The Lord's Recovery or Man's Movement?

[Indiana]

HOPE shared on the Early Nee thread, When WN and WL referred to “Work” they did not mean the work of the Lord in a generic sense but rather their particular work and not just their particular personal work but a movement and particular entity which had a life and direction of its own.

The concept of “the Work” was a huge mistake by WN and was and continues to undermine many truths that he did open up to the Body of Christ.

Along with this, the term the Lord’s recovery has been brought into question on the Early Nee thread. I came upon a website today www.local-church-movement.org that supports the term the Lord’s recovery and the concept that it is indeed the move of the Lord from Martin Luther up to the present day. Of course, what is meant by "the Lord’s recovery" is much more expansive and meaningful than what has thus far been defined on the Early Nee thread. Shall we give it fair play on this thread? The website I have referred to also refutes those who say the "recovery” is NOT the Lord's move on the earth, but is a movement of man. Shall we address this refutation also in a fair and reasonable way?

Do we have an early Lord’s recovery and a point at which it stopped and became a movement of man instead?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Shall we give it fair play on this thread? The website I have referred to also makes special effort to refute those who say the "recovery” is a movement of man and NOT the Lord's move on the earth in His recovery of many precious items. Shall we address this refutation also in a fair and reasonable way?

Indy, if one says the recovery is not of a man's work, but the Lord's move on the earth you need to be inclusive of all ministries. The Lord is not restrictive to this ministry or that ministry. There would need to be acknowledegement of ministries which there may not be established fellowship. Consider Billy Graham. He's been one of the well-known evangelists of my life-time. Yet in LSM churches, Billy Graham's portion is largely discounted. Much can be said of past and present brothers who have labored much for the Lord's move on the earth. In my experience in the LSM churches, only those that are perserving in the LSM scheme of things are affirmed as "being in the recovery".
I think in one way the term recovery is valid. To say since the time of Martin Luther, the Bible has been made available. When we read the Bible, what is there to recover? I would say recovery is more about an individual relationship with Christ in bringing man back to God than it is about trying to debate which ministry has "dug out the riches".

Terry

[OBW]

What relevance does "a website ... that supports the term the Lord’s recovery and the concept that it is indeed the move of the Lord from Martin Luther up to the present day" have? Does an LC web site have any more weight than Lee did at saying this? The whole notion of a "Lord's recovery" as something other than God recovering people from their sinful state is a fantasy perpetuated most recently by Lee and his Local Churches.

I will grant the reality of the presence of the Lord among the people back in the 60s, but the "Lord's recovery" is part of modern day myths and genealogies.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

I will grant the reality of the presence of the Lord among the people back in the 60s, but the "Lord's recovery" is part of modern day myths and genealogies.

OBW, I would even suggest into the early seventies there seemed to be a reality of the Lord's presence and moving....Since that time there seems to be an effort of man to know or claim to know what or where the Lord's move is.
My belief is the Lord's move is not restricted to a singular earthly ministry nor to a publishing house. I believe the Lord is moving through many ministries simultaneously.

Terry

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Do we have an early Lord’s recovery and a point at which it stopped and became a movement of man instead?

Many of us don’t have to go too far back to remember a day when we wouldn’t have even dared to ask such a question, not even to ourselves. Ah, I love questions like this! Right to heart of the matter. Thanks brother Indiana. Hey, if there really was never any “Lord’s recovery” to begin with, then it makes a lot of the other things we’ve been hashing over here a bit academic, now doesn’t it? At least we have made it to a point where we can ask the questions.

What we do know for sure is that there is this group of Christians that have been referring to themselves as “The Lord’s Recovery” for many years now. They have even institutionalized, formalized and sloganized it to the point of slapping the term “Recovery Version” on their very own translation of the Bible. Occasionally I will bring my Recovery Version (sans footnotes of course) to some Bible study or fellowship. On more then one occasion somebody has asked me if I am a recovering alcoholic or drug addict. Most of the time I end us telling them that it is not referring to that kind of “recovery”, and then politely tell them that it would take too much time to explain it. Boy, the puzzled looks I get from some.

So, getting back to this question. Really it is a two-part question, and if the first part is answered in the negative it sort of makes the second part a moot point. Nevertheless, so I don’t derail the conversation before it gets a chance to get off the ground, I will try to deal the second part of the question first. (insert of big sigh of relief from the crowd here)

One thing I would point out is that if it was so easy to tell when a genuine move of God becomes a movement of man, we probably wouldn’t be here on this forum right now. We would be too busy gathering together, worshipping, fellowshipping and breaking bread in harmonious bliss. The genuine glorious gospel would be preached throughout the whole earth, the Lord would have His bride, and she would be glorious, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, and she would be holy and blameless, and she would join with the Spirit to cry out “come, Lord Jesus, come!” Yes, how sweet it would be. Or I should say how sweet it will be one day! The problem is that we are still stuck right here, right now in this crummy, deteriorating and accursed place. Yet the same God who placed Watchman Nee in early 20th century China, and then gave him that amazing intellect and powerful drive to accomplish His will, is the same God who has placed us all in the here and now. Nee served his generation and served it well in my opinion. I now have a much, much different opinion about the man many of us followed here in the West later on in the 20th century. All this being said, I’m sure there is much to be gained in trying to determine what may have gone wrong in the Local Church movement. You know me, I’m game, let’s do it!

While I was considering this question, I was reminded of something a Pharisee/lawyer (of all people) said in Acts chapter 5 when some of the early apostles were arrested and imprisoned:
"So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God." (Acts 5:38,39)
I look at this matter of “the Lord’s Recovery” in the same manner. If it was of God nobody could have stopped it or even slowed it down – no opposer, no matter how vicious, could detour such a move of God. No disgruntled or “ambitious” co-worker or rogue elder, no Christian apologist, no cult-buster – no person or group of persons could even slow down, much less overthrow such a genuine move of God. It is silly to even think such a thing. Now if this “recovery’ was simply and solely a movement of man, then it certainly could be slowed down, maybe even overthrown.

Finally, I would readily admit that many genuine moves of God have degraded into what could be considered as a movement of man. I do NOT think that the Local Church of Witness Lee falls under this category simply because I do not believe that it was ever a genuine move of God; At least not under the leadership of Witness Lee it was not. Just because a bunch of genuine Christians come together and practice their version of the genuine Church, or genuine “Church life” as it were, does not necessarily make them a genuine move of God. There are many other major elements to be considered, not the least of which is healthy and sound teaching and the practice of plural leadership – neither of which was ever prevalent while Witness Lee was at the helm.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Finally, I would readily admit that many genuine moves of God have degraded into what could be considered as a movement of man. I do NOT think that the Local Church of Witness Lee falls under this category simply because I do not believe that it was ever a genuine move of God; At least not under the leadership of Witness Lee it was not. Just because a bunch of genuine Christians come together and practice their version of the genuine Church, or genuine “Church life” as it were, does not necessarily make them a genuine move of God. There are many other major elements to be considered, not the least of which is healthy and sound teaching and the practice of plural leadership – neither of which was ever prevalent while Witness Lee was at the helm.

Excellent points in your quote UntoHim. The local churches known as "The Recovery" isn't quite so unique. In church history we can see many parallels. The one most compared to is the Brethren Movement of the 19th century. The Brethren and the Recovery each sprung out of a revival. Once the revival began to wane, strong personalities began to control the direction of the movements.
I'm sure if one studies where the Brethren movement went wrong, you'll find the same applies to the Recovery.

Terry

“ We may say that until now there has not been another group of Christians who has spoken on Genesis 2 and especially on the tree of life as clearly as the speaking in the Lord's recovery. In the same way, today there is no one outside of the Lord's recovery who can speak on the truth in the last two chapters of Revelation regarding the New Jerusalem to the degree of clarity that we have seen and spoken it.”

CWWL, 1984, vol. 5, "Truth, Life, the Church, and the Gospel—the Four Great Pillars in the Lord's Recovery," ch.3

Is it just me, or is there a good to great possibility that nether of those things that he referred to are based on Scriptures, but just using Scripture to insert his ideology? And that’s why NO ONE for 2000+ years taught anything like this?🤔💭

It’s so clear, that it’s “almost” blinds your vision! (Actually that’s the whole purpose, sorry LC members)