|
01-30-2009, 10:39 AM
|
#1 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
An article from Christianity Today:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/januaryweb-only/104-11.0.html Cult Watchers Reconsider Former detractors of Nee and Lee now endorse 'local churches.' Collin Hansen | posted 1/26/2009 09:58AM Two notable critics have changed their minds on the controversial "local churches" movement that follow the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Hank Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research Institute (CRI), and Gretchen Passantino Coburn, director of Answers in Action, each published their new support in a November booklet by the Defense and Confirmation Project, founded to rebut criticism of Nee and Lee. Hanegraaff says the local churches fit neither the theological or sociological definition of cultic activity. (CRI published critiques in the 1970s that influenced other watchdog groups.) Passantino Coburn, who coauthored The New Cults with Walter Martin, writes passionately and personally about the "most significant reassessment from my career." "If you are a parent, proud of your young adult offspring's seemingly overnight spiritual blossoming but afraid that he or she is going to crash and burn in spiritual chaos, let me reassure you," Passantino writes. "The local churches are a legitimate, theologically orthodox, spiritually faithful involvement by means of which you offspring can develop genuine Christian commitment and maturity. They are not a dangerous ensnarement of the Devil." The booklet also includes a three-year-old statement from Fuller Theological Seminary. Three Fuller faculty members—president Richard Mouw, theology dean Howard Loewen, and systematic theology professor Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen—met five times face-to-face with influential local church figures to discuss their beliefs. The Fuller representatives cited several areas of special concern, "such as the Trinity, the mingling of divinity and humanity, deification, modalism, their interpretation and practice of the 'local' church, the divine and human natures of Christ, and their attitude toward believers outside their congregations." Now, the Fuller statement says, its faculty and administration "unreservedly recommend that all Christian believers likewise extend to them the right hand of fellowship." As a result of the Fuller dialogue, representatives of the local churches and LSM editors published a 39-page statement of their teachings in January 2007. But LSM spokesman Chris Wilde said the document has not been widely distributed. The movement Nee founded during the 1920s in China subsequently spread to the West. After Nee died in 1972 in a Communist jail, Lee became the group's most prominent teacher. He died in 1997. The local churches claim more than 30,000 U.S. adherents and over 800,000 in China. Two of the group's traits immediately strike many evangelicals as strange. First, churches affiliated with this movement take no name except a geographical marker, such as "the local church in Chicago." Second, the group has no authority structure. Lee was also very critical of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, raising concerns that the local churches regarded themselves as the only legitimate Christians. His statements prompted 60 evangelical leaders (including Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary and Paige Patterson of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) to publish an open letter in January 2007 asking the local churches and their publishing service, Living Stream Ministry (LSM), to disavow Lee's doctrinal statements and criticism of evangelicals. Wilde said the local churches issued invitations to dialogue with each signatory but did not near back from any. As criticism has mounted, the local churches have sought help from other evangelicals. LSM was granted membership in the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association, and exhibited at the International Christian Retailers Show. (LSM has also sued critics. In June 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear its appeal of a rejected $136 million libel lawsuit against John Ankerberg and John Weldon, authors of The Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions.) But the group has not renounced Lee's most controversial teachings, and that's the key problem for critics such as Calvin Beisner, formerly of CRI. Beisner faults Lee on a number of points, including two forms of modalism condemned by the early church's ecumenical councils, and said no critics who have changed their mind—including his sister, Passantino Coburn—have yet documented how former concerns about Lee were actually misrepresentations. "Merely issuing doctrinal statements that are orthodox so far as they go but do not explicitly repudiate the contrary statements of Lee is not sufficient," Beisner said. "As Francis Schaeffer insisted again and again, in our postmodern world we must not only say what we believe, but also must deny what we don't believe. The Worldwide Church of God set a good example in the 1980s, repudiating the heretical teachings of its founder Herbert W. Armstrong, and it is not asking the Local Church too much to do the same." But Hanegraaff says members of the local churches demonstrate theological acumen: "I have witnessed in them a keen interest in doctrinal precision sadly missing today in major segments of the evangelical community." Passantino Coburn says the group's remaining critics should engage in deeper research. She said that further reading about the group's teachings revealed connections with persecuted churches and ancient Eastern church history, such as a "less purely analytical but more fully personal theology." "When I applied the templates of the persecuted church and Eastern church to the local churches, I saw that, regardless of their formal association or derivation, the similarities were unmistakable, understandable, and fully within orthodoxy," she told Christianity Today. "This does not mean that I agree with every local church teaching, nor does it mean that I do theology like the local churches. But it does mean that I can more fully understand and appreciate that theology, and can be confident that while different, it is not heretical." Copyright © 2009 Christianity Today. |
|
|
|
01-30-2009, 10:59 AM
|
#2 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,654
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider
The link that Igzy provided above has a comments section following the article, which is worth the read. John Myer and Nigel Tomes and others have commented there. Here it is:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/....html?id=72760
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
01-30-2009, 11:49 AM
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: Some comments
Is it just me or does Passantino seem a little overly gushing? I mean, isn't it a bit strange for her to go out of her way to so blithely inform parents that their children will be fine and dandy in the LC? Seems to me that is a bit inappropriate. And why should she stick her neck out like that?
Seems like she's overcorrecting a bit. |
|
|
|
|
01-30-2009, 12:56 PM
|
#4 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 318
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when the LSM spinmeister Chris Wilde & Co went over and pitched Hank and Gretchen on the "orthodoxy" and normalcy of their Lee Church. You know: what really went on behind the scenes.
__________________
My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ! |
|
|
|
|
01-30-2009, 01:41 PM
|
#5 | ||
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,793
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
||
|
|
|
|
02-02-2009, 05:55 PM
|
#6 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,793
|
Comments from the readers
HN Posted: February 04, 2009 8:47 AM HN. With respect, you really don't have your facts straight. I am part of no "group." The quote you made was from an open forum and the comment was one individuals' opinion. I don't necessarily agree with it. But it's a free Internet and people can post what they want. Yes, I have an agenda. My agenda is that people would know the whole truth about LSM. Not just the sunny, PR side that they want people to see. Why is that a problem and why would you seek to discredit my character about it? I suppose Because It's Light Brought On Domineering Old Guard. Peace to you too. Human Nature Posted: February 03, 2009 8:41 PM CB, this will be my last comment here. Regarding this article, it is recorded in your group's forum the following: "John Myer and Nigel Tomes and others have commented there... My guess would be that some money was stuck in someone's pocket before they stuck out their neck. There was definitely some sort of quid pro quo." It is clear that your group has an agenda with regard to the LC. It seems odd to me that the only person you are arguing with here is one who has no stake in the debate one way or another. If your group is counter-cult then they certainly have a lot to learn about Christian ethics. At least the anti-LDS and anti-JW groups show some compassion and love for those with whom they disagree. You guys have a big axe to grind, and it's obvious that you have no desire for closure, but just want to be vindicated in your own right. Again, no wonder you're not getting the apology you're looking for. You're like children stomping your feet. I feel sorry for you. Peace. GB Posted: February 03, 2009 3:31 PM Human Nature, the watchers did not just attempt to vindicate LC theology, but also their social behavior. Quote: "Hanegraaff says the local churches fit neither the theological or sociological definition of cultic activity." So behavior and practices affecting members are fair game in this discussion. Further, Passantino assured everyone that their children would be safe in the LC. So evidence to the contrary is on the table, and testimony of "those dwelling on the negative" is relevant and appropriate. In fact, your attempt to discount those people is an attempt to exclude relevant testimony about the alleged cultic behavior of the LC, which is what this discussion is about. Human Nature Posted: February 03, 2009 2:58 PM CB, I don't see it that way. Theology is the formal study of religious doctrine; and philosophically it's how God interacts withj humanity. LC theology is apart from the various problems it's had in its administration and how it deal with the different splits it's had over the years. Lots of church groups have their splits for different reasons that have nothing to do with the orthodoxy of their doctrine. MAAD is an organization dedicated to raise awareness of the problem of drunk driving, and trying to keep people from committing this crime. I see no comparison at all between the discussion forums mentioned earlier and MAAD. Besides, as Christians we're supposed to be above the sort of talk that I've witnessed on those forums. There's a lot of character attack, insinuation about sexuality and adultery, etc. I'm glad the subjects of this article didn't get into that. It has nothing to do with the theological soundness of the LC. They seem to get it, where you don't. I'm done. GB Posted: February 03, 2009 2:19 PM The LSM way of dealing with abused former LC members who speak out is a variation of the "nuts and sluts" defense employed by Bill Clinton's supporters whenever he got caught with his pants down. Villify the abused woman. Call into question her saneness and character. Human Nature employs this technique well. As did Benson Phillips, LSM President, when he accused Jane Carole Anderson of being "rebellious" after the release of her book "The Thread of Gold" in which she accounts the craven way she was abusively disciplined by LC leaders in the 1970s. Phillips defended that treatment of her in an members-only meeting a few years ago, showing no remorse whatsoever, and saying they absolutely did the right thing to Anderson. GB Posted: February 03, 2009 1:48 PM Human Nature. When it comes to the abuse of members of a group there are no "internal affairs." Further there is no separation between theology and treatment of members, between beliefs and practices. Darn right some people "dwell on the negative," if that's how you want to characterize it. Read Jeremiah. He dwelt on the negative, too. The fact is most of these people don't dwell on the negative for personal satisfaction, but rather to try to help stop the abuses of others. Would you say the founder of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, whose child was killed by a drunk driver, was dwelling on a negative by harping on drunk driving until something was done? So your characterization of the abused is a complete non sequitur. Your appeal to deal with things privately might make sense if there were any hope it would work. LC history says it won't. So your appeal for private dealing rings hollow, as it all too conveniently plays to the advantage of the alleged abusers. Human Nature Posted: February 03, 2009 11:49 AM CB. It seems to me, as one on the outside, that your beef with the LC is one of how they dealt with certain interrnal affairs, not related to their theology. This article has nothing to do with controversies in the LC, it has to do with their theology. From the research I've done over the past couple of days I found that the LC dealt very clearly with the issues of theology, and their openness to allow others to scrutinize them is very clear. On the other hand there are pockets of people that dwell on the negative, and seem intent on rehashing old issues. I don't blame the LC for not publicly dealing with these issues. These are matters that should be dealth with privately. What good is airing "Dirty laundry" on the web? What do these people seek to gain anyway? They only make themselves look bad. If it's a support group that's one thing, but if it's just a venue for complaining then I doubt the Lord blesses it. The Lord never complained about His offenses. Neither did Paul. GB Posted: February 03, 2009 8:42 AM As to what Jesus would do in this day and age, HumanNature, I doubt he would be suing any publishers that seemed slanderous, or setting up propaganda websites like AFaithfulWord.org filled with half-truths and severely slanted history in order to prop Himself up and slam his opponents. Jesus was quite comfortable competing in the arena of ideas, as was Paul. The LSM however, with their cadre of legal experts and highly skilled wordsmiths is never seem publically exgaged in a level-playing field debate. Why? The only answer must be they have no confidence in their message to prevail in the arena of ideas, and so must use cleverness and subterfuge to win. As to "bitter" people "attacking" the LSM/LC. Many of those people don't want to see others damaged by a group which plainly sends the message that a Christian life outside of LSM/LC is one outside of God's most perfect purpose. As long as LSM spouts its elitest nonsense, expect faithful prophets to speak truth to power. Fuller Supporter Posted: February 02, 2009 3:03 PM It's a shame that a person's personal prejudice could be so implementable in the clouding of a persons ability to reason. Fuller theological seminary is the largest, most well-respected institution of theological learning in the entire earth. Their alumni are among the most well-read and thoughtful evangelical leaders of our time. It is absurd to postulate any ulterior motive for theirs or any other's conclusions concerning the Local Church. To hint at such wrongdoing absent any substantive evidence is not only shameful, it's unbecoming of our calling as Christians. Ron Starling Posted: February 02, 2009 2:15 PM As some have already commented, having the likes of Hank Hanegraaff or a few of the progressive types over at Fuller seminary endorse your theology is not going to cut it among most well read and thoughtful evangelics of the day. Most could not care less what Hank has to say anymore, even Walter Martin's own daughter will have nothing to do with him, and for very good reason. CRI has sold out to a number of cultic and new age type organizations over the years, handing out "endorsements" , kind of like politicians hand out pork to those special interests that greased their palms. How shameful for a once reputable and proud organization! Somebody needs to tell Gretchen Passentino that she is making a BIG mistake. Whatever she is getting out of this is just not worth it. The Local Church is obviously playing the "if you can't beat em (in court), join em" game. One wonders what is going on behind the scene. Hey Gretchen, why don't you send your OWN kids to the Local Church cult! HumanNature Posted: February 01, 2009 1:13 PM Interesting to see these viewpoints. I think that neither side wins, really. Among all Evangelical groups there are some that are opposed to certain doctrines, practices, theology, etc. People have left many denominations due to lack of love, care, and because they thought something being done, or not done, was wrong. It's nothing new. I like what an earlier comment pointed out: There are just a lot of bitter people out there. It's not what you DO about problems of the past, it's what you choose to DO WITH those offenses. Had the internet been around during the time our Lord Jesus walked the earth, I doubt that He would have created entire web pages solely dedicated to "exposing" brothers and sisters in their wrong doing, and attempting to vindicate His own opinion in certain situations. Likely He would have simply walked away, left it alone, and shaken the dust from His feet. I wonder if those bitter people truly realize what they are creating with all the negativity? Sue Posted: February 01, 2009 8:58 AM I find it almost amusing that we should ..."offer them the hand of fellowship". Is no one listening? The Defense team came to our small locality, sued us and took the property. I met for 30 years with them and now if we don't tow the line with materials from LSM the Defense team moves in and sues the noncompliant ones. Strange way to prove how loving and fundamental they are. Eat_the_peach Posted: January 31, 2009 7:53 PM If Hank Hanegraaff and the liberals over at Fuller are the only ones to endorse your theology then that is not much to hang your hat on. In fact in the recent past many evangelicals are distancing themselves from them because they have strayed from historic doctrines. In reading some of the available quotes from Watchman Nee and Witness Lee is is pretty obvious that they decidedly strayed a long long time ago. To add to their bad theology they sue other Christians who criticize them. I also found this open letter produced by 70 evangelical theologians and scholars at www.open-letter.org So it looks like the numbers are against the Local Church *** 70 - 3 *** Boy I hope my Arizona Cardinals don't get whipped that bad tomorrow! KissTheSon Posted: January 31, 2009 7:47 PM Allow me to say that not everyone who has left the Local Churches is bitter in heart and regurgitating past hurts. After two decades in the Local Churches, I acknowledge that there was lots of "wheat" that was very helpful, but there was also lots of "chaff" that was very harmful to my going on with Christ. When our dear Lord led me out of the Local Churches, I thanked Him for the "wheat" and I asked Him to heal the damage from the "chaff". End of story. My whole family is actually doing much better away from the Local Churches. The two most helpful comments I have seen so far were: "The Local Churches are not heretical, but some of Witness Lee's teachings are unorthodox." and "My analysis is that the Local Church of Witness Lee is essentially a splinter group of the exclusive brethren gone badly astray. It is the group's obsession with Lee, not some doctrinal tenet, that causes most lay observers to label it a cult." I appreciate the balance shown in these two comments! loverofchrist Posted: January 31, 2009 4:07 PM Poormansprophet wrote, "Right we are not in the 70s or 80s so why do folks in the Local Church continue to wallow in Lee's bazaar and heretical teachings from the 70s and 80s?" Answer: Because, according to Fuller, Hanegraaff, Passantino, and many others, Lee's teachings are neither bizarre nor heretical. Some may not like Lee, may not like his teachings, think our practices are strange, whatever, but consistently - time and time again - established, well known, well educated, and well respected theological scholars and teachers of our time, have affirmed the perfectly orthodox and historical soundness of local church doctrines and teachings. Just read the report! Nathaniel Posted: January 31, 2009 3:13 PM Poormansprophet and others of his ilk, want an extended and comprehensive "apology" of all past sins, offenses, and mistakes by the leadership of the local churches. However, although apologies have been made in the past, and considerable time and effort have gone into thorough clearance of past mistakes through explanation, this essentially amounts to "it's not good enough for me." Yes, there are places on the web where you will find the bitter in heart regurgitating past hurts and using them as fuel for their undelivered flesh. But clearly absent is the spirit of forgiveness and understanding that we all have inherited the same fallen nature, and there simply is no grace given to that aspect; and certainly there is no forgiveness possible when one expects that his selfish demands for particular and all-inclusive apology and groveling be met. In short: There simply is no satisfying those who are so bitter that they have forever set themselves against this ministry, no matter what. Poormansprophet Posted: January 31, 2009 10:23 AM QUOTE BY: Nathaniel "A previous commenter said that "back in the 70s and 80s...." We're not in the 70s or 80s. While some people may have made mistakes back then, to err is human (and to forgive is...?) The local churches have grown a lot since the days of the Jesus freaks and other "Christian movements." Right we are not in the 70s or 80s so why do folks in the Local Church continue to wallow in Lee's bazaar and heretical teachings from the 70s and 80s? "people may have made mistakes"? I have yet to see any Local Church or LSM officials/leaders admit the slightest mistake! Did you hear the "interview" (really just infomercial for LC) Hanegraaff did with Wilde and Yu??? They admitted NOTHING. They apologized for NOTHING. And worse they LIED through their teeth about what is taught and believed behind closed doors. "The local churches have grown a lot"??? Really? Let's hear the details . To see the truth wwwthebereans.net & wwwlocalchurchdiscussions.com/forum Peter Simon Posted: January 30, 2009 9:03 PM Hmmm . . . not sure what to think about all this. If you really want to know the spirit in which Watchman Nee lived and ministered, the best place to go is the ministry of Stephen Kaung. Stephen Kaung was a close co-worker of Watchman Nee in Mainland China. Brothr Kaung's ministry is really precious and enlightening. I am not sure why Witness Lee and his sucsessors never mention faithful servants of the Lord like Stephen Kaung, Bakht Singh, etc. I wonder if anyone at Living Stream Ministry has ever told Hank Hanegraaff that Hank lives only a short distance away from Stephen Kaung? Brother Hank obviously thinks very highly of Watchman Nee and the persecuted churches in China. When Hank H. finds out that he has lived so close to a co-worker of Watchman Nee for all these years, and no one ever told him, Hank is not going to be happy! KissTheSon Posted: January 30, 2009 8:16 PM I am a former member of the Local Churches, having spent two decades of my life there. Our dear Lord Jesus Christ led me and my family out of the Local Churches several years ago. Allow me to say that not everyone who left the Local Churches is bitter and not everyone outside the Local Churches is fake and shallow. I still have lots of fond feelings for many of the dear brothers and sisters in the Local Churches. An honest appraisal of the Local Churches would admit that while there is much there that is praise-worthy, there also much there that is cringe-worthy. Sad to say, there is a very noticeable lack of love in the Local Churches. There is also a very noticeable lack of repentance in the Local Churches. Instead of a spirit of love and a spirit of repentance, there exists a terrible spirit of religious jealousy which leavens (in a bad way) everything about Living Stream Ministry and the Local Churches. Another site to check out is makingstraightthewayofthelord.com. Daniel Posted: January 30, 2009 7:02 PM I wonder if any of the detractors who have posted here in the past few days have actually taken the time needed to completely read and understand the booklet put together by the brothers at the Defense and Confirmation Project. it doesn't seem very likely, since the statements made by Hanegraaff and Passantino were very well written and wonderfully expressed. These, two, plus Fuller, plus many other persons were given free reign into the local churches, to see for themselves what we're really all about....And still the detractors insist that they don't know the whole story. Not likely. I think that there are just some very bitter people. It's a shame, really. Sal, Fargo Posted: January 30, 2009 4:27 PM I meet as a local church and have read enough of LSM's published materials on which I can state that: what we are seeing as the result of this article in CT is a shameful exposure and bitter expression of the fake and shallower religious community. Christians hanging Christians. However, I am glad that this article came out in CT. Much of the mess is due to the factors of self-interest, power struggle, and trying to become the center of attraction. For those who hate local church and Witness Lee -this article and CRI's evaluation and statement is an uncomfortable dose of existing reality. Those who meet as local churches look at this as nothing more than a former unfriendly critique turned to fellowship, friendship, and mutual respect. Ohio Posted: January 30, 2009 1:32 PM Apologetics who love to obsess about modalistic trinitarian theology and the like, don't have a clue what life in the Local Churches is really like once some decide to distance themselves from the all-encompassing entanglements of the Living Stream ministry. They use the bully pulpit to smear the reputations of other ministers who prefer to minister from the Bible directly without the use of their own publications. Their current teachings and practices have so devolved over the years that Watchmen Nee, their so-called founder, could not recognize them, much the same as Moses could never recognize life under the Pharisees who claimed him as their founder. Through their legal team called the Defense and Confirmation Project, LSM operatives have wrought havoc on numerous churches via lawsuits and "insurrections" toward local elderships. LSM has become the "master of spin." Their smooth and flattering rhetoric towards outsiders cant fool those who have witnessed their wrath for years. mr po from hongkong, china Posted: January 29, 2009 8:54 PM who is to judge who is orthodox and who is heresy amongst evangelicals and evangelical groups? i would say none. as the chinese saying goes, they are all shan tze wang--little kinglets in their own mountains. mentally speaking, this is fundamentalists fighting fundamentalists. what a recurring theme and what a mess. Samuel Yu Posted: January 29, 2009 3:59 PM My experience with the local churches during my college years was completely different from Kelly's. Rather than feel like I was being manipulated, I was helped to know the Lord personally, and encouraged strongly to read the Bible for myself, and not just take things at face value. On the contrary, the focus was never on obscure facts or trivia, but on the deep truths found in the Word. For this, I am and always will be grateful. Nathaniel Posted: January 29, 2009 3:09 PM I've been in the local churches for many years. They have never locked me in a room or forced me to do anything that I did not want to do. Some people mistake zeal for strangeness. A previous commenter said that "back in the 70s and 80s...." We're not in the 70s or 80s. While some people may have made mistakes back then, to err is human (and to forgive is...?) The local churches have grown a lot since the days of the Jesus freaks and other "Christian movements." Why not give them a break and stop living in the past? We in the local churches haven’t harbored any ill feelings toward the people that picketed our church buildings on Sundays, and handed out tracks and “anti-Lee” material to members as they exited Lord’s Day meetings. That actually happened. It was horrible for those who experienced it. We let it go a long time ago. kelly Posted: January 29, 2009 9:30 AM I have to disagree. I was hotly pursued by the local church during college and they were manipulative and coercive. Even though they claim no authoritative leadership, there were people who definitely exerted heavy-handed control within the congregation. As a pretty biblically well-taught, but naive young person, I couldn't quite put my finger on what was wrong, but I felt a very strangling, unhealthy feeling after initially feeling drawn to their seemingly biblical approach. I was tricked several times into meetings to "convert" me. They said that if I would just say "Oh Lord Jesus" three time, that I would be saved. They liked to "pray read" the scripture, or "eat the Word", seeking out passages that were obscure and puposely avoided understanding the context and meaning so that the Word would bypass their mind and go to their spirit. I extracted myself from their clutches and now as a more mature believer and Bible teacher, I would discourage anyone from involvement with them Poormansprophet Posted: January 29, 2009 8:32 AM I was in the Local Church back in the heyday of the 70s and 80s when they openly scorned and mocked other Christians. They wanted nothing to do with “Christianity” and they shouted this at the top of their lungs. As many former members and even leaders have stated right here the Local Churches are really just a somewhat benign personality cult whose “personality” is now dead. I have it from reliable sources that the Local Church is about 1/3 the size it once was here in America and they are losing members in droves because of the information on the internet. Back in the 70s Witness Lee and his minion elders would just lock everybody inside the meeting halls and tell the members that all the critics were just blind, poor, dead in spirit and lost stars who will spend 1,000 years in outer darkness for criticizing him and the “recovery”. Thank God these people cannot get away with this kind of cultic and childish behavior anymore. NC Posted: January 28, 2009 9:39 PM Thank you, CT, for publishing this article. And thank you, Hank and Gretchen, for doing what few have the grace to do. My prayer is that the thousands of young people in the local churches all over the earth will rise up, shake off the "cult" stigma, and shine forth as luminaries. It has been somewhat of a rite of passage for us, usually in college, to suddenly and without explanation lose Christian friends with whom we have just begun to enjoy the Lord Jesus, calling on His name, and praying over His Word. I lost one friend in college this way, and for a whole year he refused to speak even one word with me. Finally I ran into him on a bus and found out his pastor had given him CRI material and told him that hearing even one word from me could bind him under an evil spell. I am so thankful that now we have something from CRI and Answers in Action that we can give to our friends to inoculate them against such ridiculous poison! Thank You, Lord Jesus, for answering our prayer! Jonathan Posted: January 28, 2009 10:41 AM CF's comment of yesterday is just one of many examples of the type of superstitious beliefs that start rumors about the local churches. I have been under the lord's ministry led by brothers Nee and Lee for 14 years and I have never once read or heard any such "curse" leveled by Lee or Nee against any person or group. The fact that a person got a piece of bad fish or indigestion and had a spooky dream is simply not enough to give a person pause concerning the spirit of this ministry. I would hope that any rational Christian would take the time to "test the spirits" a little more thoroughly. HJ Posted: January 28, 2009 1:30 AM It would be of great interest to have LSM say something and then follow through with accompanying action. We have heard all the beautiful words and then watched destruction follow. At one point a relative was afraid to come to our home because we no longer met with the LSM approved "local church." LSM expects every "local church" to receive a standing order of articles, books, audio and video tapes. If they don't, they are not considered a true church. Check the "Recovery Version New Testament" put out by LSM. Concerning Matthew 16:18 Witness Lee's footnote states: "...The Lord is not building His church in Christiandom, which is composed of the apostate Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations. This prophecy is being fulfilled through the Lord's Recovery" [i.e., "recovery" means the local churches] "in which the Genuine Church is being accomplished..." Sectarian? Very. Many other footnotes are similar. Watchman Nee didn't have these divisive views. CF Posted: January 27, 2009 9:41 PM I haven't written before, but feel I must. I know how The Local Church nearly wrecked our lives from one visit back in the 70s. My husband (a pastor) told a chaplain friend who asked him about the Local Church what he thought after we had visited. My husband told him that it was all very enthusiastic but that he thought it probably had an anti-Christ spirit. That night he had a terrifying dream that he had blasphemed the Holy Spirit. This started an entire series of tormenting emotional/spiritual afflictions that went on for years. Only later did we read in a booklet a Witness Lee quote that laid a heavy curse on anyone who would speak against their movement. I know firsthand what a powerful spirit this was. Not only that, but they managed, over the years, to silence any critics via their enormous lawsuits. You wonder why I didn't sign my last name? Shame on the Christian leaders who are capitulating and bowing to this cult group that thinks it is the only true church. Ovedya Posted: January 27, 2009 4:31 PM I'm glad to see that Hanagraaf and the Passantino's finally came around. It only took 30 + years! I noticed that "Anton" commented above. I hope that this is not the same "Anton" that founded Apologetics Index." "AI" has a long way to go in the area of grace, I must say. Prayerfully, may he not take 30 years himself coming to know the truth in matters which he's presently not qualified to comment on. Nevertheless, I'm glad to see that brothers which the local churches have long respected and desired to open fresh dialog with have found sufficient grace to publicly announce their approval of this ministry. Perhaps now many years of hurt can be put behind these two groups and some new and living fellowship can be had between them. Anne Posted: January 27, 2009 12:12 PM I enjoyed Watchman Nee's books too, but I was a little shocked when I read Witness Lee's statements about us becoming God, and that he's against Christendom. It seems to me, that he's a little confused now, which probably has nothing to do with Watchman Nee, who's already with God now. It's a little weird, that there's too much fuss about Lee, I don't like when people begin to follow a man rather than Christ... Marie Natha Posted: January 27, 2009 9:25 AM Follow the money! Jerry Posted: January 26, 2009 9:39 PM It's always interesting to see how people protect and defend their human nature. Nee and Lee are both amazing desciples! james Posted: January 26, 2009 9:06 PM The theological issue had to do with the way Lee emphasized the trinity in the experience of the believer and in the process of salvation. He emphasized that upon the ascension the Christ became the Spirit. Based on a literal greek translation. The western church's view of the Trinity emphasizes the eternal existence of the 3. Lee would often stress the 1 in 3, and at times 3 in 1, whichever seemed more closely in line with the experience of Salvation. Much as you would find in Teresa of Avila, or Madam Guyon- or other mystics. This drives strict theologians crazy who typically have less experience of the Spirit and more intellectualizing. Another point of contention is that Lee makes much of the Holy Spirit living in one. That we are being transformed into something beyond comprehension. Some of the earlier critics hated that. You can look up Living Stream Ministries on the internet and call their 800#. I know they will be happy to talk with you- or put you in contact. Timothy Law Posted: January 26, 2009 8:06 PM I would like very much if someone could tell me the source of Francis Schaeffer's emphasis: "we must not only say what we believe, but also must deny what we don't believe". Thank you. Ruth Posted: January 26, 2009 7:52 PM The author of the article assumes that the reader understands the background of this story. I would like to have seen him give us a more well rounded idea of what the controversial theology actually is. I have enjoyed reading Watchman Nee's books for many years and did not know that there was a "movement" based on his teaching. Would love to know more. Isaiah Tor Posted: January 26, 2009 7:23 PM I greatly appreciate that the local churches have begun to be properly understood by these brothers in the Lord. I pray that a greater number of believers will truly see the riches of the New Testament ministry presented through the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee enjoyed by the saints in the local churches and beyond. It is really hoped that the apostle Paul's aspiration for all the churches on the earth to enter into a genuine and bountiful fellowship of the Body of Christ under the absolute headship of Christ would be realized in due time in the present age. Let us more and more in the oneness of the Spirit, call upon this Christ, this all-inclusive Jesus Christ, enjoying Him to the uttermost, the uniquely precious One who is "theirs and ours" (1 Cor. 1:2). Praise the Lord! Mark SV Posted: January 26, 2009 4:51 PM What I find so upsetting about all this is that Hank would participate in a serious lawsuit against legitimate Christian parachurch organizations. This is such a breach of 1 Cor 6 that it is amazing anyone still considers him to be an effective Christian witness. I cut off all giving to CRI several years ago over this and other issues. Nigel Tomes (Toronto, CANADA) Posted: January 26, 2009 4:41 PM As a longtime (35+ years) member of the Local Church movement, who is among a group of churches which have separated from Living Stream Ministry (LSM) please permit me to comment. Personally I do not consider the Local Church Movement to be heretical. However, I do consider some of Witness Lee's teachings to be unorthodox--for e.g. their Three-stage Pneumatology, their Satanology (that the Person of Satan indwells the believer) and their Bibliology (not every word of Scripture is the Word of God). [Recent articles on these topics are posted on www.concernedbrothers.com especially the "Reconsideration" section.] Some local churches have separated from Living Stream Ministry and are re-assessing Witness Lee's teachings in the light of Scripture. Nigel Tomes, Toronto, CANADA John Mck. Posted: January 26, 2009 4:33 PM I here ya Dan  John Posted: January 26, 2009 4:26 PM Regardless of what the Local Churches teach about the trinity or other doctrinal mainstay, weird extremes exist in the group and have done great damage to ex-members and even entire churches that sought to escape its influence. I am an ex-member and leader who after 22 years of involvement, lead his church out of the Living Stream/Witness Lee orbit. My analysis is that the Local Church of Witness Lee is essentially a splinter group of the exclusive brethren gone badly astray. It is the group's obsession with Lee, not some doctrinal tenent, that causes most lay observers to label it a cult. I am amazed that alleged experts investigated the group and didn't see this behavior firsthand. Makes me wonder what they were allowed to see. Or what they didn't want to see. At definite cardinal points, the group acts like a personality cult. I have written an online book that addresses these issues and gives some advice to churches that want out of the Movement: www.assemblylife.com Adam Posted: January 26, 2009 4:20 PM I'm glad to see the orthodox police are hard at work. Gary VanRiper Posted: January 26, 2009 4:08 PM Since when was Watchman Nee linked with the heresy of Witness Lee? Watchman Nee mostly solid. Witness Lee defected. Seems to take less and less time for history to be rewritten. The Bob Posted: January 26, 2009 3:37 PM The big question is Hank Hanagraaf and his organization a cult? Look at Hank's salary and benefits! Craig S. Prest/U.N.I. Posted: January 26, 2009 2:34 PM Personally, I am glad that Watchman Nee is being given some peace by detractors, many who have never suffered or endured a fraction of what Nee and his early followers did in their early days. It took me about 20+ years to begin to understand Nee's writing in Spiritual Man and the like (some of his other writings were easier). There are places I may disagree with, but on the whole, his so called "Theology" gave the steel and discipleship to thousands of believers in China and then later with believers in many nations that would have been deprived of help by cerebral "arm chair" critics. Yes, set doctrince "right" but be sure to leave a good testimony intact! Few saints understand God perfectly. Believers who are "positional" in practice or conduct, etc. with little experience of truth in daily life, will likely find Nee excruciating at times and accuse him of legalism. Nee probably strayed there at times (as don't we all?) Sometimes we've behaved as political parties instead of Saints. Anton Posted: January 26, 2009 1:55 PM What a sad state of affairs when former cult watchers exchange spiritual discernment for a let's-all-just-be-friends approach. By way of reminder, there were good reasons why the Local Church was included in the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions: http://cli.gs/mqQ9zM Nothing is the behavior or theology of Living Stream Ministry/Local Church has changed any of those reasons. The G Posted: January 26, 2009 1:49 PM I agree with Dan. When will all Christians return to the Scriptures only? Whether they are right or wrong is according to what God breathed out--not according to any man. We don't need any men's opinions. No pope. No dope. Atilla Posted: January 26, 2009 12:58 PM Indeed a bit more details would be nice to LSM. Here is the link to their site and statement of faith: www.lsm.org/lsm-statement-faith.html Francis Schaeffer had it right. Dan Posted: January 26, 2009 12:13 PM Whew, well I am so GLAD that Hank Hanegraaff has approved! What a relief. Without his official stamp of approval, where would we all be? Charitas Posted: January 26, 2009 11:45 AM This article could benefit with a doctrinal statement from LSM. This would perhaps clarify in the readers mind if there is a problem. Otherwise we are receiving opinions of only second and third hand sources.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
10-06-2012, 04:54 AM
|
#7 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
My feeling on this has "evolved" over the years I have spent discussing, debating and arguing these various points on these forums. As a result I want to start again with this question. For the purpose of this discussion this is the modified definition of cult that I am working from. I have not added anything to the Oxford dictionary's definition, only narrowed the focus so that each point can apply specifically to the LRC. Cult -- 1. a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards one person. 2. a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded as sinister by others. 3. a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person First, I think it is important to note how the term "cult" is not defined as a heresy but rather as veneration and devotion directed towards one person which is misplaced or excessive. This is similar to the New Testament verse where the Lord tells us to "call no man your father". It is also similar to where the apostles asked to sit on the right hand and left hand of Jesus which sparked a jealous feud. Second, the practices and beliefs must be considered "sinister" or "pernicious". Finally, I want to emphasize that this definition in the Oxford dictionary is not in anyway related to "heresy". I don't think it is necessary to conclude that the LRC is a cult based on first proving that they are not Christian or that they don't believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior, or that God has been manifested in the flesh, etc. Instead I think it is tied to the verse where Paul says "if in anything you are otherwise minded..." I believe it is possible to conclude that the LRC is composed of genuine believers who in a few salient points are "otherwise minded" thus becoming a cult. Cult -- 1. a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards one person. Veneration refers to deep respect and admiration. Devotion refers to obedience toward a person that is based on a religious belief, in other words your obedience is seen as a religious observance. First I would say that if you are in a group that is not a cult then your response would be "I have no idea what you are talking about". This is certainly not the case with the LRC. Immediately there are two names that come to mind. We could play 20 questions with every former member of the LRC and only give them 2 chances and I would guess they will all win. Witness Lee and Watchman Nee are both afforded deep respect and admiration and obedience to their teachings is seen as a religious observance in the LRC. This becomes a "cult" of personality, in my opinion, when it becomes sinister. and it becomes sinister when the life stories of these two are "fabricated". Witness Lee and the LSM have fabricated 3 different and false explanations for why Watchman Nee was excommunicated. These fabricated stories are all designed to present Watchman Nee as a superspiritual apostle who was falsely accused by the elders and suffered this fate as a lamb. These stories are sinister. Likewise, false stories about Witness Lee and his family have been fabricated and published by the LSM. For example, the fermentation of the present rebellion. The explanation for the "Max Rebellion". The "Sister's rebellion". Etc. In every case saints were standing up for righteousness and these same saints were smeared by Witness Lee and his cronies with a story to present Witness Lee as a super spiritual apostle being unfairly attacked by rebellious saints. Therefore, based on the first definition of a cult I would conclude that the LRC is a cult. 2. a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded as sinister by others. The LRC under the direction of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee hold to a teaching on the ground of the church which is clearly considered to be sinister by the rest of the Body of Christ. Based on this teaching the saints in the LRC separate themselves from other Christians and often condemn all other Christians for what they teach as "divisive". The only way for this schism in the Body to be fixed would be for all other Christians to repent of their divisive ways and join the LRC and submit to their leadership. The absurdity of this teaching is truly on the level of any cult. Is this teaching Biblical? There is a very clear condemnation in the New Testament for being "divisive". Teachings that divide and separate one Christian from another are called "heresies" which are a work of the flesh. The teaching of the ground of the church has clearly been used to segregate and divide the LRC from the rest of the Body of Christ. Therefore it is fair to call it a heresy. It is a sinister practice which is pernicious in the way it creates a monopoly for Watchman Nee and Witness Lee as all other Christians and their ministry are polluted with "divisiveness" and therefore shunned and castigated. The LRC also teaches that Watchman Nee and Witness Lee are "Ministers of the Age". They actually excommunicated one of their leaders, Titus Chu, because he didn't seek to be faithful to the entire ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. To require this level of devotion to a ministry other than the New Testament can only be classified as a Cult. Again, I would say that based on the second definition the LRC is a cult. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-06-2012, 01:08 PM
|
#8 |
|
I Have Finished My Course
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Avon, OH
Posts: 303
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
I agree with John Meyer's comment: it's not so much about particular doctrinal positions the groups takes - it is the group-think, personality led bent to the movement.
I personally think the critique of the group's "triune God" doctrine is barking up the wrong tree. I wonder how much, if at all, Hank and Gretchen spent time in the group and in the meetings. It's one thing to "hear about" preference for Witness Lee. Its another thing to see how often he is invoked, how "high" his teachings are, and how his teachings are used to create an environment of fear of leaving (Deputy Authority, feeling of the Body, etc...). That's where the real questions arise.
__________________
I Have Finished My Course |
|
|
|
|
10-07-2012, 10:49 AM
|
#9 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Didn't we already hash this out? Or was that on TheBereans?
Hank's still hitting my inbox for money. His lust for mammon discredits anything he or CRI says or does.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
10-08-2012, 10:11 AM
|
#10 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider
Quote:
1) Shortly before the CRI issue came out, LSM in Anaheim sent a letter to the local churches. In that letter (and I don't have a copy, so I am working from memory and cannot provide direct qutoes - so I will stick to generalities) we were told: (a) that a massive retraction was being made, that would legitimize us as genuine Christians and that this was the Lord's doing. (b) We were told that we should purchase many copies of this issue (please order in advance, available through LSM) so that we can use them to counter those we meet who claim we were in a cult. (c) That we should remember that even though CRI was coming out to admit they were 'wrong' about us, this did not mean we were wrong about them. This issue was good to have and read, but do not go reading other issues, as it is all leaven. My church in Winnipeg, consisting only of 60-80 or so members, bought (I would estimate) more than 100 copies of this issue. I feel much more, but I can't say for certain. If that one small group purchased so many copies through LSM, and, knowing LSM sent this letter to all affiliated churches, I must wonder how many issues LSM purchased from CRI. 2) The same year that this issue came out from CRI, I went to Anaheim for short term training. While I was there, this topic was brought up. I was told that Hank had went with "leading brothers" overseas, to meet with churches in Asia to 'apologize'. Quote:
from: www.waltermartin..com/2006/10/dare-any-of-you-having-matter-against.html Sunday, October 15, 2006 "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!" 1 Cor 6:1,7-9 This is one of those days when I have to write about something unpleasant. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the details, the Local Church sued Harvest House, John Ankerberg, and John Weldon in December, 2001, claiming they defamed them in the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions. I'm not going to go into details on this lawsuit (http://www.harvesthousepublishers.com/about_cstatementfaq.cfm) but recently something new occurred that requires comment. In August, 2006, Hank Hanegraaff and Gretchen Passantino filed statements with the Texas Court of Appeals in defense of the Local Church--and consequently--in support of the Local Church's position in this lawsuit. Why is this a problem? In the 1970s my father met with Witness Lee in an effort to discuss the theology of the Local Church before he commented on it publicly. My father felt that the Local Church was dividing the Church of Jesus Christ. They were using methods of evangelizism and biblical interpretation similar to those used by the cults, and my father believed they were in serious error. Bob and Gretchen Passantino did extensive research on Witness Lee and the Local Church at my father's request. They provided him with the primary documentation he needed to challenge them. As a result of this research, my father gave his lecture on the Local Church: http://www.waltermartin.com/listening_library/Witness_Lee11.ram http://www.waltermartin.com/listening_library/Witness_Lee12.ram Today, it seems not much has changed in the methodology and beliefs of the Local Church (http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/lc.html#easy ). CRI must agree that not much has changed (http://localchurch.8m.com/cri-dl-075.html ) and yet, Hank Hanegraaff and Gretchen Passantino (Christian Apologists) decided to publicly support the Local Church against John Ankerberg and John Weldon (Christian Apologists) and men with a record for a bold defense of the Christian faith. Why did they do this? Only God, Hank, Gretchen, and the Local Church know the answer to that. The Local Church is upset--they reject any link to the word "cult". My answer to the leaders of the Local Church is this: if you are truly Christian brothers, then show the love of Christ. You have no business taking your brother to court. You are acting more like cult members than Christians. Stop it now. To Hank I would say this: Actions speak louder than words. Either stand by CRI's position on the Local Church, or take it down. Don't say one thing and do another--that makes you a double-minded man (James 1:23). And while you're at it, drop your lawsuit against your brother in Christ, Dr. William Alnor. Where is the love of Christ in your actions? To Gretchen I would say this: You should be ashamed. You know better. How foolish are these lawsuits in the light of God's instructions to us? You tell me: "And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you." Eph 4:32 Who is being kind? Who is tenderhearted? Who is forgiving? I think my father got it right when he pounded the pulpit and said, "The whole world is going to Hell around us, and we're fighting about nothing!" Jill Disclaimer: These statements are purely my opinion and no slander, libel or defamation is intended herein. Want to get involved? Tell people how you feel! The Local Church http://www.localchurch.org/contact-us/index.htm John Ankerberg http://www.johnankerberg.com/survey-series.htm Gretchen Passantino http://answers.org/ Hank Hanegraaff http://www.equip.org/ |
||
|
|
|
|
10-09-2012, 09:25 AM
|
#11 | |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,793
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider
Quote:
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
10-10-2012, 11:14 AM
|
#12 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,793
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Gretchen Passantino Coburn:
"The local churches are a legitimate, theologically orthodox, spiritually faithful involvement by means of which your offspring can develop genuine Christian commitment and maturity. They are not a dangerous ensnarement of the Devil." First of all Passantino gave absolutely no significant evidence that she spent enough time going to meetings and conferences here in America to make such a statement. To my knowledge she did not interview any significant number of former members and leaders. ANY "researcher" who is going to make a "reassessment" of a previous work would do their due diligence and go the extra mile to make sure they are not being snowballed by their subject. Passantino and Hanegraaff failed miserably. So Gretchen, why the "not a dangerous ensnarement of the Devil" smack talk? Really, is that all you got after 6 years of research? So after all that effort that's all ya got? So a group that you research is either theologically orthodox or they are a dangerous ensnarement of the Devil....there's nothing in between? So you call it research when you let your subject interpret all their coded language for you? Really? Did ya ever think to maybe interview a few longtime former members and leaders....we would have been more than happy to "interpret" all that funny jive for you....and we wouldn't have charged you a dime! We would have been happy to let you know what Benson Phillips meant when he said: “In any case, do not leave the Lord’s recovery. I can assure you that if you go away from the Lord’s recovery, you will have no way for the process of sanctification to go forward within you. Instead, you will just enter into a bankrupt situation. I know of no one who has left the Lord’s recovery and today is a great spiritual person on the earth. The sanctification process is carried out in the Lord’s recovery” (The Ministry Magazine Vol. 8, No. 1 Page 189, first paragraph - emphasis mine)
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
10-13-2012, 01:34 PM
|
#13 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
I am not certain if this has been posted before, but has anyone read this response to CRI's about-face on the LSM Local Churches?
A Response to the Christian Research Journal’s Recent Defense of the “Local Church” Movement Norm Geisler and Ron Rhodes If this article hasn't been reprinted here, then I would suggest it should be. Here is a link, for those who would print it and read it through. It is a very thorough response to CRI. http://veritasseminary.com/edu/media/CRIlcrev9.pdf |
|
|
|
|
10-14-2012, 08:32 AM
|
#14 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: in Spirit & in Truth
Posts: 1,363
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
As many of you know I had an encounter with the Mormon missionaries this past week. They adulated Joseph Smith as much as the LSM adulates Witness Lee.
They use the KJ version as it is the least corrupt version of the bible translations. However the book of Mormon in their eyes is the most correct book. What I discovered is they have their OWN KJ filled with LDS footnotes. When I saw it, and learned their footnotes were LDS interpretations, I was reminded of the RCV with Lee's footnotes which are more important than the Word of God to the LSM diehards. I could be wrong but to my knowledge the RcV is not sold in Christian book stores or other public venues. It might be sold on Amazon. But just as the LDS sells it's brand of the bible, the LSM sells it's brand of of the bible, the RCV. Does that raise red flags to anyone?? Abundant blessings and the inner Peace of God to all in Christ Jesus. Carol G
__________________
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) Last edited by countmeworthy; 10-14-2012 at 08:38 AM. Reason: spelling correction |
|
|
|
|
10-14-2012, 09:12 AM
|
#15 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Not really. Many ministries sell bibles with their own footnotes.
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
10-14-2012, 10:25 AM
|
#16 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,654
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
CMW, what does that mean the KJV is the "least corrupt version?" Back in the early 19th cent. when Joseph Smith was around, the KJV was the only English version.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-14-2012, 11:24 AM
|
#17 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Ray |
|
|
|
|
|
10-14-2012, 12:57 PM
|
#18 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
||
|
|
|
|
10-14-2012, 01:33 PM
|
#19 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: in Spirit & in Truth
Posts: 1,363
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
You should have heard them salivate when they told us that god spoke to their current prophet to allow missionary boys to start their missions at 18 instead of 19 and the girls from 21 to 19!!!!! I did not even know they had girl missionaries!!! Next time I will challenge them to ask The Lord Jesus to reveal Himself to them by asking HIM and ask GOD if Joseph Smith is a false prophet. Then I will take them to Deuteronomy 13:1-10 and Deuteronomy 17 or 18. (I don't have the scriptures with me). Galatians chapter 1 I believe talks about another angel bringing another gospel
__________________
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) |
|
|
|
|
|
10-14-2012, 01:39 PM
|
#20 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: in Spirit & in Truth
Posts: 1,363
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
They are just as bound as the diehard LSMrs. Blessings everyone!!! Carol G
__________________
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) |
|
|
|
|
|
10-14-2012, 02:40 PM
|
#21 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,654
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
It's now been 4 centuries since the English Monarchy, Head of the Church of England, made this proclamation -- and people still believe that stuff?? 
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-14-2012, 02:45 PM
|
#22 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,654
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
And the Anglican Church of England is a cult because they have their own translation, authorized by the King of England. What makes a translation good or worthless is not the denomination which translated it or uses it, it's the faithfulness to the original languages, and the recommendations of reputable Christian scholars.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-14-2012, 03:22 PM
|
#23 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-14-2012, 04:41 PM
|
#24 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Darby, Ryrie, Scofield, Gaither Homecoming, Joyce Meyer, Billy Graham Training Bible. Quite common.
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
10-14-2012, 07:36 PM
|
#25 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,793
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Sorry Cassidy but you're off base here.
None of the "Translations" you mention are used in the manner that The Local Church of Witness Lee uses the "Recovery Version". Please point me to the denomination/sect that uses any of these translations like the LC does. Take your time....take lot's of time. Really it's not the translation that's that problem with the Recovery Version per se, it's the footnotes, which are chock full of the false teachings of Witness Lee. This is the problem. It's the "Interpreted Word" part that makes the Recovery Version a problem. I would steer any Christian away from this translation because of this. Especially young people and new Christians, they don't need to be exposed to such teachings as “Judaism is satanic, Catholicism is demonic, and Protestantism is Christless". Although the Local Church does not use their translation in the exact same manner as Mormonism or the Jehovah Witnesses, the fact of the matter is that the translation does contain copious amounts of questionable (to say the least) teachings, many of which have been exposed as unorthodox, and some just darn right heretical. So it could be the best translation in the world, but all the good that might do is undone by the footnotes.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
10-14-2012, 10:45 PM
|
#26 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: in Spirit & in Truth
Posts: 1,363
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Spot on Unto Him.
I have a few study bibles with footnotes. There are prophesy bibles and various types of study bibles. It is easy for me to decipher if the footnotes are "objective" or opinionated. It is very obvious the footnotes in Lee's RcV are 90 percent his opinion...just as the Mormons KJ bible's footnotes are the LDS opinions. That is not to say the opinionated footnotes in the RcV or the Mormons are entirely wrong. But the opinionated footnotes simply do not sit well with me. Imo, what Lee tried to do with the footnotes is incorporate a compressed compilation of life study messages. When you check out other study bibles with footnotes, it has a different flavor. Blessings! Carol G.
__________________
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) |
|
|
|
|
10-15-2012, 08:54 AM
|
#27 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
The Ryrie study Bible (KJV, and other common versions) is not a new version or translation. Neither are the Scofield (KJV), Gaither (NKJV), Joyce Meyer (Amplified) or Graham (NKJV). Only Darby offered a new translation. And at least he had the honesty to put his name on it and plainly state it was his version, instead of slapping "Recovery" on it to give it the air of being something more than it was. The Recovery Version should be renamed "The Witness Lee Bible." Because that's what it is. It's his version. He approved every verse of it, and no verse would appear as it does if he hadn't signed off on it. But the fact is, Lee and his handful of assistants were unqualified to produce a new version or translation of the Bible. At least one that purports to be the most accurate version in existence. Not only that, his Bible is slanted to push his teachings. The capitalization or lack thereof of "Spirit," the use of words like "sonship," all such liberties were taken for one reason--to prop up Lee's teachings. Quite common? Actually, quite uncommon. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-15-2012, 11:09 AM
|
#28 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Well Cassidy, it's already been pointed out here by others, but while the Darby Bible you've mentioned here is a different translation - my question for you was "(can you name three) ministries that sell their own Bibles"... Darby doesn't have a ministry that sells his own Bible (yes, he was Plymouth Brethren, but the few Brethren assemblies left in existence don't promote his translation exclusively). In any case, it's my fault that my question for you wasn't more clear. What I meant to ask, in order to get you to reconsider what you said about "many ministries", is: Can you name ministries apart from the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, who: 1) Print their own unique translation. 2) Market this translation as the "best", "most correct", or "only proper" translation. 3) Include with that unique translation a unique way of interpreting it (IE through footnotes). I think that covers the bases. And as Igzy pointed out, the other bibles you mention are not new translations. Branding a widely accepted translation doesn't count. My apologies for not setting the ground rules on that one.... Ray |
|
|
|
|
|
10-15-2012, 11:37 AM
|
#29 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
As for the Catholics Bible, yes - the Vulgate differs from Protestant books... but in defense of the Catholics, they do not (atleast to my knowledge) translate any of the books we have in common differently or uniquely, and the Deuterocanonical books are held as "non-authoritative", because of their questionable lineage. I actually enjoyed reading Maccabees, and I think it should be required reading simply for it's historicity, and the fact that it represents a fulfillment, at least is type, of the antichrist (Antiochus Ephiphanes). Ray |
|
|
|
|
|
10-15-2012, 11:41 AM
|
#30 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,654
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-15-2012, 12:10 PM
|
#31 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-15-2012, 01:24 PM
|
#32 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
The only bible I can think to compare to Witness Lee's Bible, in the way we are discussing, is The Message. It was essentially translated by one man, Eugene Peterson, and it is published with, if not study aids, devotionals.
The difference is everyone knows The Message was translated by one guy (at least it's unconcealed public knowledge), everyone knows it reflects his opinion, and everyone knows to take it with a grain of salt. (Even Peterson said it should not be used uniquely as a study aid.) Can you imagine Witness Lee saying anything he published should be taken with a grain of salt? That's close to "speaking negatively" about his own ministry of the age! Could he be quarantined for doing that? 
|
|
|
|
|
10-15-2012, 02:39 PM
|
#33 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
The issue with the "Bible" the Jehovah's Witnesses use is that it justifies their teaching's which are considered outside of the realm of the common Christian faith. The book of Mormon is a "prophecy" which Mormons consider on par with the Bible. I don't think it is a fair or reasonable to compare the RcV to either of these except in the fact that both Mormons and JW's can be considered cults. The footnotes stamp WL's interpretation on the Bible, not much different from other denominations. Capitalization of Spirit is, as I understand it, a matter of interpretation. I don't think that can be considered on the level of actually changing the word the way the JW's do. Likewise, the footnotes are not on the same level as creating a "Book of Mormon" which is put on the same level as the Bible. Also, things may have changed a lot since I was in the LRC, but when I first began meeting they didn't have a RcV, so we used KJV, ASV 1901, etc. The big advantage in having a single version was when we were reading the verses as a large group. If everyone had the same version it was easier to read. Also, for the LSM the real money maker of the books they publish is the RcV. It is commonly referred to as "the gold bar" for that reason. Now I met with the LRC for 20 years and actively served in the LSM for many of those years, I was in numerous meetings of all sorts and although the RcV was marketed heavily, I never heard anyone say it is "the only proper" translation. On the contrary this question came up many times and I always, as everyone else I knew, encouraged new believers to get the KJV, New KJV, 1901 ASV, or RcV. My attitude was that the only advantages to the RcV were that you would have the same version that was being read aloud in the meetings and you would have the footnotes. The big disadvantage was that you could buy a perfectly good bible for about $40 less. I also remember WL sharing numerous messages about how he had 20 versions and would check a verse in one version after another. So from my experience, and this does not include the last 15 years, the LRC never suggested at any time that the KJV or 1901 ASV were not perfectly good translations. The one translation that WL and others did discourage was the New American Standard. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-15-2012, 04:47 PM
|
#34 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-15-2012, 05:22 PM
|
#35 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
BTW, when I first began meeting I heard that American Standard was a good version, so I went to the Bible store and got a nice leather bound New American Standard only to be told that was not the same as the 1901 version (a very good year for Bible translations). I wasn't about to throw it away, so I learned that there were only a couple of verses in the NT that were causing the issue, so I used it to read the OT and didn't bring it to meetings. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-15-2012, 06:40 PM
|
#36 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: in Spirit & in Truth
Posts: 1,363
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
When I came into the church in San Diego in 1975, we were using the NASB & the KJ. My first bible in the LC was the NASB. It was hard finding a 1901 ASV. If memory serves me correctly, we used the KJ in the big meetings. I still have my KJ I used in San Diego with highlights an corrections. We would be told to replace a word or phrase with a true Greek or Hebrew word/phrase.
I must respectfully correct you regarding the book of Mormon. They do NOT regard it on par with the KJ!! The book of Mormon is superior in their eyes to the KJ. The book of Mormon contradicts the Holy Bible And I believe they keep the Bible around so they can "prove" to Christians they are "Christians", latter day (end time) saints. In case you missed it, I spent 2 hours last week with 4 Mormons listening to their schpeel . I have witnessed to Mormons before, have lived among Mormons and have visited the Mormon temple in Washington DC. I am very well prepared what to say. In the last couple of years, my goal is to lead them to the real and Living Jesus Christ, not to pulverize them with my knowledge. I did tell them last week very firmly Lucifer is not the brother of Jesus nor is Jesus " a" god. He is GOD. My friend had never heard their schpeel and as a young Christian they corralled her like a fish in a pool of piranahs. For more than an hour, they asked her to pray to "God" asking him if Joseph Smith was given the book of Mormon ad if it is true. They assured her she would feel a warmthness come over her. I finally piped in telling them "What if God says NO. It is not true!! ??? Since they did not know how to respond, they came out with a light hearted Joke. Eventually my friend told she might be able to pray that but she always prays for the Lord Jesus to cover her in His Precious Blood. With that it was time for them to go to their next appointment. Lol. Blessings, Carol G
__________________
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) Last edited by countmeworthy; 10-15-2012 at 06:58 PM. Reason: s |
|
|
|
|
10-16-2012, 11:07 AM
|
#37 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
That is precisely what we're fighting here, brother. Heresy that has absolutely *forced* eyes shut in the "Recovery". Why listen to men such as us if the "acting God" of the "Recovery" has warned you not to, for fear of poisoning. This is even more insidious than Mormonism. Ray |
|
|
|
|
|
10-16-2012, 12:56 PM
|
#38 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-16-2012, 01:00 PM
|
#39 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
I was talking to brother Zeek this morning about the local church being a cult. He mentioned in the conversation that he wanted to see the movie "The Master." He said he had interest in it because he was in a cult. He has an interesting take on what it means to be a cult. He said the local church isn't a cult. He said a cult only exists as long as the personality cult leader is alive. So since Witness Lee is dead the LC is no longer a cult. He said it's now an institution or a sect, but not a cult. I took issue with it. That would mean that Scientology isn't a cult because L. Ron Hubbard is dead ; and LDS/Mormonism isn't a cult because Joseph Smith Jr. is long dead. Yet those joining those groups today are joining a cult. I said : "Yes Lee is dead. His body is dead. But his ghost lives on. The personality cult leaders' ghost never dies. That's what the Blended Brothers are for ; to continue to carry water for the personality cult leader, Witness Lee." So after the death of the personality cult leader, if the group doesn't become extinct, there's a framework, a structure, to continue the cult by keeping the ghost of the personality cult leader alive. So ... so ... in this case -- in the personality cult of the local church -- Witness Lee's words are The Word of God. Witness Lee is like a cartoon character. Drop a piano on him, smash him flat, and he just comes alive again.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-16-2012, 03:43 PM
|
#40 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: in Spirit & in Truth
Posts: 1,363
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Reaching out to the LSM people is far more difficult because the RcV contains the 66 books of the Old/New Testament. However, most LSMrs rely on the footnotes, life studies, morning revivals, and Lee's messages on the meaning of scriptures or passages. Few ask the Lord Jesus to give them personal understanding, Wisdom, and Guidance. They are conditioned to pray a certain way and are afraid to deviate from the formula. They do not know how to have an intimate relationship with God. They say "Amen" to everything, not even knowing why they are saying it!!! It has become such a habit, they do not realize it is not a healthy habit. If someone sheds Light on a passage, they had not considered, they rush to Lee's footnotes or messages to see what he had to say. That is BONDAGE and bondage leads to idolatry. Not too long ago, someone posted how this forum has helped many a lurker seeking answers or trying to leave the LSM. Surely God has used this forum to set many a captive free. Great points everyone! Showers of Blessings to all, Carol G
__________________
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) |
|
|
|
|
|
10-17-2012, 09:24 AM
|
#41 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,628
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Let me give two examples. Psalm 1: Lee says that "there is no righteous man" and therefore the psalmist is just giving vain, "fallen" expectations of mere human righteousness. So if Jesus says, "These things were written concerning Me", Lee says, "No, they were not". Who are you going to believe, Jesus or Lee? If the author of Hebrews cites the Psalms and says, "We see Jesus", and Lee says, "No, we don't", who are you going to believe, Lee or the author of Hebrews? Arguably, the local churches of Lee are receiving their "interpreted word" over the simple word of the scripture. Psalm 34: David says that God delivered him from the hand of Abimilech and the Philistines. Lee says, "No; David delivered himself." So when David told king Saul (1 Sam 17:36-37)that the God who delivered him from the paw of the lion and the bear would also deliver him from this uncircumcised Philistine (Goliath), was he also expressing vain and fallen ideas? Of course not. So why is it so to Lee with Psalm 34? I think that it's because Lee had a template which he called "God's New Testament Economy" and everything in scripture which doesn't support his vision gets lopped off. Like CMW said about the Mormons and their special revelations, what we see is that the scriptures are used to support the writings of Lee, rather than vice versa. When there is a conflict between the two, the scriptures get pushed aside. Quote:
All scripture (allowed by Lee) is profitable for teaching/ for reproof for correction, for instruction in righteousness/ that the man of God may be complete/ fully equipped for every good work... Sing along with me, everybody -- I know we can make this eagle fly!!
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
||
|
|
|
|
10-17-2012, 11:37 AM
|
#42 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: in Spirit & in Truth
Posts: 1,363
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Hi Aron,
First off, does Lee actually write in his messages or footnotes that " David delivered himself"? I do not have an RcV anymore. People have read footnotes from the RcV so I would not be surprised if that is actually written somewhere. As I have been reading and participating in these threads, it has become increasingly clear to me, Lee's messages via the life studies, foot notes, morning revivals and books did a huge disservice to the Lord and Christ's followers. He stopped people from searching and studying the Scriptures for themselves. He did not want the Holy Spirit to reveal the Word to individuals. He did not want the Spirit of God to enlighten them This way there would be no division and "keep the oneness of the church". Lee did not want anyone to correct him. I believe this is why everyone who has left Lee's ministry has struggled just like people who leave the Mormon church, JWs, or any controlling organization. The guidance of the church to help people get closer to God through The Word (the Lord Jesus) by the enlightenment and power of His Spirit was squashed. I am beginning to understand what a valuable venue this forum is in setting the captives free. It also seems to me that as the ministry grew, Lee pushed aside God's Love for people. His goal was for the sheeple to love the ministry more than God. Am I wrong? In any case, may all who are bound be set free. Blessings, Carol G Quote:
__________________
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) |
|
|
|
|
|
10-17-2012, 12:05 PM
|
#43 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
"I believe this is why everyone who has left Lee's ministry has struggled just like people who leave the Mormon church, JWs, or any controlling organization." Right on. That's why exLCers understand what people coming out of card carrying cults go thru. Blessings Carol ...
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-17-2012, 01:19 PM
|
#44 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,628
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Here is some: "David said that Jehovah delivered him. But I would like to ask whether he was delivered out of the hand of Abimelech by Jehovah or whether he delivered himself. People may pray for a number of things, and then give all the credit to God when they are done. Actually, however, God did not do any one of them. Instead, they prayed according to their own desire, and they did it on their own. Sometimes they might have even done something in a way to cheat people, but God surely did not cheat people for them. We may pray for something, get what we prayed for, and then give the credit to God. This is an insult to God. In this case the credit should not go to God but to us to become a debit." My survey of the Psalms was that over 3/4 of the material was dismissed out of hand as "natural" by Lee's exposition. He was enamored of his "God's NT Economy" concept and any scripture that didn't fit his procrustean bed got lopped off. He loved his theology more than God's word. Peace, a
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
10-18-2012, 03:17 PM
|
#45 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
"Really it's not the translation that's that problem with the Recovery Version per se, it's the footnotes, which are chock full of the false teachings of Witness Lee."
UntoHim, the translation is very good. However, I was asked "I am not personally aware of any ministries that "sell their own Bibles". Care to name at least three for us Cassidy? The list of five I gave meet that definition in that they are Bibles sold by their source ministries.A different question may yield a different answer but I answered the question posed. You may find other differences, however, the premise that ministries do not sell versions of the bible with own footnotes is false. They do.
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
10-18-2012, 06:24 PM
|
#46 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,628
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Maybe someday LSM will put out their version of the "Jefferson Bible", with all the unpleasant "natural" and "fallen" parts excised out. Just the "Crystallized Bible", vetted by Lee's treasured economy. Surely the sheeple will line up to get a copy.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
10-18-2012, 06:52 PM
|
#47 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
I think in the same way many of us were extremely disappointed in WL's ministry at this point and realized he was through, but what do you do about it? Personally I enjoyed the Life Study trainings when WL was speaking on the books of Paul, but once he was done with the NT I felt the Life Studies were a waste of time. You cannot extrapolate that because WL taught something in a training therefore everyone in the LRC received that. Did anyone on this forum ever accept the notion that some parts of Psalms were divinely inspired and some were just human ideas? Now I realize today they excommunicate people who are willing to say that these teachings are bogus, which is essentially what TC did as far as I understand. After all he was excommunicated because he was not absolute for the ministries of WL and WN. But to me that proves the point that there were/are many in the LRC who do not accept that these things are so merely because WL said them. Some left, some were kicked out, and some have chosen to be a silent majority. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-18-2012, 08:34 PM
|
#48 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
And the fact that Lee thought and said he was the oracle of God on the earth proves, by such inferior Bible studies, that he had a delusional self image. In short, he thought way more of himself then he ever should have. And those that blindly attached their wagon to Lee joined in his delusion.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-18-2012, 09:33 PM
|
#49 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: in Spirit & in Truth
Posts: 1,363
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
What is more disturbing in reading what Lee wrote about the Psalms etc.... proves the LRC sheeple had no relationship with their Savior and Deliverer. I love the Psalms. They give me hope, strength, and comfort. They were/are trapped. Brainwashed that there is nothing better out there. Oh yeah?????
JESUS is out there. He is Living and breathing, longing for us to have an intimate, Loving relationship with Him. He wants us to believe in HIM. To TRUST Him... to get to Know Him intimately. Lee did not want his sheeple to get close to their Creator. They would see he was a false teacher. They would stand up to him. Of course thousands have left. Many are wounded, lost and confused. But Jesus is still the SAVIOUR!! the Great Physician, Who restores our health and heals our wounds. God bless them. May they find solace in Him. God bless us. Peace and Joy, Carol G Quote:
__________________
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) |
|
|
|
|
|
10-19-2012, 03:58 AM
|
#50 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,654
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
The ones around me did also. And that includes the books of James and Proverbs.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-19-2012, 04:47 AM
|
#51 | |||
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Either that or they are so sure that everything else by Lee was sooooo right that they just had to swallow it all anyway. Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, the enthusiasm for it all was tremendous. It raised us to great heights. But I'm not sure that it was really so sound. But I thought so then. I don't remember thinking anything negative about the teachings. Just having a little fun with some of Lee's odd sayings. But that was not pointed at the content, just the delivery. The problem, as I see it, is that once you accept that the Bible is entirely veiled from the natural mind by various methods so that only those who are "spiritually minded" can see it, you start to accept that baloney is something spiritual seen by someone much more spiritual than yourself. But you would never accept it if it was stated to you so bluntly as that. And as long as there is a master overlay like "God's economy" in play, anything that runs contrary to it must be redefined. Much of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, James. No longer does God get to speak as He wills. Instead, Lee gets to revise it all to his liking. (And there was great rejoicing . . . in the form of popcorn testimonies.)
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|||
|
|
|
|
10-19-2012, 05:08 AM
|
#52 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,628
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
I also have biases. I, like Dong Yu Lan, prefer the apostle John to the apostle Paul. And so forth. But I am not going to merchandise my preferences as if they were equivalent to God's word. My opinions don't equal "God's speaking on the earth today"... they are just my opinions. Same as those of Lee, or Dong Yu Lan, or Titus Chu, or Gene Gruhler, or brother awareness, or anyone else.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
10-19-2012, 05:13 AM
|
#53 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,628
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
I agree with your points. I was making a generalization which was convenient because it encompassed everything and made good copy. But of course the situation on the ground is much more nuanced than I can capture. To all of those tarred by my broad-brush strokes, I apologize. Like WL, I also can become so enamored of my ideas that I cram everything into them. Whether it fits or not.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
10-19-2012, 06:01 AM
|
#54 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,654
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Quote:
It took John Ingalls' account Speaking The Truth In Love to slowly rescue me from this mirage.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
||
|
|
|
|
10-19-2012, 08:13 AM
|
#55 | |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,793
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
The Mormans and JWs have "added" to the Word of God with their extra biblical writings, and so has The Local Church with the teachings of Witness Lee contained in the footnotes of the Recovery Version.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
10-19-2012, 09:50 AM
|
#56 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: in Spirit & in Truth
Posts: 1,363
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Such excellent posts everyone.!!!
Instead of reinforcing and adding my .02 worth to the responses, I will try to combine my observations in one post. Aron and Untohim: You both made some very telling points that should raise warning flags to those trying to leave the LRC or those content in it. 1st red flag: Lee considered his ministry superior than others. He was "today"s Paul" . He was "God"s oracle on the earth today". Being that I had a recent encounter with Mormons, just as the Mormons venerate Joseph Smith, the LRC does the same thing with Lee. Smith was God's "prophet"---Lee " God's oracle". SCARY. 2nd red Flag: the RcV may be a bible but the sheeple are not and cannot read the scriptures without reading them through Lee"s rose colored glasses. If they do not understand the meaning of a scripture or passage, instead of asking the Holy Spirit to reveal the meaning, they simply go to Lee's footnotes or messages. Thirdly, his big downfall and a very serious misstep is he stopped pointing people to Christ. Lee became the focus. How sad so many people do not get it!!! So many people in the LRC are whacked out because the LRC institution is more important to them than following and having a relationship with their Creator. Thus they have become insecure puppets. They do not know how to pray from their hearts. If people trying to leave the LRC could only throw away the RcV, and put away the life study messages, pick up a new bible, asking the Lord Jesus to reveal Himself to them in the Scriptures, the deliverance and healing process would accelerate. They would become confidence in Him and in themselves. Peace and Blessings, Carol G
__________________
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) |
|
|
|
|
10-19-2012, 11:25 AM
|
#57 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Of course they would. That is no different, as a practice. with many ministries because the many ministries do not all look at the Bible in the same way. I understand you disagree with the Recovery Version POV and I am not disputing that.That is why there are so many Bibles with footnotes. Don't take my word for it. Look up the ones I mentioned as samples.
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
10-19-2012, 11:27 AM
|
#58 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-19-2012, 11:33 AM
|
#59 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
10-19-2012, 11:39 AM
|
#60 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
No apology required. We are having a conversation not an exam! You know, you can put together any criteria and eventually eliminate something. 1) Few if any think the tranlation of the RCV is bad... and there are dozens of translations out there multiplied by many different languages... so I don't see this as an issue. I think the important thing here is whether the translation is a good one or not. 2) Please show me where the RCV markets itself as the "best", "most correct", and "only proper" translation. 3) Well, the translation and the interpretation are two different things. See point 1 and 2 for the translation conversation. But I listed bibles with footnotes that do exactly what you are asking. They are through footnotes interpreting scripture to their Point of View (POV). What is wrong with that? Should we rather all just use one translation? Or should go back and learn the Hebrew, Greek, and some Chaldean and eliminate the middle men? Look, I think this discrediting of RCV is just part of a broader distrust. On its own merits it is a good translation and the practice of using footnotes is normal. If the disagreement is about the content of the footnote then that is a different matter. Or if someone doesn't want to use an RcV because they had a bad experience in the local churches then that is another matter.
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
10-19-2012, 12:37 PM
|
#61 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,654
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
I have the NIV Study Bible. Bought it in some antebellum town in Misissippi. It's a nice Bible, but I'm not a fan of the NIV, neither have I found a N.T. footnote that I liked, but the O.T. notes are great. I have a NKJV Open Bible expanded edition, Darby, NLT, and others.
I still have the old N.T. Recovery Version with notes, and the new N. T. Recovery Version with notes. I prefer Ingalls' translation, but both are fine. I also have the entire Bible Recovery Version without notes. I also have a few liberal translations like Good News and Goodspeed. I got saved years ago just by reading The Greatest is Love N.T. Now with the internet, programs like Bible Browser can provide access to dozens more translations. I really think we cross the line here when we criticize the Recovery Version. There are frankly no legitimate comparisons with the Book of Mormon or the Jehovah Witness Watchtower version. Books like these are in another category altogether. I also believe there is no "perfect" translation. Word for word, thought for thought, paraphrase, literal, etc. are all quite legitimate. Each is focused on a different audience. Even Jack Sparks' Letter to Street Christians is fine by me. I place LSM's RecVers with the likes of Ryrie, Life Application, Scofield, Thompson Chain Reference, MacArthur, and a multitude of other study Bibles out there. Each has a different bias based on its author(s). You may not like the bias, but that does not mean it's heretical. The main reasons why I don't take the Recovery Version out in public any more are because I don't want to explain Witness Lee anymore, and I am not a former addict in "recovery."
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
10-19-2012, 02:08 PM
|
#62 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: in Spirit & in Truth
Posts: 1,363
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Cassidy and UntoHim,
Perhaps I can shed some light as I think I understand what you are both saying. I am going to list 3 well known preachers who sell their brand of study bibles: Joyce Meyer. -- John Hagee. -- Jack Van Impe. Joyce Meyers uses the Amplified Version. John Hagee and Jack Van Impe use the King James. Both Hagee and Van Impe focus on end time Prophesies. Meyers focuses on practical issues/challenges of this life. Hagee also has a bible with outlines and footnotes that is a study bible, not focused on prophesy. But the bible with outlines, footnotes and cross references that leave All study bibles in the dust is the DAKE annotated KJ bible. I have the Dake. It is a very busy, detailed bible. For fun, next time you are at a Christian bookstore, check it out. Or you can google it. The box that the Dake study bible comes in, says DAKE. It does not say Dake on the bible. What I do not like about Hagee's or Van Impe's is they have their names on the leather bound cover when it is sold. So I will not buy theirs. We can argue King James put his name on it as well. This is true but he basically authorized the scriptures in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic to be translated into the English language of the day. I have been to a couple of home bible studies under Hagee's ministry and they use his study bible. They follow his teachings which from what I could see are aligned with the Word of God. Pretty much the same thing goes on in most ministries under a Pastor's leadership. Lee used his brand too. However, correct me if I am wrong, most of his messages particularly in the late,late 70s - present deal with the LRC. Meyers, Hagee, Van Impe, Dake might share their opinions in the study bibles yet they are pointing the reader to Christ, to the Father, to the Holy Spirit. Lee became very much like Joseph Smith. Maybe not as far fetched but the similarities are uncanny. The Mormon church is the "one true church". Lee first called the ministry " local churches". the bible: the LRC. The footnotes are aimed to convince the reader Lee's ministry is a cut above the rest. That is my opinion based on my observation. Peace, Carol G Quote:
__________________
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) |
|
|
|
|
|
10-20-2012, 05:09 AM
|
#63 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
However, the RcV is a vehicle to push the beliefs and practices regarded as sinister by others. The RcV is a critical component in a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards one person. Perhaps the most pernicious aspect of the RcV is the way they have substituted testimonies with parroting footnotes from the RcV. A testimony is a personal experience. However, they have taken the verse "Each one has...a teaching" and used that to justify just quoting footnotes as though that was a testimony. So a "testimony of your personal experience with the Lord" becomes a misplaced and excessive admiration for WL. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-20-2012, 10:38 AM
|
#64 | |||
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Good morning Cassidy,
I tried to write a reply to this email twice already, and both times I've somehow been dumped out of the edit section and had my words deleted! Perhaps I will try to narrow my focus and address these issues separately. Quote:
I agree, so far as to say that the RcV translation may not be "bad" - however, I have to ask: Why does it exist? What possible purpose did the re-translation of the Bible into English by Living Stream Ministries serve? As you already pointed out, we have many translations. How many more do we need? You can argue that each one was written for a purpose: The NASB I use was translated as a "literal translation", the NLT we have on our shelf (which was a gift) was a "Thought-for-thought" translation, the KJV was a translation originally given to supply the people a common bible to use, be they Catholic or Protestant. But that doesn't answer the question; it only begs the answer: Why was the RcV written? I think you need look no further than the RcV's translation of Genesis 1:2 to find the answer to that question. You are, I assume, familiar with LSM's translation of Scriptures opening words: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep." That's the Gap theory, in a nutshell. Now, I don't know where you stand on the Gap theory - and I will confess that I support it - HOWEVER: Did you know that (atleast as far as I can tell), there are no other English translations that offer this interpretation of Genesis 1:2? Why is that? G.H. Pember (Plymouth Brethren, 1836-1910) wrote about the Gap Theory in his book "Earth's Earliest Ages", yet John Nelson Darby (spokeman and leader for the Brethren) did not offer this translation in the Darby Bible. I have read other scholarly work on the subject ("Void and Without Form" - Arthur C. Custance), and even more easily digestible stuff ("The Bible, Genesis and Geology" - Gaines R. Johnson), and where Custance might have advocated for the RcV's translation, Johnson definitely would not. Does this not cause one to suspect this translation, as much as one might favor the theology behind it, is not really warranted? And if theology and not thorough scholarship drove the translation, then ought we not suspect the entire work? 1st John 1:1-3 says "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world." When I received my RcV in 2008, from the dear friend with whom I was working and praying (let me call him "David", because this one is too close to my heart still to not give a name, even an alias, to). In any case, when I got my RcV, I quoted these verses in John. I reminded him that we are commanded to test any spirit, and to hold fast only to that which is good... and he was perplexed. He didn't argue that the command was not given, but was dumbfounded, I think, that such could be applied anything LSM was publishing. That was telling. Quote:
I will be honest, Cassidy. I haven't looked to see what the actual printed material on the matter says. However, I will tell you what "David" told me: He said "We get these (giveaway) Bibles from 'Bibles for America'. They (BoA) says, 'these are the Bibles we print the most, because these are only ones that get worn out - because these are the only ones people read." Let me explain something about "David". David grew up in the 'Church Life'. His father is a man I am sure that many people on this board, and probably even yourself Cassidy, are familiar with. He is known by many for his joy, his enthusiasm, his genuine heart, and his testimony. He goes to many conferences around north America, he stays with local saints and attends home meetings, his face shines with his love for the Lord and his ministry. I tell you that if you meet this man, he will have an affect on you... He is a *genuine* Christian, and of that I am convinced... and whether he shares his son's belief about the RcV I don't know, but I think David believes it. Where did he learn it? How does he not know that Bibles for America is just another name for LSM? How does he not know of their intimate affiliation and that Bibles for America doesn't print other versions? How, how how?? Was David deliberately lying to me when he said this, or did he really just buy into a lie that was told to him? I can't answer that question, Cassidy. I don't think David would tell a lie like that outright - although I have heard him on a number of occassions offer "small" lies to cover a lack of knowledge on his part. I don't say this to expose him, but to offer testimony in this case. This begs a further question, why does LSM deliberately distance itself from the BoA and BoC campaigns? Why do they distribute bibles at arms length? What is the purpose of the subterfuge? Quote:
I will concede, Cassidy, that you have offered Bibles with footnotes. Bibles that offer "private interpretations" of men alongside Inspired Scripture, for the edification of the reader. I would add that many of these footnotes are good, and many of these footnotes are bad - whether their authors agree with that or not is another matter... BUT: Lee's footnotes are another matter, because they are NOT seen as "private interpretations" - but "divine revelations". There is a HUGE difference there, Cassidy. We were taught to Pray-Read not only verses in the Bible, but also footnotes and quotes from Life-Study messages. What was the purpose of "pray-reading"? To "pray God's Word back to Him". When you pray-read a footnote, what are you saying? That the footnote itself is "God's Word prayed back to Him". I have heard MANY in and outside my "locality" say just this - although you usually have to corner them to get them to say it, because I think they may know deep down what they are saying is a heresy; but they have to confess, when there are no other outs, that it is what they've come to believe. David used to say "all these translations are a waste of time, the Bible has already been translated perfectly!" How many others have come to think this very thing? You raise a good point, when you say "...should we go back to learn the Hebrew and the Greek and the Chaldean (Aramaic)". In all honesty Cassidy, I think we should. Look up what it means to believe the Bible is inerrant, and you will find this: "Biblical inerrancy is the doctrine that the Bible is accurate and totally free of error (except for errors made in translation or transcription), that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact." Amen, and so do I believe. Ray |
|||
|
|
|
|
10-20-2012, 11:01 AM
|
#65 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-20-2012, 11:05 AM
|
#66 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,793
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Did Hank or Gretchen address this matter of the footnotes in their "reconsideration", I don't believe that they did. My guess would be that they saw how many landmines were out there in that field and hoped that nobody would challenge them on this glaring exclusion. Do you think that just maybe they were concerned about those donors in "christless" Christianity being a little upset?
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
10-20-2012, 11:41 AM
|
#67 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,654
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
What is so wrong with every Christian publisher in America translating the Bible? The Lord himself and the Apostles supported the Septuagint translation into the Greek language. None of them have placed limits on the number of translations. It was the church of Rome which prevented vernacular translations, and I would think that the opposite of their prohibition is closer to God's desire. Concerning the translation of Genesis 1.2, the real endeavor here is to ascertain what are all the possible interpretations, not the fact that "no other English translations that offer this interpretation." I applaud LSM for doing what no other translator was willing to do. Should not the readers be presented with new possibilities within the limits of proper translation?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-20-2012, 12:41 PM
|
#68 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
The issue with the JW's Bible is that they have distorted the Bible to teach something that most of us agree is condemned by the Bible. The issue with the Mormon's is they have added something to the Bible. The issue with the RcV in my understanding is the way that it is used. Why was it made? 1. They want everyone in the congregation reading from the same translation. Primarily because this will fully support the LSM financially. If you condemn them for that you condemn all publishers. But 2. The RcV is used to promote the LRC theology. Again, not much different from other groups unless you feel their theology is sinister. But if you do, it isn't the RcV that is sinister per se but the teaching itself. 3. The RcV is used to promote WL in the eyes of everyone in the congregation. That is cultic. Cassidy has mentioned a number of Bibles with footnotes and cross references, but what other group pray reads these as a standard practice which they teach is a spiritual exercise? The way in which the RcV is used is clearly cultic. I believe, from my viewpoint in Houston at the time, that this was by design. I remember when we were about one or two trainings away from completing the NT that RG began really building up the need for the RcV. Coincidentally this was about the same time he knew his position in the LSM would be much more significant. Every time we read a verse in the meeting he would make a big deal of how much easier it would be when we all had the same translation. I remember thinking the buildup was absurd since it was obvious that we would all get the RcV when it came out, but then I was shocked that the price was going to be $45 which I felt was about $15 above a fair market value at the time. It was also at this time that EM began using footnotes for testimonies, always to the applause of RG. What makes the RcV essential for everyone to own is the footnotes since those are exclusive. To me the real red flag that we should be looking at is "Making merchandise of the Saints". This is what Peter warned us about. This is a clear indication of a false prophet. Why was the RcV made? It was to make merchandise of the saints. 2Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privately shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingers not, and their damnation slumbers not. The footnotes could very easily have included quotes from many reputable Bible teachers, especially WN and the brethren teachers, Scofield, etc. If they had done that it would have been a very persuasive argument that the LRC theology is in line with conservative Christians. But instead WL went to great lengths to present the impression it was higher, deeper, "standing on the shoulders" of these men. Everyone who meets with the church will get a Bible, if it is the LRC it will be the RcV. This version is used as a continual sales pitch to buy other WL books. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-20-2012, 12:51 PM
|
#69 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Further, I must again ask: "Why the RcV?" For whom was the RcV written? If the earlier "Local Churches" used different versions, and there was no "unique" translation, then why the $120.00 soft-cover full RcV with footnotes and concordence? Why the give-away of the New Testament, which we (and I was one who did this so I speak from experience too) were to show to other believers and highlight not the Word of God but the footnote that made it "understandable"- if you accept Lee's understanding. Let me summarize my points below: 1) I want an answer to the question: "Why was the RcV written?" I offer an answer: To give credence to the theology of a man. Whether that theology was 100% right, 100% wrong, or somewhere in between doesn't matter. What matters is the motive behind the writing. 2) I want an answer to the question: "Why is the RcV distributed through a separate arm of the LSM corporation? Why is that fact not thoroughly understood by the people commissioned to distribute these RcV NTs" I offer an answer: Because LSM is trying to establish credibility for the translation, and further promote it's sale. When we worked on campuses and distributed this Bible, we would tell people who already had a Bible of their own that they "didn't have one like this - it's so rich!" We were then told to ask them for their favorite NT passage and take them there and to it's footnote. "Show them the richness of the footnote" was what we were told, and it's what we did. We did NOT talk about LSM nor about Witness Lee apart from what might have been written on the Bible. We were "Bibles for Canada", NOT "Church in Winnipeg" or the "Church in Longbeach" - and DEFINITELY not from LSM. We didn't want people to be aware of who we were and what "ministry" we were from.... we were, in essence, less honest than either the JW's or the Mormons. What a lack of faith. 3) I would say that indeed, we should check every Scripture against what is really written. Dig deep, and look to the original Hebrew and Greek text and never take the words of a single translation as "unquestionably" correct. Further, we don't have the right to assert that our OWN private interpretations are unquestionable. Ohio, I am a "Gap theorist" - but I still fellowship with other believers who are YEC (Young Earth Creationists) and OEC (Old Earth Creationists). I don't make this a matter of division. I don't expound my views on the Gap theory, but why shoud I? Is it a foundational matter of our faith? No, it isn't. I have had these discussions with my wife and my children, and anyone who asks the question of me, but I am STILL careful to reveal the other schools of thought on the matter; because I don't think the matter is entirely closed. I am a man, a sinful man; prone to error. I never pretend otherwise - and neither do the other men who's "footnotes" I've read (Charles Stanley, John MacArthur, Warren Wiersbe, Matthew Henry, etc.)... but Lee doesn't take that stance, does he? Lee and those who came after him take a stand that Lee was inerrant. Because that is what is believed in LSM, that is their purpose in distributing their bible: to propagate a "brand" of Christianity loyal to LSM, and to fill their coffers with standing book orders and their building with bodies eager to serve... When I was in Anaheim for STTA, the graduating class of that year was told that the Lord's current move, and their burden, was for the "Interpreted Word". That's what they call the RcV with footnotes. I took notes, my friends. Here is what we were told by recorded video of Witness Lee himself speaking: "You've considered the Lord's Recovery too lightly. You've never read the Recovery Version, yet you consider you know something?! Not a short period of study would qualify you." We were told you must: 1) first read the "Interpreted Word" 2) then study the footnotes 3) then look up the cross-references. 4) then read the Life Studies. No question, LSM promotes the footnotes, Lee's RcV, and the life studies as God's Own Truth. My only question left for all of you is: Is it? Ray |
|
|
|
|
|
10-20-2012, 01:05 PM
|
#70 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
 I'd add that our Hymnals likewise displayed this sort of Lee worship. Where is the credit to the original author? I always assumed this would have been a legal requirement.. am I wrong? Can you take others work and not give them credit for it? Even if it is legal, WHY not give other's credit for their work? ...Is it perhaps, because Lee/LSM feared people in their churches hearing the genuine testimonies of saints not affiliated with the LRC cause? Was it because they were afraid it would topple their theology, that taught that everything outside of the LSM sphere was "poor fallen christianity"? I have to wonder... Ray |
|
|
|
|
|
10-20-2012, 01:59 PM
|
#71 |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 88
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
NeitherFirstnorLast
The Bible is a document that is greatly interpreted in Christianity. It is compiled, translated and explained interpretively. In my opinion, the Byzantine compilation of the New Testament is the most accurate. In the Greek edition of 1904 as used in the Greek Orthodox Church. Which is basically the same as what is called the Byzantine Majority Text in the West. I have personal reasons for adhering to this opinion. But also in my opinion, the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine compilations affect the propagation of the basic revelation from God in the New Testament very little. Translation is another matter. I discovered through comparison with how words are translated internally in the KJV and how such words are translated in other translations, just how interpretive Bibles can be in relation to translation. As well as through speaking with those who know the languages involved. Greek prepositions, for example, tend to be translated as if they are interchangeable. Some Greek words are translated by so many different English words that they become meaningless in and of themselves. It’s no wonder that many Protestant interpreters will go back to the Greek to get a personal interpretive point across. Upon that discovery, I decided to learn New Testament Greek because for the one who is in Christ, the New Testament tends to have a little more importance than the Old Testament. And it’s much easier to learn than Hebrew. I understand the Greek words very literally and usually according to the primary meaning of the word. Which is one reason why when I read ekklesia in the New Testament I don’t see or read into it a Christian Church. And why I believe that the only way a Christian Church can be considered the same as an ekklesia is to consider historic development as being as or more authoritative than the New Testament portrayal. Which can only lead any honest open-minded seeker to Catholicism, not Protestantism in its myriad “flavors”. Certainly not to “orthodox evangelical Christian”, or Evangelical Protestantism. I have a RecV New Testament. I don’t remember how I happened to obtain it. But as far as a translation is concerned, it’s an excellent and very literal translation of the Alexandrian compilation, according to what is considered literal translation in Christianity. In my opinion as one who knows something about the Greek, the translation has the same problems as most English translations, but can be considered comparable to literal translations, such as the NASB. As far as the notes are concerned, right up front it is acknowledged they are the opinions of one Witness Lee. In that sense it is like any other study Bible put out with the notes of an individual. Such as John MacArthur’s Study Bible, by a noted Calvinist. Personally, I detest Study Bibles, including the RecV, because the interpretive notes tend to distract from the translation, which is already interpretive in its own right. As do commentaries, like the Life Studies of Witness Lee that I’ve read so much about, which are just another way to have interpretive notes in addition to the Bible. Wherever notes or commentaries are used, not just in the Recovery, they are in a practical sense considered the true interpretation of the text, and as such become more authoritative than the text itself. Such are used throughout Protestantism and are authoritative in a more obvious way, being acknowledged to be authoritative, in Catholicism. As far as Genesis 1-2, my understanding is based on reading an interpretive English translation of the Old Testament, the NCV. And the consequent research into meanings of certain Hebrew words. The Gap theory, in my opinion, is nonsense based on an interpretation that became popular in the late 18th and early 19th centuries among Evangelical Protestants as an alternative way to understand these verses in light of Evolutionary theory. Since in my opinion Evolutionary theory is bunk for the most part, I need neither the Gap theory nor Theistic Evolutionary theory nor Progressive Creationist theory to understand these verses. The interpretive translation, the NCV, pointed out is that the Hebrew word translated “heaven” can also be translated “sky”. And is usually translated both ways in most English versions. Darby is one of the very few translators who translated that Hebrew word consistently as “heaven” throughout those two chapters. Not having a complete RecV Bible, I don’t know how it is translated in that version. If one translates all references to this Hebrew word as “sky” instead of “heaven” in Genesis 1-2, one gets an entirely different view of what is being said. Wherein the reference is to the creation of the Earth and its surroundings, rather than a reference to the creation of the universe. It led to my personal view that the universe is old, but the earth is young. In Christianity, the only two views are that the universe, including the earth, is very old in agreement with Evolutionism, or very young in opposition to Evolutionism. I consider my view to be in keeping with the context of the revelation itself, unrelated to Evolutionism. In regard to the idea of Biblical inerrancy, I don’t agree with it. Given that all that is available today are copies, and there are obvious discrepancies in the Bible that those who believe in Biblical inerrancy refuse to accept. They interpret the discrepancies and then believe the interpretation. Which in no way causes the discrepancies to cease to exist. It merely replaces them in the mind of the interpreters with an interpretation. Even Atheists see that as ludicrous. That doesn’t mean, however, that I believe that the Bible isn’t inspired or God breathed. It means that I recognize that there are discrepancies in the Bible that may not have been there initially. We have no way of knowing not having the original copies. Even if they were always there, it doesn’t detract from the Bible being used by Jesus Christ through the Spirit to teach those who are in Christ. Only those who believe that the practice of Biblical interpretation is the only way to properly understand the Bible must of necessity believe that the Bible, which they are interpreting, is inerrant and thus infallible in its own right. Leading to the mistaken notion that the Bible alone is a book of commandments for faith and practice. Turning the Bible into a book for a man-made religion, instead of a life-revealing book through the Spirit as intended. In my opinion, the Bible alone is nothing but another book when understood through the practice of Biblical interpretation. And just another source for human opinion. Evidenced in denominational Christianity. Only when the Bible is used as a tool of Jesus Christ, rather than as a tool of human interpreters, is the Bible more than that. Do we have the right to “assert that our OWN private interpretations are unquestionable”? That, of course, depends on whether we consider our own view as an interpretation or something taught us by Jesus Christ. If it’s only an interpretation, then it is tantamount to admitting it is merely an opinion, a personal theory of reality created by our own imaginations. No better than any other theory created from the same very human sources. Which implies that there is no way of knowing with any certainty that the reality we believe in is real or imaginary. While I’ve learned not to expect any Christian to agree with my view, I certainly think of it as being more than merely a personal theory or opinion, more than just a private interpretation. When I say the Bible says thus and so, it would be nice if Christians would agree with me. But I get “fairy tale” and “phony” among other epithets instead. Or my personal favorite, I'm my own denomination. One more reason I’m not a Christian. Certainly not an “orthodox evangelical Christian”. This site, supposedly intended to be for recovering former Recoveryites, limits itself to only those who will agree that the way to recover is only through becoming one with another view with its own distinctive set of doctrines and rules apropos to itself. Where free expression is no more free than they claim it is in the Recovery. This forum is just an extension of the same principle that drives the Recovery and other Christian denominations. The “we alone represent the truth” principle. I think what really clued me in to how Christians think is when I did nothing but quote the Bible and have the person respond that it was just my opinion. If the Bible is just my opinion, and the opinion of any number of people, then what is the Bible really? Nothing at all of any consequence. Ohio There are other versions that translate Genesis 1:2 as “became” instead of “was”. The Concordant Version put out by Al Knoch’s grandfather for one. And probably where the translators of the RecV got the idea, if not from Pember. MacDuff |
|
|
|
|
10-20-2012, 04:33 PM
|
#72 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,654
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
For years I have said that the entire universe was once teeming with life, until that fateful day of Lucifer's rebellion when chaos took over. Recent discoveries from planet Mars now confirm the existence of water, and perhaps the vestige of life on Mars will also become apparent. You are right about Lee's exclusive stand. It's hard to believe that I once devoted my life to promote such arrogance and condemnation upon the entire body of Christ. This does not mean, however, that they got it all wrong. Perhaps in many regards they got it right where most others were wrong. Unfortunately their arrogant attitudes will prevent the ggod things in the Recovery from becoming widespread.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-20-2012, 06:14 PM
|
#73 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Now that WL has passed, the local church no longer fits the first definition of a cult as it did when he was alive. Reportedly, authority is now shared by the so called blended brothers. Now it's an authoritarian sect like the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of the Latter-day Saints.
|
|
|
|
|
10-20-2012, 07:37 PM
|
#74 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
McDuff, many men have said that their interpretations are not their own, but that it came to them by inspiration. I would say that Lee was such a one, and I would warn that these ones we must be most cautious of. A man should approach Scripture with humility, with knowledge of his own limits, and remember that the humble shall be exalted, and the proud abased. McDuff, your hostility towards Christians suggests that the accusation that you are your own denomination may be more accurate than you are willing to admit. I don't say that to be disrespectful. I once walked as you did, and rejected brothers and sisters in Christ and fellowship with them as well.... but we're only sheep, and sheep cannot survive on their own. That's why the Shepherd gathers the flock into his Fold.... and why Christ Himself prayed for the Father to make us one, as He and the Father are One. If you don't see the neccessity for that, then maybe you haven't come nearly as far as you might think in your walk with Him.... Peace, I mean no offense.... Ray |
|
|
|
|
|
10-20-2012, 07:44 PM
|
#75 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
In any case: Cult 1) A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object. 2) A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister. Ray |
|
|
|
|
|
10-20-2012, 10:48 PM
|
#76 | ||||
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 88
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
NeitherFirstnorLast
Quote:
I don’t reject brothers and sisters in Christ or fellowship with them. I wouldn’t bother to attend a Christian Church or be on Christian forums if I did. I reject Christianity as being an expression of the supernatural that the Bible portrays. The reality is, that when Christians find out what I believe to be true, it is they who reject me, as not being Christian. I merely, after much consideration, agree with them. I certainly should NOT consider myself to be something that in every practical sense I am not. Quote:
I oppose the practice of Biblical interpretation. Something that doesn’t sit well with those who think the only way to understand the Bible is through “proper interpretation”. These same people will usually say that everyone interprets the Bible, that it is inevitable. Not only do I disagree with that assessment, but I believe a distinction must be made between understanding the Bible via the practice of Biblical interpretation and understanding the Bible via the teaching of Jesus Christ through the Spirit. Further a distinction must be made between the inspiration of the Biblical writers through the Spirit and receiving the teaching of Jesus Christ through the Spirit that should be common to all who are in Christ. This is where the idea that my view is a fairy tale comes in. Because in Christianity, those kinds of distinctions are more often than not quite blurred. As it was with Lee. Also what must be considered is the nature of interpretation as I see it. Interpretation is an exercise of the mind alone. Neither Jesus nor the Spirit have anything to do with it. So that when one interprets the Bible or what has been received from the teaching of Jesus Christ through the Spirit, the interpretation replaces that which has been interpreted. Which leaves one with the interpretation alone that is considered to be “Biblical” to those of Protestant thinking, and authoritatively Traditional and magisterial to those of Catholic thinking. Further, I consider Jesus Christ to be alive today and quite capable of teaching those who are in Christ through the Spirit. So that the practice of Biblical interpretation is unnecessary for those who walk according to the Spirit. Just as Paul said in Romans and Galatians. Those who interpret the Bible have been duped into thinking they can finish what has been begun by the Spirit by means of the flesh. Christians usually see my view as a denial on my part of the influence of the Spirit on their understanding. Which in turn brings forth an accusation that I am making myself superior. Which isn’t the case at all. I merely claim to follow something different than they do in understanding the Bible. In my personal opposition to the practice of Biblical interpretation, I am more likely to be following something that isn’t the result of that practice. Surely you can see that something isn’t right with Christianity without necessarily accusing individuals of something that may not be their own fault, that they may well be unaware of. It is that which I share, and nothing more. If I ever discover that the source of my understanding of reality is due to a personal practice of interpretation, Biblical or otherwise, I will no longer be able to believe in the supernatural. For in that case, what I thought was the supernatural was merely my own imagination. And I am not one to follow the mythology of my own imagination. I can use that ability to write fiction novels and make a little extra money in the process. Quote:
Ergo, it’s neither a matter of personal humility nor of taking into account personal limitations. That would be trusting in myself and my abilities to an inordinate degree. As if the Bible is like a textbook on Calculus, and my purpose is to go to school with my peers to be taught by a person no less human than I, but more knowledgeable than I. As if we are in some kind of human institution of higher learning teaching us how to use a tool that isn’t ours to use as a tool in the first place. Yet, through the practice of Biblical interpretation, that is exactly how Christians use the Bible. As if it’s a textbook. And if it be a textbook, then it makes sense for there to be an authority that authorizes the correct understanding of the textbook. And if that authority is human, it can only lead an open-minded seeker straight to Catholicism. Certainly not to Protestantism, or to a Protestant like Witness Lee. Quote:
Paul in 1Corinthians 1:28-31 stated that Christ is everything to those who are in Christ. To me that means that Christ is not only the Shepherd but the Pasture as well. No human shepherd can be both shepherd and pasture. Thus a human shepherd can only lead to Christ and to no one or nothing else. When a human shepherd leads to something other than Christ, as did Lee in leading those in the Recovery to eventually use his own writings as a Tradition, that shepherd has led those in his sphere of influence to what amounts to a shepherd that isn’t “the Shepherd”, to a pasture that isn’t “the Pasture”. At least not for those who are in Christ. The only thing I have emphasized in the short time I have been here is my personal opposition to Christianity and its denominational character. A very human religion that continues in that which is the opposite of oneness. And I emphasize that the continued practice of Biblical interpretation is NOT going to make Christians any more one than it already has. That has been taken as being a similar view as Lee’s opposition to Christianity. Lee was not opposed to Christianity. He couldn’t have been and simultaneously claim to be part of a recovery of that same Christianity. He acknowledged his own connection to Christianity through his connection to Protestantism, beginning with Martin Luther as the practical beginning of the Recovery. I am opposed to Christianity. And I am opposed only to those Christians who in their thinking are strict adherents of that religion, to the exclusion of being an actual and practical follower of the Christ they claim to be following. When Christians are determined to follow interpretations that have their source in their own mind or the minds of others, they are in no way following the mind of Christ. One third of the world’s population claims to be Christian. That’s two billion people. But not many are following the mind of Christ. They are following the mind of whatever Christian denomination they are part of. I give them the benefit of the doubt when I say they are being deceived by a religion. Just as surely as Recoveryites are being deceived by a religion. Who think they are walking according to the Spirit, according to the mind of Christ. When in fact they are walking according to a Tradition, Lee’s practice of Biblical interpretation. So I take no offense at well meaning advice from Christians such as yourself. I am no less apt than anyone else to think too highly of my own ability to understand supernatural reality, and deny its existence in so doing. But I too give well meaning advice to those who practice Biblical interpretation. Stop it. For it is truly a private interpretation out of their own ability that has nothing whatever to do with real reality. And promotes division, rather than unity. Insofar as my being my own denomination, I should think that a bit of common sense would reveal that such a thing is impossible. Seeing as a denomination is composed of more than one person and I have no followers. MacDuff |
||||
|
|
|
|
10-20-2012, 10:50 PM
|
#77 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
I'm basing my conclusion on the current popular usage of the term cult which usually refers to a new religious movement with a charismatic founder. Once the charismatic founder passes the movement begins to transition to more permanent institutional status. Those that can't make the transition fail or fade away. The blended brothers seem to represent the beginning of such a transition. At least all authority is no longer invested in one man. Where they go from here, I don't have enough information to speculate. Being a cult isn't necessarily a negative thing. By my definition, the original Jesus movement began as a cult which evolved into an institution called the church.
|
|
|
|
|
10-21-2012, 04:23 AM
|
#78 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
1. Damnable heresies. I understand the word heresy to be similar to a school of thought that forms a clique. I think the ground of the church and the teaching on the MOTA both accomplish those goals. 2. pernicious ways -- I think WL's behavior during the sister's rebellion, Max's excommunication and the PL affair are all good examples of pernicious ways. 3. Through covetousness with feigned words will make merchandise of you -- I think there can be no doubt that a major goal of much of what the LSM did with the standing orders, RcV, Trainings, Daystar, etc. displays a pattern of WL and sons through covetousness making merchandise of the saints. However, the LRC I would classify as a cult. One would hope that WL's death would have changed that, but remember TC was excommunicated for not being absolute for the ministries of WN and WL which the BB's are. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-21-2012, 04:26 AM
|
#79 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-21-2012, 06:12 AM
|
#80 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
When you say "Life studies," I generally think of those as the cleaned-up and printed versions of what was spoken in training meetings (and eventually in other tack-on meetings). The actual speaking was "the training" or a message series that would eventually be turned into "further words on" whatever book. To me, Life Studies are the result of the training, or alternately, the content of the training. Life Studies are something bound in green books to put on your shelves. And maybe read a little of on occasion. As for my father as an example, despite his reservations on some things, he still falls back to the general idea that the LRC is still the only place to get the "right stuff," so you live with the nonsense, and generally decide that it is the erroneous understanding of the followers that causes the problems, not the source. I would suggest that he is just at an age where it is difficult to stop certain kinds of cynicism from coming out. He, like so many others, is still sold enough on the idea of "the ground" and other things that he just can't see his way out. I think that it comes from the fact that he was looking for something different back in the early 70s, and guess what — he found something different. And he got to be a frog in a kettle as it went from just local meetings centered on Christ to a system of error that slandered everyone around them. And in response to a couple of others' comments on Lee slowly losing his blessing, I think that in hindsight it might be better to say that the lambs' wool on his suit began to fall off the dead skin and the wolf underneath began to come out. I think that Lee had enough reasonable theology learned from others to cover his ambition for a while. But (and switching metaphors to Animal Farm) eventually the real Lee (really?) could no longer hide. Unfortunately, as the reality set in, and the old horse got sent off to the glue factory, he slowly convinced us that two legs really were better than four.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
10-21-2012, 06:55 AM
|
#81 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Anyway, ZNP, I wish you and the rest of the folks here all the best. I survived my suspension from this site somehow. I appreciate the new mission statement for clarifying that the mission is narrow and I can expect censorship if I stray from the straight and narrow. I don't like those rules, but at least I know what they are. Ciao |
|
|
|
|
|
10-21-2012, 07:59 AM
|
#82 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
I was quoting Neitherfirstnorlast saying that WL claimed to be speaking directly from inspiration. The Apostle Paul was another who made this claim in the book of Galatians. Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
10-21-2012, 08:11 AM
|
#83 | |||||
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
10-21-2012, 11:52 AM
|
#84 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
I don't know. Surely there's something wrong with me. I hint right in the head or somp'in. But I just love to watch someone come out of the local church, and the process they go thru. I've seen and know up close many LC leavers. Some I've even held their hand, and offered whatever help might be helpful. And you can never tell beforehand the destination of a LC leaver. It can differ drastically even between married couples. The differences can break a marriage. I've seen that happen too. A couple I've known since before the LC is an example. They were pushed out of the LC in Miami a few yrs after me. Same basic treatment as me, by the same elder, Mel Porter. But he couldn't let go. He couldn't attend the meetings, but he was sure the local church was the only way. So he was very unhappy. He drank the hurt away. It caused their divorce after 33 yrs of marriage. She, on the other hand had no problem letting go of the local church. She felt freed from bondage. She was happy to be out. She got free from it all. She concluded quickly that religion was unnecessary. In fact, she concluded that it made people crazy. A couple of yrs ago I tried to share what I was finding on local church forums. She didn't want to hear it. She told me that staying involved with religion was going to drive me crazy. She warned against the forums, and going to church. "What good is crazy," she said. "Religion is unnecessary, and just complicates things. And it's bondage," she added. But she's the happiest person I know. And the most kind and caring person too, to everybody. She works as a caregiver. So she has to work with religious people of all kinds. She doesn't embrace any religion, but helps the religious just the same. She's got the LC background, that helps her relate. So it tickled my fancy to read ZNP's testimony of finally coming to realize that, Witness Lee was/is the problem, and a false 'profit' (sic). That's just another step in getting free of Leeism. And all seekers of truth will be set free.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-21-2012, 10:29 PM
|
#85 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
10-22-2012, 12:48 AM
|
#86 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
To liken Paul to Witness Lee sheds no good light on Paul.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
10-22-2012, 04:46 AM
|
#87 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,628
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Definition 2 is too vague. "...regarded by others as strange or sinister"? Anything could be regarded by someone as sinister. The Cub Scouts are probably regarded as sinister by someone out there. So using "someone doesn't like it" as a criterion is too subjective. The whole "cult-busters" thing in the late '70s, post-Jonestown especially, was an opportunity for less-than-savory people to fulminate and point fingers. For every true cult there is some fat cat "Cult Watcher" like Hank Hanegraaf, with his golf-club membership, luxury car and padded expense account. Talk about "sinister".... Gretchen Passantino is, according to Hank, a "world-renowned expert" on religion, if I remember his introduction on one of her LSM essays. "World-renowned"... how about "Hank-renowned"? These people pretend to be objective and unbiased, because the scholarly image pays well, but in reality they are quite far from that.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
10-22-2012, 11:33 AM
|
#88 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: in Spirit & in Truth
Posts: 1,363
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Aron,
To be sure, all true believers, washed and cleansed by The Precious, Most Precious Blood of Jesus in no way, shape or form should ever be considered a cult or cultish. We venerate and Worship our Creator, All Mighty God because we are commanded by HIM, OUR CREATOR, to do so. "I AM the LORD your GOD. You shall have no strange gods, no other god before Me" He tells us. Under Grace, however, through His Spirit, we worship, venerate and Adore HIM because we Love Him. At least I DO!!!!! And we Love Him because GOD is LOVE. His Holy Spirit of LOVE resides and penetrates in us thus allowing us to Love with a Pure Love, His Love. He loved us first and now because of CHRIST IN US, we love Him back. Man on the other hand through Satan's conniving deception has turned many of God breathing, God loving people into religious robots. God"s beloved church has not only become a religious institution but a business organization, complete with board of directors, presidents, CEOs, CFOs, Treasurers, Secretaries, "doctors of Theology", and of course the IRS benefits of tax write-offs. You know very well not all people in "Christianity" are devoted to Jesus. YOU KNOW THAT!!!! We know them by their fruits, their actions and the Love of Christ that flows out of them. Not by how much scripture they can quote, or how many church services/meetings they attend or how much they "pray" if their prayers are vain repetition, lifeless and loveless. Among religious Christianity, surely there are cults and sects. This is why we must keep the full armor of God on 24/7 and guard our hearts and mind in Christ Jesus. Blessings and Peace, Carol G Quote:
__________________
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) |
|
|
|
|
|
10-22-2012, 02:18 PM
|
#89 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
And you believe that there is a way in which anyone reads anything without some level of interpretation? My point is not that there should be all kinds of interpretation, rather that there is no way to avoid it entirely. Since very little of the scripture (translated or untranslated) provides anything resembling a concise formula like ([(A+B)/D]-C)*E=[answer], then there is by definition, some level of interpretation involved. (BTW, the formula is only without interpretation if the variables that go into it are well defined and without vagary.) When you read my post, or ZNP's, or Igzy's, or Ohio's, there is often uncertainty in what we are saying for various reasons. A few might be:
There is a lot of metaphorical speech. How far do we go with the metaphor? Just the obvious connections? And what would that be? Are you sure that you know how far to take it? Or me? Or Lee? At some level, just trying to read a fairly straightforward passage can be more complicated than "just read the words." Now, having tried to set it all up as a rather complicated process, I actually do agree with you on a lot of what is claimed to be biblical interpretation. When something not pretty well in line with what you can actually see in the words, or rationally infer from a picture, type, metaphor, then I start asking questions. Most commonly questions like "how did you come up with that?" If the answer is "God spoke to me," the weight given to the interpretation tends to fall quickly toward zero. In short, interpretation that deals with the actual words of text and are consistent with them tend to be reasonably safe. I can accept input for things like culture, time, place, information about idioms of the time, etc., as at least potentially instructive. I know that just translating a bunch of Hebrew or Greek words into English can generate a lot of nonsense. I made a rather ridiculous suggestion some time back to take some passage, translate it from the original into modern English, then from English into French, etc., going through several different languages, both modern and ancient, until you arrive back at English. Compare the two English versions and you are likely to be unable to recognize them as clearly the same passage. They might give a similar sense, but not for certain. The point in that is that there must be understanding of the source when you translate, or when you simply try to understand. Even if you or I knew Greek (even the common Greek of the 1st Century AD) would we know it enough to understand what every combination of Greek words meant in all cases? I give you a completely English example. Take the word "cool." It has many meanings. Even if we accept that we are using it in the popular slang of today, it is a vague term. It can mean anything from "great!" to "I can live with that." We can both use the term in reference to the same thing and mean two different things. So how do you avoid interpretation when you read much of anything? (Except maybe a math or science textbook.) The problem is not that there is interpretation. It is in the claim of freedom to interpret almost into oblivion with impunity by claiming "divine intervention" that is so ridiculous. And outside of the kind of marginal sects like the LRC, I don't see a lot of that kind of thing. I hear a lot of individuals claiming private interpretation. But they fail to realize that the Bible itself says it is not subject to private interpretation. Quote:
Surely interpretation requires the mind. And since we are not expecting to be given a vision of how to interpret, probably a lot of the mind. In fact, the very art of understanding is a matter of the mind. When anyone tries to say that it is just about some "sense within" or other uber-spiritual thing, they are either ignoring the truth about the use of their mind, or excusing their ignoring what the mind would direct them toward by waving spiritual words over it. It seems that to insist that interpretation should not occur and that interpretation is an improper use of the mind is to put an irrational limitation upon anything that is not as clear-cut as simple algebra. It makes any kind of religion false. It denies any kind of God (or god) as irrational and impossible because to have anything written about that god is to create something that cannot simply be the philosophical equivalent of 1+1=2. It insists that anything of a spiritual nature must be distilled down to more precise meaning — totally without need of higher understanding required to read many novels, ancient or modern. Meanwhile, it seems that the call to "come, let us reason" implies that we need to think together. We don't need to reason if it is obvious. Or if it is laid out like math. And if it is not so obvious, we will start with different ideas as to what is meant. The better solution is not a stronger way to say "my interpretation is right" but a better way to work together to cull out the obvious chaff and find that place where "it seems good to us and to the Holy Spirit . . ." I bolden "us" because I doubt that the answer is just me. I'm subject to the problems of private interpretation. I'm the reason that you don't like interpretation. But there will be interpretation. And it will not necessarily just be a function of the mind (although the mind will be heavily engaged). To suggest otherwise is to fall onto an LRC mantra of "get out of your mind." And if you are out of your mind, the only spirit that will be in gear will be a spirit of confusion.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
||
|
|
|
|
10-22-2012, 02:21 PM
|
#90 | |||
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Acts 5:34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; 5:35 And said to them, You men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do as touching these men. 5:36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nothing. 5:37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. 5:38 And now I say to you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nothing: 5:39 But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it; lest haply you be found even to fight against God. 2,000 years later Christianity can no longer be considered a personality cult. However, as a definition you might wish to add that a cult is a work of man and over time will come to nothing. That is fine in hindsight, but not much comfort to the relatives of those who died in Jonestown. Quote:
WL on the other hand had his influence diluted by the size of the group. I met in several localities over my time there, none of which included WL (except for Taipei during the FTTT but even then I rarely saw him). Now if the group of 100 is seen as a "relatively small group" then the "others" who regard this group as sinister would have to be significantly larger than 100. The LRC has at least 10,000 members, perhaps 30,000 depending on the year in question and who is doing the counting. Therefore you would have to have well over 100,000 even a million "others" who view the group's teachings as "sinister" to fit this definition. The definition is not based on a single person or a small group saying "they don't like the teaching". This also eliminates classifying the Catholic Church as a cult based on the lofty position they give the Pope since it is not a relatively small group, even when compared to the Body of Christ at large. Quote:
On this site we have looked at things done by WL which today we feel are egregious sins and yet at the time he did them no one blinked. Why is it that Christians who have very strong beliefs, especially on the matter of sin and the flesh (as RG did), why do they overlook the sins of PL? The NT says that "we are not ignorant of Satan's devices". It is absolutely scriptural to wonder how anyone could be so deceived and to understand the devices so that we are not deceived in the future. |
|||
|
|
|
|
10-22-2012, 03:00 PM
|
#91 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Jesus said "call no man your father" and He said "Why do you call me good, no man is good except God". I think both terms suggest our predisposition to uplift man. In this sense it is not unlike the OT where the desire to have a king was an offense to God. Based on these verses the teaching of the MOTA should raise alarm bells. Gamaliel referred to different movements as "works of men" that will come to nothing. So I think it is also fair to distinguish between a work of man and a work of God. The problem with this definition is that you have to wait for hindsight. But for the most part the one term that is referred to by everyone in the New Testament is the "false prophet". I imagine that is the single common thread in every "cult" is that they have decided to put the words of a "false prophet" above the Bible, common sense, their conscience, etc. I have already used Peter's definition of a false prophet to explain why I think WL was a false prophet. The other major NT term is "heresy" which in my understanding refers to a "school of thought". It suggests a group has separated themselves from the whole based on special doctrines. I have already referred to the two teachings of the LRC, the MOTA and the Ground which accomplish this goal. Not to mention the one trumpet sound (basically the idea that you cannot publish or minister apart from LSM without being divisive). So if you don't like the term "cult" you can say that WL was a false prophet who taught heresy and things prohibited by the NT. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2012, 06:11 AM
|
#92 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
In other words, biblical or non-biblical is about the thought (position, theology, action, doctrine, etc.) not the word. Words, in themselves, are benign. And there are probably good arguments for and against the use of "cult." There are probably reasons in scripture to avoid its use. One would be where it has the effect of disparaging for no particular reason other than to disparage. Yet where there is something that the Bible would insist that we judge concerning with respect to the household of faith, it might be a legitimate term. But even if legitimate, does it continue to disparage without description? If we were to rephrase certain verses in Revelation so that they made reference to the "cult of the Nicolaitans" it could have provided relevant information concerning some serious error. (Unfortunately, we do not have a clear idea what that error was.) But it was more direct to simply refer to their deeds. That "cult" may have legitimately applied can be inferred without saying it. The real problem is that there is very little that is not "biblical." The problem is whether it is proper or prudent. Whether it is according to the commands of righteousness. Of loving neighbor as self. It is the actions, not words themselves. And, unfortunately, "cult" brings baggage with it that cannot just be ignored because you don't mean it that way. So, in technical terms, the LRC may be easily described as a cult (in a way that is beyond the level at which any religion is a cult), yet using the term implies so much more. Paul would have said that it is permissible, but not prudent. That is a biblical statement. Whether or not I use the word "cult" is really not a matter of the word being biblical. What is biblical or not is my behavior in using it.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2012, 06:25 AM
|
#93 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
The term "cult" first appeared in English in 1617, derived from the French culte, meaning "worship" or "a particular form of worship" which in turn originated from the Latin word cultus meaning "care, cultivation, worship," originally "tended, cultivated," as in the past participle of colere "to till the soil". In French, for example, sections in newspapers giving the schedule of worship at Catholic churches are headed Culte Catholique; the section giving the schedule of Protestant churches is headed culte réformé. The meaning "devotion to a person or thing" is from 1829. Starting about 1920, "cult" acquired an additional six or more connotatively positive and negative definitions that are separately discussed in the article Cult. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_(r...ice)#Etymology
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2012, 09:19 AM
|
#94 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
If you look at the NT references the biggest would be to a "false prophet" and then there are references to heresies, exaltation of man, being led astray, etc. Obviously I have no issue using a term like cult which is not in the Bible, but if a believer wants to use a NT term why all the fuss? That is also why I referred to relevant verses that I feel applies to the LRC and WL. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2012, 12:03 PM
|
#95 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
From what I read, sociologists [people who try to be scientific about social issues and groups] have largely rejected the term cult in favor of referring to new religions or new religious groups. So the actual characteristics of the group have to be specified on a case by case basis and blanket negative connotations are avoided. Such a practice points up a number of judgment calls that we each make about the LC that are by no means set in stone.
Personally, I hesitate to jump on the "false prophet" band wagon. I am content with staying off the LC band wagon. As far as I'm concerned WL was just another flawed human being. We shouldn't have given the guy the power to run our lives. I take responsibility for having done that. Hopefully, I have learned my lesson and I won't do it again. |
|
|
|
|
10-23-2012, 01:07 PM
|
#96 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
The word "cult" is commonly used in our society and IMHO should not be made taboo by the PC language police. "That movie was a cult classic." "That DJ has a cult following." "The cult of Mary in the Catholic church." On and on it goes.
As I see it the problem with the LC system as it pertains to being considered a cult by many Christians is that often they act like one which only serves to confirm the belief that they are one. Instead of empty posturing and lawsuits and bombastic threats they should ask themselves this very simple question: What is it about us that makes some rational thinking substantial Christians consider us a cult? Calm down and take an inventory. Is it some of the language you use to explain your doctrines? Is it some of your behaviors? Is it your policies? Is it how your operate? What is it? Once the list is compiled they could then ask themselves: If we change any of the things that others think are cultic or may be confused as being such does it change who we are essentially as a group? Does our core identity require these things? If you can shed these things and still maintain who you are than why keep them if they make people think you're a cult? This kind of approach IMHO displays a level of maturity and makes more sense than stubbornly digging in and attacking those who very well may have legitimacy in their concerns based on the impression they have been given. |
|
|
|
|
10-23-2012, 03:41 PM
|
#97 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
"Cult" is neither biblical nor non-biblical. It is simply a word. And even a use of the word in a manner that would appear to be contrary to the command of scripture is not simply "non-biblical." It would be contrary to the righteousness of God. But the word is just a word. And even if a word or phrase is found in scripture, that does not make it no longer a "man made description." It just makes it used by scripture. If there is a command in scripture, then to follow it is according to scripture and to fail to follow it is contrary to scripture. But the words are nothing. My problem is not really with what you were trying to say. It was with the way that you were saying it. And you are not alone. We are all prone to speaking in such a loose kind of shorthand. I know I do it. Sometimes, when I discover that someone isn't understanding me, it is often because I was sloppy in my speaking. And I generally would not object to the way that you said what you did a few posts back if I had not had the same thing pointed out in a different context (not on this forum). As Christians, we often use the term "biblical" in such a way that does not reflect a true understanding of what it could actually mean. It is mostly used as a way of declaring one thought or idea as being the correct one and others incorrect. We can rightly speak of the biblical way to deal with certain issues because we can find directions given for those situations. In some other cases, we can find alternate directions, so there are alternate ways to approach a thing that is consistent with scripture. But outside of a couple of poorly understood statements by Jesus, there are no proscribed words, therefore no "non-biblical" words. Whether I use the word "cult" to refer to any particular group, whether the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or the LRC, there may be some boundaries either clearly spelled-out, strongly suggested, or somewhat hinted at. I feel fairly strongly about its applicability to the Mormons (although I could vote for a Mormon president), somewhat firm about the Jehovah's Witnesses, but much less clear about using it with respect to the LRC. But none of it has to do with the word being biblical or non-biblical, or a man-made description or a description found in scripture. I believe that you will find that a member of the Sanhedrin was referred to as a whitewashed sepulcher. That does not make the term simply OK to use. And even though the speaker apologized upon learning that the member was actually the high priest (if I remember the account correctly) it did not somehow render the phrase simply not OK. Now. Having said all of that (and hopefully before you start responding to this post), I don't disagree with the crux of what you said. It is a valid point (even if I don't really think that trying to stick to the terminology of scripture is so important). The problem is not the word. It is the use of it. And there is every reason to conclude that simply throwing around such a negative term tends to violate certain aspects of the scriptural calls to unity and and run afoul of the manner in which we should deal with disagreements. As for finding a phrase in scripture, that does not make using it any more prudent or cause it to be OK relative to our other limitations. "False prophet" might be a legitimate term. But it might not be. If we turn declarations of certainty about doctrine into declarations of a prophet, and we consider those declarations to be false, we are probably overstepping the meaning. Besides, that would make every teacher that holds a different position on much of anything into a false prophet at some level. And while I have been one to throw that term around in the past, I do admit that the command to stone such a one is OT. If we presume grace, then we would not stone. If we presume that the false prophet is not truly Christian, then his/her judgment is not ours to enforce. Besides, we really don't hardly see the term "false prophet" in the NT. There are other terms that are more specific. Terms like "teachers who serve their bellies." Mostly it is just descriptive, like "those who teach differently." And the instruction was to tell them to stop. No stoning. Not even necessarily excommunication. (There are some who would say that to "refuse," as is said in one place, would include excommunication. I think that simply refusing to let them teach is sufficient unless they will not cease unless expelled. But, it is my opinion and not necessarily anything from God.  )
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2012, 03:49 PM
|
#98 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
If part of the purpose of the forum is to persuade those we believe to be caught in this system of errors to realize that it is such a thing, it is better not to cause them to shut their ears before we finish speaking. (Probably better to not just throw around terms like "system of error" either, but that is another discussion.) To use the word cult, even if it is believed to legitimately fit, creates a kind of reverse "poisoning of the well." We cause those we would like to reason with to simply turn us off and not take us seriously. We never get to arrive at the place where they will back away from the standard LRC rhetoric and look at things without their Lee-colored glasses. Once you say "cult" the glasses will remain firmly attached. Nothing will penetrate. Fiddle around with the words from "I Am a Rock" by Simon and Garfunkel and you will see what kind of thinking we are trying to overcome. Just having this discussion in the open is helping to keep some of them in place. It is not about being PC. It is about being prudent. We are not here just to have a gripe session (the PC term). We are also here to reason with those who are in the fog of Lee's ministry.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2012, 03:50 PM
|
#99 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2012, 05:50 PM
|
#100 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
First, I didn't start this thread. The context is based on books and recent decisions to classify and/or declassify the LRC as a cult. Since that is the context it is absurd to not use the term.
That said, I think the term "false prophet" is much clearer to define and to delineate. Likewise heresy is a much more relevant term. I agree that the definition for cult is vague and perhaps problematic. That is not the issue. The point is that based on the definition the LRC is clearly and without doubt a cult. Now if they wished to claim that the early church was considered a "cult" and that Paul had his following and Peter had his, and Martin Luther, and Calvin, etc. The biggest problem with the definition is that it would fit many real moves of God in their infancy. But false prophet would never have fit the genuine moves of God. |
|
|
|
|
10-23-2012, 09:36 PM
|
#101 |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 88
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
OBW
OK. Let’s say you’re right. That everyone interprets the Bible whether they want to or not. That the Bible is so complex that the only way it can properly be understood is through proper principles of interpretation. Who decides? Who decides which principles of interpretation are proper? Who decides which interpretation is the correct interpretation? Who decides which interpretations convey objective truth? Witness Lee, the oracle of this age? Right. Silly question on this forum. The Catholic Church that has a millennium more history of practicing Biblical interpretation than the oldest of the Protestant denominations, that claims that the so-called Church Fathers interpreted the Bible the same way they do, that has a self acknowledged authoritative interpreter of the Bible and Tradition in the Magisterium? The Eastern Orthodox Church that has all of the above, but only acknowledges Tradition as the authoritative interpreter, and only acknowledges the first seven Councils as legitimate? Martin Luther the rebel who started the Protestant rebellion against the designated authorities in what he initially believed to be the Church and initially desired to reform that Church, only becoming a rebel after repeated admonition against his unusual and unacceptable doctrines and eventual excommunication by those designated authorities? John Calvin the unrepentant murderer? Not that it’s known that he murdered anyone personally. But was an accessory to murder and just as much a murderer as a god-father gangster, or as Saul who held the coats of those who stoned Stephen. (Saul who became Paul, repented and felt he was the least of the least because of his murderous actions.) Who’s doctrine amounted to God sovereignly saving a few and for the rest “the devil made me do it”? No wonder he was an unrepentant murderer seeing as he considered himself as elite as Witness Lee thought of himself. Evangelical Protestantism, a denomination like entity that has its own version of what is essential doctrine, and generally follows the doctrines of John Calvin, or a truncated version of same? Some other Protestant denomination that follows the semi-Arminian interpretations of John Wesley, the Anglican? You? Me? Right. Another silly question on this forum. Who decides? MacDuff |
|
|
|
|
10-24-2012, 01:45 AM
|
#102 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2012, 03:13 AM
|
#103 |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 88
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Awareness
Hey buddy, got a dime? Set me free. Macduff |
|
|
|
|
10-24-2012, 06:26 AM
|
#104 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,654
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Quote:
I definitely think that Witness Lee fits this second category of men moreso than the first, and this is why ... In the early days of the Recovery, WL was a ministering insider with gifts from the Lord. He was one of many prominent ministers. Wanting to be more than that, he continually had to invent teaching novelties, some good and some not, so that his ministry remained in the forefront. Initially he used Nee's reputation and teaching to attract attention to himself. Many of his novel teachings became perversions of the truth, which his most ardent loyalists used to elevate him further. Lee's novelties became perversions when they lured us after himself. We defended him and his ministry like we would have defended Jesus Himself. Lee's allure had a two-pronged strategy at all times. The first was self-promotion, and the second was the wholesale condemnation of all others. We were constantly persuaded that he had fresh anointing from the Lord as His chosen oracle, and that all other outside believers were helplessly and hopelessly degraded. We alone were God's unique testimony, and it was all because of Witness Lee. Without him we were nothing. We owed our entire existence to him, as Titus Chu once informed John Ingalls, when it was crunch time. On the surface, the 80's "new way" was supposedly about the spread of the gospel, but behind the scenes, the real operation among the workers was Lee's consolidation of power and his rise in prominence. Lee was never content to be the most sought after minister in the Recovery, rather he demanded that he was the only minister, and not just of the Recovery, but of the entire age. Hence he was elevated to MOTA status. Whereas Diotrephes (3 John 9) loved to be preeminent among the saints, Witness Lee demanded it. The "new way" became the vehicle to facilitate his coronation, with forced compliance the rule of the day. I used to thing that these men in Acts 20.30 who spoke perverted things in order to drag believers after them, would remove them from the church to another flock. Later I learned that these ones desired to take the entire flock with them, and this is what Lee did. He took us from the pasture grazing on Christ to a place where he alone was our food and our center.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
||
|
|
|
|
10-24-2012, 07:04 AM
|
#105 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2012, 08:15 AM
|
#106 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Regarding the use of the word cult in this or any other forum the fact is the word cult has already been applied to the LC quite apart from online forums. It's part of their history. IMHO by the time we get to this forum the question becomes: Is the term being applied correctly or not? We already know it's been applied to the LC and many Christians openly think the LC is a cult. This isn't a secret. So to avoid using the word in this forum for the sake of prudence is sort of pointless because it has been and currently is being widely used to describe the LC. This forum didn't invent that reality. Given the situation as it actually exists it seems to me the question: Is the LC a Cult or Not? is completely legitimate to discuss in this forum. Not the only topic but one that is unavoidable since after all this forum is about the LC. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2012, 08:43 AM
|
#107 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
1) People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations; Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized; 2) They receive what seems to be unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader or group; 3) They get a new identity based on the group; 4)They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled. Click->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2012, 08:58 AM
|
#108 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2012, 09:16 AM
|
#109 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
This is what happened to me. I joined the LRC at age 19, one month into college. I was completely naive about just about everything. The LRC did nothing to prepare me for anything other than being an LRC member. No life advice, no career advice, no social advice, no common wisdom, no realistic advice on dealing with the opposite sex. Nothing. When I left seven years later it was like I was still 19 years old, only worse, because I had all this religious baggage and guilt hanging over me.  "Wrecked for the church" really means systematically made good for nothing else.  It took me many years to recover. I resent what that group did to me. I'm over it and I've put it behind me. But it still bugs me that these people will not admit what they did to so many. It's one thing that motivates me to continue to help on this site. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2012, 09:55 AM
|
#110 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Honestly, leaving the local church life was like emerging from a coma, and then needing years of rehabilitation. I'm not exaggerating. It's like learning in my 30's what I should have learned in my early 20's, except now I have all these additional psychological roadblocks in the way. |
|
|
|
|
10-24-2012, 12:27 PM
|
#111 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
1. Quietly reflect and ask themselves why would people think this about us? Are we doing anything that would give them that impression? If so, are these things we can change? If yes, how do we change them? 2. Act like a cult and thereby reinforce the impression people already have. They have consistently chosen the latter path. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2012, 12:44 PM
|
#112 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2012, 02:13 PM
|
#113 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,654
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
The real mystery to me is how the Blendeds can appoint DT to be the "leading brother in Africa," and Cleveland can appoint VY to be the "leading brother in Africa," and neither of these two can fellowship with the other about Africa.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2012, 02:29 PM
|
#114 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2012, 02:30 PM
|
#115 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
But he was true to his and Nee's teaching on God's delegated authority. That teaching he held true to. And that doctrine played a key role in making the LC into a personality cult.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2012, 07:45 PM
|
#116 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,654
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2012, 08:48 PM
|
#117 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
To me, the idea that the word of God is living, means that it is not something that we can nail down as a "this means this and that means that" sort of thing. This isn't a book of math, or a manual for living - and it cannot be "interpreted" in one way and one way only... Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that it can be interpreted any way you want to interpret it - I am saying, rather, that to those who are in Christ, God through the Holy Spirit can use this word which He writes on our hearts of flesh, to reveal many different things... and often different things at different times. If the Bible were only a manual you could "interpret" once and for all for all people and all time, then it wouldn't be Alive. If it wasn't alive, the you would be able to read it and study it, and when you were done with it, you could put it back on the shelf or pass it along... but it's not like that, is it? Matthew 4:4 "But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” We eat daily, and we cannot eat once or twice and then be satisfied for life... so too with 'every word that proceeds from the mouth of God'... we must take it in daily, if we are to maintain any sort of spiritual health. In fact, I would argue that the largest problem within not only the LRC, but also within many christian circles, is that people do not take seriously enough their requirement to stay in the Word. Only the Word of God can enliven you. ...As for who can decide about an interpretation, well...What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. (1st Corinthians 14:26). And when you don't come together with other brothers, how is it you will be built up? Iron sharpens iron only through contact. In Christ, NeitherFirstnorLast |
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2012, 08:53 PM
|
#118 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-25-2012, 06:33 AM
|
#119 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,654
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-25-2012, 06:55 AM
|
#120 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-25-2012, 11:37 AM
|
#121 | |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,793
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Then there is the LC history of being hostile and even downright militant towards other Christians. This kind of behavior gives outsiders the definite impression that they may have some cult like tendencies. Why would Christians be so hostile towards other Christians? Then there is the "endorsement" from Hank Hanegraaff. Little did they realize how little weight Hank carries among the evangelical/orthodox folks. Any group that CRI endorses is looked upon with a very jaundice eye, and anything that comes from their "reassessment" of any group is taken with a grain of salt about the size of a school bus.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
10-25-2012, 12:44 PM
|
#122 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
My point is not that it is easy to even come out to one of these sites. It is that if you are just "testing the waters" or are not sure what you are going to find, then getting "assaulted" with the declaration that you are part of a cult is a great way to get people to quickly decide one way or the other. Unfortunately, every few of us like to admit that we may have been bamboozled for any amount of time, especially as it gets longer and longer. Maybe even almost 40 years like those from my family that are still there. The natural reaction is to recoil, putting up a wall of defense which in this case is to cling more strongly to what you have bought into for so many years. To be totally open minded and at least see what it is that is driving the "false accusations" (as one LRC member used to essentially yell here in the past) is the unlikely scenario. Yes, we may have planted a seed. But how much seed did we plant? Was it just a declaration of being bad? Or was it some factual information concerning the actual meaning of scripture, the true reasons that John Ingalls left the LRC, the absolutely ridiculous jumps in logic (more like illogic) that both Lee and Nee took to arrive at their foundational teachings, etc.? I would guess that it is not the latter unless they managed to read a lot before the word "cult" popped up and chased them off. That is the point. And everyone that says it is "OK" to use the term are correct. The question is whether it is prudent given the purpose(s) of the forum. I have argued the other side. But I eventually was persuaded against it mainly because when you say "cult," you have said nothing besides "something bad that I don't agree with." So what. (And when I wrote that, I suddenly had a song arise in my head:
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
10-25-2012, 01:39 PM
|
#123 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-25-2012, 01:53 PM
|
#124 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
The LRC's answer to the cult accusations is to put us in the same category as the Pharisees who claimed Jesus cast out demons by the power of the devil. In other words, we are so deceived that we see them as something evil, rather than what they truly are, the purest of the pure. They see themselves as a kind of Rorschach test--how you see them says more about you than them. It's a cop-out, but that's how they rationalize things. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-25-2012, 03:13 PM
|
#125 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
In any event as I mentioned previously using the word "cult" to describe the LC system is an intregral part of their history. It has been going on for decades. Therefore it should come as no surprise that in a forum about the LC the question of whether it is a cult or not will come up in a thread or two. I think that question is completely legitimate and should be openly discussed. Some former members may think it's a full-on cult, some may not but think it is cultic and some may absolutely reject the idea that it's a cult in any way whatsoever. So OK let's talk about it. That's what a forum is for. To my knowledge the forum administration itself is not taking a formal position on this issue i.e. this is not a LC Cult Busting site. But I do think it naive to suppose honest dialogue can occur with the word "cult" cut out of the LC system's history. It's bound to come up. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-25-2012, 03:29 PM
|
#126 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
I saw it from the inside out. I saw it with my very own eyes. CRI and Hank, on the other hand, were looking from the outside in. They saw what they were allowed to see. They never saw it from the inside out. Why Hank rolled over so easily I don't know. Maybe he's easily duped. Or there was a secret quid pro quo. Either way, Hank and CRI are wrong. And people will continue to call the local church a cult.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-25-2012, 06:20 PM
|
#127 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,654
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-25-2012, 07:41 PM
|
#128 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-25-2012, 07:46 PM
|
#129 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-26-2012, 05:00 AM
|
#130 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Yes, the internet makes a lot of stuff available in the privacy of your own home so that you can avoid being caught at it. But the more long-time members that do wander out there (actually, here — and they do come) don't need a pithy label to tell them that they are bad. They need to hear the truth about specific things. They need to hear:
The discussion by Nee on the ground of the church becomes suspect when you realize that he simply dismissed the evidence that "one church one city" was not prescribed by the verses he liked. That he determined that the rule existed before all the evidence was considered, and used that rule to dismiss the rest of the evidence. Let them see the truth that matters. It is irrelevant that there is a definitional basis for throwing the "C" word around if the teachings are actually right and the basis for the term is questionable, or would apply to any Christian group. It is too easy to dismiss carpet bombing with pithy words when there is no observable basis for the claim. Let's spend our time dealing with the actual errors of the LRC and of their leadership. Being a cult is not an error. It is a label applied because there is an error. But until you define the error, it means nothing. And since there will be viewer after viewer over time, there is a risk that a new viewer will read the label before they get to the explanation of the error. So even if you assert that we have covered it before, that is not necessarily the way it is read. The forum is not a book with a start and an end. Instead, it is a chain that is always seen from the end and viewed in reverse — at least until you have accepted that it is worthwhile to go back to the beginning and read through the older stuff.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
10-26-2012, 07:43 AM
|
#131 |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 88
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Zeek
And the children suffer for the decisions of their fathers? Macduff |
|
|
|
|
10-26-2012, 07:55 AM
|
#132 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Yes the wild irrational -- insane -- excommunication meeting that revealed to me that the local church was/is a cult was about the false doctrine of Witness Lee being the oracle/authority/apostle on the earth. But it was the psychology of zealotry for this doctrine that was the eye opener. It wasn't the doctrine so much as blind zealotry to it that revealed the cultic nature of the local church. And the fact that it was so easy for Mel Porter to work up such a fanatic lather, with more than 200 saints in a meeting -- that had no clue of what was going on -- reveals the cultic nature of the psychological nature of the local church. It exposed that brainwashing was going on, or Mel would have fail at his attempt to control and manipulate the saints in the meeting. It's a cult mentality in the saints that allows such a thing to happen. So yes false doctrine triggered the event, but it was the blind zealotry that revealed the cult.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-26-2012, 08:33 AM
|
#133 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Now I realize that you have been one using the word of late. I am not suggesting that you should simply quit it. To toe-the-line, so to speak. I actually am more tolerant of your use because I see it as the outgrowth of current pain over the things that give rise to your determination that the term applies. Having said that, while it may be somewhat cathartic to say it out loud, it still does not define the problem(s). It just labels them without description. There are too many things that combine to create a package that deserves the label. But if the people we are trying to reach do not understand, or know about the things that give it substance, it is not very helpful except to establish us as having a beef with the LRC. And the more we just seem to foam-at-the-mouth, the more they will question us, or turn away from us, as we try to make the legitimate comments about the abuses of people. Things like what Benson Phillips did to Jane Anderson, and Mel Porter did to you. And the LSM machine did to John Ingalls, Bill Mallons, John So, and so many others back in the late 80s. The slanderous libel they published in the name of a Christian ministry. The spiritual bondage that they help their members become ensnared with. And they call all of this "God's best." If the LRC is the best God has, then I question that god and suggest that their god may truly not be the true God. Not the God that I read of in the Bible. I know if feels good to let it out and call a spade a spade. But it is not as helpful as pointing out why a spade is a spade. And it isn't so because we say it is. It is so because we see that actions and teachings that are not as described in the Bible, but are often contrary to it.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
10-26-2012, 08:47 AM
|
#134 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
A tack-on.
If we cannot describe the problems, then we have no basis to use the word. And if, after describing them, the readers don't see the problem, then they deserve the consequences of remaining. I just would rather not help them reject us in favor of the LRC because they are driven away by a single word that has no weight in itself. Let the facts stand for themselves. Then they can choose. And some will choose the road they are already on. Others will choose differently. If you are talking to outsiders thinking about going in, the word might help them stay out. But it is more likely to cause those already on the inside to turn us off and retreat back to the safety of their little cocoon. Go back behind the hedge where Christianity is considered Christ-less and Catholicism is demonic. They are oblivious to the fact that no such terminology was used with respect to Thyatira. Yet they act as if there were. You may feel better, but the mission may not be accomplished. Which would you prefer — a different way to feel better as we help others get out, or an easy "feel good" in exchange for driving them back into the mess that is the LRC? The question is rhetorical. No need to answer.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
10-26-2012, 08:58 AM
|
#135 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
And this kind of statement: 'Even there, "Cult" does not define the problem. It just labels it as bad.' is fallacious. All words are labels for things. All statements are labels for thoughts. Words convey meanings. "Cult" means something more than just "bad." You know that. Try to understand what people mean, and not dismiss them because you didn't like the way they said it. I think everyone would appreciate it if you ease up on the micro-analysis a bit. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-26-2012, 09:25 AM
|
#136 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Shall we start just going along with making comparisons to Hitler? I'm sure some can be found. And if they are there, then they are legitimate and applicable. But the prudent arguer will avoid those kinds of comparisons like the plague because the result of putting the name into the discussion essentially dismisses the discussion. No. "Cult" is not as extreme as using a Hitler comparison. But it often has the same kind of effect. We have been over that before. It is not that we don't have full discussions. We do. It is not that the word cannot legitimately apply. It can. It is that you are dealing with people who have been indoctrinated by a group that has managed to successfully sue, or scare-off, everyone who uses the word on them. And they are prone to ignore anything that explains why it applies. I'm not trying to get the word banned. I'm trying to make a case for restraint in its use. And as long as it is being discussed, I will discuss. If you don't like the discussion, don't discuss it. Labeling the discussion as "micro-analysis" does not make it invalid. You don't want to think about what I an saying, then fine. And as far as the discussion goes, it has been going on. If no one else responds back to try to persuade on the opposite, it is over. In the mean time, I am providing reasons as to why I believe that the word should be used less, if at all, in response to some who have a different perspective. I don't think poorly of them for their position. I am just providing a perspective that might change their mind as to the fruitfulness of using the word. On the other hand, you are not engaged in the discussion, but labeling it. And in a way that may affect how others view the discussion without actually adding anything to it. Sort of like saying "cult." Get the point? And with that, you see one of the reasons that I would not be a moderator, or make a good one.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
10-26-2012, 12:03 PM
|
#137 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
But the scenario of Whistler really takes this to a new level. The Church in Cleveland rejected the Edict of Whistler towards Titus Chu. So now per Ray Graver they are not considered a lampstand anymore. If the elders in Anaheim didn't have the authority to excommunicate an immoral local man how do coworkers 3000 miles away from Cleveland have the authority to excommunicate Titus Chu and anyone who fellowships with him? The Church in Cleveland didn't excommunicate him so how possibly could those way off there in Anaheim at LSM HQ think they have any authority to do so? |
|
|
|
|
|
10-26-2012, 12:42 PM
|
#138 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
It really is more about asking questions than arriving at answers. It seems that everyone who does the "it's me and my Bible and the Holy Spirit" concludes that they have the answers. Or in a postmodern way decide that they have the answers for themselves. But when a large enough group can come together with ideas, yet realizing that no one of them is "it" and approach it more like asking questions than providing answers, it seems that answers do arise. That is the way the philosophers of old did it. Were they always "right"? probably not. But once so many dug around in the possibilities asking questions (rather than just giving opinions and trying to pontificate for their favorite answer) most would eventually agree. And we have further problems, such as which passages should be understood metaphorically and which are just straight words? Which are prophecy and which are narratives? Where do we need to know the culture and idioms? (This last one is really not that hard. It is always important to know the culture and the idioms. But that may not always be instructive or imperative. But it is important to have the information available to consider.) The real answer is in consideration of what is and what it could be rather than in knowing what you think it is and trying to make it be something that you can't really support. It is about coming open rather than closed. And it is in the consideration that a group is starting with open minds and hearts, but giving themselves to God for His purpose, not their own. This is where the presumption of God is important to the discussion. If there is no God, then there is no giving of ones' self to Him. If there is no God, there is no direction. And when the result of the discussion, inquiry, etc., is harmonious, even if not all in agreement, we have some thought that God is directing us. we can honestly say at the end of it that "it seems good to us and the Holy Spirit that . . . ." If God is not who the Bible declares him to be, then whether you do or don't interpret is irrelevant.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
10-26-2012, 12:43 PM
|
#139 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,654
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Then I read Ingalls' book, Jane Anderson's book, and a bazillion other testimonies on this forum ... with none of them using the word "cult," and by golly ... I was all ears. If smashing down the front door don't work, then try the open window out back. I thought our goal was to help people.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-26-2012, 12:44 PM
|
#140 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
Quote:
I know what people mean by "cult." Most people do. It's not a great mystery. Frankly, I would think the best thing for the LRC would be for everyone to call them a cult. Then they might start to get it. Think about it. What is really wrong with the LRC? Isn't it everything about them that is cult-like? So why beat around the bush? Granted "cult" is shorthand, but it's better than 15 words that when added up say "cult," and a lot shorter, too. Which is good in a setting like this. Think about it. Last edited by Cal; 10-26-2012 at 01:16 PM. |
||
|
|
|
|
10-26-2012, 02:52 PM
|
#141 | |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,793
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
I am truly happy for you that it was Ingalls' and Anderson's books that gave you a breakthrough, praise God for this! But what about the dear ones in the Local Church today, right now. What if another Ingalls doesn't come along? What if another Jane Anderson doesn't have the guts or resources to write another book? What about this current generation...especially the young people? They need to hear the truth as well. It may never come from within this time. What if they will never listen to us "bitter ex members"? What if they are so afraid to even lurk here because of the warnings of people like Kangas and Phillips? I remember well reading the things posted by Light of Truth Ministries (Jim Moran)...I thought my hair was going to catch on fire. I would look over my shoulder and out the window to make sure nobody was looking. As crude and unrefined and yes as inaccurate as some of Moran's claims were, there was truth there. And unlike Hanegraaff and Pasantino, he actually went in among the members, went to meetings and got to see the LC from the inside. I am not giving full endorsement of everything he posted on the website....but I think it was instrumental in freeing a number of people from the Movement. He was a pioneer and made all the mistakes of a pioneer, as well as all the breakthroughs. My point here is simple. Just because somebody uses the term "cult" when talking about the Local Church they should not be instantly thrown under the bus by us former members. We of all people know very well how they may get such an impression. It is NOT always the case that these people are ferocious, heartless "cultbusters" with no care at all for the people within the Local Church. Anyway, for us to "ban" the word cult from our forum would be like our President banning the use of the term "Radical Islam"....both of these terms describe an actual reality. CULTS, even Christian CULTS DO EXIST. To deny this, or try to explain away their existence by saying that "a cult is just somebody you don't like" is not helping anybody and is running away from reality. As Igzy (or somebody) recently said.... Let's discuss it. Let's not run from the reality. The reality is that the Local Church has been tagged with the "cult" term by many different people of many different stripes. We just read an article where the parents of a young Local Churcher were very concerned their daughter was in a cult. Did they just dream this up? Did they come to this conclusion because of the shape of the meeting hall? Or how they cut their hair? No, we all know the reasons and the reasons are VALID. So let's discuss the reality of the situation, shall we?
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
10-26-2012, 03:06 PM
|
#142 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,654
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
And nobody is being banned from using the "C" word. I am just providing a little pushback. That's OK, isn't it? Did you forget that I am from Ohio, the ultimate "swing" state? And no one is running from the reality either. I have faced the worst of it head-on from both sides. I have my opinions and others have theirs. That's what spices up the discussions, aye comrade? And, btw, your post caught my attention! Or did I just pay attention to you?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-26-2012, 03:23 PM
|
#143 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
I think my testimony about my personal discovery that the local church is a cult explains it pretty well. Let's face it, admitting that you were once in a Christian cult isn't very flattering. People will look at you with askance, and will consider you thereafter as if you're at least half way off yer rocker. I know, it's happened to me. But everyone I know that's come out of the local church will readily admit that they consider their time in the local church as a time in a cult. In fact we joke about it. We jokingly admit that we hint quite right in the head for joining the local church. It's something we all share in common. We've developed a sense of humor about it. We think the "c" word is no big deal. Cults happen. Get use to it. And be smart about it. Don't get caught in one.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-26-2012, 05:03 PM
|
#144 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
And BTW the LC itself uses the word cult in their literature to refute the position of some that they are a cult. Even they know you cannot discuss the issue without using the word! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-26-2012, 06:46 PM
|
#145 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
One of the first things I was told when I first met on a Lord's day with the saints in our Locality was that I had to be very careful on-line, because there were a lot of people who called 'us' a cult. That warning cut two ways - I recognized immediately that there had to be a reason that some people said that, even while I tried to rationalize that such a claim couldn't possibly be true of these dear dear saints. I am ashamed to say that I did not love the Lord more than my brothers and sisters, but instead that I "quenched the Spirit" for two years before I finally heeded Him and looked on-line to find out if there WERE other people who saw what I was seeing and heard what I was hearing. Praise the Lord for YOU PEOPLE who helped me through it - and thank You Lord God for neither leaving nor forsaking me! Quote:
Obviously, I can't speak for the localities you all came from - I can only speak from my own experience and what I saw and heard while I was in the LRC. I can tell you that in Winnipeg, and at conferences, I learned that the LRC had shifted gears at some point in the late 90's(?) - and began to focus less outside their walls and more within them. They told us that they lost an entire generation of young people with one of the turmoils (and I believe this would have been late 80's turmoils?). Consequently, rather than focus at drawing new ones in, they were looking to keep the ones they raised in their own homes in. Think about that for a moment. Children raised by parents in the LRC who are (obviously) totally convinced that everything outside of their own assembly is either leavened and fallen christianity, or corrupt worldliness. These kids growing up this way get so deeply indoctrinated in Lee's theology that they really don't question it - they're not only taught not to, they're taught to not even read their own Bibles apart from Lee's interpretations. They are wedded off only to other "saints" children, they are sent to FTTA (or atleast, they are really very strongly encouraged to go - and an all-expense paid trip to Anaheim, California for two years is a persuasive argument). Mike, I understand what you're saying about the word "cult" possibly scaring people away - but I don't see it that way at all. Honestly, I think "shock" therapy (IE: "let me brutally honest with you, young 'un,") may be exactly what is called for to open some of these ones eyes. Beating around the bush about Bible interpretations just ain't gonna gain these ones... they are WAY too far down the road with LSM, and they are (I think) more likely to say "Well, you think the Bible says this and Witness Lee thinks it says that, but Witness Lee founded the Local Church and wrote oodles of books and taught thousands of people and built gigantic training centres and everybody I ever knew or likely ever will know thinks he's the Divine Deputy, The Wise Master-Builder, the Minister of the Age, and God's Oracle. Heck, even God's Government (LSM-Anaheim) says so. You are just some low-life (insert derogatory expletive) who blogs on-line. Who really cares what you think?". Remember these kids are taught NOT TO READ THE BIBLE without Lee's interpretations. Why do you think that is? I think it's because Lee knows that the TRUTH SETS PEOPLE FREE. The translation of the Bible into the common tongue in the 15th and 16th century turned Christendom on it's head and fractured the power of the Pope. It can and will do the exact same thing to LSM, and they damn-well know it. Hence the Recovery Version, hence the Footnotes, Hence the Centralization of Authority, Hence the Full Time Training, Hence the Blending of the Saints in their Localities, Hence the Conferences. It's about Control. Now, I know that regardless of how we say what we have to say, there are going to be people that think and say that we are just "low life (expletives)"... and ultimately, I don't think we can win anyone to Christ by even the most persuasive argument. Personally, I really believe I was liberated not by the information I learned here (although the Lord used it), but by the Lord Himself. Although I tried to quench the Spirit, He continually came before me and shepherded me out... But my point is, the "cult" word never scared me away - it rather alarmed me enough to continue to consider it's meaning... and eventually, to gather the courage to find out. Does any of that make sense? We all have a heart to help the people still caught in the system. We all are doing that the best we know how... I think arguing about the means is the wrong way to go about it. Why don't we all speak as the Spirit leads, in His time, and trust that He has a plan. Will we be able to rescue all of those caught in LSM's web? No. No more than we can bring all men to a Saving Faith in Jesus Christ... but I am reminded that it was only *if Possible* that the elect would be deceived... and I know that, in time, the elect WILL SEE the truth. He won't leave them or forsake them... ever. Ray |
||
|
|
|
|
10-27-2012, 12:08 AM
|
#146 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-27-2012, 12:17 AM
|
#147 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
I had occasion to speak to someone recently about my experience in the LC and I referred to it as a "cult-like group." I felt comfortable with that kind of qualified term. That term begs the question: "in what ways was the group like a cult?" which I can then specify similarities with things the person you are speaking to has heard about cults e.g. mind control techniques but no poison-laced Koolade.
|
|
|
|
|
10-27-2012, 05:59 AM
|
#148 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article
OK. I've made my point. And it is actually understood. I'm happy.
And when I refer to the LRC to others, I sometimes refer to it as a "cult, at some level." And that is the absolute truth. But that almost always needs some explanation. O well. To me, the worst thing about it is that the most public uses of the word are even somewhat erroneous in why they apply the word. Almost always, "modalism" is given as a reason. Now I consider the overall effect of the LRC's allegedly "balanced" view of the Trinity to be very unbalanced. But somehow I think that the idea that it is some kind of modalism is ridiculous. They are trying to make another misunderstood term apply to get the other term to apply. And an elder in an assembly who does a bunch of crazy things does not a cult make. But when it is happening at a more global level, and being carried on by a regional or national leader, and then he boasts about it in a national conference setting, we are getting there. Or when you find it happening in the same way in a large number of assemblies, then you have something. And the fact that Mel was at least sort of set aside for a while suggests that the overall system of the LRC does not approve of the things he did. Yet they have no desire to reach out to fix the wreckage he left behind. No desire to reconcile with awareness. The problem is that they want what Mel wanted. Just not handled the way he handled it. And what Mel wanted is an extreme personality cult. One with a hierarchy of personalities. Lee at the top, and Mel a little below that as local representative. Fortunately, this is not the case in all places. But it is somewhat common. And a rotten teaching like "deputy authority," which actually came from Nee (and was bad enough then) but was enhanced in practice by Lee, causes these kinds of things to happen. Just not often with the kind of over-the-top behavior as was directed at awareness. Then there is TC. And BP. Willing to drive off the best among both the flock and the leadership so that the worst can thrive. It just seems that pointing out the facts of the errors and abuses should be enough. If we point back to Jane's account of Benson's public slander of her, followed by a private meeting of berating, then years later of a boast about having done it — if that doesn't set off enough sirens and red flags, I'm just not sure that labeling it will help. If we talk about TC's public shamings, and of the way he was slandered out of the system — not for his actual errors, but for the things he actually did right. "Follow the money" on the Daystar fiasco. Note how Lee sent Max out to create havoc so that there would be a reason to become the leader of the group. He may have said to call him on his errors if they were to happen, but ask John Ingalls how that works out. He claims that a "little sister" should stand up to him, then refuses when much greater than that does it.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
10-27-2012, 06:44 AM
|
#149 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
NT equivalent of the term "cult"
1. Excessive veneration of one saint over another causes division.
2. If the excessive veneration is directed towards a false prophet as defined by Peter in 2Peter 2:1 so that it includes a. Teachings that result in a damnable heresy b. Pernicious ways Then this group would reasonably be considered to have sinister teachings and practices as defined by a "cult". 3. If the "false prophet" or "false teacher" makes merchandise off the members with fabricated stories then this confirms and proves the veneration is "excessive" and thus fits the modern definition for cult. Poison koolaid should not be used as part of the definition because by the time you can show poison koolaid it is too late. Instead, poison koolaid is a logical outcome of "pernicious ways" and fabricated stories being exposed. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
