive grounds. We are meeting on the ground of the church, the ground of oneness, the local ground. We must consider what the local ground is. The bible reveals to us that the church takes the locality where it is as its boundary. The church in Kaohsiung takes the city of Kaohsiung as its boundary, and the church in Taipei takes the city of Taipei as its boundary. The local ground is the ground of oneness, the ground of the church. Although most Christians today have divided into many denominations, we do not want to be divided. We care to remain on the ground of oneness. Some may say, “You claim to be standing on the ground of oneness, but by doing this you divide yourself from all the other ‘churches.’” However, the responsibility of division is not with us but with them. We have always kept ourselves in the church as the “big circle” on the ground of oneness. It is others who are not willing to drop their names and leave the way of many “small circles.” Therefore, we have not divided from them; they have divided from us.

(The Transformation of Life and the Building Up of the Church, Chapter 10: The Ground of the Oneness of the Church as Our Way, pp. 351-352, from The Collected Works of Witness Lee, 1966, vol. 3, published by Living Stream Ministry)

We have the ground of oneness, the ground of the church, and the ground of locality being presented by Lee himself, and it was done so quite explicitly. These three things have not been conflated by the YouTuber in question because they cannot be conflated. They are all different names for the same general concept of how a church should meet locally, placing emphasis primarily on how a church, an assembly of saints, names itself. As such, this particular point you made cannot readily discount how this YouTuber presented Lee’s teaching, for he rightly identified not only its name but its purpose and function. I’ll address your other statements at a later point in time, but I figured this was a good place to start.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

You are always free to disagree.....

Well I can't find that particular book online, it does show that that book is in Lee's collection. But I have no way to read it to verify if that is exactly what he said. Not calling you a liar or anything, but I just want to read it myself. But I went to one of his titles called 'The genuine ground of the church.' In chapter 4 he seems to differentiate between the ground of the church and the ground of oneness; "This is the place of God’s choice, the unique place He has chosen for keeping the oneness." Maybe the LC are conflating the two. Or maybe I'm wrong for NOT conflating the two. But as far as I know they are two different things. I think Lee's thought is that unless one comes to God's unique place of meeting that it's impossible to keep the oneness. He mentions that the reason why Christians shop around for a church that suits them is because of their own selfish and lustful desires in ways of worship. To seek out a church that suits you is something of the soul, not something of the spirit. That sounds agreeable. Either way you can't discount Deuteronomy 12:11 which clearly says that God has a unique place of meeting. And you simply can't say that the New Testament doesn't give us a very clear example of that with the local churches in Acts and the epistles

[ACuriousFellow]

All of the resources from The Lord's Recovery that I quote are available on Living Stream Ministry's website called ministrybooks.org. Some books are not available without a paid subscription.

His main argument is that the ground of the church is not necessary because the ground of oneness is all that's needed according to his estimation of the Bible. However this isn't fundamentally sound if we look at the what the Bible actually says and what the Bible actually practiced. Deuteronomy 12:11 says that we do not have a choice where we meet, it's wholly up to God, and we have to go where his choice is.

-Jay

If we are being specific, he is saying that Witness Lee’s teaching of the ground of the church, which was crafted according to his estimation of the Bible, is not necessary. Witness Lee claims that a proper and legitimate church can and should only identify itself based on the boundaries of whatever city it is in, and that everyone else is causing division solely based on the name of their meeting hall or congregation rather than the condition of their hearts or righteous living and without any regard to the fact that many of these groups are more than happy to fellowship with one another and don’t care what the other groups call themselves.

As for your verse reference, one must always consider the proper context of the scriptures they use. Let’s bring it up, shall we? I’ll throw in some verses before and after for greater context out of the goodness of my heart.

Deuteronomy 12:8-14

8 You are not to do as we do here today, everyone doing as they see fit, 9 since you have not yet reached the resting place and the inheritance the Lord your God is giving you. 10 But you will cross the Jordan and settle in the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, and he will give you rest from all your enemies around you so that you will live in safety. 11 Then to the place the Lord your God will choose as a dwelling for his Name—there you are to bring everything I command you: your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, and all the choice possessions you have vowed to the Lord. 12 And there rejoice before the Lord your God—you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, and the Levites from your towns who have no allotment or inheritance of their own. 13 Be careful not to sacrifice your burnt offerings anywhere you please. 14 Offer them only at the place the Lord will choose in one of your tribes, and there observe everything I command you.

There are two very important questions that I believe most of us know the answer to. First, who was the Lord speaking to? The answer: Israel. Second, how did the Lord have Israel follow up on this command found in Deuteronomy? The answer: by building the temple in Jerusalem. This was a very specific command given to a very specific group of people so that they would have one place of worship and give sacrifice in the land that the Lord had given them.

Now for another question. There are many Old Testament laws, traditions, rituals, etc., that find some parallel in the new covenant established by the work of the Messiah, The Lord’s Anointed, Jesus. How is the matter of the temple paralleled in the New Testament? I’ll ask essentially the same question in another manner: Where in the scriptures can we find something that is explicitly paralleled to the temple where we are commanded to worship the Lord?

John 4:19-26

19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.” 21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” 25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” 26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”

We can see clearly that the one place of worship in Israel, the temple, is paralleled here by the Spirit. Where else is the temple, God’s dwelling place and one place of worship and sacrifice, paralleled?

Romans 12:1-2

1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17

16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.

1 Corinthians 6:18-20

18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

Ephesians 2:19-22

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Hebrews 13:11-15

11 The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come. 15 Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. 16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

God’s temple, which is referred to as the one place of worship and sacrifice, is directly paralleled by the Spirit and our bodies. God’s temple, his dwelling place, is directly paralleled by the believers individually and collectively. It is paralleled by the body of Christ. Not once, however, is God’s temple, his one place of worship we must all come to whether we like it or not because we don’t get to choose… Not once is it paralleled with the physical boundaries of cities made by men.

As such, I’d say that your use of Deuteronomy 12:11 is hardly enough to justify Lee’s rabid insistence on a particular naming scheme for the assemblies of God that are based on arbitrary boundaries created by men, often pagan men.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

You are always free to disagree.
You made a statement that this YouTuber is conflating the doctrine of the “Ground of Oneness” and the doctrine of the “Ground of the Church” which is sometimes referred to as the “Ground of Locality.” To say that one can be conflated with the other in this particular case is like saying water and H2O can be conflated. They may have different names, but they are essentially the same thing. You don’t even have to just take my word for it. Let’s take a look at a primary source on the matter:
We have the ground of oneness, the ground of the church, and the ground of locality being presented by Lee himself, and it was done so quite explicitly. These three things have not been conflated by the YouTuber in question because they cannot be conflated. They are all different names for the same general concept of how a church should meet locally, placing emphasis primarily on how a church, an assembly of saints, names itself. As such, this particular point you made cannot readily discount how this YouTuber presented Lee’s teaching, for he rightly identified not only its name but its purpose and function. I’ll address your other statements at a later point in time, but I figured this was a good place to start.

It looks like I'm incorrect. It would seem that what they mean by 'the genuine ground of oneness is the oneness of the locality.' Meaning one church per one city. Which is what this explains more clearly. I guess I had it wrong initially. I thought the oneness amongst the believers was the oneness that comes from sharing the faith. Hmm, interesting though because I think at other times in different contexts Lee has said that to keep the oneness is just to accept other believers. I could be wrong on that too. But anyway here is a link that kind of consolidates what they mean by ground of oneness and locality

https://agodman.com/taking-the-lead-...0to%20be%20one

An interesting quote from the link-

Even though we may meet some with some other saints that are not like us but quite different from us, we don’t just “move to another church” if we don’t like someone but pay the price to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace. We realize that there has to be a local church as a local expression of the universal Body of Christ so that the church may exist, may be expressed, and may be practiced in a practical way.

Without the local church, the universal church is abstract – even non-existent; but when we touch the local church on the ground of oneness, the universal church is real and full of meaning. How can we practice being in the church? It is by being in the local church. Where is the expression of the church? Where can we find the church today? It is in the local churches; the only place where we can see the universal church being expressed is the local churches

The Lord said that He will build His church: where does this building take place? It takes place in spirit, but the place where this happens is the local church, the local expression of the universal church on the ground of oneness

The practice of the church life in the early days was the practice of having one church for one city, one city with only one church; in no city was there “more than one church” (see Acts 8:1; 13:1; Rev. 1:11). Today in the Lord’s recovery we stand on the ground of oneness taking the city as the jurisdiction of the church, and we stand in oneness with the whole Body of Christ to practice the church life on the local ground

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

All of the resources I quote are available on Living Stream Ministry's website called ministrybooks.org. Some books are not available without a paid subscription........

The only problem with all of this is that 'church' means gathering of the called out ones. So we can't say that 'church' means our human spirit. That's deviating from the meaning of the word

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Jay

The only problem with all of this is that 'church' means gathering of the called out ones. So we can't say that 'church' means our human spirit. That's deviating from the meaning of the word

And just where did I say that "church" and "human spirit" are the same thing? Can you quote me exactly?

I provided scriptures to show that in the New Testament, you have instances where the one place of worship is said to be the Spirit. A parallel to the temple.

And I provided scriptures to show that in the New Testament, you have instances where our bodies are explicitly called the temple of God, which is where worship and sacrifice take place.

And I provided scriptures to show that in the New Testament, you have instances where the saints, both individually and as a whole, are themselves the temple of God and his dwelling place.

The churches are assemblies, or gatherings, of God's holy people, the saints. The universal church is the entirety of God's holy people, the saints. As such, a church, an assembly, speaks of saints collectively. Therefore, the church, this gathering of God's holy people, is God's temple.

I also noted the particular lack of scriptural references to cities and their boundaries as being parallel to God's temple.

I challenge you again, therefore, to quote me properly and show where I said that the church and our human spirit are the same thing.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

And just where did I say that "church" and "human spirit" are the same thing? Can you quote me exactly?

I provided scriptures to show that in the New Testament, you have instances where the one place of worship is said to be the Spirit. A parallel to the temple.

And I provided scriptures to show that in the New Testament, you have instances where our bodies are explicitly called the temple of God, which is where worship and sacrifice take place.

And I provided scriptures to show that in the New Testament, you have instances where the saints, both individually and as a whole, are themselves the temple of God and his dwelling place.

The churches are assemblies, or gatherings, of God's holy people, the saints. The universal church is the entirety of God's holy people, the saints. As such, a church, an assembly, speaks of saints collectively. Therefore, the church, this gathering of God's holy people, is God's temple.

I also noted the particular lack of scriptural references to cities and their boundaries as being parallel to God's temple.

I challenge you again, therefore, to quote me properly and show where I said that the church and our human spirit are the same thing.

Your entire point here is that we don't need a physical place to worship. Which isn't biblical. Sure technically we can praise God anywhere we are. We can do that right now wherever we are sitting, and we should. We are always encouraged to exercise our spirit in our personal lives. However this personal pursuit isn't the full picture of God's goal for his corporate people according to the Bible. We can certainly take verses out of context to support your theory. But we'd have to do so at disregarding God's obvious moves to implement the congregation life. Again, it's not hard to prove that God wants a particular place of meeting. Deuteronomy 12:11 and the local churches in Acts and the Epistles. We also have verses such as Hebrews 10:25 which say directly to not forsake the assembly. So there's no way I could disagree with Nee and Lee with regards to the local church concept and I certainly agree with them on the degradation and division of the denominations. Which are also talked about in the book of Revelation with the types of the 7 churches. The Babylonian degradation is also talked about in Deuteronomy and we see constant pictures of God's called out ones falling back to this worldly religious system and commiting spiritual fornication. Which God hates

[ACuriousFellow]

Incorrect. My point is not that we do not need a physical place to worship. My point is that you have failed entirely to provide proper scriptural support for the idea that our worship is bound to the cities within which we are located. Deuteronomy 12:11 simply isn't enough for that. Period. All it establishes is that the Lord is one who chooses our place of worship. You must now present the scriptures specifically and within context to

1) support Lee's proposed naming scheme for the churches, and

2) support the idea that failing to follow this naming scheme is some grand, deadly poison to the church

Your job is provide solid scriptural support for this, and, as I will address in a later comment, Lee tries to turn a pattern into a rule where no rule is found when it comes to how the churches are named in the epistles and the book of Revelation. For now, I will address your critique of the denominations.

[ACuriousFellow]

Deuteronomy 12:11 says that we do not have a choice where we meet, it's wholly up to God, and we have to go where his choice is. Otherwise we are in the principle of division. This one verse alone blows the denominations out of the water because they are in the principle of division. They are separatists who separate themselves based on disagreements in doctrine and practices. They are by default not one, and they themselves would probably even tell you that they can't be one with Christians they don't agree with or share similar practices with

-Jay

For starters, as I’ve argued already, this one verse does not justify the entirety or even most of Lee’s doctrine known as “The Ground of Oneness/The Church/Locality.” As such, it hardly “blows the denominations out of the water” like you or Lee may think. Lee’s desire to beat down the denominations is quite clear, and I’ve even compiled some verses to show Lee’s desire and efforts to create his own denomination.

Now, let’s make use of our minds and think critically for a moment. First, a question: what is a doctrine? The answer: a teaching. A doctrine is literally a teaching. If you say “the Bible says this” about x, y, or z, you are presenting a teaching. You are presenting a doctrine. Some doctrines are worth dividing over. After all, “there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval” (1 Corinthians 11:19). There exists teachings, doctrines, which are absolutely unacceptable within the churches of God. For instance, you can see in Galatians that there was a teaching, a doctrine, that the believers must be circumcised in order to be saved. What did Paul say about those who preached such a false gospel? May the Lord curse them! (Galatians 1:9). May they emasculate themselves! (Galatians 5:12). To those who had accepted this false teaching/doctrine/gospel, what did Paul declare? How could you be so easily deceived? (Galatians 1:6-9). Fools! (Galatians 3:1-3).

Yet you critique the denominations because you say they separate themselves based on disagreements in doctrine and practice? Do you not realize that the very name of Lee’s denomination, The Lord’s Recovery, is based on the principle of separation from the other Christian groups based on Lee’s doctrines and practices? Based on his disagreements with other groups? His group is by default not one with the others, and he brags about it. Look once more at the quotes I’ve compiled if you must. Do you not see the irony in this?

Many denominational Christians and assemblies act quite contrary to what you have mentioned. I grew up in a Baptist church. I’ve had sweet fellowship and oneness with Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Pentecostals, and even Recovery members. Many of them simply do not care about denominational differences, and this isn’t even just at the individual level. Many denominations, as the YouTuber presented later in their video, often have fellowship with one another. Their leaders meet to discuss teachings and scriptures and pray with one another. They organize prayer and worship times with one another. They pitch in resources for mission trips within their region or elsewhere. They preach the gospel together. They help the poor together. Yet what does The Lord’s Recovery do with regards to this? The refuse fellowship, and for Lee all it took was that the other groups did not follow his doctrine of how to name an assembly.

Many portions of Lee’s ministry attest to this, and even one of the highest-ranked leaders today, Ron Kangas, emphasizes the need to burn all bridges with Christianity.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Incorrect. My point is not that we do not need a physical place to worship. My point is that you have failed entirely to provide proper scriptural support for the idea that our worship is bound to the cities within which we are located. Deuteronomy 12:11 simply isn't enough for that. Period. All it establishes is that the Lord is one who chooses our place of worship. You must now present the scriptures specifically and within context to

1) support Lee's proposed naming scheme for the churches, and

2) support the idea that failing to follow this naming scheme is some grand, deadly poison to the church

Your job is provide solid scriptural support for this, and, as I will address in a later comment, Lee tries to turn a pattern into a rule where no rule is found when it comes to how the churches are named in the epistles and the book of Revelation. For now, I will address your critique of the denominations.

I'm sorry that you're upset. But it's not complicated. Just look at Acts and look at the epistles to the ONE church per ONE city that Paul was writing to. This is not a complicated scenario

It's also not hard to tell that the denominations are degraded. Look at how worldly their worship concerts are. You might not even know they're Christians unless you paid close attention the lyrics. Look at their false preachers preaching a contrary gospel of behavior modification and prosperity gospel. Look at their idolatry worship. Look at how poor they are in their knowledge of the word. Look at their unbiblical papal and pastoral system. Not hard to see my man

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Jay

I'm sorry that you're upset. But it's not complicated. Just look at Acts and look at the epistles to the ONE church per ONE city that Paul was writing to. This is not a complicated scenario

It's also not hard to tell that the denominations are degraded. Look at how worldly their worship concerts are. You might not even know they're Christians unless you paid close attention the lyrics. Look at their false preachers preaching a contrary gospel of behavior modification and prosperity gospel. Look at their idolatry worship. Look at how poor they are in their knowledge of the word. Look at their unbiblical papal and pastoral system. Not hard to see my man

Paul was not writing to all the believers in Corinth or Rome or Thessalonica who met at different denominations and different church names. In fact he specifically called out that type of thought at its roots in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13. Yet now we see any and all manner of names and titles that have divided and continue to divide the one body of Christ. How can God's body be one if they are fundamentally divided from their roots? satan has done a large work throughout the centuries surrounding this

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Jay

I'm sorry that you're upset. But it's not complicated. Just look at Acts and look at the epistles to the ONE church per ONE city that Paul was writing to. This is not a complicated scenario

It's also not hard to tell that the denominations are degraded. Look at how worldly their worship concerts are. You might not even know they're Christians unless you paid close attention the lyrics. Look at their false preachers preaching a contrary gospel of behavior modification and prosperity gospel. Look at their idolatry worship. Look at how poor they are in their knowledge of the word. Look at their unbiblical papal and pastoral system. Not hard to see my man

Do not worry, Jay. I am not upset with you. I am being straightforward. If you are going to tell me what I said, do it properly rather than by putting words in my mouth. My text is here for everyone to see. You have no excuse for reading into what I say, and as someone who is bold enough to come onto a forum like this, I expect better from you. As a teacher, I will exhort better from you. I will prepare my final response to your initial comments as soon as I am able. It will address Lee's use of a pattern in the New Testament (how Paul refers to the assemblies) and present a rebuttal to Lee's ironic use of a pattern as a law.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Do not worry, Jay. I am not upset with you. I am being straightforward. If you are going to tell me what I said, do it properly rather than by putting words in my mouth. My text is here for everyone to see. You have no excuse for reading into what I say, and as someone who is bold enough to come onto a forum like this, I expect better from you. As a teacher, I will exhort better from you. I will prepare my final response to your initial comments as soon as I am able. It will address Lee's use of a pattern in the New Testament (how Paul refers to the assemblies) and present a rebuttal to Lee's ironic use of a pattern as a law.

I am not attempting to put words in your mouth. In fact I don't believe I've done that at all. I'm simply using the Bible as the measuring stick. The Bible backs up the local churches and it refutes the divisions, and it's very clear

[ACuriousFellow]

Words you have put in my mouth (on record)

1) Saying that I claimed that the human spirit and the church are the same thing.

2) Saying that I claimed that we need no physical place to meet.

And you proceeded to make counterarguments based on these claims that I never made. Correct me if I am wrong, but you even seem to be assuming that I claimed that there is no degradation to be found in the churches outside of The Lord's Recovery, which is also something I never claimed.

Be careful how you proceed with debates, Jay. Take my words apart, not your strawmen. Your arguments are not uninteresting, but you must be proper in your rebuttals and address what is actually being presented and said.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Words you have put in my mouth (on record)

1) Saying that I claimed that the human spirit and the church are the same thing.

2) Saying that I claimed that we need no physical place to meet.

And you proceeded to make counterarguments based on these claims that I never made. Correct me if I am wrong, but you even seem to be assuming that I claimed that there is no degradation to be found in the churches outside of The Lord's Recovery, which is also something I never claimed.

Be careful how you proceed with debates, Jay. Take my words apart, not your strawmen. Your arguments are not uninteresting, but you must be proper in your rebuttals and address what is actually being presented and said.

I'm pretty sure I was talking about the Youtube channel guy when I first mentioned that. And then you started defending him. So the premise of my saying that was over him not you, but you started arguing over those points

At any rate. I'm not trying to be contentious with you. If you would like to show me where in the Bible it talks against the unique place of worship and against the concept of the local churches please be my guest......

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

For starters, as I’ve argued already, this one verse does not justify the entirety or even most of Lee’s doctrine known as “The Ground of Oneness/The Church/Locality.” As such, it hardly “blows the denominations out of the water” like you or Lee may think. Lee’s desire to beat down the denominations is quite clear, and I’ve even compiled some verses to show Lee’s desire and efforts to create his own denomination.

This is a quote from the site you linked-


"To know God is not adequate. To know Christ is also not adequate. Even to know the church is not adequate. We must go on to know the churches, which are local. If we are up to date in following the Lord, we will realize that today is the day of the local churches … We all realize that everything is in the Bible. But not long after the New Testament was completed, the church began to lose all the important things found in the Bible. Eventually, by the fifteenth century, everything was lost. Very little of God was known. Then the Lord began His recovery at the time of the Reformation with Martin Luther. [243]"

I agree with this quote. It's biblical as well as historically accurate. How could God get his corporate bride if they are not built up together? Also the Bible clearly shows us that God cares about the place of worship as I've stated many times. It also shows us that God hates spiritual fornication and division, which the Bible clearly shows us. God cares not only for the condition of his individual believers, but the condition of his churches. Yes the individuals ARE the churches, but if they are divided and scattered then how can the body be one? God cares for the assembly and he cares for the corporate experience. We see this clearly in Revelation with the 7 churches mentioned and their spiritual condition. The denominations are mentioned amongst these 7 churches. Only Philadelphia and Laodicea are the local churches. The rest are the denominations and the early church. Nee talks extensively about this is 'The orthodoxy of the church' book

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Jay

I'm pretty sure I was talking about the Youtube channel guy when I first mentioned that. And then you started defending him. So the premise of my saying that was over him not you, but you started arguing over those points

At any rate. I'm not trying to be contentious with you. If you would like to show me where in the Bible it talks against the unique place of worship and against the concept of the local churches please be my guest......

Wonderful, then. So if I'm not mistaken, you're saying that those three things that I claimed you put in my mouth were actually three things you put in the YouTuber's mouth since these three points I brought up were never made by them in that video, either. Thank you for the clarification.

Anyhoo, I'll leave this tangent where it lies. You are welcome to have the final word on this micro interaction if you wish. I'll get back to you once I've finished my final response to your intial statment.

[ACuriousFellow]

But we don't have to go that deep. It's rather silly to conflate the ground of oneness with the ground of the church. One is a spiritual matter that all believers share in a metaphysical sense as long as they are within the uniting bond of the spirit. The other is the ground of location which God clearly makes a big deal about in the word. Not only can we quote God literally saying this in Deuteronomy 12:11, but he implemented its practice in the book of Acts where we see the practical church life in each city, and the epistles, which were addressed to the ONE church in the ONE city that Paul was writing his letter to. Not ONE in the metaphysical spiritual sense, but ONE in location. Meaning there is only supposed to be ONE church per city.

-Jay

Again, it's not hard to prove that God wants a particular place of meeting. Deuteronomy 12:11 and the local churches in Acts and the Epistles. We also have verses such as Hebrews 10:25 which say directly to not forsake the assembly.

-Jay

Now I shall get to the heart of the matter, which I imagine from your repeated insistence on the assemblies mentioned in the epistles is what you are most anxious to hear a rebuttal to. To be honest, it is also the one I am most eager to present a rebuttal to because while in Lee’s estimation (and yours) it is an absolutely crucial doctrine for the church, it is, in my estimation and that of many others, a particularly harmful doctrine, among a few others, which has led to a toxic spiritual elitism amongst the congregations in the denomination known as The Lord’s Recovery (a.k.a. The Local Churches).

Lee’s main argument is the existence of a particular pattern in the New Testament: the naming of the congregations. We have several cities and their associated congregations to which we see epistles written to. Rome (Romans), Corinth (Corinthians), Galatia (Galatians), Ephesus (Ephesians), Philippi (Philippians), Colossae (Colossians), Thessalonica (Thessalonians). We also see a few more churches mentioned in the book of Revelation, where the churches of Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea are also given a spotlight. We have here a pattern. It is a pattern that Lee relies heavily on in order to support his particular doctrine of the ground of the church/oneness/locality. He further tries to support this argument by using verses such as Deuteronomy 12:11 in which we see God very explicitly commanding the Israelites to come to one very specific place of worship, and this would not be the first time the command was so very explicitly given. Therefore, Lee claims, that because the Lord sought one physical place of worship in the Old Testament which was within the boundaries of a particular city and because we see several churches named after the cities they are found in, this naming scheme must be a New Testament reality of God’s desire for a physical place of worship. As such, the only proper way to refer to our assemblies is by whatever city we are found in, and to turn away from this pattern would be as rebellious and dangerous as the Israelites turning away from the temple in Jerusalem as the one place of worship that unites God’s saints.

In response to this doctrine of Lee’s, I have two main points.

[ACuriousFellow]

First, we have the insistence that the Old Testament pattern, in and of itself, automatically justifies the notion that we should name our churches a particular way. I’ve already pointed out the major flaw in this line of thinking, that being the fact that there are several parallels made to the temple, God’s one place of worship and sacrifice in much of the Old Testament, and yet none of those New Testament parallels make reference to city boundaries. God gave very particular commands to the people of Israel regarding where to worship, and there were always major consequences for those who violated these commands. Again and again, the Lord and his people emphasize the importance of the temple in Jerusalem. Again and again the people are reminded of the need of this temple for the sake of all Israel. The need of the high priests and priests and articles and sacrifices. Judgement and wrath came upon the people of Israel when they neglected these things. Destruction and chaos descended upon all of Jacob’s descendants when God’s commands regarding the temple were not properly kept. Conversely, it was always at this temple that the ultimate, most effective, and most meaningful rituals were performed after its construction, and so emphatic was the Lord of the temple’s importance that even when it was destroyed, he insisted on it being rebuilt exactly where it once was. So crucial is this temple mount that many are convinced that the prophetic events to come will still involve it somehow even despite the establishment of the New Covenant. So much of the Old Testament is dedicated to very explicitly showing us the importance of this very specific place of worship and sacrifice, yet we have no such emphasis on the names of the assemblies in the New Testament. Lee claims that this principle of naming is just as crucial as the command the Lord gave in Deuteronomy, yet if it was so important, why does it not receive even 10% of the explicit attention given to the city of Jerusalem and the temple found therein? I would dare to say that it does not even receive 1% of the attention. In fact, nowhere, absolutely nowhere, do you see any explicit commands for naming the assemblies according to the cities they are found in. You see patterns, but not commands. If it was so crucial, if it was even half as crucial as Lee claimed it was, we would not just see patterns, but we would also see commands. We would see explicit commands. We would see desperate commands. We would see nauseatingly repetitive commands, and a command to not be divisive, a command to not divide yourself based on who baptized you, is absolutely not an explicit command to name yourself according to the city you are found in. To top this off, and to transition into my second point, this supposed command, really only a pattern, is broken by the apostle Paul himself on more than one occasion.

[ACuriousFellow]

We can see immediately in Deuteronomy 12:1-7 that the Lord declared that his people were to have one central place of worship. This command of having a central place of worship would lead to the establishing of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the building of the temple where the ark of the covenant would dwell along with the very presence of God. It was there at the temple that every Israelite was commanded to go for their sacrifices, and it served as a powerful, unifying symbol to the people of God. This immediately brings to mind an encounter Jesus had with a certain Samaritan woman. Near the end of their initial encounter, she makes a particular statement which draws an important response from the Lord in John 4:19-24. Here, Jesus declares that the age where God’s people worshipped in the temple at Jerusalem would come to an end, for the age in which God’s people worshipped in Spirit and in truth was coming. The one place of worship was no longer to be in the city or temple made by man, but the temple made by God. The martyr Stephen also declared this to the Jewish leaders in Acts 7:44-50. Paul declares something similar to the Athenians in Acts 17:22-25. The true, eternal place of worship would not and could not be a temple or city made by men, but rather that which is made by God. Paul makes a pretty solid statement regarding the temple of God in 1 Corinthians 3:10-17. The believers are the temple of God. We see it again in 1 Corinthians 6:17-20. And again in Ephesians 2:17-22. Peter also declared that we were the dwelling place of the Lord in 1 Peter 2:4-5. Likewise, sacrifices made in the temple of Solomon are paralleled by Christ’s sacrifice in a heavenly tabernacle as can be seen in Hebrews 9:11-14. Because of these Spiritual and heavenly realities, our ground of oneness comes not from arbitrary boundaries created by men, but rather the spiritual boundaries established by Christ. “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” (Matthew 18:20).

[ACuriousFellow]

This brings me to my second point. You see many people gathering in many churches, or assemblies throughout the New Testament, even within their respective cities. The church in Corinth existed, but so did the church in Cenchreae, a port district in Corinth (Romans 16:1). Further still, we have the church in Phoebe’s house (Romans 16:5), who was a deacon in the church in Cenchreae, which was part of Corinth and therefore part of the church in Corinth, which were one of the churches of Christ (Romans 16:16). In the same manner, we have the church in Nympha’s house (Colossians 4:15) and the church in Philemon’s house (Philemon verse 2). We see many layers within the church life, but not one of them defines our ground oneness save for the name of Christ. Whether you are the church in Phoebe’s house or the church in Cenchreae or the church in Corinth, you are only the church when you gather in the one name of Christ. Our ground of oneness, that which makes us the true body of Christ, is the one name of the Lord Jesus Christ. As the man in this video pointed out already, what the scripture says unites us as believers is the one Spirit, for we are called to one hope with one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all (Ephesians 1:4-5). It is not the city in which we meet.

This pattern is established for convenience, not so that we should make it law, and even then this pattern is not based on the cities that the assemblies are found in, but which portion of the body of Christ the author is referring to. If the author was referring to all the saints in Corinth, they referred to them as “the church in Corinth.” If they were referring to all the saints found in the district of Corinth known as Cenchrea, they would refer to them as “the church in Cenchreae.” If they were referring to the saints in the household of Phoebe, they would refer to them as “the church in Phoebe’s house.” If the Lord truly cared so much about “locality” as Witness Lee claimed, if indeed this doctrine and principal of naming and location was so crucial and necessary for the proper establishment of a church, then the Lord would by no means have allowed one of his apostles to break the pattern as he did, and several times at that! As such, you find here a pattern. It is by no means a bad pattern, yet it is not a command. It is not worth condemning other churches solely based on the names of their meeting halls and refusing fellowship with them because of such a thing. It certainly does not merit Lee’s delusional accusations of rebellion that are heaped upon a congregation based solely on what they call themselves. It absolutely does not justify the divisiveness that is encouraged by Lee and the current leaders of The Lord’s Recovery.

Lee’s particular doctrine of the ground of the church/oneness/locality is not sound. It is not biblical. It is not healthy for the churches of God.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Jay

It's also not hard to tell that the denominations are degraded. Look at how worldly their worship concerts are. You might not even know they're Christians unless you paid close attention the lyrics…. Look at how poor they are in their knowledge of the word.

It’s important to remember that all of these denominations you think exist are filled with people that Jesus loves just as much as he loves you, and the majority of them don’t speak so critical of other believers. If God can save someone who once was dead in their sins, surely he can save a chord progression on an electric guitar. When the Bible says that He is reconciling all things to himself, it doesn’t exclude music. What does worldly even mean in the context of worship?

When Jesus was on the cross, the guy next to him was saved because of his belief, not his knowledge of the word.

There’s a saying, “you know a tree by its fruits.” Id implore you to explore what teachings are causing the production of fruit that has such a self-righteous flavor towards other believers, your brothers & sisters as it were.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Jay

I just watched about a third of his video questioning the local church ground, it's entitled "Is the Lord's recovery right about the ground of the church?"

I can't agree with him, I don't think he's correct. He's actually conflating the genuine ground of oneness and the ground of the church. Those are two separate things. His main argument is that the ground of the church is not necessary because the ground of oneness is all that's needed according to his estimation of the Bible. However this isn't fundamentally sound if we look at the what the Bible actually says and what the Bible actually practiced. Deuteronomy 12:11 says that we do not have a choice where we meet, it's wholly up to God, and we have to go where his choice is. Otherwise we are in the principle of division. This one verse alone blows the denominations out of the water because they are in the principle of division. They are separatists who separate themselves based on disagreements in doctrine and practices. They are by default not one, and they themselves would probably even tell you that they can't be one with Christians they don't agree with or share similar practices with

He sidesteps the necessity for a ground of the church in leu of his concept that all is needed is simply metaphysical or spiritual oneness. This is pretty subtle, but the affects are large. To disregard the grounds of the church is very very serious and undermining to God's blueprint in the word

But we don't have to go that deep. It's rather silly to conflate the ground of oneness with the ground of the church. One is a spiritual matter that all believers share in a metaphysical sense as long as they are within the uniting bond of the spirit. The other is the ground of location which God clearly makes a big deal about in the word. Not only can we quote God literally saying this in Deuteronomy 12:11, but he implemented its practice in the book of Acts where we see the practical church life in each city, and the epistles, which were addressed to the ONE church in the ONE city that Paul was writing his letter to. Not ONE in the metaphysical spiritual sense, but ONE in location. Meaning there is only supposed to be ONE church per city

You mentioned the conflation of the ground of oneness with the ground of the church in the video. I think ACuriousFellow has already brought up a ministry quote that shows it is conflated/equated in the ministry in at least one place, and therefore is not wrong to conflate them. I'd just like to add an additional place where they are conflated, on www.shepherdingwords.com here: https://shepherdingwords.com/assaili...new-testament/

"In standing for the authority of God’s Word, we must also stand for the New Testament teaching and pattern concerning the genuine ground of the church, the ground of oneness in each locality, to uphold the testimony of the one Body and to afford the Lord a way to build His church."

As a church kid myself, I would also add that it was my experience that the two concepts were regularly conflated in practice and in speech in the local church. I think the other two aspects of the ground of the church were more spiritual in nature and therefore fell to the wayside in emphasis, because it was harder to pretend like other believers are not one in those ways. The "one church one city" part grew in importance because it was concrete rather than nebulous, and was the stark difference between the local church and denominations, such that it kind of took over and became equated with the ground of the church. As such, when I listened to the video, I didn't have a problem with how it was presented, because it was in line with how I had heard the concepts used.

You gave a summary of what you felt the first third of the video said, so I went back and listened to the whole thing again and took some notes, and here is the point I got from it:

It is taught in the local church that if you are not meeting "on the basis of the church in your city", but instead are meeting in a place that is based upon something else, like any of the denominations, then you are in division, i.e. you are not in oneness. (I think you would agree with this statement, based on the way you have talked about "how can the church be one if there are denominations?")

But then he asks "what does the Bible mean by oneness?"

In all the discussion about oneness, there is essentially an assumption about what "being one" means. And so, to see what the Bible means by oneness, he literally goes through and looks at all the verses where some form of "one" is used, and then looks at the context of those verses.

And I think the point is that none of them ever connect the concept of "oneness" with "meeting on the basis of locality".

In other words, yes, the Bible does refer a lot of the time to a church as the "church in such-and-such city". And yes, the Bible does refer to the believers needing to be one. But where is the connection in the Bible that this oneness is accomplished by meeting as the church in your city?

There is no biblical connection of these concepts. Instead, the thing the Bible shows about oneness, is that "the expression of oneness" is not "meeting as the church in your city", but is actually doing good works in the name of the Father. And "being one" is presented not "on the basis of locality" but in terms of love, kindness, and mutual care. He goes into the verses which show this.

And so, if "meeting as the church in your city" IS NOT what the Bible means by "that they all may be one", then it is wrong to say that a believer who does not meet "on the ground of locality" is "in division", because "meeting on the ground of locality" is not what the Bible means by "being one" in the first place.

If Christians across various denominations come together to do things like carrying out the good works (that are even historically known to have marked the early Christians) in the name of God, if they love each other as brothers and sisters regardless of where they meet, if they "give each other the right hand of fellowship", give each other mutual care and honor, and come together to care for the needy/poor/widows, etc in their city.....that kind of thing is what the Bible means by "being one", and that kind of thing is all the Bible demands for oneness.

Any demand above that related to oneness is a "tradition of men" imposed by the coworkers, including "meeting on the basis of locality".

And this, frankly, Jay, matches my own personal experience too after I left the local church. When I was IN the local church, I recoiled from other Christians. I did NOT want to "visit their church". I felt, every time, that they were wrong, low, shallow, dead, all but unsaved, "didn't see the light", and on and on. They would reach out to me to make a Christian bond, but due to the ministry's almost disgust about them, I would regularly withdraw from their attempt at Christian connection, and that includes my extended family members, which loss of connection I still grieve to this day.

After leaving the local church, though, I have no problem joining the genuine Christians in my city to honor God with them, to help the needy, to volunteer, to share new realizations of God's Word, etc. The ministry drove a wedge between me and the rest of the Christians. Dropping the ministry brought me much more into the genuine expression of oneness Jesus prayed for.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

As a church kid myself, I would also add that it was my experience that the two concepts were regularly conflated in practice and in speech in the local church. I think the other two aspects of the ground of the church were more spiritual in nature and therefore fell to the wayside in emphasis, because it was harder to pretend like other believers are not one in those ways. The "one church one city" part grew in importance because it was concrete rather than nebulous, and was the stark difference between the local church and denominations, such that it kind of took over and became equated with the ground of the church. As such, when I listened to the video, I didn't have a problem with how it was presented, because it was in line with how I had heard the concepts used.

I think I see now that Lee is conflating the two, and I'm just about 100% certain they're not supposed to be conflated. As far as I know they are two different things. The ground of the church as I understand it literally is the concept of 'one church per one city.' And the ground of oneness COMES OUT of the concept of uniting the body in each city. Which is probably what gave Lee the confidence and liberty to bash the denominations so harshly, because in his mind it was justified based on their not dropping their practices to meet on the ground of oneness of locality. So naturally the LC couldn't be one with anyone else who wasn't meeting on the same correct ground...and I'm not saying I agree with that attitude. It's an elitist and exclusive attitude. On the one hand maybe the denominations are degraded. On the other hand should we constantly bash them? I don't think so, we're all brothers and sisters in the Lord

So now I'm thinking that Lee is wrong in his speaking if he is conflating them, which it seems the evidence shows that he did. I suppose one just gets so caught up in the amount of his words and his works that you fail to notice important details like that. I know in the LC they make it a point to "stay on the line of life" which is a mantra to essentially only focus on Christ and the spirit. The bigger concepts the average member probably just leaves up to the speaking brothers or the higher up brothers. So it's interesting that more people don't realize or recognize when significant errors like that are presented in their writings/speakings

For a long time it's been in the back of my mind while reading Nee/Lee ministry that I am pretty sure the spoken messages are not verbatim or word for word what gets put into the books. I am sure at least some editing is involved in things that are said, and I'm pretty sure certain questionable comments and quotes are left out when they put the speaking into book form. Take from that what you will. To my mind it kiiiiind of opens up the possibility to leave out things said that make them look bad and to take liberties to add or put more clarity onto things said. Which is at least somewhat suspect

In fact I remember listening to some old tapes of Lee and things that he said in any particular message and what was put into the book later on were definitely expanded upon. The books come across very polished and very thoughtful. His speaking a lot of times comes across not quite that way. So I am just about fully positive that they take much liberty in editing into his speakings and elaborating more on concepts that he was speaking about. How far and how wide this adding was who knows. You'd have to go back and painstakingly listen to the message and compare it with the words in the book form

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

But then he asks "what does the Bible mean by oneness?"

In all the discussion about oneness, there is essentially an assumption about what "being one" means. And so, to see what the Bible means by oneness, he literally goes through and looks at all the verses where some form of "one" is used, and then looks at the context of those verses.

And I think the point is that none of them ever connect the concept of "oneness" with "meeting on the basis of locality".

In other words, yes, the Bible does refer a lot of the time to a church as the "church in such-and-such city". And yes, the Bible does refer to the believers needing to be one. But where is the connection in the Bible that this oneness is accomplished by meeting as the church in your city?

There is no biblical connection of these concepts. Instead, the thing the Bible shows about oneness, is that "the expression of oneness" is not "meeting as the church in your city", but is actually doing good works in the name of the Father. And "being one" is presented not "on the basis of locality" but in terms of love, kindness, and mutual care. He goes into the verses which show this.

And so, if "meeting as the church in your city" IS NOT what the Bible means by "that they all may be one", then it is wrong to say that a believer who does not meet "on the ground of locality" is "in division", because "meeting on the ground of locality" is not what the Bible means by "being one" in the first place.

If Christians across various denominations come together to do things like carrying out the good works (that are even historically known to have marked the early Christians) in the name of God, if they love each other as brothers and sisters regardless of where they meet, if they "give each other the right hand of fellowship", give each other mutual care and honor, and come together to care for the needy/poor/widows, etc in their city.....that kind of thing is what the Bible means by "being one", and that kind of thing is all the Bible demands for oneness.

Any demand above that related to oneness is a "tradition of men" imposed by the coworkers, including "meeting on the basis of locality".

And this, frankly, Jay, matches my own personal experience too after I left the local church. When I was IN the local church, I recoiled from other Christians. I did NOT want to "visit their church". I felt, every time, that they were wrong, low, shallow, dead, all but unsaved, "didn't see the light", and on and on. They would reach out to me to make a Christian bond, but due to the ministry's almost disgust about them, I would regularly withdraw from their attempt at Christian connection, and that includes my extended family members, which loss of connection I still grieve to this day.

After leaving the local church, though, I have no problem joining the genuine Christians in my city to honor God with them, to help the needy, to volunteer, to share new realizations of God's Word, etc. The ministry drove a wedge between me and the rest of the Christians. Dropping the ministry brought me much more into the genuine expression of oneness Jesus prayed for.

Definitely a lot of food for thought here

But as far as my Bible reading is concerned. I believe that Jesus was talking about spiritual oneness in regards to "that may be one, father, as you and I are one." But there are different types of oneness. Paul says in Philippians 2:2 I urge you, then, to make me completely happy by having the same thoughts, sharing the same love, and being one in soul and mind (International standard version)

Philippians 2:2 Make my joy full, that you think the same thing, having the same love, joined in soul, thinking the one thing (Recovery version)

The difference between these two translations is kind of pertinent to the opposing concepts you and I are talking about. The ISV version is pretty general and could be more open to interpretation. You said you felt one with other Christians in their giving and their good works. But Lee's translation says 'thinking the one thing' which the ISV doesn't say. That little difference is probably huge. In the footnote he elaborates and says "According to the context of this book, the one thing here must refer to the subjective knowledge and experience of Christ (Phil. 1:20-21; 2:5; 3:7-9; 4:13). Christ, and Christ alone, should be the centrality and universality of our entire being. Our thinking should be focused on the excellency of the knowledge and experience of Christ. Focusing on anything else causes us to think differently, thus creating dissensions among us."

This type of oneness is in the soul and the mind, and apparently the spirit. Implying to share the same thoughts and be of the same spirit. It's not saying a oneness in spirit in the verse, but Lee is attaching it to the oneness of the spirit of Christ, particularly in our subjective knowledge and experiences of Him

In John 17:21 I believe Jesus was talking about a oneness in the spirit similar to how the triune God is one

Here's Lee's interpretation in his footnote for John 17:21. He says "This is the second aspect of the believers' oneness, the oneness in the Triune God through sanctification, separation from the world by the word of God. In this aspect of oneness the believers, separated from the world unto God, enjoy the Triune God as the factor of their oneness." So Lee's interpretation of John 17:21 is that the believers are one with one another through sanctification and separation from the world. Which that is yet another different type of oneness

So we see different types of oneness in the Bible. Which is all pretty confusing. I suppose I understand why people would just stop short because it's a lot to understand

I don't think though, that oneness has much to do with good works. But I suppose we could say that's a certain kind of oneness in a general sense. If a large stadium of people go to a football game, they are "one" in the sense that they're all at the football game. They are one physically in location.....but does any of it matter? I suppose if you say that God only blesses 'one group of people who are standing in oneness on the correct ground' and 'in the same thought, mind, and sprit of oneness' then it certainly does matter what is meant by oneness. Because according to Lee Christians who are not in the spirit are not one according to the Bible. And according to Lee Christians who are not meeting on the ground of locality are not really one according to the Bible. And according to Lee Christians who are not sanctified and seperated from the world are not one according to the Bible. Which are very very cut and dry pivotal things to say

Or another way to say it is that can Christians really be one if they're not exercising their spirit, seperated from the world, sanctified, and meeting on the correct ground? Which is a crucial question. I think if that's true it would be very hard for Christians to be one with one another. But I suppose it all hinges on the way you interpret the word. It would almost lend to judgements being passed on others such as "oh I can't be one with so and so brother because he watches TV," or "oh I can't be one with so and so sister because she dresses worldly." It sounds like a great way to create factions and schisms. But then some might say, "well we all just need to turn to our spirit because we can only be one in spirit." Which is kind of like glossing over all that other very strong and differentiating type of oneness. Or maybe that's the truth. Maybe we all just need to come together and be in spirit and be built up in spirit with one another

So is it all open to personal interpretation? Idk, is any of the Bible open to personal interpretation? Or is that dangerous? Is Lee's interpretation the only correct one? That's dangerous to say too. I guess we have to make up our own minds and work out our own salvation according to the best way we see fit and God will judge our works at the end. A questionable test? Or are the dominoes all set up around Lee's theology? If there's a hole in Lee's theology somewhere does the entire dominoes fall over? Should we throw out all of Lee's theology if he is wrong at a certain point or conflating two crucial ideas?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Jay

Definitely a lot of food for thought here

But as far as my Bible reading is concerned. I believe that Jesus was talking about spiritual oneness in regards to "that may be one, father, as you and I are one." But there are different types of oneness. Paul says in Philippians 2:2 I urge you, then, to make me completely happy by having the same thoughts, sharing the same love, and being one in soul and mind (International standard version)

Philippians 2:2 Make my joy full, that you think the same thing, having the same love, joined in soul, thinking the one thing (Recovery version)

The difference between these two translations is kind of pertinent to the opposing concepts you and I are talking about. The ISV version is pretty general and could be more open to interpretation. You said you felt one with other Christians in their giving and their good works. But Lee's translation says 'thinking the one thing' which the ISV doesn't say. That little difference is probably huge. In the footnote he elaborates and says "According to the context of this book, the one thing here must refer to the subjective knowledge and experience of Christ (Phil. 1:20-21; 2:5; 3:7-9; 4:13). Christ, and Christ alone, should be the centrality and universality of our entire being. Our thinking should be focused on the excellency of the knowledge and experience of Christ. Focusing on anything else causes us to think differently, thus creating dissensions among us."

This type of oneness is in the soul and the mind, and apparently the spirit. Implying to share the same thoughts and be of the same spirit. It's not saying a oneness in spirit in the verse, but Lee is attaching it to the oneness of the spirit of Christ, particularly in our subjective knowledge and experiences of Him

In John 17:21 I believe Jesus was talking about a oneness in the spirit similar to how the triune God is one

Here's Lee's interpretation in his footnote for John 17:21. He says "This is the second aspect of the believers' oneness, the oneness in the Triune God through sanctification, separation from the world by the word of God. In this aspect of oneness the believers, separated from the world unto God, enjoy the Triune God as the factor of their oneness." So Lee's interpretation of John 17:21 is that the believers are one with one another through sanctification and separation from the world. Which that is yet another different type of oneness

So we see different types of oneness in the Bible. Which is all pretty confusing. I suppose I understand why people would just stop short because it's a lot to understand

I don't think though, that oneness has much to do with good works. But I suppose we could say that's a certain kind of oneness in a general sense. If a large stadium of people go to a football game, they are "one" in the sense that they're all at the football game. They are one physically in location.....but does any of it matter? I suppose if you say that God only blesses 'one group of people who are standing in oneness on the correct ground' and 'in the same thought, mind, and sprit of oneness' then it certainly does matter what is meant by oneness. Because according to Lee Christians who are not in the spirit are not one according to the Bible. And according to Lee Christians who are not meeting on the ground of locality are not really one according to the Bible. And according to Lee Christians who are not sanctified and seperated from the world are not one according to the Bible. Which are very very cut and dry pivotal things to say

Or another way to say it is that can Christians really be one if they're not exercising their spirit, seperated from the world, sanctified, and meeting on the correct ground? Which is a crucial question. I think if that's true it would be very hard for Christians to be one with one another. But I suppose it all hinges on the way you interpret the word. It would almost lend to judgements being passed on others such as "oh I can't be one with so and so brother because he watches TV," or "oh I can't be one with so and so sister because she dresses worldly." It sounds like a great way to create factions and schisms. But then some might say, "well we all just need to turn to our spirit because we can only be one in spirit." Which is kind of like glossing over all that other very strong and differentiating type of oneness. Or maybe that's the truth. Maybe we all just need to come together and be in spirit and be built up in spirit with one another

So is it all open to personal interpretation? Idk, is any of the Bible open to personal interpretation? Or is that dangerous? Is Lee's interpretation the only correct one? That's dangerous to say too. I guess we have to make up our own minds and work out our own salvation according to the best way we see fit and God will judge our works at the end. A questionable test? Or are the dominoes all set up around Lee's theology? If there's a hole in Lee's theology somewhere does the entire dominoes fall over? Should we throw out all of Lee's theology if he is wrong at a certain point or conflating two crucial ideas?

Oneness does have much to do with good works. The Bible is clear about it once you look into it. However, my explanation was a summary of my impression of someone else's explanation, so that connection probably wasn't very clear, and that's my fault. Rather than type an explanation, you are welcome to watch the rest of the video on oneness. It explains how the Father and the Son are one, and how Jesus says that the evidence of their being one is the good works He does.

Or don't watch it. It's entirely up to you.

You talk a lot about what Lee says about oneness or what he says about the different types of being one, but honestly, who cares? Is Lee God? Is Lee the arbiter of the ultimate truth? What qualifies Lee to be the determiner over someone else? The answer is no and nothing. What matters, if a person is a genuine Christian, is what the Bible says. I would encourage you to look into what the Bible says about it, and not what Lee thinks he knows about it.

If there is a hole in Lee's theology, then at a minimum everything else is up for question. You've already mentioned several points of teaching you do not agree with, so there are already numerous holes. Numerous holes starts to add up to a real problem, Jay. Especially when someone claims to have all the pure riches, and yet those riches are not pure or rich, but are riddled through with errors and abuses.....

You have everything you need to make the right decision. It's just hard to do it, which we all understand.

By the way, I do understand what you mean about questioning God from one of the other threads. Christians from all over wrestle with difficult parts of the Bible or difficult aspects of life where we all think we would do things differently than God has done. I think that's normal and it shows we have a brain and are thinking and trying to make things make sense. But what is not normal, particularly for a professing Christian, is to state without irony that you would be more apt to question God than to question Nee and Lee....two men you have already said in plenty of words have committed a plethora of abuses and sins.

May the Lord bless you with understanding and grace.

Trapped

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

You talk a lot about what Lee says about oneness or what he says about the different types of being one, but honestly, who cares? Is Lee God? Is Lee the arbiter of the ultimate truth? What qualifies Lee to be the determiner over someone else? The answer is no and nothing. What matters, if a person is a genuine Christian, is what the Bible says. I would encourage you to look into what the Bible says about it, and not what Lee thinks he knows about it.


Trapped

Isn't this entire website about Lee and the local churches? Clearly he's the theme of the entire point of all of us being here

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

If there is a hole in Lee's theology, then at a minimum everything else is up for question. You've already mentioned several points of teaching you do not agree with, so there are already numerous holes. Numerous holes starts to add up to a real problem, Jay. Especially when someone claims to have all the pure riches, and yet those riches are not pure or rich, but are riddled through with errors and abuses.....

Trapped

I think every teacher and theologian should be questioned and scrutinized. Otherwise their words would have no value. It's possible Nee/Lee were wrong in some of their doctrine and theology. It's possible they were right as well. If they are wrong once does that mean all of their writings are wrong? If they are right once, does that mean all of their writings are right?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

By the way, I do understand what you mean about questioning God from one of the other threads. Christians from all over wrestle with difficult parts of the Bible or difficult aspects of life where we all think we would do things differently than God has done. I think that's normal and it shows we have a brain and are thinking and trying to make things make sense. But what is not normal, particularly for a professing Christian, is to state without irony that you would be more apt to question God than to question Nee and Lee....two men you have already said in plenty of words have committed a plethora of abuses and sins

Trapped

What I mean by that sir, is that if Nee and Lee are strictly just men who expound upon the Bible in an objective and strict sense, then they are no more wrong than the Bible is. If you go to that other thread and read the context with understanding you'll maybe get what I mean. If Nee's concept of deputy authority is Biblical then it's God that many people have a problem with and not Nee or Lee. Think about it for a minute

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Oneness does have much to do with good works. The Bible is clear about it once you look into it. However, my explanation was a summary of my impression of someone else's explanation, so that connection probably wasn't very clear, and that's my fault. Rather than type an explanation, you are welcome to watch the rest of the video on oneness. It explains how the Father and the Son are one, and how Jesus says that the evidence of their being one is the good works He does


Trapped

Ya know, you bring up an interesting point here. One thing that I've noticed is that I think modern Christianity is very big on works. But if you compare that to the local churches, you realize the local churches are NOT big on works. I'm wondering if there's a middle ground here. The LC focuses pretty much exclusively on the subjective and corporate experiences of Christ and the living in the spirit. Which is fantastic. However I do think works are needed and necessary and I think this may be one reason why the LC doesn't have a lot of fruit, among other large reasons that are discussed here on this site. Anyway I do believe Jesus does talk about works a lot, and I think that in the LC they just somehow gloss over that. I think works do show Christ's life and his humanity and they do impress people and gain people for God

But with that said, I do also believe that good works should come out of the life of Christ in our spirit. We're always told in the LC that if we are doing good works outside of our spirit then it's wood, hay, and stubble. Lee would say that for sure it is. But on the other hand the LC has very little works, if any at all. So the important question is can Christians be one anywhere else but in their mingled spirit? Maybe not according to Lee, but I will say at least modern Christian churches are very giving and very charitable and loving. Which, it's hard to say that any local churches are like that because they're so preoccupied with the inner experience of life and "the church life" that they rarely if ever even think of how to help, and if anyone comes to them who needs help they seem to clam up and go into their shells. But, so far you haven't shown me anything that's coming close to contending with the ground of locality as an objective doctrine. Jesus may have talked a lot about works, but the rest of the Bible we see God trying to gain a unique group of people to become his bride, to be called out of the world, and to represent him on earth. For this I believe he needs a corporate army. I do think Nee and Lee are biblically correct about this. Lee may have been wrong in his wording, shoot he may be conflating the ground of locality with the ground of oneness. But it doesn't remove the fact that the Bible clearly gives the archetype for the way to meet and it clearly says that we are not to meet at the place of our own choosing

But I do think that modern Christianity has something on the LC. They do seem to care about people a lot, and they do seem to put their money where their mouth is. Whereas the LC might just pray for someone, modern Christians might go the extra mile and actually DO something about someone else. I do think the LC are short in that way, and I do think it's a matter of practice, or failure to act, or failure to express Christ's humanity to a good extent

Btw I DO think that God is in modern Christian churches, and I think there's a certain type of love there that may be short in the local churches

The difference between them may be very important. As far as I know most modern Christians are very big on "doing what Jesus would do." Whereas those in the local churches are very focused on the inward experiences of Christ, living out Christ, and living in the spirit of Christ. The problem with both is they only focus on one or the other. If you ask a Christian in a modern church about the spirit they might give you a long blank stare. They don't even know! They don't even know they have a spirit. Many of them at least. How close are they to their spirit? How much do they exercise their spirit? Have they ever exercised their spirit? Have they felt the indwelling God ever? Sometimes I doubt they have. I think most of their doings and behavior is in the soul. They probably don't even know the difference between their soul and their spirit. This is pretty important

On the other hand those in the local churches seem very dull when it comes to charity, helping the needy, giving, loving, not judging others, not being closed off, being open minded, accepting and loving the downtrodden. Which lends to being more in the condition of Laodicea. This is a problem

So I see both sides have shortages

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Jay

Isn't this entire website about Lee and the local churches? Clearly he's the theme of the entire point of all of us being here

Hah! I can't argue with that!

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Jay

I think every teacher and theologian should be questioned and scrutinized. Otherwise their words would have no value. It's possible Nee/Lee were wrong in some of their doctrine and theology. It's possible they were right as well. If they are wrong once does that mean all of their writings are wrong? If they are right once, does that mean all of their writings are right?

I agree every teacher and theologian should be questioned/scrutinized.

From the perspective of a saint within the local church, to find out that even one of Nee/Lee's doctrine is wrong is earth shattering. And because their teachings are sold in the local church as things like "the pure riches", and even who they are as persons are sold as "the minister of the age" and "God's delegated authority on the earth".......then as I said, particularly given such high lofty claims, if one thing is wrong, then at a minimum it immediately puts all of their other teachings at least up for question.

No, getting one wrong does not mean all others are wrong. Each teaching has to be evaluated on its own merit. And getting one right doesn't mean all others are right. The apostle Paul was pretty smart in 1 Thessalonians when he said to "test all things". Everything needs to be tested. The problem is, when each thing of Lee's start getting tested, lots of them fall apart pretty quickly.

The problem, though, Jay, is that each teaching in the local church is not discrete and unconnected. The way things are taught, and the amount of errors there are, it is a monumental task to genuinely test the teachings. Every single little thing has to be questioned and verified, because so little of it can be trusted. I won't go into detail, but even when you write things on this site, it's difficult to respond to you because you bring in so many things that, when you are in the local church, are taken as hard truths, that are actually off from what the Bible says. But the effort to go through systematically and show how assumption X and assumption Y are really unfounded or in error is prohibitive. The amount of threads and strands that need to be untangled is massive. And so that thick web keeps people ..... well ..... trapped.

Trapped

P.S. I'll give one example, which I think someone else already brought up to you sometime in the past couple days. The thought of life and the tree of life. The concept of "life" has taken on a life of it's own in the local church, and it's not what the Bible means by "life". For example, there is no such thing in the Bible as "a sense of life" or "a sense of death".

So a saint might come on this site and say "all that matters is that we have a sense of life". Sounds simple. But it's not biblical. The saint is confident that it's biblical, because, don't you know? God only cares about life! Read Genesis!

But that's based on a faulty belief that "God told Adam and Eve to only eat the tree of life". The teaching that flows from that faulty belief is that "God only cares for life" and then it flows from that that "we just need to care for the sense of life".

But you won't find a single verse in Genesis that says God told them to only eat of the tree of life. What Genesis says is that God told them they could eat of ANY tree in the garden, just not the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 2:16-17
16 And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die."

There's a huge difference between "eat of ANY tree except one" versus "eat ONLY one".

But a typical saint almost won't believe their eyes when they are shown this. It changes too much of what is tangled up throughout Lee's teaching. If it's not true that "we should ONLY care for life", and if they cannot go by "a sense of life" anymore, then what do they go by?

Well, they've got to use their mind to test teachings, and they've got to be the mature believer mentioned in Hebrews 5:13-14 that discerns between good and evil. But this is hard, and it feels like a big responsibility, and this feels foreign to what they are used to in the local church.

And yep. It is hard, it is a big responsibility, and it is foreign. But it's what God wants His sons to be able to do.

And this tangled mess gets multiplied a thousand times over when trying to go through what is taught in the ministry. But as mature believers, we are supposed to test, really test, it all, hold fast to what is good, and not hold to the bad. It's the not holding to the bad in Lee's ministry that the saints don't know how to do. You are a little unique in that you are willing to say you don't agree with some things, which is good. Just keep applying that critical thinking to all of it in the ministry, even the stuff you think could never be wrong.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Jay

What I mean by that sir, is that if Nee and Lee are strictly just men who expound upon the Bible in an objective and strict sense, then they are no more wrong than the Bible is. If you go to that other thread and read the context with understanding you'll maybe get what I mean. If Nee's concept of deputy authority is Biblical then it's God that many people have a problem with and not Nee or Lee. Think about it for a minute

Ah, I see what you mean. I think that flew over most forum members' heads. Based on others' responses, it sounded to several of us, including me, like you were making a blanket statement that you were unwilling to question Nee and Lee, but had no problem questioning God.

But yes, if a given minister teaches something biblically true, and if people have a problem with that truth, then it is God they have a problem with. Agreed.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Jay

Ya know, you bring up an interesting point here. One thing that I've noticed is that I think modern Christianity is very big on works. But if you compare that to the local churches, you realize the local churches are NOT big on works. I'm wondering if there's a middle ground here. The LC focuses pretty much exclusively on the subjective and corporate experiences of Christ and the living in the spirit. Which is fantastic. However I do think works are needed and necessary and I think this may be one reason why the LC doesn't have a lot of fruit, among other large reasons that are discussed here on this site. Anyway I do believe Jesus does talk about works a lot, and I think that in the LC they just somehow gloss over that. I think works do show Christ's life and his humanity and they do impress people and gain people for God

But with that said, I do also believe that good works should come out of the life of Christ in our spirit. We're always told in the LC that if we are doing good works outside of our spirit then it's wood, hay, and stubble. Lee would say that for sure it is. But on the other hand the LC has very little works, if any at all. So the important question is can Christians be one anywhere else but in their mingled spirit? Maybe not according to Lee, but I will say at least modern Christian churches are very giving and very charitable and loving. Which, it's hard to say that any local churches are like that because they're so preoccupied with the inner experience of life and "the church life" that they rarely if ever even think of how to help, and if anyone comes to them who needs help they seem to clam up and go into their shells. But, so far you haven't shown me anything that's coming close to contending with the ground of locality as an objective doctrine. Jesus may have talked a lot about works, but the rest of the Bible we see God trying to gain a unique group of people to become his bride, to be called out of the world, and to represent him on earth. For this I believe he needs a corporate army. I do think Nee and Lee are biblically correct about this. Lee may have been wrong in his wording, shoot he may be conflating the ground of locality with the ground of oneness. But it doesn't remove the fact that the Bible clearly gives the archetype for the way to meet and it clearly says that we are not to meet at the place of our own choosing

But I do think that modern Christianity has something on the LC. They do seem to care about people a lot, and they do seem to put their money where their mouth is. Whereas the LC might just pray for someone, modern Christians might go the extra mile and actually DO something about someone else. I do think the LC are short in that way, and I do think it's a matter of practice, or failure to act, or failure to express Christ's humanity to a good extent

Btw I DO think that God is in modern Christian churches, and I think there's a certain type of love there that may be short in the local churches

The difference between them may be very important. As far as I know most modern Christians are very big on "doing what Jesus would do." Whereas those in the local churches are very focused on the inward experiences of Christ, living out Christ, and living in the spirit of Christ. The problem with both is they only focus on one or the other. If you ask a Christian in a modern church about the spirit they might give you a long blank stare. They don't even know! They don't even know they have a spirit. Many of them at least. How close are they to their spirit? How much do they exercise their spirit? Have they ever exercised their spirit? Have they felt the indwelling God ever? Sometimes I doubt they have. I think most of their doings and behavior is in the soul. They probably don't even know the difference between their soul and their spirit. This is pretty important

On the other hand those in the local churches seem very dull when it comes to charity, helping the needy, giving, loving, not judging others, not being closed off, being open minded, accepting and loving the downtrodden. Which lends to being more in the condition of Laodicea. This is a problem

So I see both sides have shortages

I appreciate your objective assessments of the local church and other Christians. I agree about what you say each of them emphasize.

Okay, regarding contending with the ground of locality as an objective doctrine.....

There are two things going on:

The first is how the Bible often refers to the church. And it is indeed often referred to as "the church in ABC city". This would be called "the ground of locality", would you agree?

The second thing is the concept of the believers being one. The oneness of the church.

My contention is not that referring as "the church in ABC city" is wrong. My contention, based on what I've gotten from and agree with from that video, is that to claim that "if you are not meeting on the ground of locality then you cannot be in oneness" is wrong. The Bible never connects "meeting on the ground of locality" with "oneness". Everrrrrrrr.

The Bible simply refers to the church being in a city, and also references elders being appointed in each city. It doesn't teach anything more than that related to churches and cities. It doesn't explain why a church is referred to in relation to a city. It doesn't explain that this is how the believers are one in practicality. It doesn't explain that this is the practical expression of oneness. None of that is there. Lee taught that it is there in the Bible, but it is not. We could agree that this is Witness Lee's THEORY as to why the church is usually referred to in terms of the city, sure, but as far as the Bible actually explaining why it is, it is not there.

Lee made a connection to oneness where the Bible does not make a connection.

So a saint can say "the Bible often shows one church in each city", because it does. But a saint cannot say "and the Bible says that is how the believers are in oneness", because it does not say that anywhere.

Witness Lee taught it, and so to verify Witness Lee's teaching, we just need to look at if the Bible ever says meeting as the church in your city is connected to the expression of oneness. But it doesn't. Oneness is never connected to the locality, but instead is always connected to good works and care. To connect oneness to good works/care is biblical. To connect oneness to meeting as the church in your city is not biblical. The Bible does not connect "clear archetype for a way to meet" to "oneness".

That's the contention.

I would also add that Jesus prayed in John 17:21 “that they all may be one, even as you, Father, are in me, and I in You”.

However it is that the believers are supposed to be one must parallel whatever way the Father and the Son are one. It is absurd to claim that the Father and the Son are one on the basis of locality. Therefore, it is similarly absurd to claim that the believers must also be one on the basis of locality. Hence, oneness must involve something else, something the Bible reveals as the thing that shows the Father and Son are one. And based on Jesus' words, the thing that shows that the Father and Son are one was the good works Jesus did, not anything having anything to do with "how they meet".

Does that make sense?

You talked about a bunch of other stuff, which I’ll respond more to later.

Trapped

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I appreciate your objective assessments of the local church and other Christians. I agree about what you say each of them emphasize.

Okay, regarding contending with the ground of locality as an objective doctrine.....

There are two things going on:

The first is how the Bible often refers to the church. And it is indeed often referred to as "the church in ABC city". This would be called "the ground of locality", would you agree?

The second thing is the concept of the believers being one. The oneness of the church.

My contention is not that referring as "the church in ABC city" is wrong. My contention, based on what I've gotten from and agree with from that video, is that to claim that "if you are not meeting on the ground of locality then you cannot be in oneness" is wrong. The Bible never connects "meeting on the ground of locality" with "oneness". Everrrrrrrr.

The problem with this though, and I believe this is the crux of Lee's point on the matter, is that if believers are divided according to denomination, practice, beliefs, etc. how can they actually be one? This is both a spiritual and a practical problem. Spiritually if believers are not in the mingled spirit, not connected to God the spirit (John 4:24), then how can they be one with God, let alone one another? Practically if believers are not physically in the same location, thinking the one thing (Philippians 2:2), and practicing the same things, then how can they be one? I don't believe it's possible. What we see today is fragmented groups of believers all doing what is right in their own eyes. At best they all follow the creed or doctrines of their pastor (which btw the pastoral system is an obvious practice of clergy-laity). So at best they can only be one with the fragmented congregation that they happen to like and go to. But what about all the other believers in any given city?

One of the biggest attacks against Lee is that he was exclusive and wouldn't mix or mingle with those in the denominations. But do the denominations mix and mingle? In fact I think all doors are open from every party. Those in the denominations can visit each other, and those in the local churches can visit the denominations and vice versa. All are welcome everywhere I believe. But how often do any Christians visit any other churches strictly for blending and fellowship? Probably very rarely. I don't believe the LC ever shut its doors on any genuine Christian visiting from amongst the denominations. But it rarely happens. Why? Because Christians are too comfortable in their spots. To whatever extent that also goes for the local churches. Although it is often encouraged in the LC to go to other localities and blend

Anyway my point is that the very thing denominations accused Lee of they were guilty of themselves. Each sect has its own little culture and it's own little set of doctrinal practices. If someone were to come who practiced differently they probably wouldn't accept it

At any rate, how is there any semblance of oneness in this scenario? Are those in the denominations one? I don't think so. Realistically speaking the body of Christ is divided. Christians are scattered in every city. Moreover who amongst the Christians in any given city is actually exercising their spirit and one with God? So how could they be one with anything? Aside from their works and their like souled behavior in those works? At best in Christianity we get a nice message from a bought and paid for pastor who kills the spiritual function of the believers, quells their ability to prophesy (which builds up the church; 1 Corinthians 14:4), and more than likely feeds them with the leaven of the prosperity gospel, or worse teaches them some worldly behavior modification habits and misuses the Bible to support their message. At best you will get a pastor who knows the word some and will expound upon the word, but if we're honest to what direction do they expound upon the word? Invariably it will tie into better behavior, or sinless living, or at the very best maybe some nice talks on living righteously. But who in Christianity is focused on living Christ, loving Christ, being connected to Christ, pursuing Christ for mutual satisfaction, and being taught how to do all of it? I think that Lee is absolutely right in his assessment of how poor modern Christianity is. I see it all over, all the time, whenever I contact modern Christians and churches. I see only the exercise of the soul, I see little to no light in the word that they expound, and at best they exhibit charity and giving to the needy. The last one is the best thing they do. I suppose also it's better to go to a denominational church than to a movie. I'd much rather live in a city with a church on every corner than a movie theater on every corner. Or a bar on every corner. I suppose religion serves a decent purpose to at least keep people occupied with a semblance of the right thing as opposed to just all out satan's systemic places of death. But spiritually are these places full of life or full of death? Or are they stagnant?

As far as spiritual oneness, I don't see much of it in that scenario. Just a crowd of disjointed members. I don't see Christians exercising their spirits. I don't see Christians enjoying the spirit. I don't see Christians expressing God much, if at all, and I don't see much life of Christ. At least they're believers I guess. But I don't believe it's what God intended or wants

One of Lee's definitions for religion is 'doing something for God without Christ.' I think that is an apt definition of modern Christianity

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The Bible simply refers to the church being in a city, and also references elders being appointed in each city. It doesn't teach anything more than that related to churches and cities. It doesn't explain why a church is referred to in relation to a city. It doesn't explain that this is how the believers are one in practicality. It doesn't explain that this is the practical expression of oneness. None of that is there. Lee taught that it is there in the Bible, but it is not. We could agree that this is Witness Lee's THEORY as to why the church is usually referred to in terms of the city, sure, but as far as the Bible actually explaining why it is, it is not there.

Lee made a connection to oneness where the Bible does not make a connection.

So a saint can say "the Bible often shows one church in each city", because it does. But a saint cannot say "and the Bible says that is how the believers are in oneness", because it does not say that anywhere.

Witness Lee taught it, and so to verify Witness Lee's teaching, we just need to look at if the Bible ever says meeting as the church in your city is connected to the expression of oneness. But it doesn't. Oneness is never connected to the locality, but instead is always connected to good works and care. To connect oneness to good works/care is biblical. To connect oneness to meeting as the church in your city is not biblical. The Bible does not connect "clear archetype for a way to meet" to "oneness".

That's the contention.

I would also add that Jesus prayed in John 17:21 “that they all may be one, even as you, Father, are in me, and I in You”.

However it is that the believers are supposed to be one must parallel whatever way the Father and the Son are one. It is absurd to claim that the Father and the Son are one on the basis of locality. Therefore, it is similarly absurd to claim that the believers must also be one on the basis of locality. Hence, oneness must involve something else, something the Bible reveals as the thing that shows the Father and Son are one. And based on Jesus' words, the thing that shows that the Father and Son are one was the good works Jesus did, not anything having anything to do with "how they meet".

Does that make sense?

You talked about a bunch of other stuff, which I’ll respond more to later.

Trapped

The way to be one is similar to how a car engine works. You need all the necessary components. You will need the exhaust system, the drive belts, the cooling system, etc. If one of those functioning parts ceases to function then the engine will not go, or it will not go very well. In the same way how can the believers be one if they aren't exercising and living in their spirit? How can they be one if they are fundamentally divided from the other believers not only in belief and practice but in physical proximity? Your point that the ground of locality is not necessary folds under this reality

And the fruit of the schisms is a soulish fruit. As I said before I appreciate their works. As did Christ in Revelation 2:18-19. Unfortunately Thyatira is the Roman catholic church, Babylon, and that Babylonian system flows into the denominations. Objectively the denominations are better than the Roman Catholic church, but their practices are the same in essence. They are married to the world, they house unbelievers, and they are full of idolatry. Don't believe me? Let's look at the Roman Catholic church and all of their idols. These people actually in fact worship the idols of Mary and some of the apostles whom they call saints. They pray to these idols, literally even bowing down before them. How horrible is this, and yet are the denominations much better? Many of then still have pictures of a blonde haired blue eyed Jesus on their church walls. Many of them adorn themselves with crosses, or get tattoos of Christ on the cross. Is this not idolatry? It's enough to say they are divided, but we could go further and say that they are corrupted. Not only are they not one, but I believe many of them express satan. When I watch Joel Osteen or these other mega church pastors, I sense a demonic energy about them. These men are closer to satan than they are to God. What is their fruit then? Certainly it's not the oneness that Jesus was talking about in John 17

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by Jay

...But who in Christianity is focused on living Christ, loving Christ, being connected to Christ, pursuing Christ for mutual satisfaction, and being taught how to do all of it? I think that Lee is absolutely right in his assessment of how poor modern Christianity is.

Well Jay, how about we look at a heathen government's recent assessment of a genuine Lord's Recovery Local Church?


This particular LC, until recently, may have been able to get by with claiming to be "focused on living Christ, loving Christ, being connected to Christ, pursuing Christ for mutual satisfaction, and being taught how to do all of it". But now, who in their right mind would believe a word of that after reading the Civil Court Transcript?

How unfortunate it is for a large modern City like OKC to have been assigned such a disgusting testimony of Jesus. And this is NOT just one bad apple in the barrel - this is the "cookie cutter" structure beneath all Witness Lee & LSM aligned churches.

Note: It appears that "Hearne" was a Full Time serving sister in that locality until she got fired for not going along with the cover-up. Just think about how her world got turned upside down...

P.S.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

And the fruit of the schisms is a soulish fruit. As I said before I appreciate their works. As did Christ in Revelation 2:18-19. Unfortunately Thyatira is the Roman catholic church, Babylon, and that Babylonian system flows into the denominations. Objectively the denominations are better than the Roman Catholic church, but their practices are the same in essence. They are married to the world, they house unbelievers, and they are full of idolatry. Don't believe me? Let's look at the Roman Catholic church and all of their idols. These people actually in fact worship the idols of Mary and some of the apostles whom they call saints. They pray to these idols, literally even bowing down before them. How horrible is this, and yet are the denominations much better? Many of then still have pictures of a blonde haired blue eyed Jesus on their church walls. Many of them adorn themselves with crosses, or get tattoos of Christ on the cross. Is this not idolatry? It's enough to say they are divided, but we could go further and say that they are corrupted. Not only are they not one, but I believe many of them express satan. When I watch Joel Osteen or these other mega church pastors, I sense a demonic energy about them. These men are closer to satan than they are to God. What is their fruit then? Certainly it's not the oneness that Jesus was talking about in John 17

Jay, you have no clue how much of this same corruption and idolatry pervades your Recovery. You think that system of error is pure and holy because you see it from a distance, and they sell themselves so well. So did I for 30 years.

Unfortunately all the debates here have only hardened your position. I was that way too. As a Catholic, we all complained about it, but once outsiders attacked, we became defenders of the Catholic Church. Same thing happened to me for 30 years in the Recovery.

[TheStarswillFall]

Originally Posted by Jay

Unfortunately Thyatira is the ... church. their practices are the same in essence... they are full of idolatry. Don't believe me? Let's look at the ... church and all of their idols. These people actually in fact worship... some of the apostles whom they call....

Minister of the Age?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by TheStarswillFall

Minister of the Age?

Maybe. But I've never heard anyone pray to Lee. I have seen a great deal of reverence for him. And yes I would agree with others that......if looking from the outside in.....Lee does resemble a cult leader. I can see that, particularly if looking in as someone who has no experience in the local churches. It definitely seems like they're all following Lee. And I guess in a sense they are, however I'd say they are following his ministry more than HIM per se. And I can see why. His ministry is unique and leads you in a direction where you experience Christ. But there have been times where I myself have just read and read his ministry and became dead spiritually because I was too caught up in reading the ministry as opposed to praying, touching my spirit, and pray reading or just reading the word. Similar to John 5:39

On the other hand Paul himself said 'be imitators of me and as I am of Christ' (1 Corinthians 11:1). But then you would say "Is Lee on the same level as Paul." Idk I guess that's up to each person to decipher. But I certainly would never have gained as much Bible clarity as I have from reading Nee and Lee without them. Are they on Paul's level in their personal life? I don't know. I have seen video of Lee where he definitely seemed like he had the spirit of God upon him. But I don't know. I suppose we will know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:16). As far as his ministry is concerned, Lee has spiritual fruit and he has had spiritual increase in the form of conversion and if the local churches are of God then certainly he has much fruit by way of bringing believers into the line of life and the line of meeting correctly.....if the local churches are correct, and if his ministry is correct

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, you have no clue how much of this same corruption and idolatry pervades your Recovery. You think that system of error is pure and holy because you see it from a distance, and they sell themselves so well. So did I for 30 years.

Unfortunately all the debates here have only hardened your position. I was that way too. As a Catholic, we all complained about it, but once outsiders attacked, we became defenders of the Catholic Church. Same thing happened to me for 30 years in the Recovery.

Well I can't go along with their frauding money and then paying back the saints out of their own tithes. That was wrong any way you look at it. And I can't go along with any of the alleged cover ups either, if they are indeed true. And I also can't go along with the uplifting of a man to almost godlike status, which I believe many had the tendency to do with brother Lee. I believe all of that was wrong, and I hope Lee tried to squash it. But from what others are saying on this site he didn't do that, or he didn't do that very well. Although I have heard of instances when he did try to squash that, and I have read him saying things along that line

But those allegations are big problems, and unfortunately a lot of people were hurt by them. So obviously I can't endorse those errors, or sins. But I also wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water either. I believe that the concept of recovery is pure in and of itself. Just like the efficacy of the message shouldn't change if the messenger is corrupt. However when it comes to leadership structure that's a different story. If leadership is corrupt then that produces spiritual death in my view. I have a hard time believing Lee was wholly corrupt, but reading all that I have I believe he made major mistakes and had certain major sins. And maybe his holding onto his assumed or delegated position of leader over all the churches was wrong. But I still think God never ceased to bless his ministry. Maybe this is something that I myself am learning about God. But as I said I can't throw the baby out with the bath water. And I also don't say that to excuse or diminish any of the allegations against him. But I also couldn't see the local churches as defunct despite these major errors/sins

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

Well I can't go along with their frauding money and then paying back the saints out of their own tithes. That was wrong any way you look at it. And I can't go along with any of the alleged cover ups either, if they are indeed true. And I also can't go along with the uplifting of a man to almost godlike status, which I believe many had the tendency to do with brother Lee. I believe all of that was wrong, and I hope Lee tried to squash it. But from what others are saying on this site he didn't do that, or he didn't do that very well. Although I have heard of instances when he did try to squash that, and I have read him saying things along that line

But those allegations are big problems, and unfortunately a lot of people were hurt by them. So obviously I can't endorse those errors, or sins. But I also wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water either. I believe that the concept of recovery is pure in and of itself. Just like the efficacy of the message shouldn't change if the messenger is corrupt. However when it comes to leadership structure that's a different story. If leadership is corrupt then that produces spiritual death in my view. I have a hard time believing Lee was wholly corrupt, but reading all that I have I believe he made major mistakes and had certain major sins. And maybe his holding onto his assumed or delegated position of leader over all the churches was wrong. But I still think God never ceased to bless his ministry. Maybe this is something that I myself am learning about God. But as I said I can't throw the baby out with the bath water. And I also don't say that to excuse or diminish any of the allegations against him. But I also couldn't see the local churches as defunct despite these major errors/sins

I struggled with these matters also. I’m not sure if you realize it, but I have taken a beating over the years on this forum for trying to navigate a path according to the truth. Sometimes being in the middle made me a target for both sides.

My concern was that so many 2nd Gen ex-members were indeed “throwing out the baby” after they departed from the Recovery. Most of these ones left due to legalism, rigid ideology, hypocrisy, and serious abuses. Many had been trained to condemn Christianity from birth, so finding another believing church was never an option. Sadly, many of them had no real experience of God’s saving love and grace. Some are damaged and stumbled for life. Truly tragic.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Jay

…
But I also couldn't see the local churches as defunct despite these major errors/sins

Wow! This is a stunning statement. Truly a doctrine of demons if ever there was one. Whose church is it anyway? Yours? Is that your decision to make? “Sin in the church is Ok by me.”

Do you have verses supporting your apathy toward sin in the church of Jesus? He came to save his people from their sin.

Unbelievable. Are you reading your own words? Would you marry such a bride? Do you think Jesus is OK with Laodicea?

The church, if it is the church, is spotless and without wrinkle.

Galatians 5:9
9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

A little leaven leavens the whole lump is a metaphor the apostle Paul uses to compare the effects of false teaching in the church to the results of yeast in bread dough (Galatians 5:9). Just as a small amount of yeast will make a whole loaf of bread rise, a little bit of legalistic teaching will quickly spread, infiltrating the hearts and minds of individual believers until the entire church is contaminated.

https://www.gotquestions.org/little-...hole-lump.html

Witness Lee leavened the whole loaf, and you, Jay, are adding your own leaven.

Nell

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I struggled with these matters also. I’m not sure if you realize it, but I have taken a beating over the years on this forum for trying to navigate a path according to the truth. Sometimes being in the middle made me a target for both sides.

My concern was that so many 2nd Gen ex-members were indeed “throwing out the baby” after they departed from the Recovery. Most of these ones left due to legalism, rigid ideology, hypocrisy, and serious abuses. Many had been trained to condemn Christianity from birth, so finding another believing church was never an option. Sadly, many of them had no real experience of God’s saving love and grace. Some are damaged and stumbled for life. Truly tragic.

Yeah that's an interesting and crucial point. I'm not sure there's much I can say about that. I can see how that could happen for sure. The way Lee presents the recovery is more or less "this way or the dark room." So is there another option? I don't see one. So I can definitely see how many would be shipwrecked regarding their faith after leaving the recovery. I guess this is where you get the whole "mindbenders" thing. And I also see this all from another angle. Before I experienced it myself none of what you all are saying meant much. But once I ran up against it now I totally get all of it

I guess it's up to the Lord. I feel for those who went through it, because I'm tasting it now and it's not fun. But I think the Lord has me and I hope those who left don't forget to turn to him

Right now I'm dealing with the problem of how can I go on if it's not in the local churches? But I don't want to go back to something that I know is basically a weird type of clergy-laity authority. Until I really spent time around it I never saw it. But once I saw it I realized the problem of it. You have the choice to just accept it or leave I guess. I don't think there's any beating it. You're kind of trapped to it. There's nothing better than the ministry and I think it's what God is doing, so anywhere else is a huge degradation and you'll never be able to live down the fact that you are not meeting on the right ground wherever you go. On the other hand how do you stay? You have to go in with blinders on and tolerate the clergy control from the leading brothers

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Jay

Yeah that's an interesting and crucial point. I'm not sure there's much I can say about that. I can see how that could happen for sure. The way Lee presents the recovery is more or less "this way or the dark room." So is there another option? I don't see one. So I can definitely see how many would be shipwrecked regarding their faith after leaving the recovery. …

Right now I'm dealing with the problem of how can I go on if it's not in the local churches? But I don't want to go back to something that I know is basically a weird type of clergy-laity authority. Until I really spent time around it I never saw it. But once I saw it I realized the problem of it. You have the choice to just accept it or leave I guess. I don't think there's any beating it. You're kind of trapped to it. There's nothing better than the ministry and I think it's what God is doing, so anywhere else is a huge degradation and you'll never be able to live down the fact that you are not meeting on the right ground wherever you go. On the other hand how do you stay? You have to go in with blinders on and tolerate the clergy control from the leading brothers

How about strengthening your walk with the Lord first? He can and will lead you. No one can build his church but him. We just need to get out of his way and let him.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Jay

On the other hand Paul himself said 'be imitators of me and as I am of Christ' (1 Corinthians 11:1). But then you would say "Is Lee on the same level as Paul." Idk I guess that's up to each person to decipher.

This is a great example of taking a verse out of context to fit into an idea. Paul in the actual context is closing his statements here regarding doing all things to the Glory of God.

Using this verse to support the argument that various fallen men are ranked by according to “levels” is to make the Bible fit your agenda.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

Right now I'm dealing with the problem of how can I go on if it's not in the local churches? But I don't want to go back to something that I know is basically a weird type of clergy-laity authority. Until I really spent time around it I never saw it. But once I saw it I realized the problem of it. You have the choice to just accept it or leave I guess. I don't think there's any beating it. You're kind of trapped to it. There's nothing better than the ministry and I think it's what God is doing, so anywhere else is a huge degradation and you'll never be able to live down the fact that you are not meeting on the right ground wherever you go. On the other hand how do you stay? You have to go in with blinders on and tolerate the clergy control from the leading brothers

We have all come to that “fork in the road” and were forced to make a decision to stay or go. Can you stay to effect positive change in your situation? That really is a decision to make with the Lord leading you, the Author and Perfecter of your faith.

I will say, however, after much study and many deliberations, that the “right ground,” the so-called ground of oneness, which we heard so much about, was a false teaching. The “local ground of oneness” was a teaching adapted from JNDarby and the Exclusive Brethren of 19th century England. Ironically, using these identical justifications for MOTA, these Darby churches still exalt one leader, called by diverse titles. They have a lineage of leaders. The third? in line was James Taylor Jr who banned WN, and that story can be found. His son James Taylor Jr., the fourth? in line, the “heir apparent,” was every bit as loathsome as Philip Lee. The “ground” teaching is an offshoot of the Recovery teaching, as is this “minister of the age.”

Back to the “ground.” This teaching was developed as a false standard, a cudgel, by which all other churches could be discredited and forever judged. Quite convenient, except that the ground of oneness was never taught in the Bible. Paul never taught it nor followed that pattern of ecclesiology. In Revelation 2-3, John *describes* it but never *prescribes* it. Huge difference here in faithful Bible exposition.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We have all come to that “fork in the road” and were forced to make a decision to stay or go. Can you stay to effect positive change in your situation? That really is a decision to make with the Lord leading you, the Author and Perfecter of your faith

There's no way to change the scenario of the leadership there. It's just about as tight as the papal system. Unless certain elders came to me and apologized and said they were wrong about certain things. But they won't, because that's not how human nature works in leadership positions. If you're not in the position you're s.o.l. with regards to whatever problem you have, as demonstrated by many many testimonies on this website. That's just how human leadership is. You're s.o.l. if they disagree with you because they hold the position, you don't. So at any time they can pull the rank card on you to get their way, and they have. There's no way to fight that. Particularly when you have a scenario of "well we brothers prayed and WE FEEL this is best for you," which alludes to them being closer to God than you therefore whatever they say goes

For Brother Lee to take money from the saints to fund his sketchy side business with his unethical sons and then pay the saints back with their own tithe money is serious stuff. For elders to scoff at members who need financial help while millions of dollars is going to build more training centers and buy plots of land to bury their prominent members. Those are serious high level problems and were any apologies given? Maybe, was restitution made? I don't think in full, and in many cases none at all

I'm just a small brother who needs other members. I can't theologically leave for anywhere else, but I also haven't found myself going back. So......anyway this world seems about closing. The age is darker and darker. May not be long before the Lord returns anyway

But I know at least in my locality they have no fruit. No new ones. No lasting success in their gospel efforts. I wonder how God could bless them when they treat the lowly members like they're nothing. Sure they're still praising the Lord every day but they also ignore a lot. No one questions leadership, no one really takes care of needy members. So they're all just in a Jesus daze. They all just have blinders on, which I guess is what they've been trained to do. "Don't listen to the dissenters. Anyone who is causing problems ignore." Well that's a nice way of absolving yourself from any accountability. They're so hyper-focused on Jesus that they don't see something right in front of their face. Which is what they've been trained to do. Be good little lemmings who take direction. And if they don't then they're "rebels." If they step out of line then they become a problem and that's a powerful adhesive against change

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I will say, however, after much study and many deliberations, that the “right ground,” the so-called ground of oneness, which we heard so much about, was a false teaching. The “local ground of oneness” was a teaching adapted from JNDarby and the Exclusive Brethren of 19th century England. Ironically, using these identical justifications for MOTA, these Darby churches still exalt one leader, called by diverse titles. They have a lineage of leaders. The third? in line was James Taylor Jr who banned WN, and that story can be found. His son James Taylor Jr., the fourth? in line, the “heir apparent,” was every bit as loathsome as Philip Lee. The “ground” teaching is an offshoot of the Recovery teaching, as is this “minister of the age.”

Back to the “ground.” This teaching was developed as a false standard, a cudgel, by which all other churches could be discredited and forever judged. Quite convenient, except that the ground of oneness was never taught in the Bible. Paul never taught it nor followed that pattern of ecclesiology. In Revelation 2-3, John *describes* it but never *prescribes* it. Huge difference here in faithful Bible exposition.

I can't agree objectively that the ground isn't biblical or the right thing. I've stated many times on this site before that it is and given the Bible verses that back it up. No the Bible doesn't say exactly "the local ground is one church per one city." But it gives a clear picture of it

Now it's possible that Lee for many years of his ministry was wrong in his personal life and how he handled the situation with his sons. And it looks as if he was very wrong with finances. But I can't say his theology is wrong. The only thing I could say is that it does seem like you all have a point on the MOTA thing and he for sure leaned into that moniker and he propped himself up like he was the head guy of the whole recovery while also claiming he wasn't. I'm certain that all major LC business flowed through him like all the business of a mafia flows through a godfather. I'm quite certain that he gave the yes or the no on many many matters in the entire LC, and to say he didn't is not truthful. But that's as far as I can go to critique Lee. I can't say anything about his doctrine or his theology aside from maybe that and maybe certain things about the authority of the church and the authority of the leading ones, which concept probably stemmed from Nee. And it seems those concepts were and are being abused by the leadership. That's as far as I can go, and that is a very large thing though. A very large thing to misuse. But the rest of his theology I find wholly biblical including the ground of the church. If he overemphasized it then probably that was part of his major sins and errors. But WE shouldn't underemphasize it either. I believe it's very important

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Zezima

This is a great example of taking a verse out of context to fit into an idea. Paul in the actual context is closing his statements here regarding doing all things to the Glory of God.

Using this verse to support the argument that various fallen men are ranked by according to “levels” is to make the Bible fit your agenda.

Well we can call Paul a very spiritual man can we not? Sure he's just as fallen as us, but is our spiritual pursuit as successful and advanced as his was? I'm just saying Paul wasn't NOTHING or NO ONE per se. Granted he was just a vessel that God showed mercy on, but he also was someone who was very close to God and that means something. He was also a murderer as was king David and Solomon was a lecher who also happened to build God's physical house on earth. Somewhat of a paradox. Sure God isn't a respecter of persons, but God also called Abraham his friend and he said he loved Jacob but hated Esau. Paradoxical things

I'm not suggesting there is any kind of rank in the body though. Not the point I'm trying to make. I don't say that to imply rank or importance. But these men are in some ways role models insofar as their spiritual pursuits and attainments are concerned. Yes they had major sins and major failures, but we also can't say that had no major attainments and major success either. This is where we need some nuance to have a more broad understanding

But I will say that those in the recovery have placed probably way too much reverence and honor on Nee and Lee. To the point where those around Lee would cover up for his major sins. It's probably true that if Lee was a smaller member then his sins wouldn't go unnoticed or be swept under the rug as they have been. In the Bible we all knew David's sins and Solomon's sins and Saul's sins, because the Bible records them. But when it comes to Nee and Lee their sins have been whitewashed to protect the integrity of the recovery. Idk if that's something of the will of God. It seems to me that that's more of a boasting point for the enemy. I think it gives less validity to the recovery as a whole and it wreaks of the works of man and not of God

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We have all come to that “fork in the road” and were forced to make a decision to stay or go. Can you stay to effect positive change in your situation? That really is a decision to make with the Lord leading you, the Author and Perfecter of your faith.

I will say, however, after much study and many deliberations, that the “right ground,” the so-called ground of oneness, which we heard so much about, was a false teaching. The “local ground of oneness” was a teaching adapted from JNDarby and the Exclusive Brethren of 19th century England. Ironically, using these identical justifications for MOTA, these Darby churches still exalt one leader, called by diverse titles. They have a lineage of leaders. The third? in line was James Taylor Jr who banned WN, and that story can be found. His son James Taylor Jr., the fourth? in line, the “heir apparent,” was every bit as loathsome as Philip Lee. The “ground” teaching is an offshoot of the Recovery teaching, as is this “minister of the age.”

Back to the “ground.” This teaching was developed as a false standard, a cudgel, by which all other churches could be discredited and forever judged. Quite convenient, except that the ground of oneness was never taught in the Bible. Paul never taught it nor followed that pattern of ecclesiology. In Revelation 2-3, John *describes* it but never *prescribes* it. Huge difference here in faithful Bible exposition.

"The Recovery" does seem like an offshoot of the Exclusive Brethren or perhaps Nee and Lee borrowed what they got from it.
After my family and I stopped meeting with the Church in Renton, we began meeting with East Renton Community Church. In my time there and in my conversations with the pastor, I learned prior to becoming a pastor he was excommunicated from the Exclusive Brethren. He conveyed to me some of the practices of the Exclusive Brethren which are identical to the Local Churches except with different terminology. "The one meeting place" versus "The ground of the church".

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Jay

Well we can call Paul a very spiritual man can we not? Sure he's just as fallen as us, but is our spiritual pursuit as successful and advanced as his was? I'm just saying Paul wasn't NOTHING or NO ONE per se. Granted he was just a vessel that God showed mercy on, but he also was someone who was very close to God and that means something. He was also a murderer as was king David and Solomon was a lecher who also happened to build God's physical house on earth. Somewhat of a paradox. Sure God isn't a respecter of persons, but God also called Abraham his friend and he said he loved Jacob but hated Esau. Paradoxical things

I'm not suggesting there is any kind of rank in the body though. Not the point I'm trying to make. I don't say that to imply rank or importance. But these men are in some ways role models insofar as their spiritual pursuits and attainments are concerned. Yes they had major sins and major failures, but we also can't say that had no major attainments and major success either. This is where we need some nuance to have a more broad understanding

But I will say that those in the recovery have placed probably way too much reverence and honor on Nee and Lee. To the point where those around Lee would cover up for his major sins. It's probably true that if Lee was a smaller member then his sins wouldn't go unnoticed or be swept under the rug as they have been. In the Bible we all knew David's sins and Solomon's sins and Saul's sins, because the Bible records them. But when it comes to Nee and Lee their sins have been whitewashed to protect the integrity of the recovery. Idk if that's something of the will of God. It seems to me that that's more of a boasting point for the enemy. I think it gives less validity to the recovery as a whole and it wreaks of the works of man and not of God

You were taking a Bible verse out of context to fit your point. You quoted a verse from 1 Cor. to support your point, but that verse isn’t used by the author to prove the point you’re making.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Zezima

You were taking a Bible verse out of context to fit your point. You quoted a verse from 1 Cor. to support your point, but that verse isn’t used by the author to prove the point you’re making.

I have other threads going on and I've written a lot on this website recently. Can you show me where I quoted 1 Cor. to support my point so I can understand what you're talking about right now.....

[Jay]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

"The Recovery" does seem like an offshoot of the Exclusive Brethren or perhaps Nee and Lee borrowed what they got from it.
After my family and I stopped meeting with the Church in Renton, we began meeting with East Renton Community Church. In my time there and in my conversations with the pastor, I learned prior to becoming a pastor he was excommunicated from the Exclusive Brethren. He conveyed to me some of the practices of the Exclusive Brethren which are identical to the Local Churches except with different terminology. "The one meeting place" versus "The ground of the church".

Objectively I don't see what's so wrong with this. sounds like the Brethren were on the right track, although it seems they didn't expand on the concept to include all the believers in that locality meeting at one place. At least insofar as calling it 'the church in such and such city.' Which would be more Biblically correct than calling it 'the one meeting place' which is kind of abstract. It's much more solid to say 'the church in such and such city'

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Jay

Objectively I don't see what's so wrong with this. sounds like the Brethren were on the right track, although it seems they didn't expand on the concept to include all the believers in that locality meeting at one place. At least insofar as calling it 'the church in such and such city.' Which would be more Biblically correct than calling it 'the one meeting place' which is kind of abstract. It's much more solid to say 'the church in such and such city'

The problem with OCOC (one church one city) is that Lee took a description of the New Testament churches meeting in a city…because that’s where the believers lived in those days, and turned it into his personal prescription or a command for how the church was to meet for all time.

This is a hallmark of the Lee method…turning a description into a prescription, a command. Many of Lee’s teachings followed this pattern. Another example…authority.

https://www.gotquestions.org/descrip...scriptive.html

Much has been written in this arena regarding the honest use of words overall, not just in biblical interpretation. Lee was very creative in his use of words which relied on him for interpretation.

Nell

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jay

Objectively I don't see what's so wrong with this. sounds like the Brethren were on the right track, although it seems they didn't expand on the concept to include all the believers in that locality meeting at one place. At least insofar as calling it 'the church in such and such city.' Which would be more Biblically correct than calling it 'the one meeting place' which is kind of abstract. It's much more solid to say 'the church in such and such city'

I think it is hypocritical will take the road to sectarianism.
Hypocritical in the sense. Take for example the pseudo Blended MR from Bellevue. Paraphrasing an example he gave regarding the local ground is if you want to go a certain person's home, there is only one address. Not multiple. Meaning the Church in Bellevue is like a legal wife. Another other church than wants to call themselves a church is not like a legal wife. My mom had pretty much said the same thing, but in other words.
It's hypocritical because if you are a brother meeting with the Church in Seattle for example and you raised a concern to an elder the local churches are becoming like ministry churches, and then are requested to go meet somewhere else. By making such a statement does such an elder truly believe the Church in Seattle is the only legitimate church in Seattle. It's hypocritical.
Taking this way of one church one city is also sectarian. Having lived in Renton for nearly 25 years, Christians I've met from services, riding the bus, etc, there are many home meetings throughout Renton. Yet the attitude within the local churches is they will only go to LC home meetings. And vice versa when I was meeting with the Church in Renton, when it came to home meetings they had room if you met with the local churches.
One of my regrets. Returning from summer vacation August 2010, not sharing my experience meeting John Ingalls at the Renton home meeting.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Nell

The problem with OCOC (one church one city) is that Lee took a description of the New Testament churches meeting in a city…because that’s where the believers lived in those days, and turned it into his personal prescription or a command for how the church was to meet for all time.

This is a hallmark of the Lee method…turning a description into a prescription, a command. Many of Lee’s teachings followed this pattern. Another example…authority.

https://www.gotquestions.org/descrip...scriptive.html

Much has been written in this arena regarding the honest use of words overall, not just in biblical interpretation. Lee was very creative in his use of words which relied on him for interpretation.

Nell

The reason why I don't think it's just simply descriptive is because of Deuteronomy chapter 12 where God clearly says we can't just choose to meet at any old place we decide to or feel comfortable at, but rather only at the place of the Lord's choosing

I genuinely see no basis to call that sectarian. In fact sects already exist. It seems to me that OCOC is a 'calling back' from the sects to the proper ground

I also think to whatever extent you're conflating the concept of a unique meeting place with the concept of being one with all believers. I think both of those things can be true at the same time. We are one with all the believers, however most of them are not in oneness with us. Now it could be that by claiming "we are what God wants" is a kind of exclusivity, but think about it for a minute and break it down- are you suggesting we go and blend with the denominations? what would that accomplish exactly? it probably would just cause a lot of problems and there would be confusion and a lack of enjoyment for both parties. those from the LC would want to call on the Lord, exercise their spirit, and sing praises. those in the denominations would likely just feel odd about that and what do they have to offer exactly? I'd certainly appreciate fellowship with other believers. which in that sense, it would be nice. but eventually their lack of exercising their spirit would be troublesome to LC veterans. it's a strange thing to think about and it's for sure multifaceted, because probably there is some elitist and exclusive behavior from the local churches, who take pride in their Biblical correctness. which could be an overall reason why they don't have much fruit as far as increase, and probably why you view them as sectarian. it comes down to behavior I suppose

[Jay]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

I think it is hypocritical will take the road to sectarianism.
Hypocritical in the sense. Take for example the pseudo Blended MR from Bellevue. Paraphrasing an example he gave regarding the local ground is if you want to go a certain person's home, there is only one address. Not multiple. Meaning the Church in Bellevue is like a legal wife. Another other church than wants to call themselves a church is not like a legal wife. My mom had pretty much said the same thing, but in other words.
It's hypocritical because if you are a brother meeting with the Church in Seattle for example and you raised a concern to an elder the local churches are becoming like ministry churches, and then are requested to go meet somewhere else. By making such a statement does such an elder truly believe the Church in Seattle is the only legitimate church in Seattle. It's hypocritical.
Taking this way of one church one city is also sectarian. Having lived in Renton for nearly 25 years, Christians I've met from services, riding the bus, etc, there are many home meetings throughout Renton. Yet the attitude within the local churches is they will only go to LC home meetings. And vice versa when I was meeting with the Church in Renton, when it came to home meetings they had room if you met with the local churches.
One of my regrets. Returning from summer vacation August 2010, not sharing my experience meeting John Ingalls at the Renton home meeting.

There's a lot to unpack here. First of all the term church just means congregation. In the original Greek it means 'gathering of the called out ones.' So in a sense wherever believers meet there is the church. Ok.....but, we have Deuteronomy chapter 12 where the Lord clearly says we can't just meet at any old place we want to, but at the place of his choosing. So where is that then? That's a golden question in this equation

As far as who is welcome in the LC, I've never ever seen anyone who met at a denomination turned away. I've never felt that type of pressure or heard that type of concept being spoken. Rather the opposite, I've only heard that we accept all believers in our meetings. And from time to time some would come and they weren't treated weirdly or ostracized. So I'm not quite sure why you're alluding to that type of thing happening. Have you seen it happen?


Also I'm not sure why you view the concept of the local ground as like a legality. I don't think that's what it is per se. I think it's more of a doctrine, and as far as I can tell is completely correct. I think the brothers are right to stand strong on that doctrine because it safeguards against divisions, which is one of satan's biggest tactics against the building of the church. one thing I haven't heard anyone on this website say or mention is how satan is involved in the denominations and his plan to divide the body through them. I absolutely see that that's what he has done throughout the centuries starting with Catholicism. and he's brought in a lot of weird and damaging practices into these divided centers of gathering. so what I see from that is his goal is to disconnect and distort. to fight against that you need a proper vision (Proverbs 29:18)

As far as your experience with that elder in Seattle I don't really understand why he would request for you to meet somewhere else. that is confusing and seems odd and wrong for him to say given the context you presented, unless there's more to the story

And to touch again on your line "the church in Bellevue is like a legal wife." I think your thought here is really similar to women who say things like "my husband is so controlling because he won't let me talk to other men." think about that for a minute......However with that said I don't believe at all that anyone in the LC would tell another member that they COULDN'T go and meet somewhere else. I think they have advised and admonished against that type of thing in ways. Which I understand the warnings behind that. So again I can't really co-sign on your experience here as the LC "controlling" the members with "legalities" over meeting only at the LC. because I have never heard of that type of thing or experienced it. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but certainly nothing I've ever heard about. As far as I know the door in and out of the church is always open

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Jay

There's a lot to unpack here. First of all the term church just means congregation. In the original Greek it means 'gathering of the called out ones.' So in a sense wherever believers meet there is the church. Ok.....but, we have Deuteronomy chapter 12 where the Lord clearly says we can't just meet at any old place we want to, but at the place of his choosing. So where is that then? That's a golden question in this equation.

The New Testament already tells us where to worship while explicitly referencing the temple of the Old Testament. You have already been given scriptural examples that you are unfortunately disregarding.

We will no longer worship on the mountain or the temple, but in spirit.

We are God's temple, God's dwelling place.

God has already explicitly outlined his house of worship: his people.

The fulfillment of the temple is not churches named according to arbitrary city boundaries made by men. The fulfillment of the temple is God's people. A house that is not built by the hands of men. Cities are made by the hands of men. City boundaries are established by men. Stop trying to use such arbitrary things to place unscriptural limits on the assemblies of God.

You have provided no scriptures that make any such overt and explicit connections between the temple and how we name our assemblies, and you have provided no scriptures that in any way implies such a level of importance for the naming of churches according to the cities they are found in. If it was that important, it would be that explicit. Do not compare the naming of the churches to something as crucial and grand as the holy temple of the old testament when it clearly does not have that level of importance.

As others have mentioned, you are taking something descriptive in the New Testament and presenting it as something prescriptive.

Tell me, Jay, what do you know of the church in Cenchreae and the church in Phoebe's house?

[Nell]

Jay,

Your last post, in violation of the forum Mission Statement, has been administratively deleted. Your sarcasm and disrespect of other forum members will not be tolerated.

Nell
Admin/Moderator

[Jay]

So you all can bash the LC to no end, but if I say something mildly condescending I get reprimanded because I simply don't think the same homogenous way you do. Pot meet kettle. Gotta love the hypocrisy
-

[UntoHim]

Jay, this forum is named "Local Church Discussions", not "Local Church Bashing". We are all here to discuss, not to bash.

We all have Bibles, and they all presumably have a book called Deuteronomy. Many of us sat under at the feet of Witness Lee for decades. We all know what he taught about what is written in Deuteronomy 12. Many (most) of us can recite the rhetoric that your presenting here in our sleep.

There is something you must understand. Deuteronomy was written over 700 years before the Lord Jesus proclaimed "the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him".(John 4:24) And do you know what Jay? This was a direct answer to a person who sounded a lot like you - "Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship!". (v:20) Instead of confirming this persons concept of a physical place to worship, the Lord Jesus directed her to the God-ordained place to worship - in spirit and in truth.

The rest of the Gospels and the teachings of the apostles confirm the words of the Lord Jesus in John 4. The place for God's people to worship him is in spirit and in truth. The sign outside of the physical meeting place (or lack thereof) means little to God. He cares about S(s)pirit, and he cares about Truth.
Much more to say of course.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

The New Testament already tells us where to worship while explicitly referencing the temple of the Old Testament. You have already been given scriptural examples that you are unfortunately disregarding. We will no longer worship on the mountain or the temple, but in spirit.....

I love this post. Truth wise, it encapsulates the clearest rebuttal to the errant “ground of oneness” teachings. After reading Jay’s post, I was putting thoughts together to write, and then I read ACF’s post. He said it much better than I.

Such a simple summary should have readily liberated me years ago from the fetters of Recovery teachings. Should have. Unfortunately I needed to watch in real time my own church being divided in half by the same ministry that indoctrinated me for 30 years with these oneness teachings. How could this happen? Slowly, too slowly in fact, I came to the realization that the purpose of these “ground of oneness” teachings was never to keep the genuine oneness of the Spirit, but to place walls around one man’s kingdom, and that man was not Jesus.

Having also read much church history during this time frame, I have studied how JND, WN, and WL all used the same exclusive teachings to build their own “empires.”

[ACuriousFellow]

I'm not entirely sure what's transpired, but I suppose I can answer my own question.

The churches in Cenchreae and Phoebe's house break the pattern that The Lord's Recovery obsesses over.

Cenchreae (mentioned in Romans 16:1-2) is a district of Corinth. This would be like saying that the church in New York exists at the same time as the churches in Queens and Manhattan. Paul does not care to prescribe such hard limits on the naming of the assemblies.

The church in Phoebe's house (Romans 16:5) takes this one step further. Phoebe was a deacon in the church of Cenchreae (also mentioned in the passage in Romans). So, not only is there a church based on a district rather than a city, there is also a church based on a house/household that further breaks the pattern within the very same city of Corinth!

I must insist once more that if this pattern was so crucial and important, there would be no leeway for such things, yet you insist on taking Lee's way. Further still, I will insist again, as many others have, that patterns do not make rules. Even if it is better to name ourselves so simply, it is not just or scriptural or spiritual to condemn others for not following the same pattern. At best, this is like the concept of marriage: it may be better to abstain and serve the Lord than to be married and have to give much of your time to your family, but in no way should we condemn those who get married or make them out to be lesser Christians. If we were as strict with this clearly superior pattern that was explicitly mentioned by Paul as Lee is with church naming, then we should be condemning all those who get married for not giving more of their time with the Lord.

Well... actually I've seen many young people in TLR be discouraged from getting married because the elders want them to serve full-time... so... TLR already does that to a degree. Anyways... that'll be a whole different conversation.

Anyhow, in the same way, it may be simpler and even beneficial to name ourselves according to our location (cities/districts/households) rather than denominational names, but this is not something to condemn others for so harshly as Lee has. Once more I insist, those who divide themselves because they think they are right in naming themselves after a city boundary are not more righteous than an assembly who call themselves "1st Baptist Church" yet are full of love and spirit and are willing to fellowship and work and pray and worship with other church groups.

Neverminded the fact that Lee created a denomination that divides itself based on a simple name. This group should be called the "Church of Cities" rather than The Lord's Recovery or The Local Churches. If we will say that many Baptist churches are too concerned about baptism and that many Pentecostal churches are too concerned about demonstrations of spiritual power, then we can also say that this "Church of Cities" is obsessed with labels and names based on the cities they are in.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Well... actually I've seen many young people in TLR be discouraged from getting married because the elders want them to serve full-time... so... TLR already does that to a degree. Anyways... that'll be a whole different conversation.

Great points. In I Cor 4 Paul informs us about the final days, how many real believers will depart from the faith, which in 2 Thess 2 he calls "The Apostasy." In principle, deceptive spirits will employ the hypocrisy of men, whose own consciences are already ruined. These ones will present "abstinence" as a form of "spirituality." Obviously this is trending throughout culture since it is now "virtuous" to eat bugs and abstain from carbon cows.

If those leaders in the Recovery really embraced the oneness and their other claims, and seriously practiced in the spirit of love and peace and tolerance, (Phil 4.5) I and many others would have far more respect for them. Today they are known for how many lawsuits and threats of lawsuits they have brought against their brothers. So shameful.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

So you all can bash the LC to no end, but if I say something mildly condescending I get reprimanded because I simply don't think the same homogeneous way you do. Pot meet kettle. Gotta love the hypocrisy
-

Jay, sorry if you feel I am bashing you. I was deceived by this teaching of the ground of locality. It puffed me up with pride, and gave me a judgmental attitude towards other believers. It damaged me and others. I am upset with that deception, not with you or any of the precious saints in the Recovery.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jay

And to touch again on your line "the church in Bellevue is like a legal wife." I think your thought here is really similar to women who say things like "my husband is so controlling because he won't let me talk to other men." think about that for a minute......However with that said I don't believe at all that anyone in the LC would tell another member that they COULDN'T go and meet somewhere else. I think they have advised and admonished against that type of thing in ways. Which I understand the warnings behind that. So again I can't really co-sign on your experience here as the LC "controlling" the members with "legalities" over meeting only at the LC. because I have never heard of that type of thing or experienced it. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but certainly nothing I've ever heard about. As far as I know the door in and out of the church is always open

It's more about the attitude claiming to be the only legitimate churches in the city. Let's take Renton for example. I've met with denominational and non-denominational assemblies. Each professing to be part of the local body of Christ. Would the Church in Renton also recognize other assemblies in Renton are also meeting as the local body of Christ. Not while I was there. Though it would be heartwarming if they did. I never saw it in Renton, Bellevue, or San Bernardino. Rather a claim to be the sole expression of the church in the respective cities.
Certain personalities just aren't welcome to attend a local church meeting or function.
A few years back I recall a facebook post the son of John Ingalls made. Within the decade prior to his passing, someone had invited John to a lovefeast at the Church in Anaheim. John went, someone recognized him and had John escorted out. Whatever grievance they had, never left.
Same with Steve Isitt in Washington state. Sure he had his writings, but still cherished the local church churchlife culture. However whether it's Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Renton, or Spokane, there's no welcome. I will say for a period Steve was welcome in Spokane. Someone must have recognized him or recognized his name and word got back to Seattle.
Even in Renton, I had asked a "what if" question to brother BS while Bill Freeman was still living. What if Bill wanted to come and visit? I was told the brothers would need to fellowship with Anaheim.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

It's more about the attitude claiming to be the only legitimate churches in the city. Let's take Renton for example. I've met with denominational and non-denominational assemblies. Each professing to be part of the local body of Christ. Would the Church in Renton also recognize other assemblies in Renton are also meeting as the local body of Christ. Not while I was there. Though it would be heartwarming if they did. I never saw it in Renton, Bellevue, or San Bernardino. Rather a claim to be the sole expression of the church in the respective cities.
Certain personalities just aren't welcome to attend a local church meeting or function.
A few years back I recall a facebook post the son of John Ingalls made. Within the decade prior to his passing, someone had invited John to a lovefeast at the Church in Anaheim. John went, someone recognized him and had John escorted out. Whatever grievance they had, never left.
Same with Steve Isitt in Washington state. Sure he had his writings, but still cherished the local church churchlife culture. However whether it's Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Renton, or Spokane, there's no welcome. I will say for a period Steve was welcome in Spokane. Someone must have recognized him or recognized his name and word got back to Seattle.
Even in Renton, I had asked a "what if" question to brother BS while Bill Freeman was still living. What if Bill wanted to come and visit? I was told the brothers would need to fellowship with Anaheim.

Yeah very good points. I see you're painting a picture of exclusivity and elitism

One of the things I'm realizing as I'm scouring this site and the materials available to links from other members and their testimonies regarding the LC and why they left etc., is that they all seem to have serious problems with the leadership. The issues as far as I can tell are almost exclusive to problems with the leadership and not with the regular members. Which is very interesting and very telling

I would have to say that you make solid points about all that you're saying. In my time there as an adult, not as a church kid, I generally didn't see much if any bad behavior in any blatant way. But when I first moved to Bellevue I started to see things that were odd and off and like I said elsewhere the life level and enjoyment of the Lord was off in that locality. But even if it wasn't it wouldn't give the leaders the right to behave poorly. It just so happens that the poor behavior of the leaders in Bellevue also happened to match the poor level of the experience of life and the spirit in that locality. I'm wondering how much of a correlation is there

I remember once I saw a video of a lord's table meeting at the church in Anaheim I think, or it may have been Irvine, but I think it was Anaheim, and I remember thinking in my young mind "this locality seems pretty stifled." I was young at that time but I could still tell even on video that there was an atmosphere of deadness there. I kind of chalked it up to "well maybe I'm just wrong," at that time. But now I realize I probably wasn't. I think the correlation between bad leadership and the deadness of a locality is real probably to a good extent, depending on how bad the leadership is and what exactly they are doing wrong. It may be that in some localities some leaders are kind of "dormant" in their authority and control for whatever reason; disposition, opportunity, how much the saints in that locality are exercised, etc. But I've been a part of localities here in western Wa were the leaders are very much at the forefront and to me that has stood out as a defining factor in how well and how often the average member's function. It's probably a fine line between leadership and clergy-laity. And I feel like a lot of what I've seen in western Wa is leaders who like to dominate meetings in one way or another and this kills the function of the body. I've heard bro Lee say this, and maybe the speaking brothers as well. But what context? Is it that the leaders shouldn't have control? What is control in this context? What is the difference between leadership and control? I think there's a fine line between these things, and at least in western Washington the leadership has very much ridden that line. In my short time in Spokane I believe the church there was flourishing with life because the leadership was so much NOT in the forefront. But when I came to western Wa I see the leaders very much in the forefront and to me it reeks of ambition for position and reveling in their position, as if they are kings

Here is brother Lee condemning the clergy-laity system and the divisions, which he attributes to satan's tactic to stifle the church- https://www.ministrysamples.org/exce...TY-SYSTEM.HTML

I agree with his assessment objectively. But how much has the LC leadership crossed over into power and control and clergy-laity in their own dealings with the church in their localities? This is something that I don't know has been at all audited. Maybe it has maybe it hasn't. But from the testimonies from those on this site and elsewhere it is a huge problem in the LC


Anyway, as far as your points on the localities not mingling with the denominations around them, I think it's a nuanced scenario. You said

Would the Church in Renton also recognize other assemblies in Renton are also meeting as the local body of Christ

I think this is a tough question, and deserves a nuanced answer. On the one hand we all are the body of christ as members of one another (1 Corinthians 12:12), on the other hand Paul also condemns the sectarian behavior (1 Corinthians 3:4, Romans 16:17). So clearly the answer is not straight forward. Now I think you'll have to give me an example of how Bellevue treated Christians who wanted to come and meet with them from other denominations. That too probably is nuanced and dependent on the scenario. If they came and tried to teach different things then maybe I could see precedent for at least not accepting the things they tried to teach depending on what those things were. On the other hand I have heard Bro Lee say we accept Christians who do not practice the same way we do. But it might end at the receiving part. Receiving a brother or a sister is one thing, but allowing them to try to influence the locality with different teachings is another thing. I'm not saying I side with anyone on this, but for objectivity sake I'll post a link to Benson Philips quoting Lee and expounding on this subject- https://afaithfulword.org/articles/ReceivingChurches/

In this link Benson says

We must receive all the believers. But the burden here is that we might receive all the local churches and all the saints in the local churches. They must be received by us, and they must be received according to Romans 14:3 and 15:7. God has received us, Christ has received us; this is one receiving by the Triune God. Since God has received every local church, we must have fellowship, and we must receive one another into the fellowship of the Triune God. Then we must receive all believers. Every church receives every brother and sister. This does not mean that we go along with the denominations or we practice the ways of the denominations. We will never do that

So you kind of have to discern here what the real point is. And it's possible the elders misconstrued this message. I know that Lee had touched on this topic a lot in his ministry. And it's confirmed that he had the wrong type of spirit and this caused a lot of exclusivity. In fact he himself admits to this here-
http://www.concernedbrothers.com/rep...edTheMark4.pdf

He says

"(Concerning the matter of receiving people according to God),…we coworkers in every place all need to learn, the responsible ones in every place
all need to learn, the brothers and sisters in every place all need to learn…,
too many things cause us to learn. We all made mistakes in this matter in the
past, I myself included; I confess that, I had, for this matter and before the
Lord, a very painful repentance. I am really sorry…toward the Body of Christ,
also really sorry, not only toward the brothers and sisters among us, but even
to those in the denominations, also really sorry toward them…(a long pause)
You must bring this message back, read it once, read it twice, and
come together to fellowship with one another. Then you will see that, we, in
the past, were wrong! Of course, denominations are wrong. The sectarianism
is what God condemns the most. However, the Lord still hopes that all His
children… do not have such condemnation. Such an understanding and
analysis will require much effort. I say again, you must, some people, a few
people, come together to read, pray, speak and say…"

So for all the people on this site who repeat "can the LC leadership ever admit they were wrong." Here you have brother Lee clearly and openly admitting that he was wrong in how he treated the brothers and sisters in the denominations

However it's nuanced is it not? Because what if they come and try to change things? What if they come and teach differently? Are we to receive leavened teaching? Idk I'm not a leader in the LC and I'm not trained to be so, but I would venture to say that is a big problem

But I would say also a lot of nuance is in HOW the LC leaders behaved and treated the news ones, how they treated our bros and sisters that visited from the denominations. I think that really matters here. And it's not an easy scenario to navigate. But again, the LC leader's behavior matters greatly. How they treated the congregation that they lead, and whether or not they exercised their flesh and abnormal authority and control over any given situation matters. And I've seen what I believe is fleshly control and abused authority. And combined with all the testimonies on this site and other sites I would conclude that they probably were very wrong in many ways for a very long time. And I would also probably say it stemmed from Nee and Lee's behavior around this. It's probably a top to bottom problem and it's probably very systemic and it probably needs to be gutted and receive a massive overhaul in various ways. And we even see Lee here admitting that he was wrong, and that his behavior towards the denominations was wrong. And that does mean something. But will that behavior continue? Or has it become a habitual practice amongst the leadership? Has other bad practices from them become habitual and dare I say even cultural at this point in time?


As far as not receiving Bill Freeman and brother Isitt and brother Ingalls. This also is nuanced. On the one hand I would agree with a lot of the sentiments with the brothers and sisters here on this site and elsewhere that to quarantine other believers is a grievous situation. Not just for that single member, but for his/her family and the families that are involved. Very serious and sober stuff, that honestly I'd just like to avoid the entire concept altogether as I'm sure most of the average LC members wouldn't want to entertain that scenario either. But it's a burden probably heavy on the shoulders of the LC leadership. Maybe, or they're just closed off to any emotions surrounding things that they view as attacks of the enemy. Which, probably wouldn't be the correct spirit, but rather a spirit of sorrow towards the situation would seem to be more apt

But again, there are verses that say to not entertain factious men (Romans 16:17), to not even accept them for fellowship. Which is very somber. But I am assuming the point behind that is to guard against poison, and to guard against division. This isn't Nee or Lee's words, this is the Bible saying that. So Biblically the LC has precedent to not entertain a man who would come and cause divisions in the body. and to not receive someone who creates a type of poison, and I'm assuming the LC leaders include those who would come from the denominations and cast doubt and confusion as well. Not a fun scenario to try to navigate by any means

Now you also bring up an interesting and truthful point that those in the denominations ARE technically a part of the body. But are they standing on the correct ground in their locality is the real question. So while although they are genuine believers, and our brothers and sisters, and members of the body, which also we are, they just so happen to be in a situation of division with regards to how they meet. I am wholly convinced from the Bible that this matters greatly to God. There is just simply far too much in the old and new testament regarding this that just can't be overlooked. It really really matters to God. It's not something that Nee and Lee concocted on their own, our of their supposed ambition to control or whatever. No, this is biblical. This matters to God.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jay

So you kind of have to discern here what the real point is. And it's possible the elders misconstrued this message. I know that Lee had touched on this topic a lot in his ministry. And it's confirmed that he had the wrong type of spirit and this caused a lot of exclusivity. In fact he himself admits to this here-
http://www.concernedbrothers.com/rep...edTheMark4.pdf

He says

So for all the people on this site who repeat "can the LC leadership ever admit they were wrong." Here you have brother Lee clearly and openly admitting that he was wrong in how he treated the brothers and sisters in the denominations

I had posted that a time or two on this forum. Years ago there used to be a YouTube video regarding Witness Lee speaking the exact message. However Living Stream Ministry did not print his message verbatim. Just to be sure I knew a Chinese speaking brother in Bellevue. I sent him the link and asked brother WH to transcribe. It's just as the Concerned brothers article says it was. That YouTube video has long been removed and/or suppressed (copyright claim perhaps).

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jay

Now you also bring up an interesting and truthful point that those in the denominations ARE technically a part of the body. But are they standing on the correct ground in their locality is the real question. So while although they are genuine believers, and our brothers and sisters, and members of the body, which also we are, they just so happen to be in a situation of division with regards to how they meet. I am wholly convinced from the Bible that this matters greatly to God. There is just simply far too much in the old and new testament regarding this that just can't be overlooked. It really really matters to God. It's not something that Nee and Lee concocted on their own, our of their supposed ambition to control or whatever. No, this is biblical. This matters to God.

Jay, I think you'll find on this forum many equate the local church ground as a doctrine of dirt. My dad and mom still adhere to the ground doctrine. Others I know still do even if the end result is not to meet anywhere.
There is no technicality. We are all part of the Body.

1 Corinthians 12:12-26
Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.
Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

I raise the question for those who accept the ground of locality doctrine. Who is to say the local churches affiliated with Living Stream Ministry are not on the proper ground?
Who is to say which church is meeting on the proper ground?
What do you do when in a given city you have multiple congregations claiming to meet on the proper ground?
As for the local churches, I believe they're ministry churches.
When ones fellowship is based on a Christian publishing company, that is the outcome.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

One of the things I'm realizing as I'm scouring this site and the materials available to links from other members and their testimonies regarding the LC and why they left etc., is that they all seem to have serious problems with the leadership. The issues as far as I can tell are almost exclusive to problems with the leadership and not with the regular members. Which is very interesting and very telling

Jay, exactly!

Sometime during the Midwest purge (aka quarantine) I was considering all the precious brothers I had known - who had left by then - in my 30 years in the LC’s. So many were gifted, loving Christ and His church, real shepherds and teachers, yet they had left. Over the years I would hear the stories of “what happened” to them. There was always one common denominator with each brother. Suddenly something became glaringly obvious to me. It was real simple - each and every brother was gone for the exact same reason - they all had a “problem with TC” our regional leader.

So I pictured one of those balancing scales for measuring and weighing. What if we put all those brothers who left on one side, and TC on the other side. Which side would have more value? Well, history had given me the answer. All those brothers were gone, and most of them bad-mouthed by those remaining, but TC is still here. That’s the system I left.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Jay

I have other threads going on and I've written a lot on this website recently. Can you show me where I quoted 1 Cor. to support my point so I can understand what you're talking about right now....

Sure thing, here is where you quoted 1 Cor to support your point.

Originally Posted by Jay

On the other hand Paul himself said 'be imitators of me and as I am of Christ' (1 Corinthians 11:1). But then you would say "Is Lee on the same level as Paul." Idk I guess that's up to each person to decipher

Here Jay, you use 1 Corinthians 11:1 as support to the rational behind following witness lee.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, exactly!

Sometime during the Midwest purge (aka quarantine) I was considering all the precious brothers I had known - who had left by then - in my 30 years in the LC’s. So many were gifted, loving Christ and His church, real shepherds and teachers, yet they had left. Over the years I would hear the stories of “what happened” to them. There was always one common denominator with each brother. Suddenly something became glaringly obvious to me. It was real simple - each and every brother was gone for the exact same reason - they all had a “problem with TC” our regional leader.

So I pictured one of those balancing scales for measuring and weighing. What if we put all those brothers who left on one side, and TC on the other side. Which side would have more value? Well, history had given me the answer. All those brothers were gone, and most of them bad-mouthed by those remaining, but TC is still here. That’s the system I left.

I'm not sure what you mean by "TC is still here." No he's not, he was quarantined by LSM as far last I heard and the entire region was lost

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Zezima

Sure thing, here is where you quoted 1 Cor to support your point.




Here Jay, you use 1 Corinthians 11:1 as support to the rational behind following witness lee.

Here's my full quote without being taken out of context-

On the other hand Paul himself said 'be imitators of me and as I am of Christ' (1 Corinthians 11:1). But then you would say "Is Lee on the same level as Paul." Idk I guess that's up to each person to decipher. But I certainly would never have gained as much Bible clarity as I have from reading Nee and Lee without them. Are they on Paul's level in their personal life? I don't know. I have seen video of Lee where he definitely seemed like he had the spirit of God upon him. But I don't know. I suppose we will know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:16). As far as his ministry is concerned, Lee has spiritual fruit and he has had spiritual increase in the form of conversion and if the local churches are of God then certainly he has much fruit by way of bringing believers into the line of life and the line of meeting correctly.....if the local churches are correct, and if his ministry is correct

Clearly this is a conjecture, or hypothesis, me saying

"Is Lee on the same level as Paul." Idk I guess that's up to each person to decipher

is clearly a "what if" statement. But you've taken that out of context and claimed I am asserting that Lee IS in fact on the same level as Paul. Which is underhanded

If you go back and read our exchanges and what I actually said, you're accusing me of uplifting Lee in a certain way that I'm not necessarily doing. As I explained here, which you apparently ignored in lieu of your taken out of context attack-

I'm not suggesting there is any kind of rank in the body though. Not the point I'm trying to make. I don't say that to imply rank or importance. But these men are in some ways role models insofar as their spiritual pursuits and attainments are concerned. Yes they had major sins and major failures, but we also can't say that had no major attainments and major success either. This is where we need some nuance to have a more broad understanding

So essentially you're taking things I said, distorting what I meant by them, and applying them to your bent that I'm uplifting a false apostle (Lee). When actually I'm just pointing out that like Paul, Lee had major impact on the body of Christ and they both did great works to bring about God's economy. Paul received the revelation, and Lee distilled it, expounded upon it, and presented it to the body in an up to date and understandable way. Does that mean I'm worshiping Lee? No it doesn't. But I can recognize achievement and give credit where it's due

I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to twist and distort things I'm saying into your method and mode of slander please

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

I'm not sure what you mean by "TC is still here." No he's not, he was quarantined by LSM as far last I heard and the entire region was lost

Please read what I wrote carefully. That observation of mine was made privately some 20 years ago, based on my very active history in the LC’s between 50 years ago until 20 years ago.

I first met brothers and sisters from the LC’s at a summer job following my first year of college in May 1973. The LC of that time period in Cleveland in no way resembles what is now seen in the LC’s.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Please read what I wrote carefully. That observation of mine was made privately some 20 years ago, based on my very active history in the LC’s between 50 years ago until 20 years ago.

I first met brothers and sisters from the LC’s at a summer job following my first year of college in May 1973. The LC of that time period in Cleveland in no way resembles what is now seen in the LC’s.

So what point exactly are you making? That the LC has degraded? OK, and? Does that delegitimize it totally? Maybe some localities have fallen into Laodicea. It doesn't mean that it's not still what God's doing on earth today

I see a lot of points against the LC leadership that are probably very valid and seem very valid. I've had bad experiences with them now too. I may even be leaving my current locality for a different one due to offenses and errors by the leaders in my current locality. And I've been around other localities that blow away the ones I'm near now in life level, enjoyment, experience of Christ etc. But does that mean all the LC are defunct and void? No, that's not how logic works

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jay

I'm not sure what you mean by "TC is still here." No he's not, he was quarantined by LSM as far last I heard and the entire region was lost

Titus Chu is still active. Just not affiliated with LSM. Same goes for churches such as the Church in Toronto. Those who wanted to remain loyal to LSM, broke away from the Church in Toronto to meet separately. They just had to meet under a different name is all.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Jay

Here's my full quote without being taken out of context-




Clearly this is a conjecture, or hypothesis, me saying is clearly a "what if" statement. But you've taken that out of context and claimed I am asserting that Lee IS in fact on the same level as Paul. Which is underhanded

If you go back and read our exchanges and what I actually said, you're accusing me of uplifting Lee in a certain way that I'm not necessarily doing. As I explained here, which you apparently ignored in lieu of your taken out of context attack-

So essentially you're taking things I said, distorting what I meant by them, and applying them to your bent that I'm uplifting a false apostle (Lee). When actually I'm just pointing out that like Paul, Lee had major impact on the body of Christ and they both did great works to bring about God's economy. Paul received the revelation, and Lee distilled it, expounded upon it, and presented it to the body in an up to date and understandable way. Does that mean I'm worshiping Lee? No it doesn't. But I can recognize achievement and give credit where it's due

I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to twist and distort things I'm saying into your method and mode of slander please

From my perspective, I understood the addition of that scripture within your statements as support for your statement. It’s not that you’re uplifting lee, rather you’re using the verse to support that “hypothetical” of it being possible to rationalize.

“On the one hand ABC (insert Bible verse), therefore XYZ. “


Perhaps I have misunderstood your conjecture, though I am now curious why you added that verse into your words. Especially in parenthesis like you did.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Zezima

From my perspective, I understood the addition of that scripture within your statements as support for your statement. It’s not that you’re uplifting lee, rather you’re using the verse to support that “hypothetical” of it being possible to rationalize. “On the one hand ABC (insert Bible verse), therefore XYZ. “ Perhaps I have misunderstood your conjecture, though I am now curious why you added that verse into your words. Especially in parenthesis like you did.

Your questioning is based on an assumption that Lee is a false apostle. I don't agree with that. Lee has remaining fruit all over the world, and he has left lots of riches to all Christians everywhere. Does that mean he is without sin? No it doesn't. We all know his major faults and his major errors. The real question is does his major errors/sins disqualify his ministry? On that note we could ask is his ministry infallible? I would say no. I think there's mistakes in it as well as contradictions, and some of them are pretty big. We can see from all the testimonies that his views on deputy authority were misused and hurt a lot of people. But does that negate everything else he's said over the course of his lifetime work? I don't know that it does. Clearly the believers in the LC are enjoying it or else they wouldn't be there would they? If his ministry has no good to it then what would be the motivation to follow it?

I suppose it's up to the individual to decide what parts of his entire ministry are faulty. Many are throwing him totally away for various reasons. Ok, that's the decision of the individual. But where there's a problem if the attacks start to veer into that territory of tearing down his entire work. Which, we would have to ask ourselves what exactly is the motive behind that and who is instigating it? If it's of God then it would imply he is a false apostle, if it's of satan then it would imply that satan has a lot to gain by tearing down Lee's ministry. It makes you think doesn't it. Who's vehicle are we riding in? And if Lee is of no importance then why are you all here in the first place? It's similar to atheists who claim there is no God but spend a great deal of time arguing against his existence. If you believe there is no God why are you wasting so much time on a non-existing entity? Likewise if you believe Lee is false why spend so much time railing against him?

If to warn others so they don't get hurt then ok, but if you're trying to tear down his ministry to accomplish that are you absolutely sure it does nothing but hurt people? How do you know it doesn't help people? If there are local churches all over the world then surely there has to be some benefit to their ministry. Sure there's a lot to criticize, but have you considered looking at things to praise about it? Or are you doing what atheists do and only read the Bible to find things to criticize? And then ignore all the other good aspects about the Bible

I don't agree with uplifting people to a status above reproach and accountability. But I also like to give credit where it's due. I'm sure many criticized Paul because Paul was literally a murderer. But God chose him nonetheless. Now you'll say I'm comparing Lee to Paul again, actually Lee wasn't half as bad as Paul. I doubt Lee ever murdered anyone. Think about it for a second....

[TheStarswillFall]

Originally Posted by Jay

Your questioning is based on an assumption that Lee is a false apostle. I don't agree with that. Lee has remaining fruit all over the world, and he has left lots of riches to all Christians everywhere.....

Witness Lee was a false apostle.

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...hlight=Witness

[aron]

I cannot overstate how much I appreciate Jay coming on this forum and posting. For I'm quite sure that he has the courage to say what many are quietly thinking. So his questions shouldn't be taken lightly, or dismissed. And his considerations are worth our considerations.

Originally Posted by Jay

The real question is does his major errors/sins disqualify his ministry?

The answer to that question is found categorically in the pages of the NT.

1 Timothy 3... an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.

Witness Lee, by failing to manage his household, fails the clear NT directive as a deacon or overseer. Doesn't matter if you pen a best-seller or move your audience to tears, or found a mega-church; if you are a drunkard or a brawler or have reprobate family, you shouldn't lead the church.

Now, you can be imperfect, occasionally slip up and become a drunkard or brawler or have unruly children and still be a church MEMBER, but you shouldn't be a church LEADER. In this, Paul is clear, and we should be as well.

Originally Posted by Jay

I don't agree with uplifting people to a status above reproach and accountability. But I also like to give credit where it's due. I'm sure many criticized Paul because Paul was literally a murderer. But God chose him nonetheless. Now you'll say I'm comparing Lee to Paul again, actually Lee wasn't half as bad as Paul. I doubt Lee ever murdered anyone. Think about it for a second....

The two salient differences between Paul and Witness Lee here, are that Paul murdered people before becoming a servant of the Lord and a herald of the gospel, and Witness Lee bilked people out of money for his family after he became church leader; and related, that Paul repented after he murdered others, and amended his ways, and Witness Lee never repented or changed is ways, after he got exposed with his hand in the till. "It's my personal business" he said of the Timothy Lee fiasco. "Sail On!!" was the watchword after the Philip Lee fiasco.

[Nell]

10 Tips Scripture Gives Us to Help Recognize a False Prophet

1. They Say What People Want to Hear
“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Timothy 4:3).

2. They Teach a Doctrine Other than Christ
“But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them — bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories” (2 Peter 2:1-3).

3. They Use Tricks to Pull People In
“At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you ahead of time” (Matthew 24:23-25).

4. They Are Dishonest about Their Real Intentions
“For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness” (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

5. They Seek to Divide Congregations
“I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people” (Romans 16:17-18).

6. They Ignore the Need for Repentance
“The visions of your prophets were false and worthless; they did not expose your sin to ward off your captivity. The prophecies they gave you were false and misleading” (Lamentations 2:14).

7. They Gloss Over Any Sins They or Other Church Leaders Commit
“‘Her prophets whitewash these deeds for them by false visions and lying divinations. They say, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says’ — when the Lord has not spoken’” (Ezekiel 22:28).

8. They Substitute Their Own Words for God’s Word
“Then the Lord said to me, ‘The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds’” (Jeremiah 14:14).

9. They Do Damage to Church Families
“‘Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them’” (Matthew 7:15-16).

10. They Will Face God’s Punishment
“My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will not belong to the council of my people or be listed in the records of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the Sovereign Lord” (Ezekiel 13:9).

https://www.biblestudytools.com/bibl...e-prophet.html

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Jay

Your questioning is based on an assumption that Lee is a false apostle...

No, my questioning is based on you using 1 Corinthians. Why did you include that in your original statement if it wasn’t for support? I’m trying understand the purpose of its inclusion so that I can understand what you’re trying to communicate.

Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

The real question is does his major errors/sins disqualify his ministry? On that note we could ask is his ministry infallible? I would say no. I think there's mistakes in it as well as contradictions, and some of them are pretty big. We can see from all the testimonies that his views on deputy authority were misused and hurt a lot of people. But does that negate everything else he's said over the course of his lifetime work? I don't know that it does.

I’m just not following your logic here Jay.

I spent many, far too many, hours agonizing over hypocritical points like this. I had to throw out all the righteous standards in scripture in order to remain connected to LSM. In order to agree with your views here, I have to accept the existence of a double standard. One standard for WL, and another standard for every other minister. For decades I heard WL condemning other ministers for their sins, and then I discover that he was guilty of the same. Is that fair? I don’t think so.

The Recovery has one justice scale for outsiders, and another for its own leaders. This is a corrupt balance of justice, which God hates. “Dishonest scales are detestable to the LORD, but He delights in just scales.” (Proverbs 11.1) Does not the Bible also say, “Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— both are detestable to the LORD.“ (Proverbs 17.15)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

I don't agree with uplifting people to a status above reproach and accountability. But I also like to give credit where it's due. I'm sure many criticized Paul because Paul was literally a murderer. But God chose him nonetheless. Now you'll say I'm comparing Lee to Paul again, actually Lee wasn't half as bad as Paul. I doubt Lee ever murdered anyone. Think about it for a second....

I have. I thought about this many times. I have personally seen WL destroy the reputations of many men, all of them dear brothers in Christ and servants of the Lord. WL and his Blendeds have fabricated stories, ascribed evil motives, made false character accusations, slandered, libeled, and bore false witness against them in clear violation of the 9th Commandment. Why did they do this? To protect their own reputations and coverup their own sins.

I know many brothers in Christ, upright men of God, who would consider the destruction of their own reputations a far worse crime than actually being killed. The Lord said as much on the Sermon on the Mount.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Brothers, why do you now refer to Witness Lee as an apostle when he never referred to himself as an apostle? As a matter of fact, in a sworn deposition, under penalty of perjury, Witness Lee clearly denied that he considered himself as an apostle, and swore under oath that he asked his followers not to refer to himself as an apostle.

I like where this thread is going. Let them hang themselves with their own rope.

But this talk about Lee not saying he was an apostle has always been a muddy thing for me. I started in the LC (Dallas) in 73 and heard the word apostle bandied about on several occasions. It wasn't Lee speaking directly, but was from various ones there in the meetings, on in talking around the meeting hall or in homes. Were any of the ones saying this "leading ones"? I can't remember.

But later, because of the claims (as you mention) in the early lawsuits, I concluded that it was just members making uninformed statements. Yet the ink had barely dried on the verdicts in those first suits when Lee was recorded as saying that he sort of liked being exalted. Are we sure that Lee didn't ever make one of those sideways claims of being an apostle? Like Nee did when he never declared himself the top dog, but asserted that you must give difference (not those words) to the one with the most spirituality. He never said that he was immune from being excommunicated, but indirectly he declared it as so in Authority and Submission (aka Spiritual Authority). Does Lee dance around the apostle issue in a similar manner?

Maybe this deserves a separate thread. I have the question but no evidence.

[OBW]

Alas, because of my sporadic appearances here over the last few years, I see that just reading a few more posts into this thread was full of the same questions I had.

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by Jay

We all know his major faults and his major errors.

The real question is does his major errors/sins disqualify his ministry? On that note we could ask is his ministry infallible? I would say no. I think there's mistakes in it as well as contradictions, and some of them are pretty big. We can see from all the testimonies that his views on deputy authority were misused and hurt a lot of people. But does that negate everything else he's said over the course of his lifetime work? I don't know that it does. Clearly the believers in the LC are enjoying it or else they wouldn't be there would they? If his ministry has no good to it then what would be the motivation to follow it?

Jay, just a couple of my takeaways from what you had posted.

1. Regarding your blanket assertion that Witness Lee's major faults and errors are common knowledge - in reality, I have found that the depth of Lee's wickedness is still coming to light in 2024. One example is the previously unheard of June 4, 1991 Hong Kong Declaration!

2. You asked why people would stay in the LCs and continue to follow Lee's ministry. In the past I used to think this was mainly due to an addiction. However, after reading a letter from a former prominent LC leader, I'm convinced that "the super glue" ingredients are much more sinister.

In August of 2001, in a letter to Steve Isitt, brother Albert Zehr made the following excellent observations regarding the Lord's Recovery Movement:

"In their hearts these dear ones have elevated the teachings of Witness Lee and the doctrines of the recovery to be commensurate with the WORD. They perceive these to be God's "present day speaking." Unconsciously, this makes them infallible and unquestionable. They become part of one's very faith and foundation. This stance requires total subjective loyalty and acceptance and makes an objective review impossible if not blasphemous. The longer one is in this mode the more of the lifetime that has been built on it the more inconceivable it becomes that it might be a deception. Everything else is measured by this "vision" and nothing can measure it."

Think about it Jay!

P.S.