Numbers 1:1 - The Numbers Don't Lie

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

And they wonder why their little religious sect is dying right before their eyes.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

It's dying? Really? That's news to me...

Ah I knew I couldn't get away with that exaggerated superlative

Actually it's been my observation that the Local Church of Witness Lee here in America is dying, at least if one is to take into account the dwindling numbers. I know that a number of Local Churches here in America have less than half the attending members as they did, say 20 or 30 year ago. There are exceptions, one I believe might be in Austin. Anyway, you can be sure that if the numbers were increasing we would hear about it from the folks there on La Palma in Anaheim. The fact that they are secretive about their numbers tells the story.

Of course Taiwan would probably be a totally different story, although I understand there have been a number of splits and some of those churches may not consider themselves as in the LSM fold.

In any event, the main reason I say "dying" is not just the numbers, it is through my direct observation of the bi-annual training messages and some conferences headed up by the "blended" brothers. As I just noted, the training meetings are nothing but some guy reading an outline and going over the points. Same goes for the conferences. There is nothing new, nothing fresh. These people are too beat down and too afraid to seek after God and his Kingdom apart from the ministry of a man who has been dead and buried for about 15 years now. It's actually quite sad and I pray for them all the time.

[rayliotta]

As far as the numbers go, all I know is that simply hasn't been my observation. Also, there are places that today have 50-100+ regular attendees, complete with a meeting hall and bookroom, where n the 90's there was no LSM church (or previously had only been a few families meeting).

The number of full-time trainings is up to at least 7-8 worldwide. The FTTA has more trainees now than in the past.

As far as the rehasing goes, well...I guess there's two ways to look at that. On the hand, they're rehashing so, they're kinda dying. On the other hand (two sides to everything, remember), the fact that they're still chuggin' along after 15 years of rehasing...well, what does that tell you?

[rayliotta]

Maybe the most important thing, as it relates to the Recovery in the U.S. and Canada, is simply that their recruiting presence on college campuses is far more far-reaching than in the past.

[UntoHim]

Ray,
First of all, I am only aware of (and concerned with) the Local Churches in North America. It’s not that I don’t care for all the dear believers in other parts of the world, it’s just that is all I have experience with and frankly it’s all I have time for!

Maybe you get around a lot more than I do, but I must tell you I have made a rather concerted effort to find out the raw numbers and I think they are down…considerably down…from the heyday back in the 70s and early 80s. Yes, there may be a city here or there that now has a church of 50-100 members where only a few existed before, but I am talking about the USA and Canada in general. If the Local Church was growing, even slightly, in these two countries you can be sure they would be tooting their horn big time. During the heyday years they were not shy at all about giving out some raw numbers. Now it is like pulling teeth. Up to 5 or 6 years ago they were publishing a church directory (of sorts), complete with the names of the elders, phone numbers and even email address. My understanding is that this directory has been discontinued. Why? The main reason is that don’t want nosy outsiders (and probably people like me) trying to figure out an accurate number of regular attending members.

As to the FTTA, it is my understanding that there are a considerable number of foreign “students” (mostly Asian of course). Many of them come to the USA for college and end up staying for the FTTA. Again, I can’t be sure of this, but I have sources that have told me that this is the case. I can, however, give you a concrete example. I live in a major metropolitan area of several million people. There is a Local Church here. As far as I know they have only sent ONE, yes, that is ONE American brother to the FTTA in the last few years. There may be a sister as well but I can’t confirm that for now. Maybe this is just a little co-wink-ee-dink, but I don’t think so.

Now as far as the college presence, I think you may be confusing quantity with quality. As far as the college campus work is concerned, the Local Church is a mile wide and an inch deep. In the recent past, they have been targeting “key cities”….almost all of them college towns. This campaign has been a dismal failure so far. Why? I can tell you why. It is because God is doing something among the young people in America again. Many are moving past and beyond their baby-boomer parent’s milk-toast Christian religion. They are seeking truth. Unlike most of the kids of my generation, they can tell truth from religious dogma, and they have some recent history to help them. Anyway, I think the vast majority of kids nowadays can sniff out the Local Church religion in a heartbeat. They will reject such religion and go about their business in search for the truth.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

...I must tell you I have made a rather concerted effort to find out the raw numbers and I think they are down…considerably down…from the heyday back in the 70s and early 80s. Yes, there may be a city here or there that now has a church of 50-100 members where only a few existed before, but I am talking about the USA and Canada in general...

Now as far as the college presence, I think you may be confusing quantity with quality. As far as the college campus work is concerned, the Local Church is a mile wide and an inch deep. In the recent past, they have been targeting “key cities”….almost all of them college towns. This campaign has been a dismal failure so far. Why? I can tell you why. It is because God is doing something among the young people in America again. Many are moving past and beyond their baby-boomer parent’s milk-toast Christian religion. They are seeking truth. Unlike most of the kids of my generation, they can tell truth from religious dogma, and they have some recent history to help them. Anyway, I think the vast majority of kids nowadays can sniff out the Local Church religion in a heartbeat. They will reject such religion and go about their business in search for the truth.

I guess I should have been more clear. I was talking specifically about the U.S. and Canada. I mentioned the trainings around the world, because I think it indicates that the increase in FTTA enrollment is actually home-grown, so to speak. Personally, I've known many "American" trainees, but maybe that's just a "co-wink-ee-dink".

Not to nitpick, but when you say the numbers are way down from the 70's and early 80's, aren't you really talking about the decline in membership that happened in the 80's? Not that that's irrelevant, it's just that it's...25 years ago. The simple fact that they've chugged along successfully for a generation "post-fermentation", to me that speaks volumes. Even if they've never grown back to "pre-fermentation" numbers.

As for the campus work. The "Austin apprenticeship" started in the late 90's. Personally, I've known many people who "came off the campuses", many of whom went on to the training. Obviously, we're talking about different situations in different places. But the "key cities" campaign you mentioned, didn't that just start in the last 3-4 years? That would seem way too early to judge...but maybe we're talking about two different things.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I guess I should have been more clear. I was talking specifically about the U.S. and Canada. I mentioned the trainings around the world, because I think it indicates that the increase in FTTA enrollment is actually home-grown, so to speak. Personally, I've known many "American" trainees, but maybe that's just a "co-wink-ee-dink".

Not to nitpick, but when you say the numbers are way down from the 70's and early 80's, aren't you really talking about the decline in membership that happened in the 80's? Not that that's irrelevant, it's just that it's...25 years ago. The simple fact that they've chugged along successfully for a generation "post-fermentation", to me that speaks volumes. Even if they've never grown back to "pre-fermentation" numbers.

As for the campus work. The "Austin apprenticeship" started in the late 90's. Personally, I've known many people who "came off the campuses", many of whom went on to the training. Obviously, we're talking about different situations in different places. But the "key cities" campaign you mentioned, didn't that just start in the last 3-4 years? That would seem way too early to judge...but maybe we're talking about two different things.

If they don't post numbers wouldn't construction be a reasonable way to look for growth? Odessa grew from a home meeting, to renting a conference room at a hotel to renting a warehouse with parking. Each move represented growth in numbers. They essentially doubled in size twice during my 5 years there, going from 25 to 100. By the time I left there was a small meeting going on in Midland. And that would have been in the 80s. In Houston they filled the hall right up to the Irving construction when 100 plus saints moved from Houston to Irving. A second way to deal with growth is migration. Over the year and a half of the construction it appeared that Houston gained that 100 right back, so that would have been about 30-50% growth in 18 months.

So wouldn't the evidence of growth be an increase in the number of churches, and an increase in the seating capacity of the halls.

Now according to Sun Tzu you can know the condition of an entire army based on the condition of a single soldier. The modern analogy is that you only need to look at a representative set of around 5% to get a good idea of the condition as a whole.

1. I can tell you that NYC did not grow in numbers at all in the 90s. They kept weekly records. As an usher one of my jobs was to count the total number of saints sitting in the seats Sunday morning about halfway through the meeting and record that in a book. Also, NYC has not been involved in any migrations to my knowledge during the 90s. That is not to say that saints haven't moved in and out of the church, but a significant subset of the members did not migrate to a new locale to start a meeting. And this is very telling. Already the saints in come from a wide area in which it would be much more convenient to have more localized meetings. They might argue that they have had growth in the spanish speaking portion of saints, but that, to my impression, has only helped the overall numbers remain constant.

2. My daughter went to school in Buffalo and met a group of loosely affiliated LRC saints. It is like a home meeting of about 25, primarily college kids. The brother leading them knew me from the FTTT, and he does not push LSM at all.

So perhaps if others could contribute their knowledge of their locale we could put together enough anecdotal evidence to suggest whether LRC is growing, stagnant or in decline.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. I can tell you that NYC did not grow in numbers at all in the 90s. They kept weekly records. As an usher one of my jobs was to count the total number of saints sitting in the seats Sunday morning about halfway through the meeting and record that in a book. Also, NYC has not been involved in any migrations to my knowledge during the 90s. That is not to say that saints haven't moved in and out of the church, but a significant subset of the members did not migrate to a new locale to start a meeting. And this is very telling. Already the saints in come from a wide area in which it would be much more convenient to have more localized meetings. They might argue that they have had growth in the spanish speaking portion of saints, but that, to my impression, has only helped the overall numbers remain constant...

So perhaps if others could contribute their knowledge of their locale we could put together enough anecdotal evidence to suggest whether LRC is growing, stagnant or in decline.

I've heard that NYC does have a second meeting hall, not sure if you're aware of that?

Speaking of the US and Canada generally, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that overall numbers are basically steady. Yet for many people it wouldn't seem "stagnant", because for all the stale driftwood washing away, there's as many fresh faces swimming into their home meetings. Overall numbers may not change much, but it still feels less like a stagnant lake....and more like a fast-moving stream.

And the reality is, they're fine with that. A little excitement goes a long way.

As a wise small seer from China once said, Everybody needs entertainment.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I've heard that NYC does have a second meeting hall, not sure if you're aware of that?

Speaking of the US and Canada generally, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that overall numbers are basically steady. Yet for many people it wouldn't seem "stagnant", because for all the stale driftwood washing away, there's as many fresh faces swimming into their home meetings. Overall numbers may not change much, but it still feels less like a stagnant lake....and more like a fast-moving stream.

And the reality is, they're fine with that. A little excitement goes a long way.

As a wise small seer from China once said, Everybody needs entertainment.

I assume you are talking about halls in Queens and Manhattan. Yes, I am aware of the 2nd "hall".

I find it very interesting that in some areas you have "driftwood washing away" and in other areas you have "fresh faces swimming into their home meetings" because in the end it will be the growth that determines the fate of LSM. If the new faces in the home meetings are not purchasing LSM they will become completely irrelevant. So, is there a link between LSM efforts and the new faces?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I assume you are talking about halls in Queens and Manhattan. Yes, I am aware of the 2nd "hall".

I find it very interesting that in some areas you have "driftwood washing away" and in other areas you have "fresh faces swimming into their home meetings" because in the end it will be the growth that determines the fate of LSM. If the new faces in the home meetings are not purchasing LSM they will become completely irrelevant. So, is there a link between LSM efforts and the new faces?

I would say, yes, absolutely. You have to appreciate the role the FTTA plays in the culture of the Recovery. I would like to know how many young adults remain in the Recovery, say, beyond the age of 25 to 30, yet never attend the training. I would bet it's a pretty small %. At least in most places.

<<<speaking about the US and Canada here>>>

Anyway, the "Austin way" of the campus work, is carried out by training graduates, promotes the training, brings LSM materials right onto the campus...I can hardly answer the question without laughing...

[rayliotta]

Did I mention HWMR as a home meeting text?...I could go on...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I would say, yes, absolutely. You have to appreciate the role the FTTA plays in the culture of the Recovery. I would like to know how many young adults remain in the Recovery, say, beyond the age of 25 to 30, yet never attend the training. I would bet it's a pretty small %. At least in most places.

In the GLA the opposite was almost true. We had many FTTA grads who could barely survive when they returned. Part of that was all the seeds of suspicion sown into them about the region.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In the GLA the opposite was almost true. We had many FTTA grads who could barely survive when they returned. Part of that was all the seeds of suspicion sown into them about the region.

Two sides to everything. You gotta hand it to them, they know their game, and they play it well.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In the GLA the opposite was almost true. We had many FTTA grads who could barely survive when they returned. Part of that was all the seeds of suspicion sown into them about the region.

I would say the same was true of NYC except that I was not aware of many FTTA grads, perhaps they had a few. It seemed to me that NY was very suspicious of the FTTA.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I would say the same was true of NYC except that I was not aware of many FTTA grads, perhaps they had a few. It seemed to me that NY was very suspicious of the FTTA.

There were many brothers, like BC in NYC, JR and BB in Chicago, who were close to TC for many years. But when push came to shove, they sided with the Blendeds and threw TC under the bus.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There were many brothers, like BC in NYC, JR and BB in Chicago, who were close to TC for many years. But when push came to shove, they sided with the Blendeds and threw TC under the bus.

I always had the impression that they did things with the goal of not arousing the LSM. I have no information on this but I wouldn't be surprised if BC did what he did to avoid the ire of LSM. That may seem self serving but there was very little support for LSM and therefore BC in NY. They kept a standing order with LSM, stored the books in boxes, and then every year or two would sell them all off at 50 cents or 99 cents to make room. One elder and the brother in charge of the book room both despised the set up but I was told that they did this to keep LSM from harassing them. BC probably was Humpty Dumpty trying to straddle a fence.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I always had the impression that they did things with the goal of not arousing the LSM. I have no information on this but I wouldn't be surprised if BC did what he did to avoid the ire of LSM. That may seem self serving but there was very little support for LSM and therefore BC in NY. They kept a standing order with LSM, stored the books in boxes, and then every year or two would sell them all off at 50 cents or 99 cents to make room. One elder and the brother in charge of the book room both despised the set up but I was told that they did this to keep LSM from harassing them. BC probably was Humpty Dumpty trying to straddle a fence.

From the sad stories of so many other places over the years, I'm sure BC and ER had the foresight to realize that LSM and its goons would decimate their church, without even a twang of conscience. JR and BB in Chicago faced this same decision: portray lukewarm support of LSM and sign on to the quarantines, or else face the dogs which LSM would unleash upon their saints.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I always had the impression that they did things with the goal of not arousing the LSM. I have no information on this but I wouldn't be surprised if BC did what he did to avoid the ire of LSM. That may seem self serving but there was very little support for LSM and therefore BC in NY. They kept a standing order with LSM, stored the books in boxes, and then every year or two would sell them all off at 50 cents or 99 cents to make room. One elder and the brother in charge of the book room both despised the set up but I was told that they did this to keep LSM from harassing them. BC probably was Humpty Dumpty trying to straddle a fence.

Seeing their m.o., not having any ties to the group, not buying into the minister of the age concept, not even being aware of the God has one unique move on the earth today concept -- why would you have ever stuck around such a place?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Seeing their m.o., not having any ties to the group, not buying into the minister of the age concept, not even being aware of the God has one unique move on the earth today concept -- why would you have ever stuck around such a place?

This was my first experience of seeing "the other side" of LSM. I also had never bought into the MOTA concept. I was around when RG seemed to develop it from the book of Phil and I always felt he was going off on an extreme tangent based on the flimsiest of support. I never thought WL was different from other brothers that ministered the word. The "God has one unique move on the Earth today" concept in my understanding was merely rewording Jesus word that "I will build my church". I did not see that concept as referring to the LRC, but that those in the LRC had also seen that this is what the Lord was doing and so we also were focused on this one goal.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The "God has one unique move on the Earth today" concept in my understanding was merely rewording Jesus word that "I will build my church". I did not see that concept as referring to the LRC, but that those in the LRC had also seen that this is what the Lord was doing and so we also were focused on this one goal.

I hope, for their sakes, that they don't openly say anything like that because anyone with a brain would realize that Jesus said He would build the church. There is nothing in that statement that suggests that he will fail if we don't organize to help him out. And it surely doesn't support the raising up of any kind of "one unique minister of the age."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I hope, for their sakes, that they don't openly say anything like that because anyone with a brain would realize that Jesus said He would build the church. There is nothing in that statement that suggests that he will fail if we don't organize to help him out. And it surely doesn't support the raising up of any kind of "one unique minister of the age."

Are you really serious? Paul said that he was a wise master builder, compared other ministers to those that build and water, and urged us to imitate him. If someone takes the Lord's word that He will build the church and interprets that to say that in this age the Lord's unique work is the building of the church how do you draw the implied meaning from that as "He will fail if we don't help"?

Why not rather the sentiment "I am about my Lord's business".

Second, there are many ministries in the body. That is a very scriptural and well supported statement. To say that WL was "A" minister of the age does not in any way, to my opinion, cause serious problems with the NT. To say that he was "The" minister of the age does. I heard RG for over a year develop his teaching but never once did he supply any scriptural evidence that, in my opinion, ever warranted changing "A" to "the".

They did use the analogy of Elijah and Elisha. The basic principle is that you don't create a teaching based on a type, rather their should be a clear NT teaching, such as for Baptism, and the types should then fill in some of the picture. Creating this teaching that WN passed the mantle to WL was in my mind, very poor Biblical scholarship and had no foundation in the NT. On the contrary I felt that analogy was much better suited to the OT ministry and the NT ministry. As a result I didn't take RG seriously. His writings were not published by LSM and his speaking could just as easily demonstrate that there was no central control over what brothers spoke.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I never thought WL was different from other brothers that ministered the word. The "God has one unique move on the Earth today" concept in my understanding was merely rewording Jesus word that "I will build my church". I did not see that concept as referring to the LRC, but that those in the LRC had also seen that this is what the Lord was doing and so we also were focused on this one goal.

This is the kind of thing that drove me crazy. If you ask them point blank if WL was the acting God, they will deny it, but then continue talking as if he was. Officially they would deny their many outrageous claims, but all of us insiders knew what they were actually alleging. Officially the "church" was the entire body of Christ, but we all knew better.

At one point, very early on, I was convinced that WL was writing scripture on the same level as the Apostles. It only took me a couple trainings back in the 70's to reach that "stage."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Are you really serious? Paul said that he was a wise master builder, compared other ministers to those that build and water, and urged us to imitate him. If someone takes the Lord's word that He will build the church and interprets that to say that in this age the Lord's unique work is the building of the church how do you draw the implied meaning from that as "He will fail if we don't help"?

But Paul was not the basis of the development of the MOTA teaching, at least as you said it. Jesus said he would build his church. Even if he intends to use us (which we know that he is), there is nothing in that particular passage you mentioned that indicated we are anything more than the results. Even though we ultimately know that we are part, that passage does not identify any such part. You need a different passage. And you jumped to Paul's words. That would be the place — not Matthew.

It is one thing to establish that we are part of the process of building the church. But a verse in which Jesus simply says "I will build my church" is not the place from which you develop such an idea. It surely does not establish some kind of super-minister.

So it is reasonable to then look at 1 Cor and the wise master builder. And, once again, there is nothing that I see that supports some super-minister. (And I believe you agree with that.) "A" wise master builder is not "the" wise master builder.

So it would appear that the answer to "are you serious" would be "yes." That passage does not support what it takes other verses to support. And that passage does not give us a part. Others do.

But none of them define a role of MOTA. That is vain imaginations of someone who wants to be the MOTA.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Second, there are many ministries in the body. That is a very scriptural and well supported statement. To say that WL was "A" minister of the age does not in any way, to my opinion, cause serious problems with the NT. To say that he was "The" minister of the age does. I heard RG for over a year develop his teaching but never once did he supply any scriptural evidence that, in my opinion, ever warranted changing "A" to "the".

They did use the analogy of Elijah and Elisha. The basic principle is that you don't create a teaching based on a type, rather their should be a clear NT teaching, such as for Baptism, and the types should then fill in some of the picture. Creating this teaching that WN passed the mantle to WL was in my mind, very poor Biblical scholarship and had no foundation in the NT. On the contrary I felt that analogy was much better suited to the OT ministry and the NT ministry. As a result I didn't take RG seriously. His writings were not published by LSM and his speaking could just as easily demonstrate that there was no central control over what brothers spoke.

I don't know about RG's writings, but everything you're describing here has been published by LSM. Minister of the age, passing the mantle from Nee to Lee, etc.

Let's be clear, nobody is teaching anything about "A minister of the age". (What would that even mean, anyway, wouldn't it just be "A minister"?) Ron Kangas teaches that "you can't pick and choose from the ministry of the age". I've heard him say this with mine own ears. Others here have testified hearing the same thing. There's nothing "A" about it.

Let's face it, LSM teaches that in every "age", God has one man on the earth, and if you want to be a part of God's "present up-to-date move", you must be with this one man's ministry. This teaching is explicit.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

But Paul was not the basis of the development of the MOTA teaching, at least as you said it. Jesus said he would build his church. Even if he intends to use us (which we know that he is), there is nothing in that particular passage you mentioned that indicated we are anything more than the results. Even though we ultimately know that we are part, that passage does not identify any such part. You need a different passage. And you jumped to Paul's words. That would be the place — not Matthew.

It is one thing to establish that we are part of the process of building the church. But a verse in which Jesus simply says "I will build my church" is not the place from which you develop such an idea. It surely does not establish some kind of super-minister.

So it is reasonable to then look at 1 Cor and the wise master builder. And, once again, there is nothing that I see that supports some super-minister. (And I believe you agree with that.) "A" wise master builder is not "the" wise master builder.

So it would appear that the answer to "are you serious" would be "yes." That passage does not support what it takes other verses to support. And that passage does not give us a part. Others do.

But none of them define a role of MOTA. That is vain imaginations of someone who wants to be the MOTA.

If you look at your post #19 again you will see that the reference to Jesus word "I will build my church" was support for the teaching that "the church" is "the unique move of God on Earth today". It was not used to support "The" Mota teaching, which as I recall came out of RG's understanding of some strange understanding of the Phil. training.

To my knowledge no one has ever used "I will build my church" as a basis for "the" Mota teaching. Nor did I suggest anyone did.

So to repeat, I made 3 points:

1. I see no NT basis for "the MOTA" teaching.
2. I see no issue with someone saying that WN or WL was "A minister of this age".
3. I also see no issue with someone understanding the Lord's word "I will build my church" to then say that "the church is the Lord's unique move on Earth today". Whether or not you agree is one thing, my point is simply that I feel there is a valid NT basis for this teaching.

[rayliotta]

P.S. I'm guessing that bookrooms filled with the writings of only Nee and Lee helps to drive home this point pretty well too. Just a hunch though, I could be wrong.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I don't know about RG's writings, but everything you're describing here has been published by LSM. Minister of the age, passing the mantle from Nee to Lee, etc.

Let's be clear, nobody is teaching anything about "A minister of the age". (What would that even mean, anyway, wouldn't it just be "A minister"?) Ron Kangas teaches that "you can't pick and choose from the ministry of the age". I've heard him say this with mine own ears. Others here have testified hearing the same thing. There's nothing "A" about it.

Let's face it, LSM teaches that in every "age", God has one man on the earth, and if you want to be a part of God's "present up-to-date move", you must be with this one man's ministry. This teaching is explicit.

I am not aware of this, I never heard RK speak, other than perhaps a testimony. But my point was not what LSM publishes or teaches.

My point was that I never bought into this concept. I heard RG first float this in Houston back in 1981. He shared it over a number of weeks and even when we got to Irving. I listened to everything he shared, I considered it, and I decided that there was no NT basis for the teaching and I decided that the use of Elijah passing the mantle to Elisha was not a valid type. I also decided that RG was essentially speaking independently and could therefore be ignored. I felt that view was supported because LSM didn't publish his speaking. Not only so but there were other leading brothers who made it relatively clear that they didn't buy into this concept, I think GW was one of these.

I don't know very much about RK other than that he helped KR write the white wash "The fermentation...". I also know that he slandered SI down in South America, and that when SI tried to contact him about this he refused to even acknowledge receipt of letters signed for by LSM staff. I don't really see how anything this man says would add credibility to this teaching. Therefore why would I care what RK teaches, I made my own conclusions for myself.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't really see how anything this man says would add credibility to this teaching. Therefore why would I care what RK teaches, I made my own conclusions for myself.

Seeing you have so little interest in the present-day Recovery, it makes me wonder why you are so interested in discussing it! :headscratch smiley:

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Seeing you have so little interest in the present-day Recovery, it makes me wonder why you are so interested in discussing it! :headscratch smiley:

20 years of my life and I want to know what happened. Was I deceived? Were my experiences genuine? Where was the Lord? Did I miss the Lord's speaking? Is the Lord speaking in this forum? These are my main interests.

[Also, I don't have interest in talking about the LRC since 1998 because that is the year I left and I don't want to speak about what I don't know. That doesn't mean I don't have interest in reading other posts.]

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

20 years of my life and I want to know what happened. Was I deceived? Were my experiences genuine? Where was the Lord? Did I miss the Lord's speaking? Is the Lord speaking in this forum? These are my main interests.

Now there is a perspective that I understand. And at some level, we may all find somewhat different answers.

While I still have some questions, I think that the answer to some of your questions — at least for me — is that while it is nice to have always been perfectly clear about what really is true concerning scripture, those who have never actually had to think about it, but just had is spoon-fed to them (even through lots of seminary education) sometimes cannot separate the important from the unimportant. They are too prone to say that something is so because that is what they have always known and been taught.

So going through effectively four stations of Christianity has been an important influence on my current position.

1. I was raised in the Assemblies of God. One of the original yet generally orthodox parts of the Pentecostal Revival of the early 1900s. I have since learned that it heavily sprang out of the Methodists, thus the source of the Arminian teaching on salvation. That was birth through about my 18th birthday.
2. Then I was in the LRC. 14-1/2 years of roller-coaster. Definitely more view of scripture. But in hindsight, too much of it was through a very filtered lens. Allegorizing the literal and making the allegories literal. Waving a wand of some pet teaching and changing the plain meaning of words.
3. Then almost 25 years in non-denominational Bible churches. Very grounded in sound theology. But too focused on a "point-in-time" salvation followed by a pining for the next life. (Not that unlike the AOG.)

If this is all there was, then I might argue that Bible churches are much better than the LRC because of the omission of the "we are it and you aren't" view of their group and a much clearer lens for reading scripture. (Note I said "much clearer," not "perfectly clear.")

The fourth station runs simultaneous with the Bible church for the past 5 years or so. That would be reading, and both finding fault and truth in, the postmodern/emerging views that are sweeping some places, creeping into others, and being fought like a serious heresy by others. And they are all right. There is much to fight there. And yet if you simply plug your ears to the questions and thoughts that are being fought, you miss some deep truth concerning the Christian life that evangelicalism has generally missed. That is the "here and now" aspect of salvation and sanctification. Right now, our Christian faith should be more about being those who go back into our normal lives as changed people. Those who give people a reason to ask so that Peter's admonition to have an answer is meaningful.

I have not been called to evangelize Africa, Asia, or the Middle East. I have been called to quit getting so irritated at other people on the road. Deal with my peers and subordinates righteously and justly. Be one who lives in the image of God, just as I/we are originally made.

I would not suggest the LRC as a willful place to learn much of anything if you have a choice. But from it I learned some positive things (such as the Bible is much more than three verses for some sermon), but also many negatives, like being convinced that God really wants us to forget about trying to be righteous and instead just take him in with the goal that one day it will happen. The result of that is a lot of unrighteousness while claiming some glorious intake of God's riches. I now doubt that there is hardly any such thing. It is probably little more than the good feeling of getting praise of your peers for speaking in a meeting or having done what you know they would approve of.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

20 years of my life and I want to know what happened. Was I deceived? Were my experiences genuine? Where was the Lord? Did I miss the Lord's speaking? Is the Lord speaking in this forum? These are my main interests.

[Also, I don't have interest in talking about the LRC since 1998 because that is the year I left and I don't want to speak about what I don't know. That doesn't mean I don't have interest in reading other posts.]

Well for starters, how do you suppose you received a $5 money order the same day your toothpaste ran out?

[UntoHim]

Low blow ray....keep em above the belt there, champ.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Low blow ray....keep em above the belt there, champ.

I'm no "champ", Unto, and I don't know how that's below the belt. I'm referring to something ZNP mentioned in a recent post...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Well for starters, how do you suppose you received a $5 money order the same day your toothpaste ran out?

I received a letter from the couple in Houston that were shepherding me. In the letter there was a $5 bill. I was especially touched because this family was very poor. They told me later that they had assumed the church was taking care of me but had been so bothered they had to send the money.