Church Ground Becomes the Lining Up with a Man and a Ministry

[Indiana]

http://www.twoturmoils.com/DeputyAut...dofOneness.pdf

Introduction

The local churches have long been under the influence of the teaching of deputy authority beginning in China with Watchman Nee. When I first heard the related terms, the oracle of God, the minister of the age, the acting God, the one wise master-builder, the commander-in-chief - terms being applied to Witness Lee in the 1980s – I was in full agreement. I was in one accord with the brothers campaigning for the churches to line up with Witness Lee as a universal leader, as men were swept up in full abandon to him and with strict resolve to follow him in “the Lord’s new move”. This “new move”, though, unwittingly established a new ground for meeting.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Indiana

These were men, not gods, . . .

Amen brother amen. Speak the truth to power.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Indiana

www.twoturmoils.com/DeputyAuthorityandtheGroundofOneness.pdf

Introduction

The local churches have long been under the influence of the teaching of deputy authority beginning in China with Watchman Nee. When I first heard the related terms, the oracle of God, the minister of the age, the acting God, the one wise master-builder, the commander-in-chief - terms being applied to Witness Lee in the 1980s – I was in full agreement. I was in one accord with the brothers campaigning for the churches to line up with Witness Lee as a universal leader, as men were swept up in full abandon to him and with strict resolve to follow him in “the Lord’s new move”. This “new move”, though, unwittingly established a new ground for meeting.

I think, though, that you captured the truth of the whole when you mention that the "turning over" had already happened in China in the late 40s to early 50s, then in Taiwan. It was after both of those that Lee came to America, allowing a less obviously flawed basis for meeting to capture us before doing it all over again in the 80s.

But what is missed is that the "less obviously flawed" basis for meeting was still flawed. The "ground" of a city, was never a proper basis for meeting. It was a fabrication that allowed Nee and Lee to divide while claiming that it was others who were dividing. The church ground was always aligned with a man and a ministry. It just wasn't as obvious. But just ask the followers of Kaung who were either ignored or whose assemblies were taken over despite meeting simply as believers in a city. It was always about whether they would take Lee's ministry.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

But what is missed is that the "less obviously flawed" basis for meeting was still flawed. The "ground" of a city, was never a proper basis for meeting. It was a fabrication that allowed Nee and Lee to divide while claiming that it was others who were dividing. The church ground was always aligned with a man and a ministry. It just wasn't as obvious. But just ask the followers of Kaung who were either ignored or whose assemblies were taken over despite meeting simply as believers in a city. It was always about whether they would take Lee's ministry.

I agree that the ground of locality is flawed. What I think is the bigger issue, however, is that many who were attempting to follow the ground of locality doctrine eventually realized that the ground of locality wasn't the only "ground" that existed. There were additional "grounds" that had crept in or had maybe already existed as unspoken rules. Adherence to the ministry was one of them. The submission to an absolute authority became another "ground".

In all fairness, I can see the argument being made that adherence to a ministry and holding Nee/Lee as authorities were necessary for local churches to work on a worldwide "movement" scale. It's interesting to note that the history of the LC in the U.S. had already happened in China years before, so Lee was a repeat of history. When Lee really started getting interested in expansion in the U.S., two things happened: the first was to insist on everyone using his ministry, and the second was to make himself the supreme leader of the movement (MOTA). Thus the ground or basis by which everyone had thought they were meeting on (locality) had become mutated.

Again, I don't claim that the ground of locality without all the other nonsense would have been better, but I think the main issue was that the LC was misrepresented for what it really was. So many bought into the Nee/Lee teachings on local churches, only to find out that it couldn't even be practiced according to what they taught.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Again, I don't claim that the ground of locality without all the other nonsense would have been better, but I think the main issue was that the LC was misrepresented for what it really was. So many bought into the Nee/Lee teachings on local churches, only to find out that it couldn't even be practiced according to what they taught.

No. I wasn't suggesting that you might think that the ground of locality was anything in itself. But even in the early-mid 70s, I know of at least one case in which in some manner a lack of willingness to accept Lee and his ministry lead to the ignoring of another group that they originally concluded was otherwise "on the ground."

And the fact that there was some kind of rush to come to Dallas (71 or 72) to "take the ground" was because another group that they were at odds with was sending people to Dallas. While there may be some interesting analysis of the Dallas situation, in hindsight, it would appear that there was another "on the ground" group that the LCM didn't get along with, therefore would not meet with. Doesn't that sort of kick "ground of locality" in the teeth? If you admit that they are on the ground of locality yet you compete with them and won't meet with them, then it seems that you have something in addition to the "ground" on which to create division.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In all fairness, I can see the argument being made that adherence to a ministry and holding Nee/Lee as authorities were necessary for local churches to work on a worldwide "movement" scale. It's interesting to note that the history of the LC in the U.S. had already happened in China years before, so Lee was a repeat of history. When Lee really started getting interested in expansion in the U.S., two things happened: the first was to insist on everyone using his ministry, and the second was to make himself the supreme leader of the movement (MOTA). Thus the ground or basis by which everyone had thought they were meeting on (locality) had become mutated.

The Philippine version of The Church of Christ (Iglesia Ni Cristo) had their own MOTA (Felix Manalo) of which believe their church is on the proper ground and everyone else is in apostasy. Sound familiar?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

No. I wasn't suggesting that you might think that the ground of locality was anything in itself. But even in the early-mid 70s, I know of at least one case in which in some manner a lack of willingness to accept Lee and his ministry lead to the ignoring of another group that they originally concluded was otherwise "on the ground."

And the fact that there was some kind of rush to come to Dallas (71 or 72) to "take the ground" was because another group that they were at odds with was sending people to Dallas. While there may be some interesting analysis of the Dallas situation, in hindsight, it would appear that there was another "on the ground" group that the LCM didn't get along with, therefore would not meet with. Doesn't that sort of kick "ground of locality" in the teeth? If you admit that they are on the ground of locality yet you compete with them and won't meet with them, then it seems that you have something in addition to the "ground" on which to create division.

When there are groups who claim to be "standing on the ground", a man and a ministry come into play. That ultimately has been the deciding factor by which the LCM recognizes if a group is legitimate or not. Terry has mentioned the church in Moses Lake several times. They are apparently practicing the local church according to Nee/Lee except that the don't practice allegiance to a ministry. That alone is enough to not be recognized as a local church even though the general practice is still the same.

Apparently, there are still two groups calling themselves "the church in Toronto". The General Partnership Business church in Toronto is the one who receives LSM, and thus they are recognized as being legitimate. It's very ironic. The fact that they are registered as a partnership business does not lead me to consider them as a legitimate group, so when allegiance to a man and a ministry is considered a determining factor in what groups are legitimate, it can lead to some really bizarre results.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When there are groups who claim to be "standing on the ground", a man and a ministry come into play. That ultimately has been the deciding factor by which the LCM recognizes if a group is legitimate or not. Terry has mentioned the church in Moses Lake several times. They are apparently practicing the local church according to Nee/Lee except that the don't practice allegiance to a ministry. That alone is enough to not be recognized as a local church even though the general practice is still the same.

Apparently, there are still two groups calling themselves "the church in Toronto". The General Partnership Business church in Toronto is the one who receives LSM, and thus they are recognized as being legitimate. It's very ironic. The fact that they are registered as a partnership business does not lead me to consider them as a legitimate group, so when allegiance to a man and a ministry is considered a determining factor in what groups are legitimate, it can lead to some really bizarre results.

Freedom points out the basis for a bonafide local church in the minds of most local churches being allegiance to a man and his ministry. For example a group of believers could be meeting as The Church in Big Bear City, but if you're not taking LSM publications as your One Publication, you're not a bonafide local church.

[Indiana]

[QUOTE=Freedom;41242]When there are groups who claim to be "standing on the ground", a man and a ministry come into play. That ultimately has been the deciding factor by which the LCM recognizes if a group is legitimate or not. Terry has mentioned the church in Moses Lake several times. They are apparently practicing the local church according to Nee/Lee except that the don't practice allegiance to a ministry. That alone is enough to not be recognized as a local church even though the general practice is still the same./QUOTE]

"Things culminated at an urgent international elders’ conference in 1986 with a call from Witness Lee to church leaders to rise up and fight for his ministry. He drew on the parallel of him to Gideon and his carefully selected 300 men used for fighting the battle for Israel. In response, leaders handed him a letter before the last meeting, which he read and then gave this strong word of warning to them, based on the contents of their letter:

“Please be clear, any church meeting as a local church, standing on the ground and recognizing all the local churches around the globe, regardless of whether or not they take the new way, they are a genuine local church. We do not mean that any church that does not take the present new way becomes no more the church. No, we don’t practice that way. That is sectarian.

We practice the all-inclusive church life. I not only speak this to you all, I declare this to all the churches on this earth. Don’t be sectarian. We don’t practice sectarianism; we practice the all-inclusive church life."END QUOTE
from Church of Gideon and his 300 Men

The qualification to be considered a local church was also to recognize the churches around the globe. But they don't recognize ministry churches to be representative of legitimate church government so they are not "rebellious" in not lining up with them or "the man and ministry" fold.

[OBW]

The qualification to be considered a local church was also to recognize the churches around the globe.

My question is who are the "churches around the globe" that must be recognized? The Bible churches I have attended recognize far more concerning the churches around the globe than does any that are of the group that call themselves "local churches" due to their adherence to a "ground of locality." They may differ doctrinally from many of them, but they recognize their legitimacy as churches. That includes the Methodist and RC churches nearby. And the Anglican church whose pastor (priest) spoke as guest preacher a few weeks ago. And the myriad of varieties of churches throughout the world who do not hold to the same understanding of all things doctrinal.

Do any of them actively recognize any other than "ministry churches" among those who claim the "ground of locality" as churches? Does ignoring all other churches stand as acceptable for them? So the LCM (those of LSM following) accept all churches that follow the LSM. Some of the wayward among them that no longer strictly follow the LSM still accept those that do. Yet few if any of them accept any church outside of their sect (or subsect). Meanwhile, the ones so vehemently chided as divisive accept virtually all the others as churches.

This reminds me of the parable of the Good Samaritan, and especially the end where Jesus asks "who is the neighbor?" In this case the question is "who is the church?" Based on the parable, it would seem that the LCM would be more like the Priest or the Levite. And from the view of the LCM, all the other churches are just "mixture," therefore Samaritans. Yet those who claimed the highest of God's commands did not lend aid to the man (probably because he would not be good material) while the Samaritan did.

[Cal]

The problem is to "recognize" proper churches globally implies to not recognize "improper" churches globally, which is carte blanche, eventually, to not recognize any church you don't want to recognize, which is exactly the path the LCM took.

The whole business of defining in black and white what is and what isn't a church is something the Lord and the Bible, wisely, did not equip us to do to. The Bible never, ever authorizes us to discount any group of believers as "not being a church." It just doesn't. Nee and Lee were out in the weeds on this, biblically and, manifestly, by the fruit they've borne.

The Bible shows us that early believers met with those they lived near. Well, what else would you expect?? But the Bible never then says nor implies we have to meet with everyone we live near. Are we all one church in the city? Well, yes, in a way we are. But again that doesn't imply we all need to meet together or line up under the same group of leaders who have gotten it in their heads that they are in charge. Again, this whole misaiming led to the mess which is the LCM. Why is that so hard to figure out?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem is to "recognize" proper churches globally implies to not recognize "improper" churches globally, which is carte blanche, eventually, to not recognize any church you don't want to recognize, which is exactly the path the LCM took.

The whole business of defining in black and white what is and what isn't a church is something the Lord and the Bible, wisely, did not equip us to do to. The Bible never, ever authorizes us to discount any group of believers as "not being a church." It just doesn't. Nee and Lee were out in the weeds on this, biblically and, manifestly, by the fruit they've borne.

The Bible shows us that early believers met with those they lived near. Well, what else would you expect?? But the Bible never then says nor implies we have to meet with everyone we live near. Are we all one church in the city? Well, yes, in a way we are. But again that doesn't imply we all need to meet together or line up under the same group of leaders who have gotten it in their heads that they are in charge. Again, this whole misaiming led to the mess which is the LCM. Why is that so hard to figure out?

This whole matter of identifying legitimate LC's has created a nightmare of politicking, even here in the GLA. We had new churches spring up by those gifted brothers "beat up" by TC. He would publicly shame these brothers into subjection, Chinese style, only to watch them leave and start a new LC the next town over. They would then attend the following training in Anaheim and get legitimized by LSM.

For years TC pleaded with WL to keep these rogue churches out of the published Directory of churches, only to lose that battle as the Blendeds grew in prominence.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This whole matter of identifying legitimate LC's has created a nightmare of politicking, even here in the GLA. We had new churches spring up by those gifted brothers "beat up" by TC. He would publicly shame these brothers into subjection, Chinese style, only to watch them leave and start a new LC the next town over. They would then attend the following training in Anaheim and get legitimized by LSM.

For years TC pleaded with WL to keep these rogue churches out of the published Directory of churches, only to lose that battle as the Blendeds grew in prominence.

Igzy nailed it: "group of leaders who have gotten it in their heads." Maybe if they just turned to their spirits like they tell everyone else to do they'd discover that Jesus makes the churches, and would then be able to accept all that Christ accepts.

Just kidding. I know that's not possible. To me, what they got in their heads has made them out of their heads.

When looking back on the local church I wonder sometimes if I'm not confusing it with a circus. They do act like they are clowning around ... except for the lawsuits.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This whole matter of identifying legitimate LC's has created a nightmare of politicking, even here in the GLA. We had new churches spring up by those gifted brothers "beat up" by TC. He would publicly shame these brothers into subjection, Chinese style, only to watch them leave and start a new LC the next town over. They would then attend the following training in Anaheim and get legitimized by LSM.

For years TC pleaded with WL to keep these rogue churches out of the published Directory of churches, only to lose that battle as the Blendeds grew in prominence.

That's interesting. And it should be obvious to anyone that the reason LSM recognized them is because (1) they were unaligned with Titus and (2) they were aligned with LSM. It had nothing to do with them being "properly on the ground" or "properly in fellowship" or anything like that. It had to do with whose rear they were kissing.

[Indiana]

Stephen Kaung’s fellowship is rare and insightful, (other thread), but he had a background, a church environment in China to strongly put him on this track of avoiding over –spirituality, or false spirituality, to where the human being is lessened in the process. He actually encouraged to seek to be human to counter the tendency of aiming at spirituality. (This needs to be understood in the right way, but I feel that due to my experience, I understand him to a degree and need more understanding.)

Because of Lily Hsu’s book we can see what he had to deal with in China, with both Nee and Lee as they went through changes that would effect the Body of Christ in the “local churches” to this day, including the record of questionable non-human behavior and views of the blending brothers, who hold sway over the churches today. (I could explain best by giving my example, or have my former wife of 17 years tell you what it was like to be married to “an angel”, lacking normal human behavior. Or hearing the wife of Ron Kangas validate Kaung’s word. In Seattle none of the wives of the elders meet in the church anymore. They could help confirm, as could many of the children.)

I have been meeting with a Kaung associated assembly in Seattle since January and because I am in the environment and notice the behavior and attitude of leading ones and others, I, for the first time, realize what Kaung saw, and Sparks, that there is no need to call ourselves, or our ministering ones, anything that would be distinctive.

No matter what, if you are calling yourselves the church in Seattle, Atlanta, Los Angeles, you are being distinctive from others in each city; and, collectively, the churches as a body have a distinction, especially when using such expressions as the Body coming together for 7 conferences or feasts a year. The term, THE LORD’S RECOVERY now looks different to me. Why call yourselves anything that would lift you up over others and thereby give impressions that you are superior? This is unnecessarily disturbing to the Body of Christ and it is insensitive behavior to its members, unless “we” really do want to be distinctive and special, as a ministerial church.

Further, to lift up as if with signs and banners THE minister of the age and THE ministry of the age is to be intoxicated with the same. It is creating more separation, as the churches rise higher and higher and further and further away from the Body and its members of which there are far more in a city than the names of those who appear on “local church” phone lists. Why not consider the New Testament way of lifting up the Lord Jesus Christ alone, who is our Head and leader in flocks of God with shepherds joined to Him for the building up of His Body in every place.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Why not consider the New Testament way of lifting up the Lord Jesus Christ alone, who is our Head and leader in flocks of God with shepherds joined to Him for the building up of His Body in every place.

Indiana, it makes my day to read this from you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Stephen Kaung’s fellowship is rare and insightful. (other thread), but he had a background, a church environment in China to strongly put him on this track of avoiding over–spirituality, or false spirituality, to where the human being is lessened in the process. He actually encouraged to seek to be human to counter the tendency of aiming at spirituality.

During my final years in the LCM, I was able to occasionally listen to Chuck Debelek. He was increasingly "different" from the norm, whether GLA or Blended. He would say "shocking" things, at least to me, about how God wanted to live thru us in our daily lives. Regardless of how mundane it seemed, God wanted to live in our human living, without any of the pretensions so common in religious circles.

Obviously brother CD was on his way out. What a breath of fresh air he was. He was becoming far too "independent" for the liking of either Anaheim or Cleveland, who both demanded regular "rear-kissing," to borrow Igzy's Texan slang. Whenever one takes the way of "lifting up the Lord Jesus Christ alone," as Indiana said, he will be automatically be branded by the resident powers-that-be as "independent."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Indiana, it makes my day to read this from you.

Ditto that.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

That's interesting. And it should be obvious to anyone that the reason LSM recognized them is because (1) they were unaligned with Titus and (2) they were aligned with LSM. It had nothing to do with them being "properly on the ground" or "properly in fellowship" or anything like that.

Politics pure and simple.
Concerning the Great Lakes area, perhaps the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" concerning those who may have been "perfected" , I mean offended by Titus, but didn't want to abandon the ground of locality doctrine?
While not being partial to Anaheim, by default it was preferred over Cleveland?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Bible shows us that early believers met with those they lived near. Well, what else would you expect?? But the Bible never then says nor implies we have to meet with everyone we live near. Are we all one church in the city? Well, yes, in a way we are. But again that doesn't imply we all need to meet together or line up under the same group of leaders who have gotten it in their heads that they are in charge. Again, this whole misaiming led to the mess which is the LCM. Why is that so hard to figure out?

Even in the local churches, I can say brothers and sisters don't meet locally. Which indicates meeting according to a man and his ministry publications. The locality I was meeting with in the 90's, there were brothers and sisters who would come from Sultan, Redmond, Renton, Burien, etc just to meet with this local church. Far from meeting "on the ground of locality". The ground is really the ministry.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Politics pure and simple.
Concerning the Great Lakes area, perhaps the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" concerning those who may have been "perfected" , I mean offended by Titus, but didn't want to abandon the ground of locality doctrine?
While not being partial to Anaheim, by default it was preferred over Cleveland?

The enemy across the country is better than the enemy next door?

“The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because generally they are the same people.” ― G.K. Chesterton

[Freedom]

What really caused me to see through the ground of locality teaching was just seeing how it is practiced. Not only has the local ground been used as an excuse to divide, but it is a practice that has become purely nominal.

If those in the LC really think the ground of locality is legitimate and worth creating separate and distinct groups from all other Christians, then they should at the very least practice what they preach. If they can't practice their doctrine, why use it as reason to divide from other Christians?

As Terry mentioned, I have commonly seen saints meeting with a LC even though they don't actually live in that city. Of course, there's really nothing wrong with that, however, saints who do that are defying LC doctrine (meet in the city you live in) by meeting extra-locally. I have also seen situations where someone will get offended by a situation at the LC in their city and then start meeting with a neighboring LC. Simply put, it is hypocrisy at it's finest.

Many LC's have subdivided into districts. It is not uncommon for a LC in a larger city to have 2 or more districts and only meet together on occasion. They are essentially meeting as multiple churches, since a church is an assembly of Christians. Again, it's just plain hypocrisy.

Ultimately, the issue is about allegiance to a man and a ministry. Those who practice that are given the title of a "local church". That's all it really is these days. I'm not sure if there was a different dynamic back in the day, but not in my LC experience. It is purely a means by which those under the LSM ministry setup franchise churches.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Ultimately, the issue is about allegiance to a man and a ministry. Those [churches] who practice that are given the title of a "local church". That's all it really is these days. I'm not sure if there was a different dynamic back in the day, but not in my LC experience. It is purely a means by which those under the LSM ministry setup franchise churches.

The church in Seattle started in 1970 in a move from Yorba Linda, California, and nearly the whole congregation came, and they hit the Ground running. It was a move for Christ and the church, not for a man and a ministry. There were resounding amens and testimonies confirming that we were "home" and we were "going to stand right here till Jesus comes, standing on the local ground...no division, sect or group but its the local church standing on the local ground."

I came to a meeting in Aug 1970 when they were still moving some of the people up, in the middle of a recession, when many people were moving out of Seattle. A sign at Boeing said "last one out turn off the lights". They were in a genuine move of the Lord as all could attest about the moves in those days.

I, and many others joined them '71-'73, because "we saw a river flowing and we jumped right in standing on the local ground... " Tony Rosmarin got this booklet into my hands in the brothers' house early on and it impressed me very much, as I had been getting into the hands of the Seventh Day Adventists the previous year.

THE GROUND OF THE CHURCH by Witness Lee

For the church life, there are two main and basic aspects. We must be thoroughly clear about these, for without them we have no reality of the church life. The first is that Christ Himself is the life, the content, and everything in the church. It is absolutely not a matter of forms, doctrines, or certain kinds of expressions. Those who are really in the church life are those who are experiencing Christ as their very life day by day. Christ is everything to them; therefore, Christ is their life and content whenever they come together. The practice of the church life is a life of Christ and a life with Christ as everything.

The second main aspect of the church life is that of the standing or the ground of the church. This term, the church ground, was first used by Brother Watchman Nee in 1937. Before 1937, we never heard or saw this term, and the matter of the ground of the church, as far as we have been able to determine, was not known.

The ground of the church is not the foundation of the church. The foundation of the church is Christ. "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (I Cor. 3:11). The ground is completely different from the foundation. The foundation is a basic and integral part of the construction of a building, whereas the ground is not. The ground is a piece of land, called the site, upon which the foundation is laid. It is not part of the construction, but simply a lot upon which the construction is placed. We must not mistake the ground for the foundation or the foundation for the ground. They are two vital, yet distinct entities for the construction of a building. Although the foundation may be deeply embedded in the ground, it is still distinct and separate from it. The ground is the standing on which the foundation is laid.

There are many so-called churches established in Los Angeles. One, the Roman Catholic Church, claims to be built upon Christ as its foundation. Another, the Presbyterian Church, also claims that its foundation is none other than Christ. The Baptists, Quakers, Methodists, Episcopals, Lutherans, Nazarenes, and many others claim the same thing. In fact there is not one so-called Christian church which does not. They all claim Christ as their foundation, but they have absolutely neglected the ground.

What are the actual grounds upon which so many of these so-called churches have laid Christ as their foundation? What is the ground of the Roman Catholic Church? Without a doubt, it is Rome. The Roman Catholic Church claiming Christ as its foundation is built upon the ground of Roman Catholicism. Upon what ground is the Presbyterian Church built? It is clear that their ground is a certain system of government called the presbytery. They have laid the foundation of Christ upon the ground of the presbytery. What about the Baptists? They with Christ as their foundation are built upon the ground of baptism, baptism by immersion. Then there are the Lutherans. They have laid their foundation upon the ground of Luther and his teachings. You see, all the "churches" claim the same foundation, which is Christ; but they all stand upon different grounds. It is the different grounds that create the problem for the unity of the church, not Christ as the foundation.

Let us suppose that every group of Christians in Los Angeles would be willing to relinquish its own particular ground: the Roman Catholics would give up the ground of Roman Catholicism, the Presbyterians would give up the ground of the presbytery, the Baptists would give up the ground of baptism, etc., --all the groups would be willing to abandon their own ground. What would be the result? All sectarian grounds would disappear and spontaneously only one unique and common ground would exist, the ground of locality, the ground of Los Angeles. All the saints in Los Angeles would then be in the one church in Los Angeles without any division. All the different denominations would be gone, and only the saints with Christ would be left. Then all the saints here, with the one Christ, would form the one unique church in Los Angeles. Composed together and built upon Christ as their foundation, they would be standing simply upon the ground of Los Angeles, which is the local ground, the unique ground of genuine unity. That is the only proper ground for the local church in Los Angeles and the only ground which can keep all the saints in this locality in oneness.

When Paul went to Corinth to preach the Gospel and do the work of the Lord, did he establish a Pauline church with Christ as its foundation? Did Apollos who also ministered in Corinth, establish a church upon the ground of Apollos with Christ as its foundation? Or did Peter, who may also have gone to Corinth, form a Petrine church with Christ as the foundation? Of course, they did not. In Corinth there was no Pauline church, no Apollonian church, and no Petrine church. Then what did they do? When Paul went to Corinth and brought people to the Lord, he established the church in Corinth. Upon what ground? Upon the ground of Corinth. He set up a local church in Corinth with Christ as its foundation upon the unique ground of locality. When Apollos went to Corinth, he did not set up another church. He built up the saints upon the same unique foundation and upon the same unique ground, the ground of Corinth. Paul planted them on that ground, and Apollos watered them on that ground. I Corinthians 1:2 says, "The church [singular] of God which is at Corinth." Paul, Apollos, and Peter brought their varied ministries to Corinth, but they all built one church with one foundation upon the one ground of unity. So eventually only one church existed in Corinth with one kind of saints, one foundation which is Christ, and one ground which was the common standing in the entire locality. One church, one foundation, one ground--it is so clear.

The problem today is not with the foundation, but with the ground. This is why we say that if we would have the church life, we must consider the ground as the second essential point we must take into account. Without Christ as our life and content and without the ground of unity with the saints in the locality in which we live as our definite standing, we cannot practice the church life.

There are multitudinous so-called churches and free groups in Los Angeles. Why is there so much division? The problem, as we have seen, is not due to the foundation, but to the ground. You may say that the free groups have no ground. But it is hard for us to believe that any free group exists without any ground. The ground may be unwritten and undeclared, but nevertheless understood. How could there be a group without any ground? If so, they must be floating in the air! Even a single man requires some ground upon which to stand, though it be only a square foot of earth. With every free group, there must be some kind of ground. Don't be cheated, don't be deceived. They do not have any designated or denominated ground, but they do have a ground which is understood.

Brothers and sisters, upon what ground are you standing? Are you standing upon any denominational or sectarian ground, declared or undeclared, written or unwritten? Any ground that supports a division among God's people is not right. Any sectarian ground is not justified by the Word of God and is against the basic principle of the Body of Christ. We must give up every other ground and meet together only on the ground of locality, which is the ground of unity, the unique ground of the church. No matter where we are, we have to gather together on the one unique ground of the church in order to keep the unity of the Body of Christ. It is only by taking the ground of unity that the unity of the Spirit will be kept (Eph. 4:3), and it is only in this way that we will have a proper, genuine, local expression of the Body of Christ.

The Scripture clearly shows us that in every locality the expression of the Body of Christ, that is, the local church, should be just one. There is no place in the Scripture where there was more than one local church in any given city. If you are living in Los Angles, you must be built up together with other believers in Los Angeles as the church in that locality. If you are in Tokyo, you must be built up with those who are saved in Tokyo as the church in that locality. As a Christian living in any locality, you must be built up with the other Christians in that locality as the unique local church there, which should be called the church in that place. The one that was built up in Jerusalem was called the church in Jerusalem (Acts 8 :1), and the one in Antioch was called the church in Antioch (Acts 13:1). In the same principle, the one in Los Angeles should be called the church in Los Angeles.

How simple, how uncomplicated is this divine way which the Scripture shows us! Wherever we live, we are the church in that place and we build the church in that place. If all God's people could see this principle and abide by it, there would be no divisions. We can testify that we have seen this ground of unity taken and the church life practiced upon it in many places, and we are seeing it today. From our observation and our own experience we can boldly declare that it really works and is the most blessed way. Regardless of the grounds upon which others are standing, we must pay the price to stand upon this unique ground of locality, the ground of unity, to be built up with the believers as the proper local church in the locality where we live.

We must come out of the divisions, not to form another division, but to come back to the proper ground, the ground of unity. There is no reason for us to be divided. We are all members of the one unique church. Why not simply come together with the believers in the locality where we live to be an expression of that church? Let us not be complicated and confused by Christianity. It is a shameful thing to ask people to what church they belong. If they are believers, they are our brothers--that is all. I belong to the unique church, and they belong to the same unique church. More than thirty-five years ago in Shanghai, a brother with a Bible in his hand was taking the street car to go to a meeting. Another believer on the street car was distributing tracts to the passengers, and when he saw the brother with his Bible he said, "Oh, you must be a brother!" The brother answered that he was indeed a brother. Then he asked him, "To what church do you belong?" The brother answered: "I belong to the same church to which you belong; the same church to which the Apostle Paul, the Apostle Peter, the Apostle John, and Martin Luther belonged, and the same church to which all believers belong." When he heard that, he said, "That would be wonderful!"

Surely, it is wonderful. Oh, let us all come together on the unique ground of unity to have a proper expression of this one church in the place where we live. May the Lord be merciful to us.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Let us suppose that every group of Christians in Los Angeles would be willing to relinquish its own particular ground: the Roman Catholics would give up the ground of Roman Catholicism, the Presbyterians would give up the ground of the presbytery, the Baptists would give up the ground of baptism, etc., --all the groups would be willing to abandon their own ground. What would be the result? All sectarian grounds would disappear.

Same can be said of the local churches. Let us suppose the local churches gave up the ground of Witness Lee and his ministry, what would be the result?

A point of this thread is asserting a man and a ministry divides the Body of Christ, just this Baptists, Presbyterians, etc do.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Indiana

The church in Seattle started in 1970 in a move from Yorba Linda, California, and nearly the whole congregation came, and they hit the Ground running. It was a move for Christ and the church, not for a man and a ministry. There were resounding amens and testimonies confirming that we were "home" and we were "going to stand right here till Jesus comes, standing on the local ground...no division, sect or group but its the local church standing on the local ground."

(emphasis mine to make a point)

Our dear brother Steve's fond memories notwithstanding, by 1970 there was not any Local Church that had any firm association with the ministry of Witness Lee that was "not for a man and a ministry". I'm assuming you're referring to those who had been meeting with Bill Freeman there in Yorba Linda - and if so, at that point, Bill Freeman was indeed under the influence and leadership of "a man and a ministry". It was only many years later that Freeman freed himself from the grips of the person and work of Witness Lee.

I would suggest that the newness and excitement experienced in the early 70s in Seattle was for a number of reasons, not the least of which was moving over 1,000 miles away from "a man and a ministry". But Freeman did eventually realize that "the church in Seattle" was really nothing more than a wholly owned subsidiary of The Local Church of Witness Lee. But to Freeman's credit, he continued on with his personal ministry anyway, and eventually he was forced to make a choice....be "your own man with your own ministry" or do what all Local Church elders/leaders are required to do...surrender everything and your flock to "The Man and The Ministry of the Age". The rest is history (and quite a sad one at that for those who ended up following Bill and Patsy Freeman).

[Indiana]

This thread is dealing with a people whose testimony “we are home” once reverberated around the world in certain places not for a man and a ministry but for Christ and the church.

Conferences, whoever they were led by, encouraged the saints to eat and drink Christ for the building up of the church. The King James version of the Bible was used with important improvements in Greek. The churches knew the most important matter of being “an eating church to become a functioning church” and the saints wrote songs, which came from their experience of Christ as life for the church, our living.

The practice of rising early for morning watch was a major factor in many churches to bring life and content into the churches. In my experience, this was certainly true in Seattle and in Chicago, both individually and corporately with 15-25 in attendance.

With Christ as our life and content and growing, the word on “the ground of unity” in a locality made complete sense, and yes, “speed the day when all the earth will echo with pray-reading, and with hallelujahs for Christ our land, we’re churching in the churches on the churches’ local ground, we’re churching with the brothers, our family we have found, Oh yes we’re churching in the churches and we will make the earth resound with hallelujahs for Christ our land”.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Indiana

This thread is dealing with a people whose testimony “we are home” once reverberated around the world in certain places not for a man and a ministry but for Christ and the church.

Conferences, whoever they were led by, encouraged the saints to eat and drink Christ for the building up of the church. The King James version of the Bible was used with important improvements in Greek. The churches knew the most important matter of being “an eating church to become a functioning church” and the saints wrote songs, which came from their experience of Christ as life for the church, our living.

The practice of rising early for morning watch was a major factor in many churches to bring life and content into the churches. In my experience, this was certainly true in Seattle and in Chicago, both individually and corporately with 15-25 in attendance.

With Christ as our life and content and growing, the word on “the ground of unity” in a locality made complete sense, and yes, “speed the day when all the earth will echo with pray-reading, and with hallelujahs for Christ our land, we’re churching in the churches on the churches’ local ground, we’re churching with the brothers, our family we have found, Oh yes we’re churching in the churches and we will make the earth resound with hallelujahs for Christ our land”.

I have to agree with Indiana that there were so many of us who were consecrated to Christ first, and because of that enjoyed a rich outpouring of blessing from the Spirit of God.

Those who constantly disagree with him are like those who search for a serpent in every paradise. Reminds me of those young people, perhaps America's finest, who dedicate their lives to serve in the military, protecting our freedoms, believing in life and liberty, America's ideals, only to discover the corruption plaguing the White House and become permanently disenchanted, like so many Viet Nam vets.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Indiana

This thread is dealing with a people whose testimony “we are home” once reverberated around the world in certain places not for a man and a ministry but for Christ and the church.

Conferences, whoever they were led by, encouraged the saints to eat and drink Christ for the building up of the church. The King James version of the Bible was used with important improvements in Greek. The churches knew the most important matter of being “an eating church to become a functioning church” and the saints wrote songs, which came from their experience of Christ as life for the church, our living.

The practice of rising early for morning watch was a major factor in many churches to bring life and content into the churches. In my experience, this was certainly true in Seattle and in Chicago, both individually and corporately with 15-25 in attendance.

With Christ as our life and content and growing, the word on “the ground of unity” in a locality made complete sense, and yes, “speed the day when all the earth will echo with pray-reading, and with hallelujahs for Christ our land, we’re churching in the churches on the churches’ local ground, we’re churching with the brothers, our family we have found, Oh yes we’re churching in the churches and we will make the earth resound with hallelujahs for Christ our land”.

Our brother Indiana seems to be intoxicated. It must be those Stephen Kaung meetings he'a attending. You know. The Stephen Kaung that admits to being only human ... unlike Lee.

[UntoHim]

Sorry for disagreeing...I'll have to double check the Forum rules, but I don't think there is a rule against disagreeing (or even constantly disagreeing!). Besides, Steve is used to me disagreeing with him, especially when he makes such bold and dubious statements such as "It was a move for Christ and the church, not for a man and a ministry". Actually we both agree that the "Church Ground Becomes the Lining Up with a Man and a Ministry" (Thread title), we only disagree on when this took place. I would contend that there is ample evidence that this dynamic had already taken place in Taiwan long before Witness Lee ever graced our shores with "the glorious church life". In hindsight, I think it is quite clear now that Lee only gave us gullible Americans a short reprieve until he gained enough trust and power to replicate what he had already tried in Taiwan. (interestingly enough, he did the same, but in reverse, with the "New Way")

OBW puts this rather succinctly just a few posts back:

Originally Posted by OBW

I think, though, that you captured the truth of the whole when you mention that the "turning over" had already happened in China in the late 40s to early 50s, then in Taiwan. It was after both of those that Lee came to America, allowing a less obviously flawed basis for meeting to capture us before doing it all over again in the 80s.

Ohio, shall I just chalk up your "search for a serpent in every paradise" blast as you getting out of the wrong side of bed, and not really a not-so-subtle ad hominem? (and that IS against the rules ) It is rather ironic, however, that you mention "a serpent in every paradise"...because I think it has been shown on this very forum that the serpent of "the church ground lining up with a man and a ministry" was there in the paradise of "the glorious church life" from the very beginnings of the Local Church here in America. This is NOT to discount, much less deny, the genuine experiences of Christ that we had back in the day. I would, however, question whether or not it was in spite of, and not because of, a certain man and a certain ministry.

Before coming into the Local Church of Witness Lee, I found myself in the mist of the new and exciting Calvary Chapel movement. I lived less than a mile from where it all began in Costa Mesa, and pumped gas in and washed Pastor Chuck Smith's car (a beautiful Pontiac Catalina convertable IIRC). I had genuine experiences of Christ and witnessed many great miracles, such as kids being freed from hard drugs and genuine physical healings. Even though I was young and dumb, I still believe those were genuine experiences of Christ and what "the Church" is all about. Did the Calvary Chapel movement become more about a man and a ministry than the genuine expression of Christ and the Church? I think to a great degree it did. Maybe there are Internet forums out there for current and former CC members, and that would be something for them to discuss I'm sure. I was only there for a couple of years in my teens, so would have to rely upon the experiences and intimate knowledge of current and former CC members.

By the mid 70s I found myself right at ground zero among the Local Churches in Orange County. We were going to Ministry Station meetings, major holiday conferences and semi-annual trainings to be at Witness Lee's feet. We were up to our ears in a man and a ministry. When other brothers and sisters came to Anaheim for the conferences and trainings I found them to be up to their ears in a man and a ministry as well. Who's name was on ALL the books and tapes? Who was "the trainer" at the trainings? What was the content of EVERY conference, even the ones where there were different speakers? Was it not the words of the same man and the same ministry? I cannot speak to the very earliest days in Los Angeles in the early 60s, but by the late 60s the Local Church movement was already all about a man and a ministry.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ohio, shall I just chalk up your "search for a serpent in every paradise" blast as you getting out of the wrong side of bed, and not really a not-so-subtle ad hominem? (and that IS against the rules)

Hey. I know this may seem strange, but while Ohio's comment may have been aimed my direction (at least partly), I do not consider it to be an ad hominem. It surely was not a statement against my character, even if it was a questioning of motives.

And while motives may not invalidate a position, sometimes the fact that a position is taken may be for no other reason than bifurcating broad issues into a myriad of smaller ones to create the appearance of more problem that there is. And for that reason, every time Ohio winces out loud, I at least consider whether I was trying to just pick on Lee again.

But while it may be that it is occasionally true, I mostly am more interested in getting clear on what I do, or should, continue to think and believe as a matter of moving forward, not just to point a finger at Lee. And for me, I keep getting stuck in this "good water from a bad well" conundrum when we try to tie our positive experiences of the 60s or 70s (for newer ones, the early years of your participation) to Lee. And since I have found Lee, and even Nee, to be a bad well long before 1960, I have a problem with them being the source of the good things we experienced. Not saying we didn't experience them.

But maybe we have miss-attributed the source. It was not the ground of the church or "Christ and the church" that provided our experience. It was not "God's Economy" as taught by Lee. It was Christ. We may have already become steeped in the early phases of the rhetoric that allowed for the MOTA to eventually step out of the shadows, but we were enjoying a clearer focus on Christ. The excess baggage was not yet noticeably heavy on us. We had become freed from older ways of Christianity and were allowed to continue in that freedom for a while.

The keys to all of this were Christ and us. We had come to focus strictly on Christ, so things were good. But the rhetoric, and even practices that would eventually allow Lee out from behind his "little itinerant preacher" mask were setting us up for what was to come. My biggest goal in all of this is to separate truth from fiction. Lee did little for us other than cause us to reject something else. The addition of "and the church" to our commitment to Christ was a sign of things to come. Of additions we had not yet seen.

It was never "and the church" that made things good. It was just Christ. It was never the teachings of the little Chinese preacher. It was just Christ.

And I have also been somewhat diligent to question the rhetoric that we maintain to this day. Not because it is from Lee, but because I question its value. Like my immensely unpopular take on "experiencing Christ." My problem is not simply with the term. It is with fact that virtually every example is "spiritual" within the context of a spiritual-secular divide. A lot like the inner-life movement out of which Nee's and Lee's teaching emerge. A teaching in which the living of the normal life is not spiritual. Being righteous in living is admirable, but not spiritual. And in the case of Lee's teaching, not really necessary. And when I point out how much of the discussions of "experiencing Christ" are about quiet times, feelings, "joy," etc., someone suddenly jumps in with an example (finally) of something practical that could be an experience of Christ. But it is like pulling teeth to get even that concession and makes me more convinced that we really think that experiencing Christ is about "spiritual" stuff and little or none of the other.

Someone even described some of this recently saying something like "it is when we draw near to Christ." What does that mean? Seems like the closest we really get would be to actually feed of clothe Christ. And that happens when we feed or clothe those in need around us.

No, I do not think that the Christian life is simply good works. But I think that good works are so much a part of it yet we see works as also-rans. When I read the scripture, I do not see a lot of advice to just read a lot of scripture and pray a lot. I see a whole lot of how to live. Even Paul's spiritual stuff was provided as backdrop to getting the very practical right.

Besides, our spiritual work of service is not prayer, but our bodies. Don't need much of a body if it is all in your head (mind, emotions, will).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Those who constantly disagree with him are like those who search for a serpent in every paradise.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ohio, shall I just chalk up your "search for a serpent in every paradise" blast as you getting out of the wrong side of bed, and not really a not-so-subtle ad hominem? (and that IS against the rules ) It is rather ironic, however, that you mention "a serpent in every paradise"...

Originally Posted by OBW

Hey. I know this may seem strange, but while Ohio's comment may have been aimed my direction (at least partly), I do not consider it to be an ad hominem. It surely was not a statement against my character, even if it was a questioning of motives.

If anything, my comment about a "search for a serpent in every paradise" had awareness in mind more than anyone else. It used to be in his signature line, if you remember. What about my other analogy here, which I put forward in my earlier post ...

Originally Posted by Ohio

Reminds me of those young people, perhaps America's finest, who dedicate their lives to serve in the military, protecting our freedoms, believing in life and liberty, America's ideals, only to discover the corruption plaguing the White House and become permanently disenchanted, like so many Viet Nam vets.

[Freedom]

Even though the 60's and 70's was before my time, I'm inclined to believe that the "we are home" sentiment expressed by Indiana had some truth to it. I have heard testimonies of those from the early days who turned from things such as drugs to the Lord. Of course, those things were happening in other Christian groups too, but some of the positive that I've heard about in the early days of the LC is in sharp contrast to the LC in it's current form. In other words, the early LC may have offered people a positive alternative to other things.

Fast forward to the current LC, what I have seen does not impress me at all. I have somewhat of an idea of what the early LC was like: members who were happy to invite friends, family, and coworkers to meetings. Probably more than anything else, those who were happy in the LC wanted to share their experience with others. If you set aside the growing influence of Lee's ministry during that time, what you probably had is a bunch of young people who were on fire for the Lord. When I compare this picture of the early LC to what I have experienced, it becomes exceedingly clear that the LC is not what it used to be. Now most LC members are reluctant to invite friends, family and coworkers. Furthermore many LC saints have this "defensive" mindset, whereas if there is a newcomer in a meeting, that person is viewed a bit suspiciously until they demonstrate acceptance of LSM material. Most if not all of the outreach/evangelizing that I've seen and participated in has been done out of obligation alone.

Sorry to say, I have also encountered a number of LC members who live double lives. Everything from smoking, to you name it. My purpose is not to criticize those who do such things, however when you think about the early LC with people dropping such things to come to the Lord, you have to wonder what happened. How did the LC become the kind of system that pushes people to live double lives?

I don't think for a minute that there weren't LC members early on also living double lives, or think that members weren't damaged as a result of LC practices. I just think that at one point the positive experiences may have outweighed the negative, even if only for a short period of time. Of course, it is now clear that there were negative aspects of the LC right from the very get go. What I realize is that those who were there in the early days may have a positive impression due to things that they experienced. By contrast, the positive impression that I once had of the LC was through repeatedly singing and declaring phrases such as "home, home in the church..." to where I really believed that it was true. Eventually I had to realize that just because I sang or declared something, didn't make it true. It's really as simple as that.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If anything, my comment about a "search for a serpent in every paradise" had awareness in mind more than anyone else. It used to be in his signature line, if you remember. What about my other analogy here, which I put forward in my earlier post ...

Nice save Ohio. Whoever you had in mind probably deserved it anyway.

Your other analogy doesn't seem to be analogous enough for me to get it. Could you please dumb it down a little for me?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If anything, my comment about a "search for a serpent in every paradise" had awareness in mind more than anyone else. It used to be in his signature line, if you remember. What about my other analogy here, which I put forward in my earlier post ...

First, I accept your specific thoughts on where you were aiming. But you must admit that I have been a thorn in your side, whether intended or not.

I would say that the analogy concerning America, its soldiers, and those who run things in Washington, there is a level of comparability. But like a lot of analogies, be care how hard you try to milk it. Everything is not comparable. At some level, it is even not the same on the surface.

And for me, the core at which it is not comparable would require that Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and the others set up this experiment in government as a cover for a different one that did not come until generations later. Of course in the case of the LCM it was all started and over within one generation. Lee set up a sham so he could get control. That many seem harsh, but his actions in Taiwan, and those of his predecessor, Nee, in China suggest that what we now have in the LCM is exactly what they wanted. The early stuff was the bait to lure some in.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Nice save Ohio. Whoever you had in mind probably deserved it anyway.

Your other analogy doesn't seem to be analogous enough for me to get it. Could you please dumb it down a little for me?

Simple.

Many of the young men who enlist for military service have American ideals in mind, considering our freedoms and way of life worthy of their ultimate sacrifice, if needed. They are like many of the young people in the 60's and 70's who came to the Recovery, giving their lives to Christ and the church, believing in their hearts that we were the Lord's testimony, so pure and worthwhile and noble.

Then we found out that our leaders hijacked the movement, using us for their own self gains, very similar to the crooked politicians in Washington, which explains why many vets have turned sour after returning, kind of like ex-members of the LC's.

Simple. At least to me.

Originally Posted by OBW

I would say that the analogy concerning America, its soldiers, and those who run things in Washington, there is a level of comparability. But like a lot of analogies, be care how hard you try to milk it. Everything is not comparable. At some level, it is even not the same on the surface.

When it comes to a writer drawing from an analogy, I firstly seek to see the similarities. You, however, seem to immediately poke holes at them, since, as we all know, it is impossible for any analogy to be perfect. They are only "like" the real thing, but here are some of the similarities in my way of thinking ...

• The LCM often referred to itself as an army of God
• We felt we were the best trained soldiers on earth
• We un-entangled our lives to be free to fight for God
• We were willing to lay down our life for the Lord and His church
• We left our homes and families for the cause we believed in
• We were sold on a vision of the original N.T. church
• Our leaders had an agenda very much different than ours
• Our leaders didn't really know who their enemy was
• Our leaders were corrupted by personal politics and base gain
• Our leaders deceived us, took advantage of us, betrayed us
• We left disenchanted, discouraged, oftentimes depressed

Like I said, the analogy works for me, but, as I have been often told, I am the oddball misfit here in the ex-members club, still "drinking the Kool-aid," "pining" for the things of Lee, yada, yada.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I have somewhat of an idea of what the early LC was like: members who were happy to invite friends, family, and coworkers to meetings. Probably more than anything else, those who were happy in the LC wanted to share their experience with others. If you set aside the growing influence of Lee's ministry during that time, what you probably had is a bunch of young people who were on fire for the Lord. When I compare this picture of the early LC to what I have experienced, it becomes exceedingly clear that the LC is not what it used to be. Now most LC members are reluctant to invite friends, family and coworkers.

That was my experience in the mid-80's. I had several classmates from high school who attended a Lord's Day meeting or a Young People's Gospel meeting in Anaheim.
The sharing from Francis Ball, Gene Gruhler, or whomever it was their speaking based on scripture they were speaking on. If there was any re-speaking Lee's ministry, I wouldn't have known at the time since his relevance to me was a name on a book and at an occasional conference before the trainings (which I never attended).
In retrospect I think having one brother share followed by testimonies, was pseudo-orthodox Christian practices.
Now the local churches have become narrow in orthodoxy and orthopraxy, there is reluctance to invite. There is a conscious realization the local church atmosphere is NOT for the everyday brothers and sisters.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

How did the LC become the kind of system that pushes people to live double lives?

Peer pressure for one. Social acceptance for two. Brothers and sisters don't feel confident to be accepted as they are, so there is a veil of spirituality that is created to mask over their soul.
Very few brothers I have been with who were themselves at home, in home meetings, and in Lord's Day meetings without being pretentious.
There's a big difference between (A) expressing the humanity of Christ and (B) being overly spiritual whose fruit is indifference, lacking compassion, and insensitivity.
It's the humanity of Christ that many I feel long to be ministered with.

[Cal]

If what went on in the LCM was so freakin' great then go out and make it happen again. And if you can't, shut up about it!

I am getting so freakin' sick of hearing about how great the LCM was way back when! What an insult to our God it is to live in the past! MOVE ON! If you can't make something better than the LCM happen right now then God isn't real and what's more pertinent YOU AREN'T EITHER!

I am so freakin' sick, sick, sick to the depth of my stomach of hearing about how great the LCM was! God is, too!! I am so sick of this living in the past! It's pathetic! Get off your rear end and go make something happen in some fellowship with some Christians NOW! Please! Before God throws up on all of us!

Lord help us! AMEN!

Thank you for your kind attention.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Even though the 60's and 70's was before my time, I'm inclined to believe that the "we are home" sentiment expressed by Indiana had some truth to it. I have heard testimonies of those from the early days who turned from things such as drugs to the Lord. Of course, those things were happening in other Christian groups too, but some of the positive that I've heard about in the early days of the LC is in sharp contrast to the LC in it's current form. In other words, the early LC may have offered people a positive alternative to other things.

I was there. Those were the baby boomer days, the hippie generation -- sex, drugs, rock and roll. It was a generation that was looking and seeking.

And yes, bro Freedom, "it" was happening in all kinds of groups and followings. After all, it was an age of communes, with guru type leaders.

The local church in Santa Cruz seemed to me to be a commune. The commune was a system of brother's and sister's houses.

And yes I can look back on those days as a frenzy. Everybody was wild for Jesus. The meetings were electric -- really, really, to me, the Spirit was moving. And to Lee, it appeared so too. Perchance, prolly, leading him to conclude God was moving thru him ... leading further to him becoming THE oracle, and THE authority of God.

We were really to blame for that. We were part and parcel to lifting Lee up. Without us Lee would have been nothing.

But the frenzy for Jesus in the early days wasn't driven by a man and his ministry. It had a life of its own. We were young, crazy, and stupid ... at least the ones I knew were, including me. We couldn't help but to be caught up with the life of Jesus. The Spirit was moving, so it seemed and appeared. "Oh Lord Jesus!!!" was on everybody's lips. None of it was dependent on Lee. Lee was just a teacher ... an outstanding one, yes, but not the MOTA yet. That was just beginning to be slipped in, here in America. Nee and Lee had done it before in Shanghai & Taiwan. The local ground and the minister of the age were coined/combined by Nee.

But again, we were what was happening. The Lord was moving in us. It wasn't Lee working in us. However, seeing events happening beyond his reach -- like Elden Hall -- led Lee to conclude that God's power was at work. Then he took credit for something he had nothing to do with.

And that was the decline of the local church, becoming as you describe it today. The more Lee became the MOTA the more the local church became anathema to any of sound mind.

As a result, I don't know how any sober-minded person, that's real and honest, could ever manage to stay in the local church, or ever follow a Witness Lee type ... that make highfalutin claims to be the mouth of God.

Like Stephen Kaung says ... come down and be human (my rendition). Be real. Stop with the agenda's. They just quench the Spirit. As has happened.

Back then, by the way, Ron Kangas sounded like a savant. Now, when I listen to him speak it's like fingernails on a chalkboard.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If what went on in the LCM was so freakin' great then go out and make it happen again. And if you can't, shut up about it!

I am getting so freakin' sick of hearing about how great the LCM was way back when! What an insult to our God it is to live in the past! MOVE ON! If you can't make something better than the LCM happen right now then God isn't real and what's more pertinent YOU AREN'T EITHER!

I am so freakin' sick, sick, sick to the depth of my stomach of hearing about how great the LCM was! God is, too!! I am so sick of this living in the past! It's pathetic! Get off your rear end and go make something happen in some fellowship with some Christians NOW! Please! Before God throws up on all of us!

Lord help us! AMEN!

Thank you for your kind attention.

Obviously this speaks to my last few posts, where i drew an analogy between ex members and some veterans -- it is Memorial day after all. Sorry you are feeling so sick, but i never said the LC so great.

What ever happened to the ability to express opinions, and have local church discussions?

But thanks for the advice.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously this speaks to my last few posts, where i drew an analogy between ex members and some veterans -- it is Memorial day after all. Sorry you are feeling so sick, but i never said the LC so great.

What ever happened to the ability to express opinions, and have local church discussions?

But thanks for the advice.

It wasn't directed at you at all. Sorry you thought so. I don't feel it applies to you.

I really felt like the Lord wanted me to post that last post. I won't do anything like it again for awhile because I made my point and got it out. But I really felt strongly to do it. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, don't worry about it.

It was directed at those who are longing for a return to the "good old days." It wasn't meant to be mean at all, it was a genuine expression toward this attitude, which is totally of the devil, that there is:

(1) something in the past that is better than the present that we need to recreate by fixing others,

and/or

(2) some people are holding our experience of God hostage and in order to have the wonderful experience of "Christ and the church" that we want we must convince those people to come around so we can jump back in and have it like we used to.

Both these mindsets are completely of the devil. I've sat here for years and watched people live under their power, and it has made me very angry. I feel that anger is of the Lord. These mindsets are robbing people of the present experience and purpose that God has for them. I just finally felt to say it the way I feel it.

Again, if the LCM experience was so great, and I'm not arguing that it was or wasn't, that is irrelevant to my point...if it was so great, then you do not need the cooperation of the BBs, LSM, any LCM church or any LCM believer to have it again.

If the LCM experience was so great and you want to have it again so badly that you can't live normally without it, then that may mean God has put a vision in you and you need to be faithful to it. But the way to carry it out is not to fix anyone else.

The way to carry it out is to find some place and just pray. You pray, "Lord, give me someone to meet with to carry out the vision you've given me." You don't try to fix anyone, you don't write letters, you don't write emails, you don't argue. You just pray for one person to meet with. When the Lord gives you that one person, and he will, then you both pray for more people. Then, in agreement, you go on to whatever he has for you. And you shake the past off your feet. God will be faithful to produce what he's put in you. And if he doesn't, then he didn't put it in you--it's your nostalgia, or fantasy, or something worse, but it's not a vision of the Lord.

What the Lord doesn't do is expect us to try to fix some movement or group so we can rejoin it and have the kind of experience we think we are supposed to have. Nor does he expect us to live in limbo and unhappiness until that happens. He doesn't do that. Period. The existing LCMers do not hold the key or have the goods on anyone else's Christian life. Those wandering and dreaming of returning back to the "good old days" by fixing the LCM are captive to the devil. I really believe that. The devil is subtle. He will string us along with anything he can.

But the Lord is present. He is now. He is positive and wants us filled with hope. And no one can steal what he has for us unless we empower them to do so.

[Cal]

There are basically three kinds of ex-LCMers:

1) There are those that try to mostly discredit the experience, with the hopes that this will free them from the past.

2) There are those that believe the experience was mostly positive and good, and wish to return to it somehow.

3) There are those who see the experience as both positive and negative. They appreciate the positive, but recognize the negative. They may still be searching, but they do not live in the past.

1 and 2 are the extremes. 3 is the more reasonable view. Most people here are in 3, including Ohio. A minority are in 1, a few in 2.

My posts were directed at those in 2 who feel they need to fix the LCM and rejoin it in order to have the experience God wants for them. My feeling is that attitude is the trap of the devil. If you feel the LCM was the best manifestation of the church ever, then just start again and recreate it. You know the principles that caused it to work, and what's more you know the mistakes that caused it to fail. So just start again. What's holding you back? I mean, put up or shut up. But don't try to fix the remnants of that movement. And don't just spend your time telling everyone how great it was in a way of being a wet blanket on the present. Move on positively! Unless you are genuinely trying to help the people left there it is a waste of life, not to mention an insult to God, to try to fix it so you can have a good experience again. Put simply, that's just wrongheaded.

But I did not mean to imply you shouldn't talk about what you liked about the LCM experience. That's fine as long it doesn't carry the notion that some experience of God can or could only be had there, because that's nonsense, and a trap.

[Cal]

I think awareness's picture of the LCM as a cargo cult is apt. Their feeling is that if they get back to the proper appreciation of Nee and Lee, if they have the proper relationship with the ministry, if they are properly "on the ground" and "keeping the oneness" and meeting properly and having "morning watch", etc, etc, then the cargo of the Lord's blessing seen in the good old days will return. Hallelujah, Hallelujah!

If that's not a trap I don't know what is.

It's completely wrongheaded because there is nothing in it about following the Lord today. It's all about the past.

God is like a river. You can never step into the same one twice. In nature and purpose he is the same, but there is always something new about the way he works things out. LCMers and those ex-LCMers living for the good old days are indeed like a cargo cult, trying to do everything just right and then sitting on the beach staring at the horizon waiting for the cargo to come again, day after day after day after day....

The plane isn't coming. In the meantime God drove by on a jet ski waving for them to follow him, and they just ignored him.

[Indiana]

Titus Chu shares, in representing many brothers and sisters also, in his final letter to the blending brothers, 2 months before his quarantine:

Haven't You Brothers Ignored Brother Lee's "Will"?

...You make frequent reference to Brother Lee's "will." Surely Brother Lee's final public speaking constitutes an important part of his "will." In his final speaking at the Chinese New Year conference, 1997, Brother Lee said,

"We have much to learn concerning receiving people according to God and according to His Son. Because of our negligence in this matter in the past, we have offended the Body of Christ and many brothers and sisters in the Lord. For this reason, I had a deep repentance before the Lord. Brothers and sisters, I hope that we can see our past mistakes by getting into this message through pray-reading, studying, reciting and prophesying. Of course, sectarianism in the denominations is wrong; it is something very much condemned by God. Nevertheless, those who are genuinely saved in the denominations are children of God and have been received by God. Hence, we also should receive them, but we would never participate in the division in which they are." (W. Lee, The Experience of God's Organic Salvation Equaling Reigning in Christ's Life, Chp. 6)

Brother Lee was ministering in Chinese. A more literal translation of his words, conveying his genuine repentance would be:

"Concerning the matter of receiving people according to God,…we co-workers 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…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 sects are what God condemns the most. However, the Lord still hopes that all His children…can be free from such condemnation [against those in denominations]. Such an understanding and verification will require much effort. I say again, you must, some people, a few people, come together to read, pray, speak and say…"

Brothers, aren't these words, uttered by Brother Lee in his final conference gathering prior to his departure, a most crucial statement? Aren't they also a serious challenge to us to reconsider our ways?

Dear brothers, Brother Lee's final public utterance expressed his deep regret ("painful repentance") to the Body of Christ and an apology for "past mistakes" to the brothers and sisters, both among us and in the denominations. Why haven't you honored Brother Lee's final speaking concerning receiving the believers? Why do you brothers always declare that you are one with Brother Lee, yet totally ignore what was his real concern and his final charge to us all? Did you brothers ever come together to study this matter and if so, what is the outcome? Rather than endeavoring to effect a change in attitude towards believers who don't gather with us, you have caused the recovery to become more exclusive. Rather than emphasize Brother Lee's "will" expressed publicly through his messages (including this one), you have emphasized selected private utterances of Brother Lee. Rather than correcting our "past mistakes" in receiving believers, you have changed the emphasis of Brother Lee's final speaking. Brother Benson Phillips is on record saying, "…from Brother Lee's final message. 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,…God has received us….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." (The Ministry, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 108). Doesn't Brother Benson's speaking here deviate from Brother Lee's emphasis? Brother Lee talked about receiving the believers, apologizing to those in denominations. He made no reference to receiving local churches. Yet, you Brother Benson, inserted the idea of receiving all the local churches and all the saints in the churches. Moreover, you made receiving "all the local churches" and the saints therein priorities above receiving all the believers, saying, "the burden here is that we…receive all the local churches and all the saints in the local churches…,Then we must receive all believers." In this context Brother Lee didn't talk about receiving the local churches, yet you have introduced this "new teaching" which de-emphasizes and postpones the receiving of other believers. Let me ask: In this matter are you really faithful to Brother Lee's "will," or are you implementing your own agenda? Brother Benson, what do you mean by this extra-biblical teaching? Do you intend to imply that a local church needs to be received by you brothers, before it will be recognized by all the local churches under your leadership (control)? My bolds and color added)

Dear brothers, there are those (including myself) who wish to be faithful to Brother Lee's final speaking and seriously consider how to implement this aspect of his "will." How can we participate in your activities which deviate drastically from Brother Lee's ministry and deny or deemphasize the desire expressed in his final speaking?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

There are basically three kinds of ex-LCMers:

1) There are those that try to mostly discredit the experience, with the hopes that this will free them from the past.

2) There are those that believe the experience was mostly positive and good, and wish to return to it somehow.

3) There are those who see the experience as both positive and negative. They appreciate the positive, but recognize the negative. They may still be searching, but they do not live in the past.

1 and 2 are the extremes. 3 is the more reasonable view. Most people here are in 3, including Ohio. A minority are in 1, a few in 2.

There are several others;
A. Ones who go on and pretend their LC experiences never happened.
B. Ones who go on, but regarding the past analyze to reach an understanding what happened.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It wasn't directed at you at all. Sorry you thought so. I don't feel it applies to you.

I received it directed at Indiana and those who commented on his post. In all fairness, I feel Indiana was trying to illustrate how the Local Churches had changed from when he first came in until now. His experiences being Christ centered and in the present, Local Churches might as well be called ministry churches because they are ministry centered. For me, no thank you.
Unfortunately, complete disengagement is not possible when you have family and family friends still active in the movement.
Even my experiences in the local churches during the 80's, it's just a memory. I can use my experiences from that era to show how much the LC culture has changed. It's no different than crossing paths with friends you haven't seen in 20-30 years. You have memories, but you've moved on.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Terry

I received it directed at Indiana and those who commented on his post. In all fairness, I feel Indiana was trying to illustrate how the Local Churches had changed from when he first came in until now. His experiences being Christ centered and in the present, Local Churches might as well be called ministry churches because they are ministry centered. For me, no thank you.
Unfortunately, complete disengagement is not possible when you have family and family friends still active in the movement.
Even my experiences in the local churches during the 80's, it's just a memory. I can use my experiences from that era to show how much the LC culture has changed. It's no different than crossing paths with friends you haven't seen in 20-30 years. You have memories, but you've moved on.

Thanks, Terry. You perspective is appreciated. My posts are always intended to help. I have no intention of hurting anyone or making anyone feel bad. But sometimes love requires us to say things that might offend.

The fact is some ex-LCMers don't have much of a Christian life anymore and part of the reason is their having been brainwashed into thinking the only God experiences worth having are those in the LCM. This delusion operates at all levels and still affects many of us. It's a lie.

[UntoHim]

I wrote this post this morning but had to run out before I actually got to put it on the forum. It's pretty stale at this point, but I'll try to add to it by reacting to some of the subsequent posts.

I think sometimes all three of the types Igzy has listed....all at the same time

Let's face it, the Local Church, and our experience of it, seem to lend themselves to exaggeration. We got used to exaggeration while we were in the movement (cf: We ARE THE Lord's Recovery! We ARE THE Church! Eating Jesus is THE WAY! Christianity is Christless! and the kicker...to say one negative thing about the Local Church or Witness Lee must mean you hate the LC or you hate Witness Lee.) Of course it's easy to look back and make these kind of criticisms, but to simply deny the attitudes we once held, and is still held by current LC members, is to rob our discussions of reality.

All human endeavors, even those which seek to please God, serve Christ and "build the Church", are subject to the limitations and weaknesses of the humans who initiate them and fight to keep them profitable and relevant. By profitable I mean something that is going to be profitable to God and his people, and by relevant I mean relevant to the world around us. There is absolutely no doubt that Witness Lee and his followers have sincerely sought to please God, serve Christ and build the Church. But the simple truth is that they have gone ahead and tried to accomplish these things without acknowledging their limitations and weaknesses, and as a matter of fact, they feel that if they do acknowledge their limitations and weaknesses, that would make them just like all the other Christians throughout history, and to Witness Lee and his followers that would be the biggest sin of all.

Even if it has been many years, some of us feel uncomfortable speaking of these human weaknesses...we are all conscience that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", and this indeed is the crux of the matter - are we truly seeking the glory of God? Is this our goal in being so harshly critical of Witness Lee and the LC movement, to seek the glory of God? Is this our goal in being so overly defensive, even to the point of making it personal, to seek the glory of God? I think we are falling woefully short on this thread so far. At least I know I am.

Lets try to elevate the conversation, shall we?

Originally Posted by Terry

There are several others;
A. Ones who go on and pretend their LC experiences never happened.
B. Ones who go on, but regarding the past analyze to reach an understanding what happened.

Terry, without trying to put words in your mouth, don't you mean to say "Ones who go on and pretend their (Positive) LC experiences never happened"? If so I don't blame you for thinking this about brothers like Igzy and me. We tend to emphasize the negative. But this does not mean we have a negative attitude or view towards our dear brothers and sisters in the Local Church. We want the same things for them that we want for every believer - to know the true and living God of the Universe, His Son Jesus Christ and to be lead into all Truth by the Spirit of Truth. We don't think this is happening in the Local Church of Witness Lee. Some are convinced that at one time this was indeed taking place in the LC. I have serious doubts about this. This is NOT, repeat NOT, to say that we did have some genuine experiences of Christ, but I do not believe that the overall atmosphere in the LC was conducive to knowing God in the way the Bible describes.

As far as "to reach an understanding what happened"...well that's pretty much what this forum is all about!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Terry, without trying to put words in your mouth, don't you mean to say "Ones who go on and pretend their (Positive) LC experiences never happened"?

UntoHim, I was referring to churchkids I was acquainted with in Southern California localities I was raised in and subsequently crossed paths with as adults.
Whether their experiences were positive or negative, I don't know.

[Indiana]

If we are for God’s government on the earth, we will let Christ be preeminent in our lives, and have the fruit of the Spirit, love, joy, peace, longsuffering, goodness, self-control…against such things there is no law. In the same book of Galatians the works of the flesh are mentioned, including the making of divisions and the creating of sects. Sowing to the flesh in this way reaps corruption; sowing to the Spirit reaps life.

Are those truly under God’s government who insist on capitulation to their authority, or are they stirred and steered by the flesh to gain control. Control is what men of the flesh want. Control is what the blending brothers have obtained.


http://www.twoturmoils.com/HowtoBeco...vidShields.pdf

[Cal]

Whatever the experience in the LCM was, it's in the past. God doesn't live in the past. Now, this doesn't mean we can't discuss what happened to try to understand it, but it does mean two things which may at first seem contradictory, but actually are not:

1) The first thing it means is that the experiences can never be fully replicated. That was then, this is now. The attempt to reproduce Elden Hall or the like is a quixotic project. You might was well be trying to bring back the age of Frank Sinatra and big band music. We shouldn't try anyway, as with God now is always better than then. If you don't realize that you are definitely living in the past.

2) While completely reproducing those days is not possible, applying valid principles learned from those days should produce something like it. That is, it is not necessary to reform the Recovery to have those general experiences again. The "church life," at least the parts of it God would approve of, should be reproducible by any group of seekers who believe they should take that path. Actually, groups similar in some way exist all over. The path to God's best never requires going through a particular organization or set of people.


There were many things about the LCM which at first blush seemed to be a genuine experiences of God, but were very possibly simply experiences of human emotion in a group setting. Those experiences of "being home" of "being in God's present move" of "being at the center of the action" and all the thrill and excitement of that were very possibly just the emotional reaction to being in such an enthusiastic, dynamic and confident environment. The attitude of "us against everyone" is an emotion which classically energizes and galvanizes human beings into a feeling of unique purpose, whether that purpose is genuine or not, and such emotions can be easily mistaken for God's approval.

That said, there were in fact some things in the LCM that many, many Christians are still weak on. I would say three of these are:
1) a grand, unified vision of God's purpose.
2) a deep appreciation of the availability and power of Christ in personal life.
3) a deep appreciation of the corporate aspect of God's people.

(Note I said nothing about mingling, becoming God, spiritual authority, blending, or any of the other specific or esoteric aspects of the LCM. Those were definitely NOT strengths. The LCM got some (not all) big themes right, they got many details wrong.)

The LCM's deep appreciation of "the Church" was a very good thing. However, their mistake was to apply that wonderful Church status only to themselves. No, we are all the Church, whether we meet here or there, as long as we meet in spirit and truth. The LCM was right to celebrate the Church. They were wrong to make it a private party.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

2) While completely reproducing those days is not possible, applying valid principles learned from those days should produce something like it . . . . The "church life," at least the parts of it God would approve of, should be reproducible by any group of seekers who believe they should take that path. Actually, groups similar in some way exist all over.

The question I always have is whether producing "something like it" is really important. (And I note that Igzy didn't say it is.) Even if we are seeking something that is not a product of Lee's folly, do we think that reproducing the "good" parts is important?

Another way of saying this would be to ask whether there are not a myriad of alternate "experiences" that are just as valid, though very different in outward appearance, ranging from quiet, sober reflection all the way to some charismatic forms. Is a preponderance of any of these rather than others anything other than preference? Or is any of this evidence of some special status before God?

This is where I start to sense a need on the part of some to keep reproducing particular experiences because that is what they think was God's real, up-to-date move when in fact if God is moving at all, it is always real and it is always up to date. It is only us that gets fake and/or old.

God moves in people who jump and shout and in people who are quiet and pray. He moves in those who ad lib every prayer and in those who read prayers. He moves in those who have no absolute order of service and in those who follow a set liturgy.

The problem I find is not in any of these ways, but rather those who think that doing it a certain way will bring God to them. Whether it is a liturgy, or sufficient jumping and shouting. Once we think we have figured out the formula to it all, then we are probably just getting what we put into it and little more.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

The question I always have is whether producing "something like it" is really important. (And I note that Igzy didn't say it is.) Even if we are seeking something that is not a product of Lee's folly, do we think that reproducing the "good" parts is important?

Another way of saying this would be to ask whether there are not a myriad of alternate "experiences" that are just as valid, though very different in outward appearance, ranging from quiet, sober reflection all the way to some charismatic forms. Is a preponderance of any of these rather than others anything other than preference? Or is any of this evidence of some special status before God?

This is where I start to sense a need on the part of some to keep reproducing particular experiences because that is what they think was God's real, up-to-date move when in fact if God is moving at all, it is always real and it is always up to date. It is only us that gets fake and/or old.

God moves in people who jump and shout and in people who are quiet and pray. He moves in those who ad lib every prayer and in those who read prayers. He moves in those who have no absolute order of service and in those who follow a set liturgy.

The problem I find is not in any of these ways, but rather those who think that doing it a certain way will bring God to them. Whether it is a liturgy, or sufficient jumping and shouting. Once we think we have figured out the formula to it all, then we are probably just getting what we put into it and little more.

I think many LCers are in the unfortunate position of having their LC experience be defining for their Christian lives. That is definitely true for those like me who are "church kids". For those who first became a Christian in an LC context, the experience can be defining as well, especially if it involved a drastic turn from things like drugs to the Lord.

At one point in time the things that I perceived to be positive about the LC outweighed the negative. Eventually this balance shifted. Even though I now realize that not all the things that I once perceived to be positive were actually positive, when I started becoming frustrated with the negative, I had no choice but to wonder where all the "positive" went. My reaction was to start thinking up ways to "fix" things, so that I could go on in the LC. That might have been a struggle that I would have had for much longer had it not been for the writings that I found on the internet. I can say that have known LC members who are having the exact same struggle I was of the positive versus negative. The funny thing is that this inward struggle tends to be misattributed, meaning that people will blame a specific elder or LC for their unhappiness with the system as a whole. I have known more that one person that has switched to meeting with a different locality, just because they didn't like a certain brother.

What I came to realize through the internet is that with the numerous turmoils that have occurred in the LC, while the younger generation may not have any knowledge of these events, the past LC history that has been brought to light now serves as "archetypes" of what members can expect if they remain in the system. Most members who are disillusioned might just have a general disillusionment, not enough to make them pick up and leave.

This is why I think there is value in discussing where the LC went wrong, and even the possibility of what the LC might be like if things were changed. That's not to say anyone should dwell on the idea of "fixing" the LC, but I don't think it is a complete waste. Before I came to the internet, I didn't know anyone that I could talk to about my LC concerns (and I do know a number of ex-LC members). None want to talk about the subject so I leave it alone. Ironically, what helped me to eventually understand what I was up against was through reading the writings of though who dared try to figure out where the LC went wrong, still having the goal of "fixing" things.

Some of Indiana's writings have clearly documented where the LC deviated from it's original course. While I personally don't think that this is something that can be fixed, I think it does people to make sense of their experiences, knowing where the LC went wrong.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Some of Indiana's writings have clearly documented where the LC deviated from it's original course. While I personally don't think that this is something that can be fixed, I think it does people to make sense of their experiences, knowing where the LC went wrong.

And I agree with that, but I don't think Indiana agrees with it. I get the feeling he still feels the best thing would be to fix the LCM and rejoin it. I think that's an unhealthy mentality to hold, let alone spread. We allow him to use the board as a soapbox, I think he at least owes us a clear explanation of what he's up to. Maybe that's presumptuous, but I believe it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

And I agree with that, but I don't think Indiana agrees with it. I get the feeling he still feels the best thing would be to fix the LCM and rejoin it. I think that's an unhealthy mentality to hold, let alone spread. We allow him to use the board as a soapbox, I think he at least owes us a clear explanation of what he's up to. Maybe that's presumptuous, but I believe it.

Nigel Tomes gets great reviews on this board, and never seems to get any of the backlash. I am alone in complaining that his papers are less and less pertinent (at least to me) and have suggested in my comments that he tackle other issues, like deputy authority, that became fetters to hold members in fear in an abusive system.

Indiana, however, has tackled head on the rotten practices at LSM and its local affiliates. He has traveled in order to network and interview former members, many of them well-respected leaders in the movement at one time. He has done his best to portray and decipher the events of LC history relevant to all of us. He has "pressured" the leadership for decades to repent and come clean with respect to himself and others, exposing the hypocrisy which grips the system.

I am surrounded by other former members who "remember the good old days" and look to find something similar for their lives. Indiana is not alone. We all have our own journey. I cant agree with the comment that he only uses this forum as his soapbox. If that is true, then Tomes, Myer, and others are more to blame.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

And I agree with that, but I don't think Indiana agrees with it. I get the feeling he still feels the best thing would be to fix the LCM and rejoin it. I think that's an unhealthy mentality to hold, let alone spread. We allow him to use the board as a soapbox, I think he at least owes us a clear explanation of what he's up to. Maybe that's presumptuous, but I believe it.

I think Indiana's view has changed somewhat in the past few months. But I still sense his need for what he thinks of as positive from the prior era and may be looking for it elsewhere.

I also note that his writing is still often very difficult to follow, mixing statements from the ministry and from others with his own without sufficient markers, if any in some cases. And many times just laying something out there with no comment. My first reaction some of the time is to ask "and your point is?" But I think this is partly because he is not sure where he should stand. I think I know where he wants to stand (even if that has changed some) but he doesn't really get that option, so he stays removed from what he talks about.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nigel Tomes gets great reviews on this board, and never seems to get any of the backlash. I am alone in complaining that his papers are less and less pertinent (at least to me) and have suggested in my comments that he tackle other issues, like deputy authority, that became fetters to hold members in fear in an abusive system.

Indiana, however, has tackled head on the rotten practices at LSM and its local affiliates. He has traveled in order to network and interview former members, many of them well-respected leaders in the movement at one time.

I see I am not alone in respect to deputy authority.
In regard to Indiana, his visiting former well-respected leaders.....especially John Ingalls elicited the reaction of speaking to public enemy #1 at least that was the case with one previous Bellevue elder.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nigel Tomes gets great reviews on this board, and never seems to get any of the backlash. I am alone in complaining that his papers are less and less pertinent (at least to me) and have suggested in my comments that he tackle other issues, like deputy authority, that became fetters to hold members in fear in an abusive system.

Indiana, however, has tackled head on the rotten practices at LSM and its local affiliates. He has traveled in order to network and interview former members, many of them well-respected leaders in the movement at one time. He has done his best to portray and decipher the events of LC history relevant to all of us. He has "pressured" the leadership for decades to repent and come clean with respect to himself and others, exposing the hypocrisy which grips the system.

I am surrounded by other former members who "remember the good old days" and look to find something similar for their lives. Indiana is not alone. We all have our own journey. I cant agree with the comment that he only uses this forum as his soapbox. If that is true, then Tomes, Myer, and others are more to blame.

I never said he "only" uses the forum as a soapbox. What I said, or meant, was that he uses the forum as means to speak to LSM, yet he does not explain to the rest of us what his purpose is, and he ignores our requests to do so. I think that is awfully strange.

I can only surmise that he still thinks the LCM, after being fixed, would be the only, or at least best, place to be. That is, I think he still believes that there is one unique place, or movement, or move, or whatever, that is "God's best" and that's where we all need to be. Thus, his desire is to fix the LCM so he can get back there and get back to being in "God's best." Or so I've surmised.

As someone who has contributed a lot of my time to this board, as a poster, a moderator, a helper in defining mission, and a technical designer, I do not feel such a belief is in line with the mission of this board. In fact, it is diametrically opposed to it. The mission of this board is to set people free from the bondage of such beliefs. And so I feel it needs to be challenged. To my observation Indiana is still held by this belief. It is difficult to assess, however, exactly what he believes, because he rarely explains himself. But the evidence is he is still highly sold on the idea of one special "move" isolated to a select group of people. My feeling is if anyone even implicitly pushes such belief on this board, then they need to step up and defend it, and not just keep doing it in a subtle way.

So, when anyone begins to express what seems to me is a heartfelt belief that the LCM is really the "only place," and that everything else is ersatz, I have to respond. Since Indiana won't just spell out what he believes it gets a little frustrating. I simply do not understand the air of mystery. I may be way off base. But he's given me no choice but to make some assumptions.

However, I'm NOT issuing a ultimatum. I have no authority to do that. At best I can just issue a challenge. I wish Indiana would make his position clear, but I would be disappointed for the sake of the information he shares, not to mention the connection with him, if he stopped posting.

Like I said, it's frustrating.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

As someone who has contributed a lot of my time to this board, as a poster, a moderator, a helper in defining mission, and a technical designer, I do not feel such a belief is in line with the mission of this board. In fact, it is diametrically opposed to it. The mission of this board is to set people free from the bondage of such beliefs. And so I feel it needs to be challenged. To my observation Indiana is still held by this belief. It is difficult to assess, however, exactly what he believes, because he rarely explains himself. But the evidence is he is still highly sold on the idea of one special "move" isolated to a select group of people. My feeling is if anyone even implicitly pushes such belief on this board, then they need to step up and defend it, and not just keep doing it in a subtle way.

I can agree with what you have said here, at least generally.

But my main complaint has been that for all the posting, directly or indirectly, he takes few, if any, positions on a lot of it, but presumes that it will "speak for itseelf." The problem I constantly have is finding the line between what is quotes and what is his. And between what he agrees with and what he does not agree with.


And when he posts something that is purely a quote from Lee's ministry without comment, I am unable to determine whether it is for the purpose of showing:

• How the practice and the ministry do not align
• How the rhetoric is wonderful and worthy of following
• How the rhetoric is fallen and corrupt
• And so on.

It is simply missing. He consistently presumes that we will understand where he is coming from and what he wants to say. It took me months to figure out his angle on things several years ago when he started posting on the other forum. That whole thread on the teachings of Lee that he believed to be the truth was an eye-opener.

I believe that certain aspects of his desires and expectations has changed. But underneath he seems to think that there is something about the LCM as he knew it before the storms of the 80s that he thinks is simply right. And that fixing the LCM will bring back the blessing.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I believe that certain aspects of his desires and expectations has changed. But underneath he seems to think that there is something about the LCM as he knew it before the storms of the 80s that he thinks is simply right. And that fixing the LCM will bring back the blessing.

Thanks, OBW. Your post helps make clearer what I mean.

And to continue, if indeed Indiana thinks he needs to restore the LCM to bring back the blessing, rather than simply setting out in a new direction to start over with the principles he values, then this is where I have a big, big problem with him.

That is, there is implicit in his thinking, as far as I can tell, that there is something special about that movement, and that specialness they retain, even in their corrupt state, and the only way to experience that specialness again is to restore them and go back. He doesn't seem to believe that what he likes about the movement can be reproduced anywhere else, but can only be had there, whatever "there" means.

If so, this is a very odd belief, but one consistent with the LCM mindset. Just what is it about that group of people that makes them special to the point that they would continue to have such a status, above and beyond the rest of the Church, no matter how degraded they become? It can't be the local ground, because other groups meet on the local ground. It can't be the teachings, because he has established that they have corrupted the teachings. It can't be the people themselves, because God is not a respecter of persons. Is it simply because he thinks he has a better chance of fixing the LCM than starting over? Who knows? It's very unclear what his aim is.

Perhaps Indiana has never really thought about it this deeply. But he owes it to himself, and to the rest of us who give him the leeway to use this forum as a platform, as well as anyone else he may influence, to do so.

It's been said that a fanatic is someone who redoubles his effort while forgetting his aim. But what if you never really knew what your aim was in the first place?

[Cal]

If I can borrow an analogy of something near and dear to the heart of Ohio, consider the Cleveland Browns. One of the most storied franchises in the NFL, a couple of decades ago the Brown left Cleveland, moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens. Three years later the NFL created a new team in Cleveland, called them the Browns, gave them all the team's records and history, and basically did their best to recreate the Browns for the sake of the many fans who could never think of them as the Ravens.

But who really are the Browns? Is it the organization owned by Art Modell? If so, that is in Baltimore. Is it the team with the ugly brown and orange uniforms? Is it the team that plays in Cleveland? Is it whatever you think it is?

Now the Browns are just an idea that fans identify with. It's all for fun. But when you hold the idea that there is a special part of the Church, just where is that and what constitutes it? The people? The leaders? The teachings? Whatever got the blessing of the founder? Just what is it? Does it really exist and did it ever really exist?

My belief is it never really existed as a thing in itself. It was just a mental construct to which people ascribed various opinions of value or lack thereof. The LCM was and is just a way we categorize history and experiences. But it is not a real entity in the same way the Church is. So trying to go back to the LCM is like trying to figure out who is really the Browns. You can be content with your assessment. It may work for you. But it really holds no absolute meaning.

That's why sports fans are crazy, especially Browns fans.

[OBW]

I think that the thing that is missed in the desire to fix the LCM is that the OT was an era of the theocracy — the nation that was under the rule of God. In the NT, there is no more nation. It is now the church. And the church is bigger than any assembly or grouping of assemblies. It includes the persecuted, those that have allowed levels of corruption to come in. Those that do works but don't seem to finish it. Those that seem to just plod along in their little strength, and those that think they have it all figured out and are therefore spiritually rich and in need of nothing.

They are all the church. And no one was directed to see the errors of their church and jump ship to find a better one. They were directed to persevere for the truth. To hold to their faith. To withstand the temptation to fall into the error around them.

And some of them still did their worship like the Jews in the Temple because that is what they knew. And others have changed to other forms, including more modern ways so they can be appealing to outsiders and the seeking. And each of those, and everything in between, has reason to persevere. To overcome. To overcome darkness. To overcome the propensity for us all to think our lack of obedience is OK because we have grace. To overcome our consideration that we have it all figured out. To overcome deadness around us, even when the activity seems so alive and spiritual.

Now I believe that the LCM can reform. And at least an assembly or two has actually done that. But since the core of the LCM is fixation on a man other than Jesus Christ, and the very reason for being included, or excluded is adherence to that fixation, for that kind of group, I believe that letting it fall apart is the best thing that can happen. Free the people from the bondage to teachings that separate them from their fellow believer. Learn how hollow so many of the things that they cherished were. Discover that those "poor pitiful Christians" are not really so poor or pitiful. Rather it was those who labored under the false pretenses of "God's best" that are worthy of pity.

And I pray that they would be filled with all the fullness of Christ. But I fear that cannot happen as long as they continue to believe Lee above the Bible he claimed to follow. To think that reading Lee is to read the Bible. To consider that only Lee could properly provide them the truth from the Bible.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If I can borrow an analogy of something near and dear to the heart of Ohio, consider the Cleveland Browns. One of the most storied franchises in the NFL, a couple of decades ago the Brown left Cleveland, moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens. Three years later the NFL created a new team in Cleveland, called them the Browns, gave them all the team's records and history, and basically did their best to recreate the Browns for the sake of the many fans who could never think of them as the Ravens.

My daughter-in-law would declare that the Ravens were an expansion team. She is from Baltimore and they do not accept that anything came from Cleveland. ("Can anything good come out of Cleveland?")

In my days in the Assemblies of God (AOG), there were several revivals that occurred over the years. Each was different. Some were almost like "old-time" revivals according to the older ones there. (Understand that I left there just before turning 18, so my history was relatively short.) But even in my limited view, nothing ever matched the past. And for everyone, there was always something about the past that was better. But the past that they looked to was almost always something of the earliest part of their experience with the movement.

So it would seem that the experiences when it was all new seem better to everyone. That includes those who join in much later in time. To them, that is new even though "new" might be generations in the past to others.

Seems that we are prone to accept our first experiences of something as special in some way. Not saying there is never anything special in it. But it is always special. Movies about some of those legendary events in sports history do not make me wax nostalgic to have been there myself. It was not my experience (as participant or live spectator). It is the past. I do not denigrate it. But it does not hold the same connection for me as those things I experienced.

But are we objective about our experiences? Or are we prone to remember the past (our past) as the best just because it seemed that way at the time? Are we all anxious for the "good old days"?

And if our past is simply terrible, are we desperate to find an alternative life in which we can have experience that, good as it may be, becomes our "good old days"?

I don't know. But I wonder. ("So many things for me to wonder" – Mixed Nuts)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If I can borrow an analogy of something near and dear to the heart of Ohio, consider the Cleveland Browns. One of the most storied franchises in the NFL, a couple of decades ago the Brown left Cleveland, moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens. Three years later the NFL created a new team in Cleveland, called them the Browns, gave them all the team's records and history, and basically did their best to recreate the Browns for the sake of the many fans who could never think of them as the Ravens.

But who really are the Browns? Is it the organization owned by Art Modell? If so, that is in Baltimore. Is it the team with the ugly brown and orange uniforms? Is it the team that plays in Cleveland? Is it whatever you think it is?

Now the Browns are just an idea that fans identify with. It's all for fun. But when you hold the idea that there is a special part of the Church, just where is that and what constitutes it? The people? The leaders? The teachings? Whatever got the blessing of the founder? Just what is it? Does it really exist and did it ever really exist?

My belief is it never really existed as a thing in itself. It was just a mental construct to which people ascribed various opinions of value or lack thereof. The LCM was and is just a way we categorize history and experiences. But it is not a real entity in the same way the Church is. So trying to go back to the LCM is like trying to figure out who is really the Browns. You can be content with your assessment. It may work for you. But it really holds no absolute meaning.

That's why sports fans are crazy, especially Browns fans.

It's simple bro, Cleveland just wants them to win the Super Bowl. They don't care who the owner is, who the coach is, who the QB is, etc.

Just win! That's what it's all about. Like they did decades ago.

(Even if they have to cheat like the Patriots!)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

But even in my limited view, nothing ever matched the past. And for everyone, there was always something about the past that was better.

It's like when you ask someone what was the best music ever. The music they specify will often be that which was popular when they were 14-18 years old. Getting older, I have the dubious honor of knowing people who are younger than me but are now themselves "older" with kids and mortgages and commutes and the like. It's funny when I hear them say the best music ever was the music of the 80s. Or 90s. Don't they know the best music ever was from 1968-1972?!

The magic of youth enchants all our young experiences, even the mundane ones. We long to bring back the hour of splendor in the grass and glory of the flower. I still remember hot summer days in my grandma's backyard eating watermelon and homemade peach ice cream. No watermelon or ice cream since has tasted so good.

The LCM was our watermelon. It tasted great! So fresh and unusual. But most of the reason was we were young and dreamy and had never had watermelon before. Watermelon is old hat now. And besides, we have kids and mortgages and commutes, and even the music of 1968-1972 does not seem as good as it once did.

Cue my signature...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's like when you ask someone what was the best music ever. The music they specify will often be that which was popular when they were 14-18 years old. Getting older, I have the dubious honor of knowing people who are younger than me but are now themselves "older" with kids and mortgages and commutes and the like. It's funny when I hear them say the best music ever was the music of the 80s. Or 90s. Don't they know the best music ever was from 1968-1972?!

Amen to that!

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LCM was our watermelon. It tasted great! So fresh and unusual. But most of the reason was that we were young and dreamy and had never had watermelon before. Watermelon is old hat now. And besides, we have kids and mortgages and commutes, and even the music of 1968-1972 does not seem as good as it once did.

Cue my signature...

I don't think it is much different than those who long for a repeat of the early N.T. church or pine for some future "revival."

Very few of us are truly content with the now, and with what hand we have been dealt.

Perhaps you have learned the greatest secret of all. Don't be so frustrated with the rest of us dreamers.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps you have learned the greatest secret of all. Don't be so frustrated with the rest of us dreamers.

Oh, I'm a dreamer, too. But I do believe God gives us dreams to see them become reality*. That's what heaven (NJ, eternity, etc) is--a place where our dreams come true. But some come true in this life.


*Delight yourself in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart." Ps 37:4

Therefore, Cleveland will win the Super Bowl someday.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I cant agree with the comment that he only uses this forum as his soapbox.

I've never thought of Indiana's websites, publishing's in email, and on this forum, as a soapbox.

LSM & BBs ... beware the man on the soapbox. Ignore him at your own peril ....

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

I've never thought of Indiana's websites, publishing's in email, and on this forum, as a soapbox.

LSM & BBs ... beware the man on the soapbox. Ignore him at your own peril ....

I've never had that impression either. I just see Indiana as a concerned brother who has taken it upon himself to speak out regarding how he believes the LC deviated from it's original course.

Drawing out that comparison of now and then isn't necessarily a bad thing. For those like me who grew up in a era of disconnect from what the LC claimed it was, it helped me to finally realize that I wasn't the one who was crazy. I was involved in a system that wasn't what it was claiming to be.

I don't claim that the early days were any better or that the LC should seek to go back to that, however, I do think that if at any point there was anything significantly positive about the LC, it was probably in those days.

When it comes to the whole idea of being nostalgic, I'm inclined to think that maybe those in the LC who have been around a long time have never stopped to be a little "nostalgic". If they were to do that, they might realize that whatever experience that made the LC so appealing when they first came in is long gone. Anyways, my point is that reflecting upon experiences isn't necessary a bad thing, neither is attempting to act on that. The LC has a lot of inaction in that regard, lots of members who stick around even though it's clear they are unhappy. I would rather see people attempt to fix the system, than to sit back and do nothing.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

And I agree with that, but I don't think Indiana agrees with it. I get the feeling he still feels the best thing would be to fix the LCM and rejoin it. I think that's an unhealthy mentality to hold, let alone spread.

I agree that it is unhealthy to want to be significantly involved with the LC in its current form. I don't intend to speak for Indiana, but I don't get the impression he wants everyone to jump back in. It seems to me that he mainly wants to hold LC leadership to be held accountable for their actions, and he wants to be able to at least have fellowship with those in the LC.

It is worth pointing out that there is a difference between being involved with the LC and having some amount of fellowship with LC members. I don't know which of those Indiana wants, but some of us here (like me) have family and friends in the LC. So it makes sense to not publicly disassociate with the LC. Because no one in the LC knows who Freedom on the internet is, I can talk to and maintain fellowship with whomsoever I want.

I have no problem maintaining LC relationships, as long as there is no attempt to pressure me into doing things or to get me sucked into something I don't want to be involved with. Because Indiana has publicly voiced his concerns, he isn't even afforded that same opportunity to fellowship with those in the LC. He probably values his LC relationships much more than I (since I tend to take it all for granted and even despise it sometimes). It's also fair to say that there isn't a particular need to maintain LC relationships, maybe complete disassociation is more healthy for some, I can totally understand that.

[Cal]

A couple of thoughts.

When I say "soapbox" I just mean a platform. "Soapbox" wasn't meant to have a negative connotation, it just means something you use to make yourself seen and heard. Indiana surely uses this site and his sites and books as platforms. He's got something to say and he uses this site to say it. That's a platform, or soapbox. Most of us are doing that to some extent.

The difference with Indiana is he is not interested in telling us why he is doing what he is doing, or what his final aim is. I think doing so should be considered an obligation. If somebody asked me why I do this I'd certainly do my best to make them clear.

As for Indiana just wanting to have fellowship with his old compadres, I understand wanting that. I hurts to not be able to have relationships with old friends. But if you don't go on to new relationships, but just live in the past, that is certainly a trap. Did anyone ever think old relationships get broken so that we can form new ones?

Anyway, we'll see what happens.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Did anyone ever think old relationships get broken so that we can form new ones?

It's part of life. I dare to say we all have gone through high school. Once you graduate and move on, most of the relationships created in high school is only for that period. Post graduation, whether it's college or into the work force, new relationships are formed.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

When I say "soapbox" I just mean a platform. "Soapbox" wasn't meant to have a negative connotation, it just means something you use to make yourself seen and heard. Indiana surely uses this site and his sites and books as platforms. He's got something to say and he uses this site to say it. That's a platform, or soapbox. Most of us are doing that to some extent.

I would tend to agree with you Igzy. A forum such as this is able to reach a wider audience than emailing someone directly. Someone serving or working at DCP may be lurking or they may not be.
Barring any form of a lawsuit, I don't think any of the blendeds would be compelled to address Indiana's writings privately or publically since Ron did in Ecuador. As for platform whether it was this forum, theberean.net, or the defunct hiding history website, I do believe his writings had a role in educating the GLA brothers regarding our own unedited LC history.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

It's part of life. I dare to say we all have gone through high school. Once you graduate and move on, most of the relationships created in high school is only for that period. Post graduation, whether it's college or into the work force, new relationships are formed.

I keep hearing from different sources that one of the primary values of Facebook is to discover why it is you didn't keep up with those people from high school. You soon come to realize that the common link was high school, and you aren't there any more.

For the LCM, it may be that the most significant link with many (not necessarily all) is the gathering around the "distinctives" of the LCM — Nee, Lee, the ground, recovery, etc. Therefore if you have discarded those, your common ground is lost. We may have claimed to be mainly about Christ and the church, but it was "the church" that was the predominant thing, not Christ.

In fact, it was seldom just Christ. Christ was almost always tied to some peculiar trait of Nee/Lee/LSM/BB theology. Mostly the church or the body. And those were not the whole body or church, but their peculiar subset.

So the Christ they served was effectively divided. Dismembered. Incomplete. Not that Christ is any of those. But by delcaring that Christ favored their ways and theology and disfavored all others, they declared a Christ that was "complete" without all of his followers. I'm not sure I know that Christ.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Stephen Kaung’s fellowship is rare and insightful, (on other thread), but he had a background, a church environment in China to strongly put him on this track of avoiding over –spirituality, or false spirituality, to where the human being is lessened in the process. He actually encouraged to seek to be human to counter the tendency of aiming at spirituality. (This needs to be understood in the right way, but I feel that due to my experience, I understand him to a degree and need more understanding.)

Because of Lily Hsu’s book we can see what he had to deal with in China, with both Nee and Lee as they went through changes that would effect the Body of Christ in the “local churches” to this day, including the record of questionable non-human behavior and views of the blending brothers, who hold sway over the churches today. (I could explain best by giving my example, or have my former wife of 17 years tell you what it was like to be married to “an angelic husband”, lacking normal human behavior. Or hearing from the wife of Ron Kangas validate Stephen's word. In Seattle not all of the wives of the elders meet in the church. They could help confirm Stephen's fellowship also.)

I have been meeting with a Kaung associated assembly in Seattle since January and because I am in the environment and notice the behavior and attitude of leading ones and others, I, for the first time, realize what Kaung saw, and Sparks, that there is no need to call ourselves, or our ministering ones, anything that would be distinctive.

No matter what, if you are calling yourselves the church in Seattle, Atlanta, Los Angeles, you are being distinctive from others in each city; and, collectively, the churches as a body have a distinction, especially when using such expressions as the Body coming together for 7 conferences or feasts a year. The term, THE LORD’S RECOVERY now looks different to me. Why call yourselves anything that would lift you up over others and thereby give impressions that you are superior? This is unnecessarily disturbing to the Body of Christ and it is insensitive behavior to its members, unless “we” really do want to be distinctive and special, as a ministerial church.

Further, to lift up as if with signs and banners THE minister of the age and THE ministry of the age is to be intoxicated with the same. It is creating more separation, as the churches rise higher and higher and further and further away from the Body and its members of which there are far more in a city than the names of those who appear on “local church” phone lists. Why not consider the New Testament way of lifting up the Lord Jesus Christ alone, who is our Head and leader in flocks of God with shepherds joined to Him for the building up of His Body in every place.

As I had said above and would like to come back to, I have been helped in the crucial matter of receiving believers, by Stephen Kaung's fellowship (on other thread) and also by the attitude of the brothers and sisters I now meet with. I think I should be drawing comparisons of the lines of Lee and Kaung, and their understanding and practice of the proper ground of meeting, as both came out from China under the same basic influence and teaching of the same mentor, Watchman Nee.

The thread, The Building and the Bride in the Bible, has posts that help to answer some questions currently raised here; and they were answered in a way that has ultimately helped me to be open to the sentiments of others, and views other than my own.

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...46&postcount=1

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Indiana

The thread, The Building and the Bride in the Bible, has posts that help to answer some questions currently raised here; and they were answered in a way that has ultimately helped me to be open to the sentiments of others, and views other than my own.

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...46&postcount=1

That thread was really on a different subject, and it didn't really answer the questions put forth in this one, except to support that you are still an LCMer at heart:

And, what does this mean, UntoHim? And, what are you saying about me, publicly? You don’t hear what I am actually saying, and so invent things. You have had on the forum, intermittently, a loud, offensive, and careless mouth, as has Igzy. You don’t know how much harm the two of you have done over the years to current and former members and seekers of truth with your abusive, sarcastic speech and disregard for the truths they uphold. And, disregard of the positive aspects of the Local Churches and their history that you overturn on your forum, with glee. You are the ones confusing people, because you take their appreciation of the positive things and destroy them. You cannot even handle the ground of oneness question intelligently. I am handling it with sensitivity to the principle of the teaching. You brothers just come in and blow it up, and don’t care what the onlookers think who are hurt by your speech against this fellowship and other truths they adhere to.

This is was pretty much how you ended it, at least with UntoHim and me. And even with this curt termination of the conversation by you, UntoHim didn't ban you and I didn't ask him to. That's more understanding that you would have gotten from your beloved LCM, so count your blessings and realize who your real friends are.

Also, don't confuse honest plain speech with meanness. UntoHim and I, and some others, say it like we see it. LCMers use niceness to hide their true intentions. I'll take the former any day.

That other thread was about how much the "local ground" and Lee were responsible for the early blessing on the LCM. If you read my comments there I said it wasn't the local ground, but simply the genuine desire for oneness that was partly responsible, and I say that how much Lee was responsible I don't know. What's unreasonable about that?

The discussion in this thread is asking a different question. That question is simply this:

Given that you clearly believe in the principles of the LCM and believe it's bygone blessing can be reproduced, why not just start over with a new movement which applies those same principles? Why do you feel you have to fix that movement? What is it about that group of people that compels God to be only interested in them?

In that other thread, as in this one, you talk about how great it was way back when. This seems to be enough to cause you to believe there is something about that group that God likes better that anyone else, just because they are them. This is not a NT principle, to say the least. In fact, it's contrary to the NT.

Again, if the principles of the LCM produced the blessing, then just go apply them somewhere else and they should produce the same results. Why the need to fix the LCM?

If it was Lee that produced the blessing, well he's gone and is no longer an option. This is what the BBs are trying to do--reproduce "Lee" even though he's gone. You've seen their results.

Fixing the LCM isn't going to happen. Not with the current leaders. Do you think you are going to outlive them? So what you are trying to do, short of doing it just to help the PEOPLE there, makes no sense at all. If you are trying to fix the LCM so you can go back to that wonderful past then you are going to be sorely disappointed. That's just my opinion.

If you are speaking to the LCM simply out of a desire to speak the truth, that's fine. That's what the rest of us are doing. But I fear your true intention is to fix the movement so you can rejoin it. That sends the WRONG message.

Going forward, I think you should consider two things. (1) This forum allows you to continue to use it for your purposes, so you should be more friendly, open, honest and cooperative about what you believe out of respect for it, whose mission isn't exactly aligned with yours but tolerates you anyway, as the LCM would never do. And (2) you should be careful about the message you send to people who are trying to break free from the LCM (not from the Lord) while you continue to send the message that it's the best thing ever and the only place where the best blessing can ever hope to be found again.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

As for Indiana just wanting to have fellowship with his old compadres, I understand wanting that.

I have never heard that impression. It's not about restoration, maybe about reconciliation, but in my opinion about confronting the wrong, and being truthful. Sure the readers may ask, why should you care? It's not you that's being defamed. My point, those of us with parents, brothers, sisters, cousins, or even an uncle and aunt in the local churches have been taught a lie as truth and truth as lies as it concerns turmoils in the local churches.

Barring short of a lawsuit, the brothers at LSM/DCP/BFA etc aren't going to answer to anyone. I seriously doubt any LC elders even read what's on the forums, unless there's a vested interest to find out to do so. They're not going to confront the blending brothers. Even if they did know, the entire system hinges on brothers being partial and showing preferential treatment to one another; in other words keeping the one accord.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dear Igzy, have you ever read some of the nonsense that gets posted on the Alternative Views sub forum? Former members use this site as platforms to promote all kinds of new age vagaries. After just a few minutes there, ole' Indiana seems entirely innocuous, like a breath of fresh air, like pure mountain spring water.

This writing took me two months to complete, spending several hours every day on it, and there have been many healthy responses to it. But, it looks like I will be backing away again from the forum, and won't be feeding a negative track now introduced on my thread. I hope others will not continue on that track either out of respect for the subject of this thread, and for me.

My purpose for being on this forum is evident to some but not to others. Freedom has a good grasp, for example, and as a current Local Church member, has not been chased away because of any of my writings or by my objective on the forum. My intention indeed is not to encourage people to leave, but to inform them of the truth, so if they choose to continue to dwell with those in the Local Church, they will do so according to knowledge, for the building up of the Body in love.

If others, like Terry, do not continue directly with the Local Church, then still such ones can care for the Body of Christ, which Terry does, in attitude and by action with any believer, and this includes, at times, Local Church members. An example is his receiving of an invitation to his brothers' house reunion and driving a few hours roundtrip with two full-time training graduates, who have families now, and were caring for the Body themselves in accommodating Terry, and the brother they visited in Oregon.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Indiana

This writing took me two months to complete, spending several hours every day on it, and there have been many healthy responses to it. But, it looks like I will be backing away again from the forum, and won't be feeding a negative track now introduced on my thread. I hope others will not continue on that track either out of respect for the subject of this thread, and for me.

My purpose for being on this forum is evident to some but not to others. Freedom has a good grasp, for example, and as a current Local Church member, has not been chased away because of any of my writings or by my objective on the forum. My intention indeed is not to encourage people to leave, but to inform them of the truth, so if they choose to continue to dwell with those in the Local Church, they will do so according to knowledge, for the building up of the Body in love.

If others, like Terry, do not continue directly with the Local Church, then still such ones can care for the Body of Christ, which Terry does, in attitude and by action with any believer, and this includes, at times, Local Church members. An example is his receiving of an invitation to his brothers' house reunion and driving a few hours roundtrip with two full-time training graduates, who have families now, and were caring for the Body themselves in accommodating Terry, and the brother they visited in Oregon.

Indiana,

All this could have been avoided a long time ago if you had simply answered the questions I asked plainly and clearly. You still haven't really done that, but I guess I can figure from the above that you don't really believe that people have to be in the LCM.

What makes me scratch my head is why in the world months ago you didn't just say, "No, Igzy. I don't believe that." Further, I don't understand, given your desire to teach and preach, why you haven't posted a clear statement of your beliefs. How is anyone supposed to understand you if they don't understand what you believe? And how are they supposed to understand what you believe if you won't answer questions about your beliefs? Being vague about one's beliefs is not a winning formula for someone who proposes to preach truth.

This board, you need to realize, is a fellowship. It's a church in a way, a gathering of believers. The rules of the kingdom apply. More than one of us (OBW and I, that's a testimony of two) have cited that your don't make yourself and your intentions clear. I would say that should inspire a desire in you to do so, not a feeling that we are "negative." I think it's a little strange to be vague and then call people "negative" for getting frustrated at your vagueness. Running away and hiding is not the answer; trying to answer questions is.

I appreciate your hard work, but whether you took two months to write something or two minutes, it should be clear--and if it isn't and people ask you to make yourself clear then you are obligated to make an effort to do so. You don't have the right to post vague things and then avoid questions about them. No one here has that right. You DO have the right to shy away from needless argumentation, but not to the point of remaining vague.

The tendency to be vague and then calling people who ask for clarity "negative" is definitely a learned trait of the LCM. I would expect such behavior from Ray Graver, but not from you. It's a Chinese trait that Nee sold as spirituality, and which LCMers picked up as a convenient way to avoid having to answer questions. You seem to still think it's good practice. It isn't.

So I would ask, implore, beg you, if someone asks you a question, do your best to answer them. You don't have to engage in lengthy arguments, but try to reach an understanding with people. Don't continue to think that you have the right to post things and not answer reasonable questions about those things. Ignoring questioners, except those who are simply unreasonable, is not an option in any church or fellowship of love, including this one. And it's certainly not going to help your cause.

I'll await your plain and clear answer and then I'll leave you alone to post your stuff. Questions may come in the future, but you can end this batch with a response that demonstrates your understanding of what I just said.

Thanks,

Igzy