How Much To Throw Out?

[HERn]

After twenty-something years being in The Lord's Recovery (TLR) I think I'm on my way out, but don't know how much to leave behind. TLR helped revive and restore my love of The Lord that I first had at my conversion. It did this by bringing my attention back to Christ and Him alone. I hope my restored love is genuine and not some type of fakery. I will also miss what we call The Lord's Table Meeting (TLTM) where I could express and pour out my love to Him by singing and prayers. For those of you who have left TLR how were you able to continue this type of corporate worship? Also, for those of you who had the same experience of recovering your first love for The Lord do you feel it was genuine and how did you continue to cultivate this after leaving TLR?

I am still just a guest here but was intrigued by your post and felt compelled to answer. I would say to "throw out" whatever it was that drove you out and "keep" whatever it was that you loved--including the focus on Christ Himself and the realization of His Body expressed in His members. That which drove you out is the very thing that, by leaving, you will remove. Try hard to continue fellowship with those who remain behind that love you. Remember that Christ is not limited in any way--that He loves the other parts of His Body as much as the LC (and He DOES love them!), and that you, with prayer, will find another place to worship and grow. It will take time because one thing the LC is right about is that so much of Christianity today has gone to a "lite gospel". However, many of my friends in the "denominations" decry that also. You will just have to pray and visit and go and "taste" until you find what you are looking for. BUT: first step is defining what is making you leave after 20 years. By the very number, you were not unhappy most of the time. Figure out what made you unhappy and shed that.

Just my thoughts...hope they help.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I am still just a guest here but was intrigued by your post and felt compelled to answer. I would say to "throw out" whatever it was that drove you out and "keep" whatever it was that you loved--including the focus on Christ Himself and the realization of His Body expressed in His members. That which drove you out is the very thing that, by leaving, you will remove. .

This is a wise and healthy suggestion.

Remember that the LC's are steeped in leaven. The Lord instructed the disciples to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." We surely must reiterate that word, "beware of the leaven of Lee and the Blendeds."

Please be aware that many former members could not discern the wheat from the chaff and have shipwrecked their faith. In an effort to purge themselves of all LC teachings, they thrust off both the good and the worthless.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by HERn

After twenty-something years being in The Lord's Recovery (TLR) I think I'm on my way out, but don't know how much to leave behind. TLR helped revive and restore my love of The Lord that I first had at my conversion. It did this by bringing my attention back to Christ and Him alone. I hope my restored love is genuine and not some type of fakery. I will also miss what we call The Lord's Table Meeting (TLTM) where I could express and pour out my love to Him by singing and prayers. For those of you who have left TLR how were you able to continue this type of corporate worship? Also, for those of you who had the same experience of recovering your first love for The Lord do you feel it was genuine and how did you continue to cultivate this after leaving TLR?

HERn,
Thank you and BLESS you for having the courage to come out and post what you have written here. This forum was created for, and has been maintained in large part for, a venue for brothers and sisters like yourself to have a place for fellowship, advise and prayer requests. Despite what it may seem at first appearance, this place is much more than just a place where former Local Church members come to bash Witness Lee and the Local Church movement (of course, lot's of that goes on here....but what can I say....I just rent the meeting hall...it's open to anybody who want's to stay on topic )

I was in the Local Church for about 20 years as well. Much of it right there in the hotbed of Orange County California back in the 1970s and early 1980s. My first "brother's houses" were lead by several of what are now known as "Blended Brothers" and Full Time Co-workers. I would not trade any of those years for anything. God is sovereign and God is GOOD. Maybe some of what we experienced was indeed "fakery" (God knows) but God does not look at the outward, but at the inner man - at our hearts.

As far as the Lord's Table is concerned, If you seek a place that holds a weekly Table I assure you the Lord will lead you to such a place. It may not be in the same format as you are used to in TLR, but the bread and the wine will be there, and it will still signify what our Lord declared it to be “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”.

As far as coming out and finding a good place to worship, you are very much ahead of the game from some of us who left so many years ago. We were on our own, with nobody to talk to or commiserate with. Please...take advantage of us! You don't have to make some of the mistakes that many of us did when we left.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Remember that Christ is not limited in any way--that He loves the other parts of His Body as much as the LC (and He DOES love them!), and that you, with prayer, will find another place to worship and grow.

AMEN!

It will take time because one thing the LC is right about is that so much of Christianity today has gone to a "lite gospel".

Amen to this too. HOWEVER, please keep in mind that a "lite gospel" is better - infinitely better - than a false gospel.

[zeek]

HERn Only you can answer for yourself what to throw out and what to keep. Those choices will be based on your own values.

Since you love Jesus, you may find that you are able to see him afresh as if with new eyes. I was reading the book of Matthew today and I noticed that Jesus said "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Did Witness Lee or his followers teach you that? Because it seems like it was important to Jesus. He summarized the Hebrew scriptures by asking us to do one simple thing: treat others as we would have them treat us.

Jesus went further"... Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. ..."

Later in the same book Jesus expanded on the same principle when he said " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Jesus was saying that the entire Law is at its core a commandment to love God and to love other people. He didn't limit it to loving church people either, I notice. He said love was the true intent of the entire Old Testament and it was to be fulfilled in the New. We must love in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Now I recall many things that Witness Lee and his followers taught me but I don't recall that they taught me how important loving people was to Jesus. Maybe it was just too simple for them. It's not a mysterious high peak teaching that had to recovered to shock the Christian world. But, if you learned anything about how to love others while you were in the church, I would hang on to and practice that. Because, based on what he said, it seems like Jesus would appreciate it if you did.

[awareness]

If you found God keep that. Then human institutions don't matter; especially personality cult leaders.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Remember that the LC's are steeped in leaven. The Lord instructed the disciples to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." We surely must reiterate that word, "beware of the leaven of Lee and the Blendeds."

That has been my sense also. There is leaven, but we must be careful not to generalize.
As it is whenever the Holy Word for Morning Revival is read, the ministry text is received as canonized scripture and may not double check and verify what scripture says in respect to the ministry text. As a result the leaven is accepted without question.

[InChristAlone]

HERn, thank you for your post. Could you please share your experience? What made you come up with the idea to leave the Local Church?

As for your question, "How much to throw out?" Read the Gospels and you will get the answer. Christ's message is never lite.

May the Lord bless you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

That has been my sense also. There is leaven, but we must be careful not to generalize.
As it is whenever the Holy Word for Morning Revival is read, the ministry text is received as canonized scripture and may not double check and verify what scripture says in respect to the ministry text. As a result the leaven is accepted without question.

I have many close friends and family who have left the Recovery, yet still feel that Lee and Nee are mostly worth reading, and most of what we were taught is worth hanging on to. None of them has a clue what really happened when Ingalls and others were quarantined, and they basically don't want to know either.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

As for your question, "How much to throw out?" Read the Gospels and you will get the answer. Christ's message is never lite.

May the Lord bless you.

Yes bless you.

And don't throw out what Zeek presented in post #5.

Hold to love ... that is what Jesus clearly prescribed.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have many close friends and family who have left the Recovery, yet still feel that Lee and Nee are mostly worth reading, and most of what we were taught is worth hanging on to. None of them has a clue what really happened when Ingalls and others were quarantined, and they basically don't want to know either.

Of course. Many probably prefer early Lee over later Lee. Although later Lee can come across as sectarian.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

Of course. Many probably prefer early Lee over later Lee. Although later Lee can come across as sectarian.

Yeah, the early Lee was a better liar.

I feel very strongly that I must come back in and ask forgiveness for quoting the phrase "lite gospel" and even agreeing with it to an extent. I have been strongly convicted since writing this that it is NEVER a "lite gospel" that turns a lost person away from an unending eternity in Hell to an unending JOYFUL eternity with Christ! Everything else we have in Christ, no matter how "deep", revolves around and exists through this precious, infinitely "deep" and never "lite" gospel. I was also reminded that for Our Lord, who was crucified before the foundation of the world for this message of salvation, it was NEVER "lite". It took a life of complete obedience to the Father, a life of rejection and sorrow, and a horrific death on the Cross to achieve what I so foolishly referred to as "lite". I sincerely repent and am deeply sorry.

And He has also reminded me that in EVERY church, no matter how "lite" we perceive their message to be, there are those who seek Him and overcome. I stand fully corrected--and gladly so.

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

HERn Only you can answer for yourself what to throw out and what to keep. Those choices will be based on your own values.

Since you love Jesus, you may find that you are able to see him afresh as if with new eyes. I was reading the book of Matthew today and I noticed that Jesus said "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Did Witness Lee or his followers teach you that? Because it seems like it was important to Jesus. He summarized the Hebrew scriptures by asking us to do one simple thing: treat others as we would have them treat us.

Jesus went further"... Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you ..."

Later in the same book Jesus expanded on the same principle when he said "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Jesus was saying that the entire Law is at its core a commandment to love God and to love other people. He didn't limit it to loving church people either, I notice. He said love was the true intent of the entire Old Testament and it was to be fulfilled in the New. We must love in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Now I recall many things that Witness Lee and his followers taught me but I don't recall that they taught me how important loving people was to Jesus....

I liked this point: zeek showed us the values that he used to extract a coherent message, and mission, from the text of the Jesus story. Love your neighbor. Treat others as you'd be treated. Etc. Nothing about "building the Body" etc. Just take care of the person next to you, arguably put there by God Himself.

I'd like to share my experience of leaving, not that my many failures should be a model for anyone. But it might be somewhat of interest. I was as rabid, as hard-core for "the church" as I could possibly be. Anything inside, I thought, was purified by "the ground", anything outside was hopelessly corrupted "Babylon". The ministry of a certain brother from Chefoo China I wasn't as rabid about, because I felt that his language was somewhat contrived, and stilted, and I was put off by his antagonism toward anyone who didn't agree with him over obscure points of the trinity (see e.g. his contretemps with the Bible Answer Man - a seemingly lifeless quarrel). I also didn't like the near-idolization of Witness Lee by the rank-and-file and the emerging "blended brothers", nor how the poor, the sick and weak were ignored or even rejected in the rush to get supposedly good building materials. But I'd seen a vision of "the church" and I was all in.

So imagine my surprise when one day, out of the blue, the Holy Spirit told me to leave. Just pack it up and go. I was truly shocked. Leave here? After tearfully pledging obedience to the cause, and never to return to Babylon again? After all the trainings, conferences, meetings, trips and blending hospitalities? Well, I got clear marching orders, and I recognized the voice of my Shepherd, so I went, but I went out with a big chip on my shoulder. I went into the denominations with the supposed truths of the Recovery in my hands; I went in there and proselytized, and passed out LSM literature. I tried to show them what they were missing.

So here's what happened. First, I realized that God loves these poor slobs just as much as the "saints" in the "local churches". You look in their eyes and you realize that God loves them. Eventually I began to preach less and listen more. I realized that the Father wants to meet these people, even if it's not "on the ground of oneness".... shock of shocks! God meets people where they are!! That one completely blew me away.

Remember that song, "Just as I am, without one plea, but that Thy blood was shed for me"? Well if the Spirit of Jesus came to me just as I am, shouldn't I also come to others just as they are? Or, should I set up some requirements before presenting them with the truth of God's saving love? We'd been told not to cast our pearls before swine, but at the same time if God was willing to humble Himself in the person of Jesus Christ to reach lepers, sinners, and Gentile dogs, shouldn't I also try to minister on whatever ground I found myself? I quit looking for "the right church" and began to minister. The right person is the one next to you. The right group is wherever you find yourself. Stop being a snob. Stop judging.

Second, as I slooowly began to open myself up to other voices I began to see an entirely different Bible. The idea of "one oracle per age" is absolute nonsense. Of course there is a lot of crap out there. But we'd been told that Nee read everything worth reading, and filtered it, and gave us the pure kernel of truth. And then he and Lee gave us nothing but the pure word thenceforth: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Again, that's self-serving nonsense. Nee was a bright guy, and a diligent reader, but he was just like us. He put his pants on one leg at a time, and his voice needs to be balanced with other voices. Nee's 1950s writings on relations vis-a-vis the emerging Communist government in China show us that the "later Nee" was as whacked out as the later Lee.

Everyone needs to be adjusted, and balanced. And that especially goes for the people who claim that they need no balancing or adjustment, that through some process of rugged transformation they've entered the rarefied air of pure Spirit, and now only God can adjust them...cult alert...cult alert! Ooogah... ooogah!

I kept a lot, and use it today, but now I treat them as I would any of the Christian faith. Though I occasionally get vitriolic against Lee (that he lorded it over the flock, divided the flock for his own personal empire, and repressed parts of the Bible which didn't fit his vision), I still use what I heard when I was there. I still quote their footnotes, outlines and maxims when I minister to people, and don't have a problem doing that. True, Nee & Lee ministered inside an unbalanced system that wrongly elevated them, but we can still use what we learned and experienced. God is a businessman and wants a return on his investment, and so am I -- I invested part of my life in the Local Church system and now I want a return on my investment. Lee did the same, using Wescott, Vincent, Alford and others. Why can't I also with Lee?

We had a false "all or nothing" paradigm for Lee's ministry, that temporarily trapped and paralyzed us. I'm here to testify that you can leave that group, and you can still use what you learned there, and minister to your neighbor. Notice Jesus saying, "I will build my church": if you take care of your neighbor by testifying to them of Jesus Christ, God will "consummate the New Jerusalem" and all that. Just take care of your neighbor. They are already on the proper ground, waiting for you to come and help them.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Just take care of your neighbor. They are already on the proper ground, waiting for you to come and help them.

Or them help you.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Nee's 1950s writings on relations vis-a-vis the emerging Communist government in China show us that the "later Nee" was as whacked out as the later Lee.

Everyone needs to be adjusted, and balanced. And that especially goes for the people who claim that they need no balancing or adjustment, that through some process of rugged transformation they've entered the rarefied air of pure Spirit, and now only God can adjust them...cult alert...cult alert! Ooogah... ooogah!

Since I'm feeling loquacious today, I'll add a further point. Nee's instructions to his flock on receiving the new reality of Communist rule unmistakably showed his church arrangement to be of men, by men, and for men. But, and this is a big but, would I have done any better? Probably not. Probably I'd have done much worse in 1950s China than Nee did. So this is not about judging Nee or somehow pretending I'm capable of doing better.

Nee & Lee arguably gave their lives for the Lord's kingdom, and it would be pretty dumb for some wanna-be johnny-come-lately like myself to sit in my easy chair and say that I know better and could do better. If your civilization and all you've ever known is collapsing in front of your eyes, what will you do? It's not easy to say and I don't pretend to be a better Christian than Nee was.

But Nee's model was terribly, terribly flawed, and when the Commies showed up it exposed his system for what it was: of men. And as a Christian reader of history I do have the right, even the responsibility, to say that. And it's important to say that, in the face of a scheme which basically told us that Nee could do no wrong, and it was only the quisling local church elders in Shanghai that deserted him, etc. etc. That history which we were fed by LSM was biased, distorted, and self-serving.

So we shouldn't be afraid to say what we see in history, or in our Local Church experience, even knowing that we ourselves may be the least in the kingdom. "Least" or "most" is not important when we are dealing with spiritual truths. The Bible is its own animal, and we should simply testify, and not be cowed by someone's insistence that we take it, and subsequent Christian history, as "just so." The church system built by Nee et al was far from Jesus Christ in both spirit and letter, and was revealed as such during the Communist takeover.

Nee's writings on dealing with the new political realities in China show him to be an organizational man, not a spiritual man. There were a few spiritual aphorisms to cover his instructions to the flock, but he was grappling with something way over his head. He had built his system and now he had to live with it.

If you leave that Nee & Lee system, and critique it, that doesn't mean that you are being disrespectful of their sacrifices, nor of those who followed. It just means that they get the same unbiased critique that everyone else gets. Don't set anyone or anything aside for special treatment before the Lord shows up, or you may be unpleasantly surprised in that day.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Or them help you.

Right. Well the operative point is that God will show mercy to you as you show mercy to others. If you just sit in your chair and read fancy books and congratulate yourself on your truths, what will the coming fire do to all of that?

No, salvation is found out on the street: as you do to the least of these your neighbors God will do to you. The way for God to help you is for you to help others.

I went into the denominations with all my LSM truths firmly lodged in my brain, and yet I found new truths there. Remember what John said about Jesus? All the books in the world couldn't fully express this guy. Lee might have been afraid of the divisions, and taught us to be, but Jesus ain't. I'm telling you, if you begin to serve, Jesus will meet you there. It is awesome. Don't wait for a "better church model" to show up. Just serve.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I feel very strongly that I must come back in and ask forgiveness for quoting the phrase "lite gospel" and even agreeing with it to an extent. I have been strongly convicted since writing this that it is NEVER a "lite gospel" that turns a lost person away from an unending eternity in Hell to an unending JOYFUL eternity with Christ!...

No need to ask for forgiveness my friend. Just keep posting away, and don't forget to give others the grace and understanding to do as well, and eventually we'll all "arrive at the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God".

PS: I think you've brought a good perspective to the forum, please consider joining as a member when you get a chance. Simply send a request, along with your desired UserName to LocalChurchDiscussions@Gmail.Com.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I feel very strongly that I must come back in and ask forgiveness for quoting the phrase "lite gospel" and even agreeing with it to an extent. I have been strongly convicted since writing this that it is NEVER a "lite gospel" that turns a lost person away from an unending eternity in Hell to an unending JOYFUL eternity with Christ!

I have heard similar comments such as yours from those who have spent time in the Recovery. It is just amazing how quickly we Christians get carried off by "impressive messages and high-peak displays of wisdom." (I Cor. 2.1) We love our arousing displays of esoteric doctrines, even when they are dismally void of love and assault the greater body of Christ with ignoble stereotypes and condemnations.

Reminds me of the wife of an aging married couple, after years of therapy and with any vestige of love long forgotten, chiding her weary husband with "counselese" talk such as, "when you continue to violate these long established boundaries, I have no choice but to express how you make me feel when you do that thing you do ... " When love was present, a simple "I'm sorry" would have been more than sufficient.

Likewise with the leadership in the Recovery. I have always been amazed by the brilliant insights from Old Testament shadows which got resurrected and recovered by the LSM wordsmiths just in time to inoculate the saints during their latest round of quarantines. Afaithfulworddotcom is filled with such endless displays of fleshly wisdom totally void of love.

Since leaving the Recovery, I am definitely more attuned to the anointed word rather than the so-called interpreted word. The anointed word, even the simplest message of God's saving love, has the reality of the Spirit of God. That's what this world needs. And that's what builds up. Excellent words of knowledge, however, only puff up.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Since leaving the Recovery, I am definitely more attuned to the anointed word rather than the so-called interpreted word. The anointed word, even the simplest message of God's saving love, has the reality of the Spirit of God. That's what this world needs. And that's what builds up. Excellent words of knowledge, however, only puff up.

Amen Ohio. I would also add the anointed words convict and sensitize our spirit (aka causing us to be inwardly disturbed).

[Lisbon]

There is quite a bit of speaking about keeping the good and discarding the evil. Thru the years how much did we hear about a ton of leaven and a spoon full of fine flour. But that's what we got. We got the ton of leaven and for my part it is difficult to glean the fine flour. Seriously I have strong doubts about the way our campus workers try for months to convince the young that we are right. Is that what we are after. I think the Mormons and many others are doing the same thing. What happened to speaking to those who have a known need. Remember, the Lord came to heal those who were sick. The "healthy" ones could not receive.

Even though I've been here for over 40 years, I'm not that sure when WL clearly left the Bible and went on his own. I well remember in the mid 80's when he started hatcheting the Psalms and the Psalms were not the only Bible he hatcheted. It really reveals how drugged we were when we didn't stand up and scream. The Christian faith is heavily bound in the Bible and our oracle, apostle, MOTA, dictator spent many years discrediting it while he continued to use the words "pure word of God."

Whether he was a wolf in 1949, I don't know. By the late 80's he was. He lost his conscience and without a conscience you are through with the Lord's work. From some who have posted about his last conference, it would seem his conscience was somewhat working but his BBs covered that up as they covered up all the misery of about 25 years. They too are partakers of his deceptions.

After 18 months "out" I attend a Bible church and the gentleman there is a very well taught man of God and speaks from his heart. I cannot remember when I ever heard WL or any of the BBs or elders speak from their heart. WL just spoke what he had figured out and mostly it was not the Bible but him.

Lisbon

[Cal]

I don't think you need to go on a witch hunt for leaven. Begin by learning to just love God, love people, and receive all believers. Learn to not judge beliefs or practices. Then, read. Read all kinds of Christian authors and sources. Be open to God's speaking in everything. Read, read, read. Read light books on Christian living, read some deep theology, read devotionals, especially read the Bible (with no footnotes). Visit a lot of different churches. Listen to the messages with an open mind. Be humble and appreciative of the many ways God works. Be open to everything but make nothing the final word (obviously the Bible is, but even it must be interpreted).

After some time, you will begin to notice a common thread. The thread will be about loving God, loving people, obeying his Word, being holy, serving others and witnessing for Him. It will be a pure, simple and life-sized thread. Focus on that thread, make it your life path.

You will also notice there will be very little about "building the Church." This is because we can't build the Church, only Christ can. The best we can do is help build up one another, which is the overflow of a life in the thread.

Certain things will fall away, some you will throw away. Some will come back and you will realize they are okay. But the main thing is to open yourself to many sources and let the Spirit tell you what is real.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

HERn, thank you for your post. Could you please share your experience? What made you come up with the idea to leave the Local Church?

As for your question, "How much to throw out?" Read the Gospels and you will get the answer. Christ's message is never lite.

May the Lord bless you.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

HERn, thank you for your post. Could you please share your experience? What made you come up with the idea to leave the Local Church?

As for your question, "How much to throw out?" Read the Gospels and you will get the answer. Christ's message is never lite.

May the Lord bless you.

Why am I on my way out? Two words; cognitive dissonance.

To me the local churches are like a large extended family living in a large house where all but the infants are aware that a "crazy aunt" lives in the attic, but no one is willing to acknowledge or discuss the "crazy aunt". The "crazy aunt" is not a real person, but a nagging feeling of not being able to discuss the questionable teachings within Nee's and Lee's otherwise healthy ministry, or the shame of the alleged Daystar business investment debacle, or the alleged immorality of a past manager of the ministry, or the rude treatment of the saints by certain brothers using deputy authority. Because (in my opinion) the living of the brothers and the practices of the ministry were not congruent (to me) with the teaching of the bible (as I understand it) I found myself spending an enormous amount of mental and emotional energy trying to manage this cognitive dissonance. I finally gave up.

I get the feeling from some of the brothers that it is best to avoid negative things like those mentioned above because it does no good to know, understand or discuss them. But this does not agree with how I manage the more intimate aspects of my life. For example, if my spouse was being unfaithful I suppose you could say I would suffer less and be happier not knowing of his/her unfaithfulness. But, what about STDs to which I might be exposed? And, if s/he is unfaithful in one area what could s/he be doing in other areas like children, savings, retirement and our plans for the future? So, in the intimate areas of life I really do need to know about negative things in order to protect myself, family and future. I believe my church life and those that I allow to be spiritual leaders over me are also intimate areas of life where I need to be aware of negative things and not feel like I need to remain ignorant. My legitimate need to know and then feeling I'm being negative and divisive for asking or discussing these things with saints is another area of cognitive dissonance that bothers me. We are warned not to read the negative comments because it could poison or deceive us, but I have an intuition that I think I can trust or at least to which I should listen. Having lived with my spouse for a number of years I have an intuition that I can trust him/her. If someone tells me some negative things about him/her or points me to a source of information then I probably need to hear or read it. If when I try to talk to him/her about it and I'm given the impression that I'm being negative or divisive in my marriage, that to me is a huge red flag (and another area of cognitive dissonance). I think I have read that prolonged cognitive dissonance can lead to mental illness. If none of this is your experience, then please ignore all I have written, for I could be deceived.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

I think I have read that prolonged cognitive dissonance can lead to mental illness. If none of this is your experience, then please ignore all I have written, for I could be deceived.

My experience of cognitive dissonance within the Lord's Recovery/Local Church movement, a subject touched upon often in these threads, was highlighted in the fact that members were allowed and even encouraged to criticize "Christianity", meaning all those outside the group, but not permitted to be "negative" or "questioning" regarding anything within the group itself.

Second, group leadership could excoriate rank-and-file members for faults and failures, and even drag up imaginary ones, and do it quite publicly (which I witnessed in trainings and conferences), to show who was situated where in the leadership & social pecking order. But any return questioning of the upper tiers by lower members would immediately be branded as "leprosy" and "rebellion". Criticizing higher-ups was simply not tolerated in any way.

So you got this weird combination of outspokenness and silence, depending on where the attention was focused. To me it is a classic example of cognitive dissonance, and it reminds me nothing so much as the slave in the parable in Matthew 18:23-35, who was hyper aware of the slights of others, and yet wanted his own to be ignored.

When an individual behaves this way, he is probably mentally unbalanced; when a group is persuaded to take this as its preferred social arrangement, what do we call it? Socially unbalanced? Certainly it seems to be cognitive dissonance on a larger scale. Members have to adopt this repressed and unbalanced thinking as their own, in order to flourish within the social structures of the group.

Of course it is done widely among "fallen humankind"; we demonize other races, groups and cultures whom we oppose. Those who are alien are considered as inferior. Politics feeds on this distortion of reality to highlight the opponent's faults while masking one's own. And families maintain cohesion, at least somewhat, by drawing borders, and making "us" and "them" judgments, which of course are biased.

In Witness Lee's church, we presumed ourselves beyond all of that. Fallen humankind's social arrangements never touched us! So we never questioned, and never considered, even when things got weirder and weirder, as gaps between individual perception and social consensus widened themselves.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Of course it is done widely among "fallen humankind"; we demonize other races, groups and cultures whom we oppose. Those who are alien are considered as inferior.

This is pure tribalism, like even the monkeys and great apes, that also have an alpha-male leader.

Paul, or a follower of Paul, says, in Colossians, we put off the old man. Well not entirely. Our tribalism is still hanging around, in Lee's local church movement, with Lee as the alpha-male, condemning all other tribes.

So what's the new man:

"Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all ... bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;
Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.
And above all these things put on charity..."

But Lee's tribe never reached the new man.

Lees' group is like the tribe of Navajo native Americans. Who called their tribe "The Real People." And all other tribes were not real people. Same thing ; we're it, you're not. Tribalism, pure and simple, is the local church system. Old man stuff - not of regeneration at all ... purely a tribal system of man/monkey ... monkey holiness ... monkey shines ... and monkey tribalism ... that's Lee, and Nee's system: of the old man, and animal nature. Not "Christ is all, and in all." (Col 3:9-13)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by HERn

Why am I on my way out? Two words; cognitive dissonance.

HERn, I think your post is spot on, as is your analogy of the "crazy aunt in the attic." Any system that is so fragile that it cannot stand up to reasonable scrutiny isn't worth investing your future in. Any church is going to be imperfect. But any church that depends on everyone playing dumb is doomed.

[InChristAlone]

HERn, thanks. Your story reminds me of my experience. When I found this forum and started reading about WL, I had this verse as a conclusion: "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." Then I started to explore WL's doctrines and came to the conclusion that Witness Lee's message and Christ's message are not the same. Christ says, "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." And: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength... Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

WL's message is different: "But study first my doctrines and attend the Local Church meetings and the kingdom of God will be given to you as well. There is no commandment greater than this.” WL never said these words, but this maxim became the model of spiritual life of his followers.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

HERn, thanks. Your story reminds me of my experience. When I found this forum and started reading about WL, I had this verse as a conclusion: "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." Then I started to explore WL's doctrines and came to the conclusion that Witness Lee's message and Christ's message are not the same. Christ says, "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." And: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength... Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

WL's message is different: "But study first my doctrines and attend the Local Church meetings and the kingdom of God will be given to you as well. There is no commandment greater than this.” WL never said these words, but this maxim became the model of spiritual life of his followers.

And when you step back, and stop to think about it, surely the local church life was not what Jesus pictured for the life of his followers. Just the constant obsessive calling on the Lord, if they're still doing that, can't be imagined as what Jesus expected of his disciples and followers. It's clownish.

I remember it. I look back now and wonder how I could get caught up in something so clownish; I wore a Penguin suit; white shirt, black pants, wingtip shoes, polished, skinny tie and all - (monkey holiness) - so clownish. No wonder the outside world thought we were loony. (Who could blame them if they thought: if that's what Jesus does to people, I'm running the other way.) Which, if I had any sense, I should have done.

So I have to admit, the conclusion from it all is, if I were you guys, I wouldn't listen to anything I say. It's been proven. Even UntoHim can't disagree. My judgment can't be trusted. The LC proved that. I'm most certainly out of whack. One more proof is: the more I learn, the more ignorant I feel. What's up with that?

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by awareness

And when you step back, and stop to think about it, surely the local church life was not what Jesus pictured for the life of his followers. .......

We wanted and still do wanted Jesus and real lovers of Jesus. I for one having been raised Catholic was tired of the hypocrisy.

I remember it. I look back now and wonder how I could get caught up in something so clownish; I wore a Penguin suit; white shirt, black pants, wingtip shoes, polished, skinny tie and all - (monkey holiness) - so clownish.

LOL.... I have a hard time picturing you in a penguin suit Harold !! We were gullible because we wanted to hang out with people who were 'real' lovers Of Jesus, learn from and become real friends with and people who would teach me how to read a bible because I did not know how. I did not grow up with one. At least that was what I wanted.We were 'loved' bombed and thought it was genuine.

No wonder the outside world thought we were loony. (Who could blame them if they thought: if that's what Jesus does to people, I'm running the other way.) Which, if I had any sense, I should have done.

Suck it up as a learning experience! God used you through that experience to help and encourage a whole lot of other people not to give up on God! Daddy God is very pleased with you even if not everyone on this forum is happy with you! :- )

So I have to admit, the conclusion from it all is, if I were you guys, I wouldn't listen to anything I say. It's been proven. Even UntoHim can't disagree. My judgment can't be trusted. The LC proved that. I'm most certainly out of whack. One more proof is: the more I learn, the more ignorant I feel. What's up with that?

BL (barrel of laughter) The LAMB just wants you to follow HIM wherever He goes. Do you remember the jack ass Jesus rode on when He entered Jerusalem the week of His Crucifixion? Jesus was sitting on top of the jack ass and the jack ass was honored to have the KING of kings sitting on him. The jack ass was simply led by Jesus. He didn't give a crap if people made fun of him. He was CHOSEN to carry the KING into Jerusalem. Not a magnificent stallion. (Now when HE returns with the saints at the battle of Armageddon JESUS comes on a White Horse.. maybe you will be changed from a jackass to a white Stallion Harold!

Love YA!
Carol

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

My experience of cognitive dissonance within the Lord's Recovery/Local Church movement, a subject touched upon often in these threads, was highlighted in the fact that members were allowed and even encouraged to criticize "Christianity", meaning all those outside the group, but not permitted to be "negative" or "questioning" regarding anything within the group itself.

Hi Aron,
Long time I don't drop in... thought I'd come by and see how everyone is doing. I see there are a couple of newbies. How very COOL! JESUS IS SOOO GOOD ! Y'ALL are doing a GREAT SERVICE unto the Lord. I hope my time here will be counted worthy by our Awesome God too.

So... yeah.. as much as the LR/LC movement insists on denying they are not religious they are just as bad as the Mormons, JW and of course the Roman C church...probably worst! I do want to add something here though. The LC is no different than any other club, organization, political or religious. No member of a 'church' is allowed to criticize the 'pastor'. If they do, they are 'quarantined', 'suspended' or excommunicated.

Criticizing higher-ups was simply not tolerated in any way.

Again, this is true in almost every 'church' or club where there is a board of directors.

Members have to adopt this repressed and unbalanced thinking as their own, in order to flourish within the social structures of the group.

And there in lies the problem ! Most 'Christians' have forgotten or have no Spirit revelation that we are members of the BODY of Jesus Christ. He is our Head. HE is our LEADER. HE is our Pastor... our SHEPHERD. The LORD is MY Shepherd. I shall not lack. Remember?

But churchers have subjected themselves to an earthly 'pastor'. And if the 'pastor' says so. Then it be because 'he hears from God'. For years we heard no one had the revelation from God like Witness Lee..and to a lesser or equal extent, Watchman Nee.

Well... guess what? The Mormons feel the same way about Joseph Smith. And most churchers feel the same way about their 'pastor'. - My my! Pastor said this. And pastor said that.' OH...and pastor is now a 'doctor'. He graduated with honors at Bible college.

The FTT is the LC's version of bible college.

Of course it is done widely among "fallen humankind"; we demonize other races, groups and cultures whom we oppose. Those who are alien are considered as inferior. Politics feeds on this distortion of reality to highlight the opponent's faults while masking one's own. And families maintain cohesion, at least somewhat, by drawing borders, and making "us" and "them" judgments, which of course are biased.

Well said. And May God have Mercy on us all!

In Witness Lee's church, we presumed ourselves beyond all of that. Fallen humankind's social arrangements never touched us! So we never questioned, and never considered, even when things got weirder and weirder, as gaps between individual perception and social consensus widened themselves.

Yeah... well... Lee and cohorts attempted to have The 'LIFE GIVING SPIRIT' got sucked right out of us! But God would not have it ! He knows HIS Own! He calls them by Name. His sheep follow THE Shepherd Jesus by His Spirit in them. Jesus truly came to set the captives FREE! And that would be us! Praise His Holy and Beautiful Name.

Love YA!
Carol

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

Even though I've been here for over 40 years, I'm not that sure when WL clearly left the Bible and went on his own. I well remember in the mid 80's when he started hatcheting the Psalms and the Psalms were not the only Bible he hatcheted. It really reveals how drugged we were when we didn't stand up and scream. The Christian faith is heavily bound in the Bible and our oracle, apostle, MOTA, dictator spent many years discrediting it while he continued to use the words "pure word of God."

Hi Lisbon..
I'm an oldie but goodie who hasn't been here in a while. I've been 'circling the globe'...the Christian globe. hee hee

I was in the LC from 1975 -1978/79. Fortunately for me, I was in a pretty healthy church life compared to a lot of them. I got saved straight out of the world and was immersed heavily into the Word of God. In 1975, Lee was still using the KJ and the NASB. Those are the translations I was raised in. There was no RcV. But he did start the Genesis messages then and while there was a lot of great stuff I learned from the bible and messages, I did not know any better as I had never picked up a bible in my life. So I had nothing to compare notes with.

I will say that in 1977, there was a HUGE shift to adulating Lee. He was the 'Paul' of this age, etc... and there was overkill emphasis on 'the church'. So it became The church and Christ. And by 1978, it was Lee and the church'. How 'bout that ???

I also noticed the same record was playing over and over and over. You know why? Because the Holy Spirit left. All that was there was NOISE. 'o Lord Jeeeeeeeesus'. His Name... His Precious Name became a sounding cymbal. No heart. No Love. No Anointing. Just dead repetitive Noise.

Back then, I did not know how I was going to leave the LC... so I moved to a different 'locality' which fell apart and I GOT set Free. But while I was out of 'the church', the 'church' was not out of me.

If I'd read my bible and didn't understand something, I would look for a WL or WN book to clarify. DUH !!!!!!!!!

After 18 months "out" I attend a Bible church and the gentleman there is a very well taught man of God and speaks from his heart. I cannot remember when I ever heard WL or any of the BBs or elders speak from their heart. WL just spoke what he had figured out and mostly it was not the Bible but him.

Cool. I personally think the LCrs are in such a weird predicament..due to the brain washing that it is necessary to go meet other believers and listen to 'pastors'.

Many here attend 'church'. I did for several years. I also watched a lot of Christian TV. All this helped get the LC out of me.

But I'm FREE from going to 'church' now. That was my final step OUT to follow the LAMB wherever HE goes. I don't even like labeling myself as a 'Christian'. I wholeheartedly believe and follow Father God by His Word and through His Spirit leading me, guiding me and enlightening me.

I do fellowship with like minded believers. No one I know had the LC experience I had / we had-have, but there are quite a few people out there that were kicked out of their 'church' and one friend of mine was called 'JEZEBEL' not Rebellious or leprous but JEZEBEL !! BL LOL !!

A couple of friends reminded me that God hates the deeds and the doctrine of the Nicolatians. (Clergy lording over the Laity).

Look up... cause we going up ! Jesus is coming ! Come KING Jesus! We LOVE YOU !! I LOVE YOU LORD JESUS ! I REALLY REALLY DO!

Invisible HUGS AND BLESSINGS!
Carol

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio;33529
Since leaving the Recovery, I am definitely more attuned to the [I

anointed[/I] word rather than the so-called interpreted word. The anointed word, even the simplest message of God's saving love, has the reality of the Spirit of God. That's what this world needs. And that's what builds up. Excellent words of knowledge, however, only puff up.

Hi Ohio !
Yeppers! Nothing like the Anointed Word and the Anointed Spirit in us and on us!
Hope you are doing well my friend ! Hey... HOW 'BOUT THEM SPURS!!!!
WOO HOO !!

LOVE YOU OHIO!!!
Carol

[awareness]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

We wanted and still do wanted Jesus and real lovers of Jesus. I for one having been raised Catholic was tired of the hypocrisy.

I came up with Bible-thumpers. Before the LC I had read the Bible from cover to cover more than 3 times. I didn't need the LC for that.

Originally Posted by CMW

We were 'loved' bombed and thought it was genuine.

Ya got that right. It was the love that captured me.

Originally Posted by CMW

Suck it up as a learning experience! God used you through that experience to help and encourage a whole lot of other people not to give up on God! Daddy God is very pleased with you even if not everyone on this forum is happy with you! :- )

LOL

Originally Posted by CMW

BL (barrel of laughter) The LAMB just wants you to follow HIM wherever He goes. Do you remember the jack ass Jesus rode on when He entered Jerusalem the week of His Crucifixion?

Are you calling me a jackass? I'm an

Originally Posted by CMW

Now when HE returns with the saints at the battle of W]Armageddon JESUS comes on a White Horse..

You mean when He's no more Mr. Nice guy? Like in the gospels?

Originally Posted by CMW

. . . maybe you will be changed from a jackass to a white Stallion Harold!

You mean this jackass still has a chance?

Originally Posted by CMW

Love YA!
Carol

Love ya too Carol ... you know that.

[aron]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

! Hey... HOW 'BOUT THEM SPURS!!!!l

They got lucky is all.

Thanx as always, for your enthusiasm.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

They got lucky is all.

Yeah, fifteen years of luck. Go figure.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Hi Ohio !
Yeppers! Nothing like the Anointed Word and the Anointed Spirit in us and on us!
Hope you are doing well my friend ! Hey... HOW 'BOUT THEM SPURS!!!!
WOO HOO !!

LOVE YOU OHIO!!!
Carol

Yo Carol, I been missing all those smilie faces of yours.

I was loving every Spurs game! How can you not love the way they play? Six passes and a three point swoosh!

Then ... True to form ... Spurs win the series by a record point differential, and all the Sports world talks about all summer is LaBronto. Go figure!

No headline news, but the whole team, coaching staff, and front office is intact for next year.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

They got lucky is all.

Luck is what the Heat had last year.

[KSA]

After twenty-something years being in The Lord's Recovery (TLR) I think I'm on my way out, but don't know how much to leave behind.

In the paraphrazed words of apostle Paul, leave what is behind and push forward. )))

Actually, the process of reevaluating and reexamining your past experience when you decide what to drop and what to keep is rewarding in itself. You will have to reexamine everything, what you decide to keep is yet to be seen. It is different for everyone

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

They got lucky is all.

Thanx as always, for your enthusiasm.

They got LUCKY??????????

LET'S see here. 1, 2 , 3, 4, 5 NBA championships. (should have won last year too. But they didn't. oh well )

62 WINS VS 20 losses - not too shabby

6 conference titles

Greg Popavich coach of the year 3 times tied w/Pat Riley

Coyote Mascot - Mascot of the year

If that's "LUCK"? I want some of that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And if I was 50 yrs younger, as smart as I am now... as mature as I am now I would snatch up Patty (Patrick Mills) in a heart beat !

He is just too cute !! hee hee

Pray and hope they ALL make it to the Holy City New Jerusalem !

Love YOU Aron !
Carol

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yo Carol, I been missing all those smilie faces of yours.

I was loving every Spurs game! How can you not love the way they play? Six passes and a three point swoosh!

Then ... True to form ... Spurs win the series by a record point differential, and all the Sports world talks about all summer is LaBronto. Go figure!

No headline news, but the whole team, coaching staff, and front office is intact for next year.

Lebronte the Nephalim ! that's what my friend calls him ! big cry baby!! (and he's "matured" so he wrote in his homecoming letter. uh huh

Hey... but like everyone else out there... Lebron needs Jesus to be his KING!
SAVE HIM LORD ! TO THE GLORY AND PRAISE OF YOUR NAME!

Don't know if we are going to be around to see NBA next year... (I am a rapture centric jack ass believing Jesus is just right around the corner!)

Can't wait to see King Jesus, face to Face! I love HIM sooo very much! He's da MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOVE YOU MY SPURS BUDDY !!! woo hoo!!!
Carol

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by KSA

In the paraphrazed words of apostle Paul, leave what is behind and push forward. )))

Actually, the process of reevaluating and reexamining your past experience when you decide what to drop and what to keep is rewarding in itself. You will have to reexamine everything, what you decide to keep is yet to be seen. It is different for everyone

HEY HUGS TO YOU KSA!!

little happy family reunion here !!! Is it a sign of things to come ?

Carol

[KSA]

Hey, Carol, it is nice to see that you kept your exuberant spirit

[HERn]

I'm feeling more free to speak. My spouse and I touched the church through a relative. We had seen that when we come together everyone has a portion to contribute. The first meeting we attended demonstrated a mutual functioning and a sincere love for The Lord at the table meetings. So, we ignored the strange (to us) concepts and doctrines we heard and figured we would understand it some day. The saints took care of us and were genuine (I think) so we ignored some red flags. I was willing to see WL and WN as mature brothers with significant contributions to make regarding maintaining a vital relationship with Christ, but I don't consider him the minister of the age, god's oracle, or even an apostle on the same level as Paul. I think they made significant contributions, but I would not rank them as being equal to Luther. The issues with Daystar, an immoral manager of LSM, strange ideas about deputy authority, bringing oriental sociology/culture into the church, and the exclusive view that The Lord Spirit is only working through the LSM-LR-LC are examples of bad fruit (at least to me).

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

My spouse and I touched the church through a relative. We had seen that when we come together everyone has a portion to contribute.

Initially you will be "free" to indulge whatever contribution you feel led. Eventually you will be expected to be "one" with everyone else, which means that your contribution is limited to repeating, verbatim if possible, the words of God's oracle, Mssrs Nee & Lee. Those who get their speaking from the Lord and from the still, small voice within, and not through the intermediary of "the interpreted word", will be encouraged not to contribute.

And if you stubbornly decide to contribute something not attributable to the supposed ministry of the age, you will be labeled as "independent", and eventually "rebellious" and "leprous". It is group think, pure and simple. If you are not subsumed in the Hive Mind, you're relegated to the fringes of this movement, and won't contribute much. And all the while, of course, you're encouraged to get in the "center lane", which you're told is no longer you but Christ. But actually it is the Collective: the Hive, fronting the ministry, has now replaced Christ. They will dress it up with spiritual terminology, of course, like "the Church" and "the Body" and so forth, but when push comes to shove you will see what is clear: they are not for Christ, nor the Spirit, nor the Word, nor for weaker members, the widows and orphans. They are for the ministry.

So for those who are OK in that system, and being a cheerleader for the ministry of a man, then yes everyone does have a portion to contribute.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Initially you will be "free" to indulge whatever contribution you feel led. Eventually you will be expected to be "one" with everyone else, which means that your contribution is limited to repeating, verbatim if possible, the words of God's oracle, Mssrs Nee & Lee. Those who get their speaking from the Lord and from the still, small voice within, and not through the intermediary of "the interpreted word", will be encouraged not to contribute.

Initially, back in the 60's and early 70's, there was much more freedom to share acc. to the leading of the Spirit, but not any more. Why "waste" their time with personal testimonies when you can speak "high peak" regurgitations from Lee's vast online ministry.

A friend of mine relocated to a "blended" LC out west and bucked the system by just sharing from the word of God. The saints really loved the freshness of the anointing, like a oasis in a desert. Things were peaceful until some sister spoke in the meeting about how refreshing his sharing was. His heart sunk. He thought, why mention my name in the meeting? Shortly afterwards the "elders" called him in privately and shut him down.

In reality, their liberty of the Spirit is only the "liberty of Lee."

Years later he returned to Ohio. The elders in Cleveland heard about his story and laughed at him for what he tried to do. They had been "freed" from the liberty of Lee into the liberty of Titus.

[OBW]

In less than 40 posts we have moved somewhat from the original question of the thread. And I refrained from my typical "everything — and let what was true to the word come back to you from another source." That does seem to irritate some because they think that I am suggesting that there is nothing ultimately worthy of keeping.

(If the real question was intended to be "how to get out of the LRC when there is family involved" then don't bother reading on. If it was an honest query about what is wrong with the LRC teachings and what should be dumped, read on.)

I have been observing and it seems (to me) that the things that are stated as ultimately worthy of keeping concern the aspects of the people (the mutuality) and general attitudes toward Christ. It is seldom stated as anything about the teachings.

And what I am being told is that if I were too long on remembering the ways of the old days, I would not be enjoying the ways of the recent times.

But I will provide a variant on my typical perspective on what to keep and what to throw out.

First, if you leave, despite the rhetoric you may have heard that there is nowhere else to go, there are really many places to go. And they run a spectrum of types of assembly and types of people. Most of them violate some aspect of what you have heard for however many years you have been in the LRC. They sit in pews. There is only one speaker (in a particular meeting). They may have what some would call a rock band for worship. They call what they do "going to church" and say that it is Sunday.

Get over it quickly. Wherever you find people and a theology and practice that is in any way appealing, try to get over the fact that there are things they do that you were taught were signs of being in daughters of the Whore of Babylon. The fact is that there is generally nothing spiritually or scripturally wrong with any of it. But we constantly heard (and believed) how poor it all was.

When you talk with the people, remember that they are not working with the same dictionary/lexicon. They actually believe all the things that actually matter, but they don't say it the same way. They especially do not use so many strings of adjectives that read like training banners. They don't consider the way you say it as important as the truth that is conveyed.

And when it comes to so much of the teachings that you have come to think on as simply true and helpful, be careful in pushing them. Some of them may be just fine — just buried in funny language (back to that dictionary/lexicon thing). But some of it is really not as good or wholesome as we were taught to believe. In hindsight, I think that just "going with the flow" in your new environment is the best course of action. When you feel the urge to bring something up from "the ministry," count to ten. What I have found is that the things that are actually worthwhile from the LRC's ministry are found in the rest of Christianity. Just less hyperbole in the rhetoric. And more straightforward in the language. It is probably worthwhile to get used to the idea that saying it with more pizzazz does not make it any better — just misunderstood.

When you have a brief thought about joining the choir and then suddenly remember that choirs are from the pit of hell, its time to consider where that thought came from. Maybe it is the complaint against choirs that came from the pit of hell. It was a device used by a divisive person to widen the divide between us and them. There was actually no cause for division. That was the error.

As for teachings. My typical mantra is that if it was truly worth retaining, it will be found again from respected sources. So being willing to dump it all is not so bad. If it is true, it will return. Probably wrapped in different terminology. But those are just words. It is what the words mean that is important, not the emotional impact of the words.

Why do I suggest that everything from the LRC is suspect? Because as I read back through any part of it, I find that highly questionable things are consistently peppered into everything. Even something as simple as salvation. Not saying that their understanding of salvation is wrong, but it was typically part of a larger discussion that included questionable things. You may be able to separate them. But then again, maybe not. My experience was that as long as I started with even normal teachings from an LRC perspective, there was too often something stuck in it that did not belong. And because I was conditioned to simply accept it, I did not see it. But that little bit of extra too often resulted in a slightly skewed version of what was really true.

I know this seems harsh. And it may not be the best way for everyone. But I only started taking this path after many years of just tolerating the differences and thinking that the LRC version was at least slightly better. Until my eyes were opened to the constant word tricks played on us to make us buy the nonsense as if actually included in the Bible.

Am I free of it? Probably not entirely.

Am I talking about preferences for how to have meetings? No. But even that is just a practice. A tradition. And as traditions go, the LRC's table meeting was really pretty good. At least in the earlier days. I've heard that more recently it has been shortened significantly so that they can get to ministry station stuff and the result is a pretty controlled environment.

But I have become quite happy with little plastic cups and broken crackers. Or Styrofoam-like wafers dipped in a small bowl of grape juice. They are forms with which we do what was commanded, and that was to remember. The form is not the remembrance. The form is not the command. The command is to remember.

And that is something we all do.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They had been "freed" from the liberty of Lee into the liberty of Titus.

What an odd coincidence. They're both from China.

[HERn]

When you have a brief thought about joining the choir and then suddenly remember that choirs are from the pit of hell, its time to consider where that thought came from. Maybe it is the complaint against choirs that came from the pit of hell. It was a device used by a divisive person to widen the divide between us and them. There was actually no cause for division. That was the error.

Thanks for the levity OBW! I needed that! I'm fortunate in that I had a long history in Protestant evangelical Christianity before I came into the "recovery", so I know there is life, reality and even God's move "out there". I think it must be much harder for those who are saved into the "recovery" and have no baseline to use for comparison. I appreciate all the comments and "fellowship".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

In less than 40 posts we have moved somewhat from the original question of the thread. And I refrained from my typical "everything — and let what was true to the word come back to you from another source." That does seem to irritate some because they think that I am suggesting that there is nothing ultimately worthy of keeping.

The reason is simple.

I have watched and heard about too many precious saints go off the deep end after leaving the LC.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The reason is simple.

I have watched and heard about too many precious saints go off the deep end after leaving the LC.

I'll say. I've seen some leave and become Buddhists. And one dear friend, who was an elder in the LC, is now a native American shaman. And they seem happier. They dumped all of it.

And I've seen some go into the different sects of Christianity who end up making everyone around them miserable. They didn't dump everything, but didn't find happiness.

After the LC. there's all kinds. I can list more.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by HERn

Thanks for the levity OBW! I needed that! I'm fortunate in that I had a long history in Protestant evangelical Christianity before I came into the "recovery", so I know there is life, reality and even God's move "out there". I think it must be much harder for those who are saved into the "recovery" and have no baseline to use for comparison. I appreciate all the comments and "fellowship".

I was just a month or so short of 18 when we entered the "recovery." I had already spent a year singing in the adult choir of a somewhat large AOG. And then a little over a year after leaving, I again considered joining the choir and eventually did just that. Now 27 years later, my voice is not consistent enough to really do it regularly, so no more choir.

I wasn't saved in the LRC, or raised there. But I learned more of my core theology there. And despite what I said in my rather lengthy post, there is a lot of solid base. It is just peppered with nonsense.

Now in response to Ohio's comment about people going off the deep end, I am not saying to dump everything while in some unsettled place —like just staying home on your own and in a blue funk over leaving (and wondering whether all those stories about calamity will fall on you). I did start with (and suggest others start with) an intentional association with some substantial Christian group. While there are many independents that are probably fine, I have no way to endorse or suggest to avoid those. But for the most part, the primary evangelical denominations are good — and a lot of others. Baptists, Bible churches, Presbyterian, Reformed, Methodists (sometimes that is almost assembly-by-assembly), substantial Pentecostal or charismatic groups (if you are prone that way), evangelical Lutheran, and others. I am not necessarily saying to avoid anyone I did not name. But in some cases, you probably need to use discretion. Or at least think about it hard.

Some of those places that do a lot of recitations, standing, sitting, kneeling, etc., according to a script are not so poor. Consider what they are actually saying. I've only been to one RCC mass in my life and while I would not make a regular thing of it, I found the content and experience to be totally different from my expectations. Yes, they did do their "Hail Mary" a couple of times. But the priest made a fairly clear homily concerning the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ. Surely some surrounding practices to be leery of. But still a church. And one that was preaching the gospel. And when the time for communion came, the priest again reiterated that Christ was not sacrificed again, but that the sacrifice was made available "today" (in so many words).

But if you start within some existing group and then willfully ignore those "but we learned _____ in the LRC" moments and let the truth reestablish itself within you, it should be a good experience. I'm not saying it will be easy. But it should be good.

[Cal]

OBW has caught a lot of flack for suggesting that everything from the LC should be dumped. Although I too have thought he was a little too insistent on this, I think his point is that, in a way, it might be better to relearn all Christian doctrine, including the stuff the LC got right, rather than clinging tightly to it because you like it so much.

In other words, I think his point is that there is nothing in the LC that you cannot get outside the LC and probably in a healthier manner. He is saying that in some cases it's just better to start from scratch, or act as if your are starting from scratch, when starting over post-LC. So his point isn't that everything in the LC is wrong. His point is you have to relearn everything to get it right anyway so you might as well get started as soon as possible.

I used to object to him more on this. But my experience has told me that he is more right that I first suspected. I had to basically start over with everything to gain a healthier perspective. Clinging to pet LC doctrines just slowed the process of real growth. This was especially true with that which you might see as an LC strength--the matter of inner life. But stuff like "the law of life," "the element of God", "mingling," "God's nature being wrought into us," "the divine dispensing," and a host of others just had to go. Ironically, they got in the way of my relationship with God.

In general, though, we should always have a loose grip on all our supposed understanding of things, pre and post-LC. Someone once said that wisdom is strong opinions loosely held. I think that applies here.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

OBW has caught a lot of flack for suggesting that everything from the LC should be dumped. Although I too have thought he was a little too insistent on this, I think his point is that, in a way, it might be better to relearn all Christian doctrine, including the stuff the LC got right, rather than clinging tightly to it because you like it so much.

I think I've pretty much dumped everything of the LC except my love for the saints. Of course, I've been out a lot longer than most of you and my time there was a lot shorter than most of you. However, I was pretty 'consecrated to Christ and the church', until it became
'the church AND Christ' and from there
to "LEE and the Lord's recovery".

Isn't that the way it went?

So his point isn't that everything in the LC is wrong. His point is you have to relearn everything to get it right anyway so you might as well get started as soon as possible.

Yeppers! And remember... it's all about getting to know the LORD all over again for yourself. Don't rely on others for you to get to know Father GOD, Lord and King Jesus, His Son and Word and Holy Spirit, God's Voice and Counselor. Otherwise, it becomes the same story in a different setting.

Get to Know HIM in you and outside of you. He is omnipresent after all.

I had to basically start over with everything to gain a healthier perspective.

Me too. First thing I did was throw away all the Nee and Lee books. Since then I bought one or 2 Nee books but not from LSM. LOL! That was early on. (Currently, I have pretty much stopped reading spiritual books by anyone!!)

Then I had to stop checking with my RcV to see what Lee had to say about a particular topic. It was then I realized 30 yrs after I had left the LC, how much my soul was attached to it. Then I started going to 'church'. I tried very hard to fit in. after 5 yrs, I didn't. Some of you have and that's great! Maybe that is where YOU are being used MIGHTILY by GOD. OR, where He is teaching you a thing or two ! Like he did me. As for me, I am free from the church organizations now. Took a long time but by the Wonderful Grace of God, He set this captive free!

Some of my friends who were never part of the LC and have left the church organization reminded me how God hates the works of the Nicolaetians. WOW!... That's right, I thought!!!!!!!!!!! So, going back and studying history and being around strong followers and lovers of Lord Jesus Christ has helped me put things into perspective.

Clinging to pet LC doctrines just slowed the process of real growth.

Indeed it did ! Just getting the LC lingo out of your system is a BEAR! Then realizing nobody understands what it was like to be an LCr...especially for those of you who are / have been it for a gazillion years will make you feel like a fish out of water!

But God is Good. And He will help you put it all behind you because God is a REAL PERSON and HE created YOU in His image and likeness. He LOVES US. HE LOVES YOU AND HE LOVES ME! NEVER EVER FORGET THAT!!! He did not create us in the image and likeness of Lee and the LRC !! JESUS is our Deliverer and our Rescuer ! Behold. He makes ALL things new!! Never forget that either!!!!!!!

This was especially true with that which you might see as an LC strength--the matter of inner life. But stuff like "the law of life," "the element of God", "mingling," "God's nature being wrought into us," "the divine dispensing," and a host of others just had to go. Ironically, they got in the way of my relationship with God.

Yes siree re-bob!!! Knowledge doesn't get us close to the LORD.. talking to HIM..being REAL with Him and asking Him to help us change our stinking thinking. Asking Him to help us to see things as He sees things. To Love what He loves and hate what He hates..and to help us in our weaknesses.

LOVE YOU ALL !!

Carol

[HERn]

One thing I'm working to throw out is the concept that all division in the body of Christ is bad. This is not polished and I came to it today when I read something in the discussion on another blog re: The Great Schism. A couple of commentators were lamenting the fact that although they believed in The sovereignty of God, what possible benefit could have come from the Great Schism (why did God allow it). This reminded me of an even earlier "schism" that our sovereign God apparently allowed (and even planned for?), which was the temptation and fall of man. I think we all know the wisdom/love/mercy of God in that "fouled-up plan". So, even though perfect unity in the church was God's goal could His allowing of the Great Schism followed by the umpteen other divisions simply be another venue whereby God could show His wisdom/love/mercy in the living out of the lives of the "peacemakers" who live in the reality of the unity even among the divisions? I don't know theology so all this is speculation on my part...I'm feeling more comfortable living with the thought of "going to the divisions".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Yes siree re-bob!!! Knowledge doesn't get us close to the LORD.. talking to HIM..being REAL with Him and asking Him to help us change our stinking thinking. Asking Him to help us to see things as He sees things. To Love what He loves and hate what He hates..and to help us in our weaknesses.

LOVE YOU ALL !!

Carol

You too, Carol!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In general, though, we should always have a loose grip on all our supposed understanding of things, pre and post-LC. Someone once said that wisdom is strong opinions loosely held. I think that applies here.

And that is the key to successful living within the broader community of believers. The less important the mental gymnastics are and the more important our personal living and sanctification are, the better we do. And when we do that, it is a lot less important to dwell on "God's eternal purpose" or "the sevenfold intensified Spirit." Whatever those actually mean is what they mean. If it is important to us, it is in terms of the landscape of our real life, not the head-scape of our mental gymnastics.

Therefore, the whole point of knowing it as we were taught in the LRC is suspect. They knew the stuff for the purpose of having the "best knowledge." But what we know about anything that is not changing our actual lives here on earth on this very day is mostly unimportant. And if it is only changing our ability to have great meetings where we impress each other as we say magical words over and over to each other, then it is equally unimportant.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by HERn

One thing I'm working to throw out is the concept that all division in the body of Christ is bad. This is not polished and I came to it today when I read something in the discussion on another blog re: The Great Schism. A couple of commentators were lamenting the fact that although they believed in The sovereignty of God, what possible benefit could have come from the Great Schism (why did God allow it). This reminded me of an even earlier "schism" that our sovereign God apparently allowed (and even planned for?), which was the temptation and fall of man. I think we all know the wisdom/love/mercy of God in that "fouled-up plan". So, even though perfect unity in the church was God's goal could His allowing of the Great Schism followed by the umpteen other divisions simply be another venue whereby God could show His wisdom/love/mercy in the living out of the lives of the "peacemakers" who live in the reality of the unity even among the divisions? I don't know theology so all this is speculation on my part...I'm feeling more comfortable living with the thought of "going to the divisions".

Even the call for unity can be used in a divisive manner. The LC majored in this error. They want unity on their terms, defined by submission to their leaders, their vision and their doctrines. Simply calling yourself "the church in such-in-place" doesn't make you for genuine unity any more than calling yourself a Big Mac makes you a hamburger.

The bottom line is no group has the right to claim to be the one that everyone else needs to join. For conscience's sake we need to reserve the right to part ways with groups which we feel led to part ways with. Many community churches these days do a much better job of keeping the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace than the LC ever did.

Unity is important. But unity as practiced by the LC is bogus unity. It's the unity of a movement, not the Spirit. It's unity meant to validate them while discrediting everyone else.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

OBW has caught a lot of flack for suggesting that everything from the LC should be dumped. Although I too have thought he was a little too insistent on this, I think his point is that, in a way, it might be better to relearn all Christian doctrine, including the stuff the LC got right, rather than clinging tightly to it because you like it so much.

In other words, I think his point is that there is nothing in the LC that you cannot get outside the LC and probably in a healthier manner. He is saying that in some cases it's just better to start from scratch, or act as if your are starting from scratch, when starting over post-LC. So his point isn't that everything in the LC is wrong. His point is you have to relearn everything to get it right anyway so you might as well get started as soon as possible.

I cannot accept this approach by OBW because I have seen too many in their "relearning" process mess the whole thing up. They rejected all they had in their LC tenure, entered the vast marketplace of Christian and pseudo-Christian products, and ended up far worse. Since they had learned to critique "all things Christian" thru the ministry of Lee, they were frankly unable to join healthy evangelical congregations, to "relearn" the common faith, that which is healthy for our growth in life and relationship with the Lord Jesus. What has worked for OBW may not work for others.

I think the better way is to to expose, in the light of scriptures, those areas in the LC which imprison them holding them in fear. This is how I was delivered. Through careful examination, with healthy feedback from other posters, errant teachings can be exposed one by one. It's a slower process, but I think a safer one. That's how we learn, we unlearn, and we relearn in every area of our life.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

One thing I'm working to throw out is the concept that all division in the body of Christ is bad.

You are correct. Here is a verse to help you.

I Cor. 11.19, "For there must be sects (or factions) among you, that those who are approved may become manifest among you."

It is interesting to note that every man of God in the history of the so-called Recovery (whether Darby, Zinzendorf, Luther, or Nee) was esteemed by Lee for separating from their existing churches, starting a new division, and thus "faithfully" following the Lord and His truth. When faithful men of God within the Recovery did the same thing, Lee and his successors condemned them mercilessly, publicly slandered their reputations, and libeled them in writing.

Hypocrites!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Even the call for unity can be used in a divisive manner. The LC majored in this error. They want unity on their terms, defined by submission to their leaders, their vision and their doctrines. Simply calling yourself "the church in such-in-place" doesn't make you for genuine unity any more than calling yourself a Big Mac makes you a hamburger.

Today's laugh.

My recommendation for featured quote.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Even the call for unity can be used in a divisive manner. The LC majored in this error. They want unity on their terms, defined by submission to their leaders, their vision and their doctrines.

Within this last month my family and I met with a local church during vacation. The morning revival taken by this locality had its content based on Lee's Conclusion of the New Testament. How fellowship is defined and taught is interchangeable with Igzy's post. Call it unity or call it fellowship, LSM wants it on their terms. If anyone as a Christian does not fellowship according to their ministry, you are considered outside the Body of Christ. Not only is this a sectarian teaching, it is also in error.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I cannot accept this approach by OBW because I have seen too many in their "relearning" process mess the whole thing up. They rejected all they had in their LC tenure, entered the vast marketplace of Christian and pseudo-Christian products, and ended up far worse.

While I am not sure that it is the relearning process that is the problem, I do understand your concerns.

One thing I will say about it all is that more important than pure doctrines — or even more loosely held doctrines — is the problem with the notion that "we have the best ones and everyone else is a pathetic mooing cow (if not the whore of Babylon)." That is the most dangerous part of the LRC teachings — all of them — and the thing that needs dumping more rapidly than the septic system on a motor home after a long vacation in the mountains. The problem is that we have a two edged sword that can divide soul from spirit and joints from marrow, but can't divide truth from hyperbole. And if you can't parse-out the hyperbole, then the teaching underneath is questionable.

(I think that the problem with people who go of the deep end is that they feel that they were just too sure about all the LRC stuff to think that it was just plain wrong. And rather than just admit that we bought a bill of goods, we determine that it was really right in theory, but wrong as practiced, so either give up as personal failures, or blame God for letting it happen.

But we don't blame God for the Anglicans, RCC, Methodists, etc. we blame people who dupe other people. But we weren't duped. we just had bad leaders trying to run the perfect system.)

We were taught for years that the "better" that you can know it and say it, the better it actually is. That was the excuse for the peculiar lexicon. It was our way of saying it better.

And when your goal is to have normal Christian fellowship and everything that comes out of your mouth is "Oh, the wonderful processed triune God burning through my human spirit with the sevenfold intensified spirit," or some other hyperbolic gushing, just sort of leaves everyone else either rolling their eyes or slowly backing away and looking for the door.

True fellowship is a matter of mutuality. It is hard to have mutuality when there is a zealot in the midst. They tend to "bah humbug" at the mutuality and push for fanaticism. The point of mutuality is the "ones" in Ephesians — and mainly Christ. Too much other stuff and mutuality becomes strained. It is true among those who are not following a MOTA.

And holding LRC teachings generally means holding the position of a sort of zealot because of the hyperbole that is wrapped into so much of it. Even the way we talked about otherwise normal stuff was full of hyperbole. Everything had too many adjectives. Constantly.

We have no idea what normal is. And while The Normal Christian Life may have had some good stuff in it, most of it was not really very normal. It wasn't really about life while being a Christian, but about being a Christian in spiritual things in a better way, but not very much about normal daily living as the image of God.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by HERn

One thing I'm working to throw out is the concept that all division in the body of Christ is bad.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are correct. Here is a verse to help you.

I Cor. 11.19, "For there must be sects (or factions) among you, that those who are approved may become manifest among you."

I am sorry, I might be wrong, but I can't agree that all division in the body of Christ is good.

Jesus said "I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you." (John 17:19-21)

So I believe the Lord didn't want us, i.e. His Church, His Body, to be divided.

As for 1 Cor. 11:19, in the original Greek, Paul didn't say "sects" (factions or differences). He used the word αἱρέσεις (haireseis). King James Bible used the right translation: "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."

Does Paul approve of dissensions among Christians or recognize them as necessary or desirable? Is he making them the rule? If so, then how can this be compatible with the numerous places in his epistles where he so forcefully and persistently calls Christians to full agreement and unanimity?

Be of the same mind one toward another (Rom. 12:16), or Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord of mind (Phil. 2:2).

Furthermore, not only the Apostle Paul, but also other apostles exhorted Christians to be of one mind. Thus the Apostle Peter directly writes to Christians in his first epistle, Be ye all of one mind! (I Peter 3:8).

Not only does the Apostle Paul call Christians to oneness of mind, he even warns them of such people who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which they have learned (Rom. 16:17) and urges them to avoid them, saying that they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple (Rom. 16:18).

What kinds of "heresies" can there be among true Christians when the Lord Jesus Christ Himself prayed for them to God the Father in His prayer as the high priest: That they all may be one; as thou Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us (John 17:21). See what unity must exist among true Christians: unity according to the image of the oneness of Persons of the Most Holy Trinity! Can you imagine that among the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity there would be dissension?

An Orthodox theologian, Bishop Theophan the Recluse wrote a commentary on the epistles of the Apostle Paul. Here is how he explains these words [quoting Saint John Chrysostom]: "By the word 'heresies' he [Saint Paul] understands here not errors concerning dogmas, but actual (and similar) quarrels. If he were speaking of errors concerning dogmas, however, he would not have given occasion for offense (with the words, for there must be). For Christ said, It must needs be that offenses come (Mat. 18:7), but at the same time He did not violate our free will and establish this as a necessity and inevitability for us. He foretold the future which happens from the evil will of mankind, not as a result of His prediction but from the arbitrariness of depraved people. Offenses occurred not because He foretold them, but rather He foretold them because they were going to occur. For if offenses occurred out of necessity and not according to the will of those who caused them, then in vain would He have said, Woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.

"That the Apostle actually called these disturbances and divisions during meals 'heresies' we see clearly expressed by him in the previous sentence. For he said, I hear that there be divisions among you. He did not stop here however. Desiring to explain what divisions he is referring to, he then says, For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper (11:21). It is evident that he is speaking of these disturbances; but do not be surprised that he calls them divisions (schisms). As I said, he desired to have a greater effect on them by using such an expression. If he had meant dogmatical heresies he would not have spoken to them so briefly." (Saint John Chrysostom, Commentary on the first epistle to the Corinthians).

The Apostle Paul could not contradict himself, saying one thing in one circumstance and something else in another. As we saw above, he clearly and unequivocally condemns differences of opinion among Christians and calls all to absolute oneness of mind and soul. Fulfill ye my joy he writes to the Philippians, that ye be like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind (Philip. 2:2).

Such should be the case among all true Christians, for: There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all (Ephes. 4: 4-6).

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/heresies.aspx

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

While I am not sure that it is the relearning process that is the problem, I do understand your concerns.

Lee taught us to be proud and arrogant, equipping us to judge all other Christians.

This is what I feel is the most dangerous of all.

One reason it is so dangerous is that it prevents the proper "relearning" process for those who leave.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

One thing I'm working to throw out is the concept that all division in the body of Christ is bad. ... even though perfect unity in the church was God's goal could His allowing of the Great Schism followed by the umpteen other divisions simply be another venue whereby God could show His wisdom/love/mercy in the living out of the lives of the "peacemakers" who live in the reality of the unity even among the divisions? I don't know theology so all this is speculation on my part...I'm feeling more comfortable living with the thought of "going to the divisions".

Re: "going to the divisions"... remember that this terminology is self-created to perpetuate a myth, the myth of unity, or "oneness", within the "local churches". The idea of divisions, though referenced by Paul's epistles (e.g. 1 Cor 11), typified in the OT (tribes of Judah vs Israel, etc) and contrasted to Jesus' "that they all may be one, Father, even as We are one" prayers and statements, is biased when used in "local church" terminology. So we're now free to look at things outside the "local church" mindset, otherwise your body will leave but your mind, soul, and will could remain imprisoned.

In the "local church" policy they actually allow and encourage multiple gatherings in a city. But they are careful in their terminology, and call them "meetings". So it is okay, they say, and it demonstrates multiplication: college meetings, home meetings, prayer meetings, training meetings, etc. But multiple "churches" - heavens no! That is division! Terrible!

But in the Bible both "meetings" and "gatherings" and "churches" are referred to by the term "ekklesia"! In Rome, for instance, Paul wrote an epistle to the Church in Rome, and in chapter 16 greeted the "ekklesia" (home meeting) in someone's house, there (see v. 5). So is this "division", or "multiplication"? Is the church actually dividing itself, or multiplying, instead?

I believe that the phrase "in the divisions" as it's used in the local churches is a self-serving term created and pushed by their overlords to protect their hegemony. But it is entirely fictitious; unity and divisiveness are matters of the heart, not of organizational practice.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Re: "going to the divisions"... remember that this terminology is self-created to perpetuate a myth, the myth of unity, or "oneness", within the "local churches". The idea of divisions, though referenced by Paul's epistles (e.g. 1 Cor 11), typified in the OT (tribes of Judah vs Israel, etc) and contrasted to Jesus' "that they all may be one, Father, even as We are one" prayers and statements, is biased when used in "local church" terminology. So we're now free to look at things outside the "local church" mindset, otherwise your body will leave but your mind, soul, and will could remain imprisoned.

In the "local church" policy they actually allow and encourage multiple gatherings in a city. But they are careful in their terminology, and call them "meetings". So it is okay, they say, and it demonstrates multiplication: college meetings, home meetings, prayer meetings, training meetings, etc. But multiple "churches" - heavens no! That is division! Terrible!

But in the Bible both "meetings" and "gatherings" and "churches" are referred to by the term "ekklesia"! In Rome, for instance, Paul wrote an epistle to the Church in Rome, and in chapter 16 greeted the "ekklesia" (home meeting) in someone's house, there (see v. 5). So is this "division", or "multiplication"? Is the church actually dividing itself, or multiplying, instead?

I believe that the phrase "in the divisions" as it's used in the local churches is a self-serving term created and pushed by their overlords to protect their hegemony. But it is entirely fictitious; unity and divisiveness are matters of the heart, not of organizational practice.

The LRC tended to reduce their oneness to semantics -- just maintain the proper terminology, and you automatically keep the oneness of the Spirit. They created a bogeyman out of church names, eg they would automatically condemn "The First Lutheran Church in Murray," yet would love the "Church in Murray, hall number one," which is of Lee, out of Lee, and for Lee.

That is the leaven of the Pharisees. That by definition is hypocrisy.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think the better way is to to expose, in the light of scriptures, those areas in the LC which imprison them holding them in fear. This is how I was delivered. Through careful examination, with healthy feedback from other posters, errant teachings can be exposed one by one. It's a slower process, but I think a safer one. That's how we learn, we unlearn, and we relearn in every area of our life.

I'm not for simply throwing stuff out and starting over. I'm not for a scorched earth policy. That's fanatical. What I am for is being willing to put everything on the table.

So I think the question "how much to throw out" is the wrong one. I think the question is "what should be our general approach to what we think we know." And I think the answer is we should be willing to re-examine everything. Now obviously we must respect the faith, Christ's person and work. But I would include our understanding of what we think that faith means in what's on the table.

For me, once I realized the Christian life is about a relationship with a Person, who is God, Lord and Savior, things came into focus. A lot of stuff became superfluous bling--like divine dispensing, mingling, law of life, etc. I just don't even think about them anymore, and my experience keeps getting better. So much of our view of what's important depends on our focus, and when that changes everything changes.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Today's laugh.

My recommendation for featured quote.

My fifteen minutes of fame was over in a hurry.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

My fifteen minutes of fame was over in a hurry.

Got bumped by a godless comedian?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not for simply throwing stuff out and starting over. I'm not for a scorched earth policy. That's fanatical. What I am for is being willing to put everything on the table.

So I think the question "how much to throw out" is the wrong one. I think the question is "what should be our general approach to what we think we know." And I think the answer is we should be willing to re-examine everything. Now obviously we must respect the faith, Christ's person and work. But I would include our understanding of what we think that faith means in what's on the table.

For me, once I realized the Christian life is about a relationship with a Person, who is God, Lord and Savior, things came into focus. A lot of stuff became superfluous bling--like divine dispensing, mingling, law of life, etc. I just don't even think about them anymore, and my experience keeps getting better. So much of our view of what's important depends on our focus, and when that changes everything changes.

Life was simpler in the Recovery. Kind of like being in prison -- there are no tough decisions to make.

Paul's timeless maxim is fitting here -- "Test everything. Hold on to what is good."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The LRC tended to reduce their oneness to semantics -- just maintain the proper terminology, and you automatically keep the oneness of the Spirit. They created a bogeyman out of church names, eg they would automatically condemn "The First Lutheran Church in Murray," yet would love the "Church in Murray, hall number one," which is of Lee, out of Lee, and for Lee.

That is the leaven of the Pharisees. That by definition is hypocrisy.

That would be: Bold rhetoric divorced from reality.

[OBW]

Ohio,

I know that I keep talking that nearly scorched-earth policy on dumping LRC teaching. But in reality, my position is more like saying that we should love God and hate money. Hate is not really the point. It is getting it in perspective.

And what I probably really mean is that we need to be of a mindset that recognizes potential conflicts of understanding and willfully sets aside the default presumption that what we have been taught in the past is right. Be humble and listen and consider what is being said by others. Accept that we are probably seeing things through a funny set of coke-bottle glasses with strange tinting.

Don't just take what others say. But neither just reject it because we learned it differently in the past.

And last, be willing to take on a new lexicon.

Maybe that will help make my somewhat harsh-sounding rhetoric a little easier to swallow.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Ohio,

I know that I keep talking that nearly scorched-earth policy on dumping LRC teaching. But in reality, my position is more like saying that we should love God and hate money. Hate is not really the point. It is getting it in perspective.

And what I probably really mean is that we need to be of a mindset that recognizes potential conflicts of understanding and willfully sets aside the default presumption that what we have been taught in the past is right. Be humble and listen and consider what is being said by others. Accept that we are probably seeing things through a funny set of coke-bottle glasses with strange tinting.

Don't just take what others say. But neither just reject it because we learned it differently in the past.

And last, be willing to take on a new lexicon.

Maybe that will help make my somewhat harsh-sounding rhetoric a little easier to swallow.

OK OBW, if it seems that I am too wishy-washy for your liking, it is only because some I know and love have thrown the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

OK OBW, if it seems that I am too wishy-washy for your liking, it is only because some I know and love have thrown the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

For me the baby was dead, and beginning to stink. So I threw the bathwater out with the baby.

I suppose it's different for everybody, but I found that after leaving, I had to go thru a process if deprogramming. And that deprogramming was intense for about three years. And oddly, that deprogramming is still going on. I fact, I'm still working on clearing out indoctrination from my diaper religion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

For me the baby was dead, and beginning to stink. So I threw the bathwater out with the baby.

The "baby" was your faith and love, Christ in you the hope of glory.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The "baby" was your faith and love, Christ in you the hope of glory.

But my brain, after leaving, was all akimbo. What was my standing with God's Eternal Purpose? Was I out?

It was very confusing. I couldn't hang onto it all, and not be in it. I couldn't be in it, so I had to let go of it all. I had to let go of it all, for the sake of my sanity, to find some cognitive harmony, balance, and peace, faced with living outside of the local church, and living back into the world.

Others I know closely, that have left, had to take similar actions, of letting go of all of the local church mindset/imprints.

But maybe not everyone needs to go thru the same exit strategy we've gone thru.

Still, from what I've seen, those that exit the LC, and still hang onto to the LC paradigm, have the hardest time. Cuz they constantly carry an overload of cognitive dissonance ... enough to break the brain ... burn the brain wires ... and blow a fifty amp fuse.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But my brain, after leaving, was all akimbo. What was my standing with God's Eternal Purpose? Was I out?

It was very confusing. I couldn't hang onto it all, and not be in it. I couldn't be in it, so I had to let go of it all. I had to let go of it all, for the sake of my sanity, to find some cognitive harmony, balance, and peace, faced with living outside of the local church, and living back into the world.

Others I know closely, that have left, had to take similar actions, of letting go of all of the local church mindset/imprints.

But maybe not everyone needs to go thru the same exit strategy we've gone thru.

Still, from what I've seen, those that exit the LC, and still hang onto to the LC paradigm, have the hardest time. Cuz they constantly carry an overload of cognitive dissonance ... enough to break the brain ... burn the brain wires ... and blow a fifty amp fuse.

I understand.

The first things I examined, upon leaving the LC, were all of their exclusive claims. Next I checked into the character of the leaders by reading the accounts of those who left. When all the hypocrisy, all the abuses, and all the unrighteousness of LC leaders finally got exposed, it helped to liberate me from their outrageous claims. Without access to insider information, such as provided by this forum, there was no way I could have been set at large.

Unfortunately this information was not available to you when you were cast out. You had to go it alone. You were like the first round of Jewish believers in the gospels who got put out of the synagogue for believing Jesus was the Messiah. Eventually you paved the way for many more to follow.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Why am I on my way out? Two words; cognitive dissonance.

To me the local churches are like a large extended family living in a large house where all but the infants are aware that a "crazy aunt" lives in the attic, but no one is willing to acknowledge or discuss the "crazy aunt". The "crazy aunt" is not a real person, but a nagging feeling of not being able to discuss the questionable teachings within Nee's and Lee's otherwise healthy ministry, or the shame of the alleged Daystar business investment debacle, or the alleged immorality of a past manager of the ministry, or the rude treatment of the saints by certain brothers using deputy authority. Because (in my opinion) the living of the brothers and the practices of the ministry were not congruent (to me) with the teaching of the bible (as I understand it) I found myself spending an enormous amount of mental and emotional energy trying to manage this cognitive dissonance. I finally gave up.

I get the feeling from some of the brothers that it is best to avoid negative things like those mentioned above because it does no good to know, understand or discuss them. But this does not agree with how I manage the more intimate aspects of my life. For example, if my spouse was being unfaithful I suppose you could say I would suffer less and be happier not knowing of his/her unfaithfulness. But, what about STDs to which I might be exposed? And, if s/he is unfaithful in one area what could s/he be doing in other areas like children, savings, retirement and our plans for the future? So, in the intimate areas of life I really do need to know about negative things in order to protect myself, family and future. I believe my church life and those that I allow to be spiritual leaders over me are also intimate areas of life where I need to be aware of negative things and not feel like I need to remain ignorant. My legitimate need to know and then feeling I'm being negative and divisive for asking or discussing these things with saints is another area of cognitive dissonance that bothers me. We are warned not to read the negative comments because it could poison or deceive us, but I have an intuition that I think I can trust or at least to which I should listen. Having lived with my spouse for a number of years I have an intuition that I can trust him/her. If someone tells me some negative things about him/her or points me to a source of information then I probably need to hear or read it. If when I try to talk to him/her about it and I'm given the impression that I'm being negative or divisive in my marriage, that to me is a huge red flag (and another area of cognitive dissonance). I think I have read that prolonged cognitive dissonance can lead to mental illness. If none of this is your experience, then please ignore all I have written, for I could be deceived.

Thank you HERn.

Your post contains some of the greatest insights concerning the LC strongholds of so-called NEGATIVE speaking.

Worth reading again.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

first step is defining what is making you leave after 20 years. By the very number, you were not unhappy most of the time. Figure out what made you unhappy and shed that.

I think that everyone has a unique journey. So mine is mine and yours is yours. But I will share something of mine, because I trust that it overlaps somewhat with those of others.

For example, brother Ohio and I have shared that we both formerly engaged in a kind of "primal scream therapy" in the bars, in the concert halls, in the keg parties. We'd engage in some kind of berserk Bacchanalia, an orgy of shouting and arm-waving, throw a few beer bottles and then go home and sleep it off. Then wake up, fumble around for the cigarettes and keep going. Why? Because it was fun.

Then by God's mercy I got sober and soon found myself in the second row (first being the "blended brothers" of Lee) of a meeting, shouting and waving my arms. Fun! Really, I liked it. I liked to have a kind of sober "primal scream therapy" session holding a bible or hymnal. So I did that for a number of years. Like I said elsewhere, there were a lot of things that didn't square with either the word or my conscience, but it was more fun than being a drunkard.

Then one day the Holy Spirit said, "Go, for I send you far away, to the Gentiles!" (Acts 22:21) It certainly was a challenge, and without the constant reinforcement of the movement (meetings 5 days a week, plus constant "fellowship" socially) my faith got battered, occasionally.

But guess what? I can still have fun. Guess why I write on this forum? To convince the world that my ideas are correct? Not really; I just like to write. I like having people like OBW and awareness comment on my ideas. Knock 'em about, see if there's anything there. So that's what I kept. I kept the focus really appreciating each day, each moment. Remember that healed Samaritan that fell on his face, before Jesus, praising God for His mercy? (Luke 17). Surely God deserves our praise and thanks! I don't want to quit that. So I keep going, because it's more fun for me to continue than to quit.

--What I left behind was the adoration and elevation of a man's ministry (I have my favorites, I admit - Eusebius and Origen being a couple examples - but they departed the earth long ago and I don't anticipate joining a cult of personality based on either one).

--What I left behind was letting someone else think for me. I now realize that I am responsible for my own thoughts. It is time for me to be a big boy, to grow up and take responsibility for my own ideas. They are mine; I own them.

--What I left behind was the arrogance of thinking that I knew the Bible better than others, just because I could wave a couple verses around. That is like the 3rd grader sneering at the 1st grader. Pretty dumb.

--What I left behind is the idea that an organization can replace the Holy Spirit.

--What I left behind was the "us" and "them" mentality that so easily pervades mankind, identifies us as strangers from one another, and sets us on antagonistic courses. We are all here together. We are all sinners. Jesus can save us all. Jesus left the 99 and found the lost sheep. Why should we so easily dismiss one another? Can't we at least acknowledge, respect one another? If anyone was qualified to condemn, and ignore, and reject, it was Jesus. But He was moved with compassion, and he stretched out His hand and healed.

--What I left behind is the theology of the museums. Like glass cases to house the mummified animals, like dioramas in the Museum of Natural History, beautiful and leafy, with painted clouds... all fake. Instead I try to let the Word guide me deeper into the reality. Jesus, when He argued with the scribes, continually said, "Have you not read the scriptures?" (e.g. Matt 19:4) and "do you not yet understand the scriptures?" (e.g. Mark 12:24). We have a very shallow and fragmentary awareness of the scriptures. If we think we have created some "high peak" theology we will maul the scriptures just like Nee & Lee did. Lee went through the scriptures like a bulldozer driving through a flower garden. Not a pretty sight.

For all the exasperation I feel at people like awareness and zeek at their seemingly obstinate refusal to believe anything, I would much rather have a conversation with them any day, than a zombie from the LSM or the LDS or the JWs or 7th Day Adventists. I find it literally impossible to talk to such people. You can say, "The sky is blue", to them, and you can see their eyes roll back as they search their cranial circuits for the programmed response.

Theology is good, and it's necessary, but it should never become a cage to imprison us and derail our journey. Anyway, as Unregistered said, Find out what makes you happy and keep doing that. Whatever makes you unhappy, drop it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You had to go it alone. You were like the first round of Jewish believers in the gospels who got put out of the synagogue for believing Jesus was the Messiah. Eventually you paved the way for many more to follow.

A lot of us were talking at work about the death of Robin Williams the comedian. People were saying, "brilliant", "gifted", and of course "funny." Some people mentioned his work with the USO, charity "Comic Relief" and so forth.

I just mentioned one verse to them. "I would have fainted unless I had believed to see the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living." You can have everything, and do everything, but if you can't believe, you have nothing. The only thing in this whole world, worth having, is faith, and my faith is in the Lord Jesus Christ. That is my confession, my hope, my journey, my truth, my aim. That is my life and my living, and hopefully it is my future.

If by declaring my belief, I can pave the way for many more to follow, I will be happy. In the meantime I'm willing to go it alone, as long as I can believe to see the goodness of the LORD, in the land of the living.

Everyone else, when they came to this dark planet, they "fainted"; they dissolved; they came to nothing. Everyone else failed, and that includes you & me & brothers wee & Witness Lee; all got subsumed by death and darkness, and got cut off from the land of the living. No hope, no way, no light in the darkness. There was no way back to the Father's house. You can win an Oscar, earn millions and make the multitude laugh, but if you can't believe, what do you have here? Nothing.

The psalmist's bold declaration presages Jesus Christ, who never fainted, never dissolved, never slipped, never crumbled, never failed. Jesus knew that he had come down from heaven (Jo 3:13). Jesus knew that he had come from God, and was returning to God. (Jo 13:3b). Jesus knew where he came from and where he was going (Jo 8:14). Jesus knew that he came here from God (Jo 8:42). And he told them, "Where I am going, you know the way" (Jo 14:4).

Like the writer of Hebrews, we look at scripture and "see Jesus" (2:9); now we have the way home. Everything else is just a distraction. All of Mr. Williams' movies, television shows, stand-up comedy routines, joke-cracking, were ultimately just traps and snares. But his loss, his "fainting", his dissolution, is not vain if it helps some people see the world for what it is, and the illusions that it spins, and that its end is just failure and emptiness. The alternative is to believe.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

For all the exasperation I feel at people like awareness and zeek at their seemingly obstinate refusal to believe anything,

I can't speak for Zeek (actually I can but won't - he exasperates me as well - he's an equal opportunity exasperater) but it's not a matter of refusing to believe, it's just that I can't prove anything with certitude. Every thread I pull, as I'm going along, when I look up, I find myself in the land of uncertainty.

Sort of like what happened to us on the 15:45 thread.

There's lots in the Bible, and about the Bible, that's like that. I love the book but lots of it can't be pinned down. For example, before the creation of the sun, that a day is based upon, how long was a day in the beginning of Genesis? I couldn't have been 24 hours. There were no hours then. We don't and can't know. So what do we do? We just proclaim we know. And Bible literalist's proclaim it to be 24 hours, like it is today. But I'm not a Bible literalist. I had enough of that. It's a method that has failed me too many times. And from what I've read, down thru history, has failed many times before.

But I'm still in the Bible every day. I'm a Bible addict. And it's proven to be self-destructive, at times, like addictions usually are (Robin Williams ). I'm not quite the Bible addict that Professor Bart Ehrman is. (Went to same Theology Seminary as Kangas - totally different conclusion - he's obsessed with getting at the autograph copies, the actual words of God. A fool's errand, methinks, perhaps.

And I love learning about all this stuff. I've really enjoyed ICA's presentations on the EO. I found, for example, that even tho I wasn't raised a Catholic, and was even raise to believe it was/is the whore of Babylon, I still thought Western Christianity was better than Eastern Christianity.

Now I find myself in the land of uncertainty again, concerning the matter. Thanks ICA.

I don't want to leave y'all with the wrong impression. Yes, I threw it all out, even God. Well not all. In the LC I had developed a habit, of always carrying on an inner conversation with God. And I couldn't break the habit (addicted to God too, I suppose, or at least talking to Him).

Even that led to trouble. Eventually I got tired of the dialogue. Of only a dialogue. Of God not talking back. So I went around for quite awhile telling people that God is deaf, dumb, and mute.

Talk about what to throw out. I was totally bonkers (unlike now .. ha ha). I was even into throwing God under the bus.

But, to make an OBW style, already long story short, eventually God came to me. And changed everything. That's another story.

I just had an eye operation, am still groggy, with a patch on one eye. Hope y'all can make sense of this.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by awareness

There's lots in the Bible, and about the Bible, that's like that. I love the book but lots of it can't be pinned down. For example, before the creation of the sun, that a day is based upon, how long was a day in the beginning of Genesis? I couldn't have been 24 hours. There were no hours then. We don't and can't know. So what do we do? We just proclaim we know. And Bible literalist's proclaim it to be 24 hours, like it is today. But I'm not a Bible literalist. I had enough of that. It's a method that has failed me too many times. And from what I've read, down thru history, has failed many times before.

But I'm still in the Bible every day. I'm a Bible addict. And it's proven to be self-destructive, at times, like addictions usually are (Robin Williams ). I'm not quite the Bible addict that Professor Bart Ehrman is. (Went to same Theology Seminary as Kangas - totally different conclusion - he's obsessed with getting at the autograph copies, the actual words of God. A fool's errand, methinks, perhaps.

I just had an eye operation, am still groggy, with a patch on one eye. Hope y'all can make sense of this.

Hi awareness. Don't know if you're a reader, but this book had some good chapters in it. The Galileo Connection [Paperback],
Charles E. Hummel (Author)

[HERn]

Well I've visited Baptist, E-free, family, and community churches and have not been hit by a car, lightening or depression, and I can still pray and enjoy The Lord. I can also report that I remained simple and did not bring up any of the high peak truths...although I did enjoy fellowshipping with others re: the life, death and resurrection of our wonderful Lord Jesus Christ!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Well I've visited Baptist, E-free, family, and community churches and have not been hit by a car, lightening or depression, and I can still pray and enjoy The Lord. I can also report that I remained simple and did not bring up any of the high peak truths...although I did enjoy fellowshiping with others re: the life, death and resurrection of our wonderful Lord Jesus Christ!

Loved your sarcasm!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

OK OBW, if it seems that I am too wishy-washy for your liking, it is only because some I know and love have thrown the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

I was not dissing you in any way. Rather I was giving you a way to understand me as something less than demanding a blank slate. I would agree that is not a good place to be. Probably a lot like Jesus talking about the casting out of the demon where he came back later, and found his old haunt clean and vacant and invited some more demon friends to move in with him.

I know it sounds like I am saying to just dump everything (and that means literally everything if you didn't have anything before the LRC) and just start over. No matter what I say about my own experience, it was never like that. It was instead a slow change in attitude to the place where I didn't start by assuming the LRC stuff was simply right . . . to where I gave the other guys a reasonable read before I said anything . . . to where I generally identify my "that's an old LRC teaching rearing its head in opposition to what I am now hearing" and generally chop its head off without much further thought.

Well, not exactly. I actually consider it all. But I am prone to accept good Dallas Theo kinds of teachings over anything I got in the LRC now. But I've been out for 27 years now. It was not an overnight transition. It wasn't even a rapid transition after joining these forums 18 years after leaving the LRC. For a while I still toyed with the idea that the theory was good while the practice was disastrous. But no more. I really don't even like the theory. I like unity. And I think that it is very important. But what they called unity wasn't. It just had the right sound because of the word "unity." But they weren't talking about unity. Just using (abusing??) the word.

And when it comes to Dallas Theo teaching, I have positions and ideas that makes their professors and students cringe. So I don't necessarily toe their line. But I am satisfied that it is reasonable in a sort of "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" kind of way.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

But I've been out for 27 years now. It was not an overnight transition. It wasn't even a rapid transition after joining these forums 18 years after leaving the LRC. For a while I still toyed with the idea that the theory was good while the practice was disastrous. But no more.

Mike ... It's too bad we never had a latte together some Saturday morning. Maybe you have a dog we could have walked together. Last week I buried my old hiking companion so I'm looking for a new partner. Whatever conflicts we have had in the past would have perhaps totally dissolved during a nice talk together. I never thought our differences were serious, just a matter of degree.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by HERn

Hi awareness. Don't know if you're a reader, but this book had some good chapters in it. The Galileo Connection [Paperback],
Charles E. Hummel (Author)

HERn,

I am a reader. Thanks for the tip. The book strikes me as a Francis Schaeffer type book. Am I right?

[HERn]

Originally Posted by awareness

HERn,

I am a reader. Thanks for the tip. The book strikes me as a Francis Schaeffer type book. Am I right?

Wow! That's an oldie Goldie! I actually know who that is! Watched some videos of him when I was younger, but never read anything by him. The book deals less with the demise of civilization (if I'm remembering Schaeffer right) and more with science and the bible. I'm gunna Google Francis Schaeffer.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by HERn

I'm gunna Google Francis Schaeffer.

Any time someone suggests that I Google anything, I generally do it. But I use Yahoo.

That makes me part of the group of people that places like Google and Xerox just hate.

[HERn]

I stumbled on "The Unvarnished New Testament" translated by Andy Gaus recently (I hope it's an ok translation) and the way it's written and presented is helping me to read the NT kind of like reading it again for the first time. I think the RcV with footnotes has a place, but using it as the only bible to read is kind of like reading the bible with "LSM blinders" on. The danger (to me) is that I only see what the LSM editors saw (or want me to see). Unless the Spirit has "packed up and gone home" or only speaks to the minister of the age, all the saints should benefit from the fresh Spirit's speaking while reading the bible. I'm not talking about seeing new doctrines or high peak truths. I think when it comes to the Spirit being my comforter He lives in the "here and now" and longs to speak to me about the "here and now" (kind of like Paul learning to live in whatever circumstance the Lord brings his way, or how I treat my spouse, kids, and others?). Maybe my greatest need is having the Spirit speak to me through the word in the "here and now" rather than only enjoying the high peak truths?

[OBW]

Reading the Bible in different translations has the advantage of saying things we have ingrained in our memories differently. Sometimes that gives us pause to consider if we have actually been reading it correctly.

What I mean is that we are so familiar with certain passages because we have heard them over and over — but typically in the same (or basically same) translation. While an alternate translation may or may not be superior to the one we have been using, the fact that they say things differently might highlight where our base understanding may not agree with everyone else. While that is not necessarily a problem, we should be willing to reconsider if there is reason given for it. And the same base words translated to say something different than what we thought was being said is just such a reason to at least think about it.

[HERn]

I read the following this morning in the "Unvarnished New Testament": "That's how you can clearly tell the children of God from the children of the devil: anyone who does't do what's right isn't of God's kind, as well as anyone who doesn't treat his brother with love." 1 John 3:10

This morning the Spirit caused me to consider what I need "to add" as well as throw out, and I learned that for John and Christ the word "love" is a verb not just a noun. In the UNT the word love is translated as "treat his brother with love", so I went to one of my reference books and learned that the word love was in the "present subjunctive active" form meaning a continual or repetitious action. I think I had the idea that love is a thought or a concept, but now I see that love is a verb whose action should never cease. So, one thing I need to add as I transition out is treating the brothers with love.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Likewise with the leadership in the Recovery. I have always been amazed by the brilliant insights from Old Testament shadows which got resurrected and recovered by the LSM wordsmiths just in time to inoculate the saints during their latest round of quarantines. Afaithfulworddotcom is filled with such endless displays of fleshly wisdom totally void of love.

That is the likely explanation why messages given by the blended coworkers tend to resonate as clanging cymbals. Because it's void of love.
If there was love, brothers would seek to reconcile relationships and be sensitive of damaging relationships with fellow brothers and sisters.

[HoldFast]

Originally Posted by Terry

If there was love, brothers would seek to reconcile relationships and be sensitive of damaging relationships with fellow brothers and sisters.

This is very true. So many relationships have been damaged, so many hearts broken, so many neglected. How can we be knit together without love?

And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. -1 Corinthians 13:2

For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. -Colossians 2:2

How is it that we were so familiar with these verses but just didn't get what the Lord Jesus was trying to say to us! Our vision was so narrow! O Lord, thank you for opening our eyes and turning our eyes to behold You.

[HoldFast]

I apologize that this is a bit off topic, but since we are on the subject of "how much to throw out"... Over the years I have purchased many LSM and NYCYPCD songs. I already threw out songs that are obviously LC-centric, such as "Splendid Church Life," "Down in Babylon," "God Has Called Us for His Purpose," "God's Eternal Economy," and "Mingle, Mingle Hallelujah." LOL those songs were OH SO catchy. I was absolutely appalled when I analyzed those lyrics from my current perspective. Sadly, these songs are practically ingrained in my mind b/c I have been singing them from youth. There are some "classic" songs that I enjoy, but whenever I listen to them, I can't help but connect those to memories of being in the LRC or LRC people. I can't even pick up my guitar or ukelele anymore! Does anyone else struggle with lingering memories attached to or evoked by certain stimuli? It is actually quite a pity. Well, I guess I answered my own question. However, I do want to point out that over half of the songs I owned were either based on the LRC teachings or exalting the LRC movement, and these types of songs were sung most often in YP/college meetings...almost borderline propaganda.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by HoldFast

I was absolutely appalled when I analyzed those lyrics from my current perspective. Sadly, these songs are practically ingrained in my mind b/c I have been singing them from youth). There are some "classic" songs that I enjoy, but whenever I listen to them, I can't help but connect those to memories of being in the LRC or LRC people. I can't even pick up my guitar or ukelele anymore! Does anyone else struggle with lingering memories attached to or evoked by certain stimuli? It is actually quite a pity.

Hello HoldFast,
I don't post all that often ANYMORE... but to answer your question... hee hee... I have been out of the LC for more 35 yrs !! And sometimes the songs still stick in my head... It is mostly the Psalms. Back in the 70s..we sang a lot of the Psalms. I learned the Word through singing songs and scriptures. I've learned to throw out the dirty bathwater but not the baby. I still have my hymnal and there are a few hymns I will refer to now and then... mostly on the Precious Blood of the Lamb. Many of the hymns are or were sung by other Christian groups.

Now...to an 'antedote'.... what helped me a lot to get the LC music out of my head was listening to Bob Marley reggae music. It is peppy and so what if he was rastafarian and smoked MJ, I used the lyrics to Praise and WORSHIP MY Savior ! Jesus Christ... Father, Son/Word and Holy Spirit.

That was back in the 80s. I haven't listened to Bob Marley's music in years but I still like it a lot. Everyone does... and if they don't...they're old fuddy duddies !

That said... just letting you know what worked for me. I also have learned to make up songs to the Lord. Most of the time they really come from the Holy Spirit ! Other times He will use catch tunes so I can make up my own words. I use Christmas carol tunes and change the words. I don't listen to secular music much..and if I do it's mostly from the 80s/90s and before. So I will make up words using those tunes.

In time the Holy Spirit is going to anoint your hands and guitar and ukelele. You tube some Ukelele music. I love that instrument !

Most of all ask and trust the Holy Spirit to anoint your musical talent and gift a fresh... a new. Remember....God makes ALL things new!

Showers of Blessings and Love !
Carol

[HERn]

Bob Marley

Sarc on-Sorry to sully these sanctified pages...but here goes!-Sarc off

Lyrics from one of Bob Marley's songs.

"Hallelujah"

Hear the children cryin',
but I know they cry not in vain.
Now the times are changin';
love has come to bloom again.

Smelling the air when spring comes by raindrops
reminds us of youthful days.
But now it's not rain that water the cane crops,
but the sweat from man's brow;
the substance from our spine.
We gotta keep on living, living on borrowed time:
Hallelujah time!

Yes, you can hear the children singing: Hallelujah time!
As they go singing by and by: Hallelujah time!
Oh, "hallelujah" singing in the morning.
Hallelujah time! Let them sing; don't let them cry.

Over rocks and mountains
the sheep are scattered all around.
Over hills and valleys,
they are everywhere to be found.
But though we bear our burdens now,
All afflictions got to end somehow:
From swinging the hammer, pulling the plough.

Why won't you let us be, to live in harmony?
We like to be free like birds in a tree.

Hallelujah time! Yes, you can hear the children singing.
Hallelujah time! Yes, as they go singing by and by.
Hallelujah time! Oh "hallelujah" singing in the morning.
Let them sing; never let them cry.
Hallelujah time! "Hallelujah" singin' in the morning.

[awareness]

I like Bob Marley.

And I love that when a Rastafarian greets you he says "Jah mon," greeting you as a little "g" god man. That pot must do something spiritual for them.

Hallelujah, Bob ... rest in peace mon .....

H

[aron]

First time I ever heard the Psalms, I was lost in a haze. Someone put on an LP by Jimmy Cliff, and there were the Melodians, and it was from Psalm 137.

Welcome to planet earth, mon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-5E6_qtXAw

[Eph]

Originally Posted by HERn

This morning the Spirit caused me to consider what I need "to add" as well as throw out, and I learned that for John and Christ the word "love" is a verb not just a noun. ...So, one thing I need to add as I transition out is treating the brothers with love.

I feel that same as you do. God loves us very much. I find God's love on this forum and I intend to pay it forward. Many posts here are very constructive and healing too. It is difficult to leave everything behind since we were indoctinated. Our brain is a mystery, somehow "re-engining" the brain is not as easy as we thought. "To add" is a great idea. Or I would say to get back all the wonderful things you had before coming to the local church.

[Eph]

Originally Posted by aron

First time I ever heard the Psalms, I was lost in a haze. Someone put on an LP by Jimmy Cliff, and there were the Melodians, and it was from Psalm 137.

Welcome to planet earth, mon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-5E6_qtXAw

I didn't realize the song is about the Psalms until now. I heard the melody over and over again when I was kid though I had no idea of its meaning. I was just humming and humming, such a beautiful song.

Here is another beautiful song by
Jeff Buckley Hallelujah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8AWFf7EAc4

[aron]

Originally Posted by Eph

... to get back all the wonderful things you had before coming to the local church.

1. Remember that Jesus said that the angels of these little children were always beholding the face of God in heaven? There is a deep connection there, that is lost, over the years, by "the world" and our "soul" and even by "religion".

But the connection is there. You just have to let go of the "junk", the "dross", and trust that this connection will be re-established. God is waiting for you.

2. Remember the parable of the "lost son" who was eating with the pigs. He suddenly "remembered" his Father's house. So trust your ability to come to the Word of God and He will show you the way home. You will see the truth, and "remember" (i.e. recognize) reality, and this will guide you.

Your Lord's Recovery experience was to teach you something. Maybe it was never to trust in man. Only trust in God, in God's Christ. Never trust fallen humans. Including yourself!

[HERn]

This should probably be on another thread (maybe admin can advise). In considering what to "throw out" I have been doing a lot of reading and I'm finding some not so nice information about Darby. I also Just read this in Wikipedia re: the concept of the rapture and Darby.
---
As there was no Christian teaching of a "rapture" before Darby began preaching about it in the 1830s, he is sometimes credited with originating the "secret rapture" theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove his bride, the Church, from this world before the judgments of the tribulation.
---
If true, I did not know that the teaching of the rapture was begun by Darby. I always thought that the teaching of the rapture was right up there with "saved by grace". Did Darby just coin the word "rapture" or was he the one that started the concept that The Lord will return to take the believers to Himself away from the earth. The reason I ask is that from what I'm learning about Darby I'm ready to hold anything new that he taught as being suspect until "vetted" by more godly and spiritual teachers. Whom can I trust to be the "vetter"? "Vetter of the age" (VOTA) anyone?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by HERn

This should probably be on another thread (maybe admin can advise). In considering what to "throw out" I have been doing a lot of reading and I'm finding some not so nice information about Darby. I also Just read this in Wikipedia re: the concept of the rapture and Darby.
---
As there was no Christian teaching of a "rapture" before Darby began preaching about it in the 1830s, he is sometimes credited with originating the "secret rapture" theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove his bride, the Church, from this world before the judgments of the tribulation.
---
If true, I did not know that the teaching of the rapture was begun by Darby. I always thought that the teaching of the rapture was right up there with "saved by grace". Did Darby just coin the word "rapture" or was he the one that started the concept that The Lord will return to take the believers to Himself away from the earth. The reason I ask is that from what I'm learning about Darby I'm ready to hold anything new that he taught as being suspect until "vetted" by more godly and spiritual teachers. Whom can I trust to be the "vetter"? "Vetter of the age" (VOTA) anyone?

I think the answer is not so simple. There has always been a belief in the Lord's return. But it was generally accepted as something that would be what it would be. Our task was to live this life according to obedience to our Lord and Savior. But Darby brought so much emphasis on the whole eschatological analysis, focusing strongly on the imagery of those taken.

There may be something to it. And there may not. It is more than evident that the book is a kind of coded message. Not necessarily to figure out in so much detail, but to understand the ideas implied by the imagery. So until Darby, they weren't suddenly tossing the "imagery" idea and saying it was straight up prophecy. I notice that there is a lot of reading of Revelation in that manner. Jumps in and out of metaphors to/from literal, and back again. Without warning. Exactly the way some particular preacher wants us to think and follow.

I believe that Revelation warns of continual turmoil. And it tells that the end will not be simple. But it masks so many details. I think the important part is not to have the best belief about the end times, but to have a solid belief in, and following of, Christ here and now. Do that any you can be a pan tribulationist — it will all pan out in the end. It will happen as it happens.

My belief about it will not change anything. My actions today might (or might not). Don't be caught sleeping. Don't be waiting on another day to get this life right. That is the only thing you have any control over.

Throw out nothing. Throw out everything. Find your own way back. After 9 years actively involved in the LC I finally decided I had enough. By active I mean I brought many people into the LC. Not long ago I received an email from someone I brought to Christ and to the LC from one of the colleges I attended in Santa Cruz where Karl Hammond (editor of the Normal Christian Church Life) and I started a church in Santa Cruz with the two of us, our wives and another couple and in two years built it to 125. I met Karl one Saturday night at the Santa Cruz boardwalk while I was passing out tracts (which I did with a friend every Saturday night---I was attending Bethany College at the time which was nearby).

After two years I left the LC in Santa Cruz in the summer 1971 because WL personally asked me to go to Detroit, I guess because I had influenced numerous relatives to become part of the LC in Detroit. Apparently he felt I would be helpful as well as add to the people there among other reasons I suspect. I continued to attend and work the local colleges and universities to bring in people to the LC while in Detroit but it was more difficult mainly because of the make up of the LC in Detroit. After we moved to Ft. Lauderdale because of the migration and then to Miami, my good friend, Don O’Born tried to talk me out of leaving but I was comfortable leaving. Of course, he became an elder later and ended up leaving himself.

When I left the LC I decided I would try and go back to my former denomination so I went to the AOG in Miami and started praying with 2 brothers every morning at 6am. It was a reasonably large congregation and the Pastor asked if I would be willing to take over an adult class Sunday mornings. I agreed and I built a small tabernacle out of balsam wood, velvet etc and began teaching the spiritual meanings of the various aspects of the tabernacle from the Holiest of all, the holy place to the outer court etc. In the end, I didn’t feel comfortable so I left and felt at that point that I needed a break away from this intense religious exposure. Quite frankly, we can lay a lot of guilt trips on each other and I was tired of doing it to others as well as having others do it to me even if it was an unintended consequence of my actions.

Certainly I have evolved and am evolving in my thoughts and my life but I am very happy where I am at this point in life. I am married to a very active wonderful wife, I have been very active in my church and I could care less what you believe as long as you care about others. For me it is deeds not creeds that is the most important.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

Santa Cruz where Karl Hammond (editor of the Normal Christian Church Life) and I started a church in Santa Cruz

Were you an elder in Santa Cruz? I remember Dennis somebody, and Dave Becker, but don't remember the third. Please fill me in. Were you the third? Hammond wasn't for sure. Hammond was quite a character, as I remember him.

Originally Posted by Not Member Dave

in the summer 1971 because WL personally asked me to go to Detroit . . .

Since you were that close to Lee, did you know about how the Detroit elders were selected, and if Harry Ahlers was picked by Lee? Do you remember who the elders were that Lee replaced? Jim Martin? other Martin's?

I feel like I'm going down memory lane but can't find the memories.

Originally Posted by Dave

Certainly I have evolved

I'll decide that. Shine on bro, shine on ... please, pretty please.

Originally Posted by Dave

and am evolving in my thoughts and my life

Evolved or changed, for better or worse?

Originally Posted by Dave

but I am very happy where I am at this point in life.

I'm glad to hear you're happy.

Blessings ...

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Throw out nothing. Throw out everything. Find your own way back. After 9 years actively involved in the LC I finally decided I had enough. By active I mean I brought many people into the LC. Not long ago I received an email from someone I brought to Christ and to the LC from one of the colleges I attended in Santa Cruz where Karl Hammond (editor of the Normal Christian Church Life) and I started a church in Santa Cruz with the two of us, our wives and another couple and in two years built it to 125. I met Karl one Saturday night at the Santa Cruz boardwalk while I was passing out tracts (which I did with a friend every Saturday night---I was attending Bethany College at the time which was nearby).

After two years I left the LC in Santa Cruz in the summer 1971 because WL personally asked me to go to Detroit, I guess because I had influenced numerous relatives to become part of the LC in Detroit. Apparently he felt I would be helpful as well as add to the people there among other reasons I suspect. I continued to attend and work the local colleges and universities to bring in people to the LC while in Detroit but it was more difficult mainly because of the make up of the LC in Detroit. After we moved to Ft. Lauderdale because of the migration and then to Miami, my good friend, Don O’Born tried to talk me out of leaving but I was comfortable leaving. Of course, he became an elder later and ended up leaving himself.

When I left the LC I decided I would try and go back to my former denomination so I went to the AOG in Miami and started praying with 2 brothers every morning at 6am. It was a reasonably large congregation and the Pastor asked if I would be willing to take over an adult class Sunday mornings. I agreed and I built a small tabernacle out of balsam wood, velvet etc and began teaching the spiritual meanings of the various aspects of the tabernacle from the Holiest of all, the holy place to the outer court etc. In the end, I didn’t feel comfortable so I left and felt at that point that I needed a break away from this intense religious exposure. Quite frankly, we can lay a lot of guilt trips on each other and I was tired of doing it to others as well as having others do it to me even if it was an unintended consequence of my actions.

Certainly I have evolved and am evolving in my thoughts and my life but I am very happy where I am at this point in life. I am married to a very active wonderful wife, I have been very active in my church and I could care less what you believe as long as you care about others. For me it is deeds not creeds that is the most important.

You, of course, were the one that recruited me to Lee's local church. Did you use sales techniques you had honed as a Bible salesman to proselytize people for the movement? I remember you would talk for hours to potential converts in informal groups. Was that intended to overwhelm them with information to soften them up for a "flooding" experience when they called on the Lord? I mean, you were obviously good at it as you testified to above, so maybe you can shed some light on the techniques of manipulation that you used. That might provide insight to some of the former members and current members who participate on this website. I also recall when the book Snapping played a pivotal role in your leaving the church, you shared with me about the book at the office where we worked. It gave me a lot to think about, even though I didn't leave right away. Did you recognize some of the techniques that you had used on others in that book?

As far as what to throw out from your experience with the “TLR”. Throw out nothing. Throw out everything. Find your own way back. After 9 years actively involved in the LC I finally decided I had enough. By active I mean I brought many people into the LC. Not long ago I received an email from someone I brought to Christ and to the LC from one of the colleges I attended in Santa Cruz where Karl Hammond (editor of the Normal Christian Church Life) and I started a church in Santa Cruz with the two of us, our wives and another couple and in two years built it to 125. I met Karl one Saturday night at the Santa Cruz boardwalk while I was passing out tracts (which I did with a friend every Saturday night---I was attending Bethany College at the time which was nearby).

After two years I left the LC in Santa Cruz in the summer 1971 because WL personally asked me to go to Detroit since I had influenced numerous relatives to become part of the LC in Detroit. I guess he felt I would be helpful as well as add to the people there among other reasons I suspect. I continued to attend and work the local colleges and universities to bring in people to the LC but it was more difficult mainly because of the make up of the LC in Detroit. After we moved to Ft. Lauderdale because of the migration and then to Miami, my good friend, Don O’Born tried to talk me out of leaving but I was comfortable leaving. Of course, he became an elder later and ended up leaving himself.

When I left the LC I decided I would try and go back to my former denomination so I went to the AOG in Miami and started praying with 2 brothers every morning at 6am. It was a reasonably large congregation and the Pastor asked if I would be willing to take over an adult class Sunday mornings. I agreed and I built a tabernacle out of balsam wood, velvet etc and began teaching the spiritual meanings of the various aspects of the tabernacle from the Holiest of all, the holy place to the outer court etc. In the end, I didn’t feel comfortable so I left and felt at that point that I needed a break away from this intense religious exposure. Quite frankly, we can lay a lot of guilt trips on each other and I was tired of doing it to others as well as having others do it to me.

Certainly I have evolved and am evolving in my thoughts and my life but I am very happy where I am at this point in life. I am married to a very active wonderful wife, I have been very active in my church and I could care less what you believe as long as you care about others. For me it is deeds not creeds that is the most important.

Zeek
Yes, I “recruited” you at college but I wasn’t using a specific technique that I can recall. I think the key for me was …. I was a true believer, all out. (I hope there are no bad feelings) I am sure you realize this wasn’t my first time at this. I was preaching the gospel at 18, in Bible College and worked with Teen Challenge in Detroit even before I was involved with WL and the LC. In Santa Cruz I was very involved in recruitment on campuses. Detroit was different since I was dealing more with believers in other groups whereas in Santa Cruz it was mainly “unbelievers”.

There wasn’t a technique to bring in believers other than I believed we had a better way for all of Christianity. I believed we had this unique insight into the Bible, Christ, the church, reality etc.. When you really believe you have the unique truth that no one else has it can be appealing because it makes people think, maybe. It is not like JWs who are well known and denounced. We were an unknown except we had WN as a backdrop for our credibility. With his books the Normal Christian Life and others I was sold on him and WL being a disciple of his just drew me in. When someone truly believes in something it can be appealing or unappealing depending on where you are in your life. I have followed all the lawsuits etc and I am aware that the very magazine who denounced WL etc has now reversed field and said that are a true Christian Church. Whatever.

The problem with all of this is that when there are cracks in the wall i.e. doubt --- it all starts to come undone. I am not discussing having doubt about Christ at first but doubt about what WL and others in the LC e.g. Mel Porter were doing and saying. You can even believe that the “idea” of a LC is what God wanted but it boils down to humans who are running this stuff. When that happens the floor below begins to shift and you find yourself trying to make sense of it all especially when you have been so dedicated, so involved, so given to it all. You start out by saying well at least WL and LC brought me closer to “Christ”. I don’t know what path anyone takes but for me that statement did not end up being true. However, I had to go through a lot of reflection and assessment to realize that it didn’t work for me.

I don’t think anyone from the LC should accept “Christianity” (I say should because some of my relatives have swallowed it after having been in the LC) because of what was experienced in the LC. I say that not because I want to judge anyone but people are playing church and they have politicized Christianity in the US (btw-there are authentic Christians but I am not sure anyone on this forum would agree with me as to who they are).

When you leave the LC, where is there to go, other than having some home meetings etc and that really doesn’t last over time? I would suggest that if you are going to keep believing in WL or WN or the LC etc stay with the LC…stick it out because I don’t think it will work very well for you outside of that realm. It all has worked for me simply because I have distanced myself from all of it in a way that is positive.

Awareness
No, I was not an elder although supposedly Karl Hammond was “grooming” me to be one when I left for Detroit. I was never interested since I was so active on campuses etc. I actually never understood the “elder” concept in SC and I let Karl handle that stuff. Yes, Dennis became an elder but not sure about Dave…I am sure Karl was the third. Karl and his wife finally split and I had some correspondence with him a few years back. Yes, he was quite the character but he said it like it was. I really liked him.

I wasn’t close to Lee but when I was asked go to Detroit for a conference with Lee I ended up sitting in the back seat of a car with him and Don O’Born. Lee asked me, “When can you come to Detroit?”. I should have answered, “NEVER” but I was under his spell.
No, I don’t remember the elders Lee replaced because by the time I arrived Tim, Ron and Harry were the elders. Not sure what was going on before other than my relatives were very involved after I wrote and called them about WL and the LC and how wonderful it all was. Of course, the LC in Santa Cruz was wonderful -- it was exciting, fun and full of life unlike Detroit for the most part but I attribute that to the elders who made it too heavy.

For better or worse? Are you kidding me? I live comfortably a few blocks from the ocean, I have hiked the Inca trail and hiked down the Grand Canyon a few times, the White Mtns, Appalachian trail etc., caught salmon, rockfish, halibut etc in Alaska, kayaked and dug up claims in Alaska, witnessed the blue whale, sperm whales as far as the eye can see in the Sea of Cortez, swam with sea lions, dolphins, manatees, rented a 100 ft yacht where we were in the middle of a feeding frenzy of humpback whales in the inside passage in Alaska… Life is not just about saying Oh Lord Jesus but enjoying the journey of this life. Sure I have read extensively but I am also an activist for what I believe. I don’t just mouth the words but I do my best to live the life. My wife will be part of 100,000 marchers in September in NY in the People’s Climate March. Anyway, life for me is more than finding out the meaning of the greek word “love” but the experience of life itself.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Zeek
Yes, I “recruited” you at college but I wasn’t using a specific technique that I can recall. I think the key for me was …. I was a true believer, all out. (I hope there are no bad feelings) I am sure you realize this wasn’t my first time at this. I was preaching the gospel at 18, in Bible College and worked with Teen Challenge in Detroit even before I was involved with WL and the LC. In Santa Cruz I was very involved in recruitment on campuses. Detroit was different since I was dealing more with believers in other groups whereas in Santa Cruz it was mainly “unbelievers”.

There wasn’t a technique to bring in believers other than I believed we had a better way for all of Christianity. I believed we had this unique insight into the Bible, Christ, the church, reality etc.. When you really believe you have the unique truth that no one else has it can be appealing because it makes people think, maybe. It is not like JWs who are well known and denounced. We were an unknown except we had WN as a backdrop for our credibility. With his books the Normal Christian Life and others I was sold on him and WL being a disciple of his just drew me in. When someone truly believes in something it can be appealing or unappealing depending on where you are in your life. I have followed all the lawsuits etc and I am aware that the very magazine who denounced WL etc has now reversed field and said that are a true Christian Church. Whatever.

The problem with all of this is that when there are cracks in the wall i.e. doubt --- it all starts to come undone. I am not discussing having doubt about Christ at first but doubt about what WL and others in the LC e.g. Mel Porter were doing and saying. You can even believe that the “idea” of a LC is what God wanted but it boils down to humans who are running this stuff. When that happens the floor below begins to shift and you find yourself trying to make sense of it all especially when you have been so dedicated, so involved, so given to it all. You start out by saying well at least WL and LC brought me closer to “Christ”. I don’t know what path anyone takes but for me that statement did not end up being true. However, I had to go through a lot of reflection and assessment to realize that it didn’t work for me.

I don’t think anyone from the LC should accept “Christianity” (I say should because some of my relatives have swallowed it after having been in the LC) because of what was experienced in the LC. I say that not because I want to judge anyone but people are playing church and they have politicized Christianity in the US (btw-there are authentic Christians but I am not sure anyone on this forum would agree with me as to who they are).

When you leave the LC, where is there to go, other than having some home meetings etc and that really doesn’t last over time? I would suggest that if you are going to keep believing in WL or WN or the LC etc stay with the LC…stick it out because I don’t think it will work very well for you outside of that realm. It all has worked for me simply because I have distanced myself from all of it in a way that is positive.

I think it's a bit amazing that we are talking again after so many years. You were "a true believer." That explains a lot, bro. But, was your ability to convert people to the LC just persistence and dumb luck? You're too humble. You were good at it. And now if you know who the authentic Christians are why be shy about it? This isn't the LC. The moderator is a nice guy. I don't think he would kick you off for expressing yourself honestly. After all, he puts up with me.

One more question: As I recall it, you left the LC right after you read that book, Snapping by Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman whereas I left gradually over a period of several years. Did you snap out of the local church consciousness suddenly upon reading that book? Was there something in the book that served as a catalyst for decisive action with regard to the LC? Experiences like these might help people here that are undecided whether to meet with the church or not or those who are trying to reorient having recently left.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Dave

... the LC in Santa Cruz was wonderful -- it was exciting, fun and full of life unlike Detroit for the most part...

Please tell us of your experience in the LC in Santa Cruz. Were you involved in the "Jug Band" that used to travel around on a flat-bed truck? Or was that only in Berkeley? Were you involved in Berkeley as well?

I am interested in that you seem to have kept some experiences yet successfully thrown out some things as well. Especially where you mention that you eventually realized that your LC experience didn't cause within you a deeper love for the Lord Jesus Christ.

My contention is that the LC ultimately distracts us with its group focus, which takes away both our attention and care toward our Father God, and toward our neighbor (the so-called "Great Commandment"). The collective (aka the Church, the Body, the Recovery, the Ministry, the Lord's present move, etc) effectively becomes our new de facto God; this is probably similar to the Marxist idea of the "State". The individual now becomes largely irrelevant, and the collective is the all in all.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

... the LC ultimately distracts us with its group focus, which takes away both our attention and care toward our Father God, and toward our neighbor (the so-called "Great Commandment")... The individual now becomes largely irrelevant, and the collective is the all in all.

When I wrote "our attention and care toward our Father God" I meant more precisely "our attention to, care of, and delight in our Father's saving love for us in sending His beloved Son, our Savior." Most readers would probably understand this, but I felt it might be good to be more explicit.

It cannot be overstressed that it is not we who act but our Father in His Son. And my point was that our attention has been taken away from all this to something we call "church".

[Eph]

Originally Posted by aron

1. Remember that Jesus said that the angels of these little children were always beholding the face of God in heaven? There is a deep connection there, that is lost, over the years, by "the world" and our "soul" and even by "religion".

But the connection is there. You just have to let go of the "junk", the "dross", and trust that this connection will be re-established. God is waiting for you.

2. Remember the parable of the "lost son" who was eating with the pigs. He suddenly "remembered" his Father's house. So trust your ability to come to the Word of God and He will show you the way home. You will see the truth, and "remember" (i.e. recognize) reality, and this will guide you.

Your Lord's Recovery experience was to teach you something. Maybe it was never to trust in man. Only trust in God, in God's Christ. Never trust fallen humans. Including yourself!

Thank you for the words of encouragement. They help me greatly everytime I come back for reviews...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Were you involved in the "Jug Band" that used to travel around on a flat-bed truck?

In Detroit I remember making a #3 tub single string bass, which was a reaction to hearing about the Jug Band. I could play it, but nothing like one of the ones that were there before Lee sent in his crony elders.

Those were fun times.

I too remember Santa Cruz as very fun and very loving. But Santa Cruz, because Karl Hammond founded it, was considered "out of the flow" by those in L.A. (those were the days before Anaheim). Karl was in some kind of rebellion to Lee. So was Paul Ma. Maybe Dave can shed some light on this matter.

[UntoHim]

Hey Dave,
When you get a chance please shoot an email to LocalChurchDiscussions.Com requesting membership, then I'll reply with a temporary password. I'm assuming you want to use the UserName Dave.

[HERn]

So far of the things that I'm throwing out this one I'm throwing the furthest because I think it is the most toxic and insidious...and that is that there are two gospels. LSM teaches that there are two gospels...a low gospel and a high gospel. But the genuine minister of the age (Paul) says in two places in the NT (Gal 1:8, and II Cor 11:4) not to accept a gospel different than the one that Paul taught. He uses strong words that anyone teaching a different gospel is under God's curse. I think it grieves my Savior to refer to His suffering, death and resurrection leading to the forgiveness of sins and spiritual rebirth as somehow being the "low" gospel. There is only one gospel that begins with forgiveness of sins and rebirth and continues with sanctification throughout the saved sinner's human life, I think. Who gets to decide what's high and what's low?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

So far of the things that I'm throwing out this one I'm throwing the furthest because I think it is the most toxic and insidious...and that is that there are two gospels. LSM teaches that there are two gospels...a low gospel and a high gospel. But the genuine minister of the age (Paul) says in two places in the NT (Gal 1:8, and II Cor 11:4) not to accept a gospel different than the one that Paul taught. He uses strong words that anyone teaching a different gospel is under God's curse. I think it grieves my Savior to refer to His suffering, death and resurrection leading to the forgiveness of sins and spiritual rebirth as somehow being the "low" gospel. There is only one gospel that begins with forgiveness of sins and rebirth and continues with sanctification throughout the saved sinner's human life, I think. Who gets to decide what's high and what's low?

Amen and Amen!

[HERn]

I thought I would give an update. I'm reluctant to share details that might identify me to any LSM folks that probably monitor this site and forward reports to LC elders. I hope that I get to a place (soon) where I don't care. I think I will. We're finally being left alone by the saints...and for good reason because I don't return texts, phone calls or emails. We've not been excommunicated or quarantined probably because I've never spoken anything negative to the other saints. We were dearly beloved and our withdrawal has hurt several of them. I don't know how some of you do it...to believe as you do and still have the emotional capacity to meet with the LC. It looks like we're settling in with an Evangelical Free denomination group, mainly because they're taking care of our child...one of the youth leaders told us that their goal is for the youth to really come to know who Jesus is from the scriptures. Compare this to the topic of the last LSM-LC youth conference topic was something like "what is the recovery?". Is the word "recovery" even in the bible? Come on people! It's Jesus that we should be pointing our young people to, right?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by HERn

Come on people! It's Jesus that we should be pointing our young people to, right?

Thank you. Bless you. May the Lord honor and bless you and yours. And thank you for coming on our little forum here and letting us all know whats going on with you. This is what this forum is all about. It's a place, it's a refuge, it's a venue for everybody who has had anything to do with the Local Church movement. COME ONE, COME ALL!

[HERn]

Why did WL need to create the "processed triune god" concept? This is another one of those things that I'm throwing out. Why did he need to have this unusual doctrine concerning God...did it allow him to develop the practice of "just turn to your spirit" behavior? I do not believe that the Father was ever crucified, buried, resurrected, and ascended. It was the Son that experienced all of this, not the Father. Isn't it a heresy to say that the Father was crucified? Furthermore, the Son did not send the Holy Spirit...the Father sent the Holy Spirit (I think). Thanks for any insight you may offer.

[UntoHim]

Thank you HERn for chiming back in on such an important subject!

Here's the deal. Witness Lee was right - absolutely right - when it comes to some of the teachings in Western Christianity. I'm not going to get into these right here because you have addressed something else.

Witness Lee was wrong - DEAD WRONG - regarding his teachings of "the processed triune God". You bring up a very good point about the Father not being crucified, buried, resurrected, and ascended. Of course the Father was indeed involved with all that happened to his Son, after all He sent Him to this earth to accomplish these very things! But to say that the Father was actually crucified on the cross is not only factually incorrect, it is bordering on abject heresy.

And yes, you are also correct about the Father sending the Holy Spirit. And, by extension, we also know that Witness Lee's teaching that "the Son became the Holy Spirit" is also not biblical, at least it is not biblical for those who would want to stick to the historical Christian faith, which holds to a "Trinitarian" position. Most Christian apologists label Lee's "Processed triune God" teaching as some form of modalism.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

Why did WL need to create the "processed triune god" concept? This is another one of those things that I'm throwing out. Why did he need to have this unusual doctrine concerning God...did it allow him to develop the practice of "just turn to your spirit" behavior? I do not believe that the Father was ever crucified, buried, resurrected, and ascended. It was the Son that experienced all of this, not the Father. ..... Thanks for any insight you may offer.

An example that could be given is where the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews said, "But we see Jesus, made a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor". If the Father was made a little lower than the angels, then who was running the universe?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by aron

An example that could be given is where the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews said, "But we see Jesus, made a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor". If the Father was made a little lower than the angels, then who was running the universe?

I am sure this has been brought up previously but having read through many of the posts on this forum I reflect back to 1978 when I left the LC. No internet, no email, no discussion groups, no outside info. LC was in denial about any problems and there was no inside info. Isolation was the norm for those who left. I only read about problems with John Ingalls and others on the internet years later. I was shocked to hear that John Ingalls, Bill Mallon and others who I had met at various times were pushed out of the LC. Weren't they trained by WL and the most spiritual?

Now I see there are those who have left the LC and are struggling. It is not an easy road after having been involved in the LC depending on how long one was involved. I am sure it is helpful to see that there are others who have left, doing well and others struggling as well. I guess I wonder if there had been this much info available when I left how it would have impacted my decisions, if at all.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Dave

I am sure this has been brought up previously but having read through many of the posts on this forum I reflect back to 1978 when I left the LC. No internet, no email, no discussion groups, no outside info. LC was in denial about any problems and there was no inside info. Isolation was the norm for those who left. I only read about problems with John Ingalls and others on the internet years later. I was shocked to hear that John Ingalls, Bill Mallon and others who I had met at various times were pushed out of the LC. Weren't they trained by WL and the most spiritual?

Now I see there are those who have left the LC and are struggling. It is not an easy road after having been involved in the LC depending on how long one was involved. I am sure it is helpful to see that there are others who have left, doing well and others struggling as well. I guess I wonder if there had been this much info available when I left how it would have impacted my decisions, if at all.

Yes, this site has been a help to me...if you take what the curmudgeons have to say with a grain of salt!
On another note last Sunday we took to lunch an elderly brother (84) (from the E-Free church where we attend) who had retired as a linguist from Wycliffe Associates who worked in South America when James Elliot and others were killed by Huaorani in Ecuador. Although he has a simple faith in and love for The Lord Jesus he's on the 22nd chapter of a book he's writing where he is analyzing the language of a matriarchal Native American tribe to better understand their world view so that the gospel can be better communicated. Our conversation switched between Christ's love for the church and the use of obscure personal pronouns in the Indian language where the word "husband" means "the thing that belongs to the wife" and the word "wife" refers to the woman that runs the home, or something close to that! (I'll check to make sure.) Wow! There sure are some wonderful and amazing dear believers out there with genuine gravitas that seems to far exceed that of any of the blendeds.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by HERn

Yes, this site has been a help to me...if you take what the curmudgeons have to say with a grain of salt!
On another note last Sunday we took to lunch an elderly brother (84) (from the E-Free church where we attend) who had retired as a linguist from Wycliffe Associates who worked in South America when James Elliot and others were killed by Huaorani in Ecuador. Although he has a simple faith in and love for The Lord Jesus he's on the 22nd chapter of a book he's writing where he is analyzing the language of a matriarchal Native American tribe to better understand their world view so that the gospel can be better communicated. Our conversation switched between Christ's love for the church and the use of obscure personal pronouns in the Indian language where the word "husband" means "the thing that belongs to the wife" and the word "wife" refers to the woman that runs the home, or something close to that! (I'll check to make sure.) Wow! There sure are some wonderful and amazing dear believers out there with genuine gravitas that seems to far exceed that of any of the blendeds.

From one curmudgeon to the others out there (not to include yourself) I think you are on the right track. I especially like the E-Free church's distinctives, most notably: "Affirms the right of each local church to govern its own affairs with a spirit of interdependency with other churches". Wasn't that the death knell for WL...trying to control all of the churches in the world from Taiwan to Europe to the US etc. I am sure those who are left feel as though they are holding the fort but WL's or the BB's efforts are only repressive actions which ultimately minimize growth.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Dave

I am sure this has been brought up previously but having read through many of the posts on this forum I reflect back to 1978 when I left the LC. No internet, no email, no discussion groups, no outside info. LC was in denial about any problems and there was no inside info. Isolation was the norm for those who left. I only read about problems with John Ingalls and others on the internet years later. I was shocked to hear that John Ingalls, Bill Mallon and others who I had met at various times were pushed out of the LC. Weren't they trained by WL and the most spiritual?

yes...that was my impression as well. I once heard a 'leading' brother say there was no other person whose presence of the LORD was so strong as that of JI aside from WL.

I guess I wonder if there had been this much info available when I left how it would have impacted my decisions, if at all.

I left the LC around 1978 too. Now I 'migrated' to a start up LC that was moving away from WL and siding with Max Rappaport and Sal ? from Boston.
Everyone was airing out Lee's dirty laundry. Everyone was trying to free themselves from the LC clutches. We met together, prayed and though we TRIED to fellowship, it was mostly venting. Eventually, the small LC 'church' disbanded and everyone went their separate ways. Some went into the world..sex, drugs, rock and roll... others found a 'safe' haven in denominations. Others like me, wandered in the wilderness wondering where I fit in. 30 plus years l'm just fine. Still a work in progress..but fine. Of course, my time in the LC was short lived compared to most people here. But during those short lived years, the LC was everything to me, after the LORD JESUS. I left in part because I saw Lee becoming the focus and center of the LC.

May GOD quickly restore everyone's spiritual, emotional and physical health and heal all our wounds, spiritual, emotional and physical, in the Mighty and Loving Name of Jesus Christ.

Carol

[aron]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I left the LC around 1978 too. Now I 'migrated' to a start up LC that was moving away from WL and siding with Max Rappaport and Sal [Benoit] from Boston.

Everyone was airing out Lee's dirty laundry. Everyone was trying to free themselves from the LC clutches. We met together, prayed and though we TRIED to fellowship, it was mostly venting. Eventually, the small LC 'church' disbanded and everyone went their separate ways.

Certainly there is a benefit, today, of having the virtual forum on the internet to share one's thoughts hopes & even pain & anger. Sometimes it is frustrating when the collective response to one of my "bright ideas" is silence, or someone saying "I don't get it". Sometimes the level of discourse is not very evolved.

But when you compare it to what Carol went through, it is probably good to have around. Not to mention the fact that more information is available. Over all, it is quite a resource.

Thanks to whoever you are, out there, who put this discussion forum up on the internet! God bless you!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Certainly there is a benefit, today, of having the virtual forum on the internet to share one's thoughts hopes & even pain & anger. Sometimes it is frustrating when the collective response to one of my "bright ideas" is silence, or someone saying "I don't get it". Sometimes the level of discourse is not very evolved.

But when you compare it to what Carol went through, it is probably good to have around. Not to mention the fact that more information is available. Over all, it is quite a resource.

Thanks to whoever you are, out there, who put this discussion forum up on the internet! God bless you!

Yes! Amen to bro UntoHim ...

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

Certainly there is a benefit, today, of having the virtual forum on the internet to share one's thoughts hopes & even pain & anger. Sometimes it is frustrating when the collective response to one of my "bright ideas" is silence, or someone saying "I don't get it". Sometimes the level of discourse is not very evolved.

But when you compare it to what Carol went through, it is probably good to have around. Not to mention the fact that more information is available. Over all, it is quite a resource.

Thanks to whoever you are, out there, who put this discussion forum up on the internet! God bless you!

Maybe we need a "Like" button for posts. But I understand what you mean. Sometimes I wonder, "did anyone read that?" They do.


I go back to the pioneer days of the old Bereans forum being the only place to discuss the LC. It was run by an odd bunch from the Philippines who thought they were the sun and moon when it came to deciding who was and (especially) who wasn't Orthodox.

UntoHim was a mod there, but had little backing from the owners, and so was like a guard dog on a short leash. He could never really discipline people. We had one poster who annoyed everyone (though he was also appreciated). He would always tap dance at the edge of trolldom, and drove UntoHim crazy. Overall the forum was beneficial, but it was also a zoo.

But I remember UntoHim saying back then that we needed our own site, even our own ministry. No one stepped up until finally he did, and created this site. The Bereans? I haven't gone there since I can remember and have no desire to.

He would never toot his own horn, so we should do it for him occasionally. Well done and thanks, UntoHim!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Certainly there is a benefit, today, of having the virtual forum on the internet to share one's thoughts hopes & even pain & anger. Sometimes it is frustrating when the collective response to one of my "bright ideas" is silence, or someone saying "I don't get it". Sometimes the level of discourse is not very evolved.

I have tried to respond to those "bright ideas" which I have found particularly helpful, which is prolly why I have racked up so many posts. As instructed, keeping my posts "short, quick, living, and to the point."

Obviously my many posts are not because of my own original thoughts.

And btw a very Happy Thanksgiving to all those in LCD-Land.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Maybe we need a "Like" button for posts.

vBulletin supports it ...

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Dave

From one curmudgeon to the others out there (not to include yourself) I think you are on the right track. I especially like the E-Free church's distinctives, most notably: "Affirms the right of each local church to govern its own affairs with a spirit of interdependency with other churches". Wasn't that the death knell for WL...trying to control all of the churches in the world from Taiwan to Europe to the US etc. I am sure those who are left feel as though they are holding the fort but WL's or the BB's efforts are only repressive actions which ultimately minimize growth.

Or perhaps a "stagnation knell." Still chuggin' 30+ years later...shows no signs of stopping...

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I go back to the pioneer days of the old Bereans forum being the only place to discuss the LC. It was run by an odd bunch from the Philippines who thought they were the sun and moon when it came to deciding who was and (especially) who wasn't Orthodox.

UntoHim was a mod there, but had little backing from the owners, and so was like a guard dog on a short leash. He could never really discipline people. We had one poster who annoyed everyone (though he was also appreciated). He would always tap dance at the edge of trolldom, and drove UntoHim crazy. Overall the forum was beneficial, but it was also a zoo.

Would you be talking about Bilbodog? The there was Albert our Filipino brother working abroad in Saudi Arabia. I think he coined the phrase "False Accusations". PaulMiletus who dared not to post without any WN or WL quotes.
I was thankful to MichaelK who showed how the full time trainings really operated.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Or perhaps a "stagnation knell." Still chuggin' 30+ years later...shows no signs of stopping...

I'm sure the question is "where do I go"?....just hang on until the end? When you consider the various avenues people have taken after they have left the LC...it's scary...so the ones still involved ....just keep chuggin along...with really no future other than the community of LCer's that are there with them. The Brethren are so splintered...expect the same with the LC...keep chuggin....

The sad part is...so much hope and possibility and it all came to this...what a waste. I guess WL had no other understanding and no other direction to take the LC but it is unfortunate. Whatever happened to the beauty which was found in the Normal Christian Life or Changed into His Likeness? It all went for naught in the LC. It is like we were caught in a vacuum and end up asking, "What just happened?"

[HERn]

I feel that I need to mention that I do not regret having been a member of the LSM-associated local churches. I was fortunate to begin in a healthy LC where the elders were true shepards rather than LSM followers and FTTA recruiters. My love for the Lord was rekindled and is with me even now as I learn to be a fellow believer in another group. So maybe the LSM LC's are beneficial for some for a short time, others for a longer time, some forever(?), and some never. The Spirit speaking with your conscience will let you know when or if it becomes time to leave...at least He did for me!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

I feel that I need to mention that I do not regret having been a member of the LSM-associated local churches. I was fortunate to begin in a healthy LC where the elders were true shepards rather than LSM followers and FTTA recruiters. My love for the Lord was rekindled and is with me even now as I learn to be a fellow believer in another group. So maybe the LSM LC's are beneficial for some for a short time, others for a longer time, some forever(?), and some never. The Spirit speaking with your conscience will let you know when or if it becomes time to leave...at least He did for me!

You mentioned a very important point -- not all LC's are created equal. Some do have real elders who labor to shepherd the local flock. The Lord will commend them for their faithful care for the saints, and NOT for their allegiance to a publishing house.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You mentioned a very important point -- not all LC's are created equal. Some do have real elders who labor to shepherd the local flock. The Lord will commend them for their faithful care for the saints, and NOT for their allegiance to a publishing house.

Sometimes elders are tested whether they are shepherds or hirelings. In my own experiences I lived in a locality from ages 11-18 where the elder did shepherd the local flock. However when the elder moved and was tested in another locality, loyalties to the publishing house was exposed.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by HERn

I feel that I need to mention that I do not regret having been a member of the LSM-associated local churches. I was fortunate to begin in a healthy LC where the elders were true shepards rather than LSM followers and FTTA recruiters. My love for the Lord was rekindled and is with me even now as I learn to be a fellow believer in another group. So maybe the LSM LC's are beneficial for some for a short time, others for a longer time, some forever(?), and some never. The Spirit speaking with your conscience will let you know when or if it becomes time to leave...at least He did for me!

That was my experience too !! There were 4 elders in my locality and out of the 4, one who left the LC during the turmoil of the 80s, has passed away, the other 2 have left the LC. I know one remains strong in the LORD but must be very advanced in age now. The other one that left... I have no idea what has happened to him. The 4th remained a strong Lee follower. How sad.

We should all be followers of Jesus. But God bless him and his family just the same...and especially those who have left and are struggling spiritually, emotionally, physically and financially.

Carol

[HERn]

Over the holidays an LC relative who knows the suffering I've been going through as I've left the LR asked two times if I was "negative" or "opposed" to the ministry. Why didn't this person ask how my spiritual life was, or it I was happy in the Lord, or if I was still able to pray and read the bible? To me this shows that their emphasis is on the ministry rather than on the Lord Jesus Christ.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

Over the holidays an LC relative who knows the suffering I've been going through as I've left the LR asked two times if I was "negative" or "opposed" to the ministry. Why didn't this person ask how my spiritual life was, or it I was happy in the Lord, or if I was still able to pray and read the bible? To me this shows that their emphasis is on the ministry rather than on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Lee could oppose the rest of Christianity, and he did. He could castigate the saints, and he did. But don't you dare to be "negative toward the ministry"!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Lee could oppose the rest of Christianity, and he did. He could castigate the saints, and he did. But don't you dare to be "negative toward the ministry"!

Hypocrisy. That was Jesus chief condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees.

Originally Posted by HERn

Over the holidays an LC relative who knows the suffering I've been going through as I've left the LR asked two times if I was "negative" or "opposed" to the ministry. Why didn't this person ask how my spiritual life was, or it I was happy in the Lord, or if I was still able to pray and read the bible? To me this shows that their emphasis is on the ministry rather than on the Lord Jesus Christ.

I can really relate to this because I went through the same thing. This is how things have always been in the LC despite what some people say, even around here. I was a church kid a long time ago and have family and friends going back to the so called glory days of elden hall and I can tell you that it has always been this way. This was the attitude of brother Lee so naturally those who followed him and his ministry were also cold and hostile towards other christians and even those LCers who left. In fact if there was the internet back in the 60s there would not have been any glory days in elden hall because the saints in Taiwan would have been able to warn people about who and what brother Lee really was.

[Paul Cox]

I'm just recently checking back with the forum after a long absence. I didn't really have time to read all the responses on this thread, so forgive me if I repeat anything that was already said.

You will be led of the Lord as to what to keep and what to throw out. Everybody is different. My keeps and throws can't possibly be the same as yours. My initial experience of coming out made EVERYTHING about the Local Church repulsive to me. After all, when you know what you see, and you know what the Lord is doing in your life but you've got everybody around you trying to make you think you are either a basket case, or just crazy then...

Your keeps and throws will change over time. I have come to really appreciate our heritage from Watchman Nee, and yes, even Witness Lee. We were taught many things that have kept us. Even though Lee was mostly doctrine and turned out to be far removed from much of his message he taught us, the truth is nevertheless the truth.

Don't worry about it right now. My advise to you would be to find either a thriving home meeting, or a nondenominational bible based church, and run with it. The Lord will grace you along the way and he will not strike you dead if you do something wrong.

Much grace to you. My heart is with you.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

I'm just recently checking back with the forum after a long absence. I didn't really have time to read all the responses on this thread, so forgive me if I repeat anything that was already said.

You will be led of the Lord as to what to keep and what to throw out. Everybody is different. My keeps and throws can't possibly be the same as yours. My initial experience of coming out made EVERYTHING about the Local Church repulsive to me. After all, when you know what you see, and you know what the Lord is doing in your life but you've got everybody around you trying to make you think you are either a basket case, or just crazy then...

Your keeps and throws will change over time. I have come to really appreciate our heritage from Watchman Nee, and yes, even Witness Lee. We were taught many things that have kept us. Even though Lee was mostly doctrine and turned out to be far removed from much of his message he taught us, the truth is nevertheless the truth.

Don't worry about it right now. My advise to you would be to find either a thriving home meeting, or a nondenominational bible based church, and run with it. The Lord will grace you along the way and he will not strike you dead if you do something wrong.

Much grace to you. My heart is with you.

I generally disagree with most of what you said but this is a world where everyone has an opinion to include mine. You can't undermine how people f e e l about what happened to them under WL..it is real to them... As far as I am concerned Lee taught another gospel and not the gospel of JC.

Your advice for what to do may work for some people but not all...it is not a catch all. There are many avenues but most important, each of us needs to regain our identity as to who we are and what we want in life. Without that we can be led into another WL/WN fiasco.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

The Lord will grace you along the way and he will not strike you dead if you do something wrong.

That's not true. I was told that if you leave the local church the Lord would strike you dead. That was 30 years ago and I'm still expecting it sometime in my future. Seems the Lord takes His time. I suppose that if I hadn't left I'd live beyond a hundred.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

Your advice for what to do may work for some people but not all...it is not a catch all.

Paul said no such thing, in fact he said the opposite!

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

You will be led of the Lord as to what to keep and what to throw out. Everybody is different. My keeps and throws can't possibly be the same as yours.

Very wise advise!

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Paul said no such thing, in fact he said the opposite!

Read the book of Romans! and not the Recovery Version!

[UntoHim]

I'll do the jokes around here.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'll do the jokes around here.

Fair enough!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'll do the jokes around here.

I know I know. Boy do I know.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Err ... excuse me Dave ... but from all I have read of your posts, I'm not sure if you have a clue what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is, or what "another" gospel might me.

While I agree that we should welcome back our brother Paul with open arms I think Dave's gospel of caring for the poor, the sick, the needy, and outcasts is closer to the gospel of Jesus Christ than that of Witness Lee.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Dave

I may have mentioned this elsewhere but I was listening the other day to a sermon from Bill Freeman long after he left the LC and his intonation and talk was so similar to Lee I was very surprised. He is not the only person affected in the same way. What appears to have happened to many who were followers of Lee and close to Lee at one time is that they can't get him out of their heads and until they do they are forever lost in a limbo land. Run, don't just walk away from Lee's teachings.

This is what is known as the 'transfer of spirits'. I have mentioned this in many of my posts. I have also mentioned 'soul ties' and 'strong holds'.

Transfer of spirits does not only occur in the LC but it occurs in all walks of life, secular and religious. Why is it we can recognize a Mormon 'elder' a mile away? Look at the body language of the hip hop crowd. They all talk and express themselves the same way. Why? There has been a transfer of spirits.

The LC under Lee in particular had/has a super bad case of the transfer of spirits! We were ALL infected by it. That's not to say we did not have the LORD GOD, our Creator, Savior, Deliverer and Redeemer in us. It does not mean everything we got from the LC and Lee was evil. I am simply noting that through our zealous desire to be more Christlike, we stopped drinking from the Fountain of Living Waters and drank the kool aid instead. Little by little, that Fountain of Living Waters was replaced with a fountain called Brother Lee, "The Lord's Recovery", 'The New Way' etc....that was the kool aid people started drinking and still do.

Here is an excerpt of an article that speaks of it from the biblical perspective.

TRANSFERENCE OF SPIRITS: Transference of spirits is the transfer of spirits from one person to another. Transference of spirits is part and parcel of every mankind here on planet earth. There are two types of transference of spirits: a. Positive or Holy transference of spirits b. Negative or Unholy transference of spirits A. Positive or Holy Transference of spirits: The passage of positive or Holy transference of spirits started from God. After God created Adam, the first man on planet earth. He breathed into Adam foundation and transferred His Spirit into Adam and Adam became a living being (Gen 2:7).

There are many articles on this subject matter. Here is just one article:
http://www.faithwriters.com/article-...s.php?id=37745
Blessings all!
Carol

[awareness]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

This is what is known as the 'transfer of spirits'.

I can buy into this idea of transference of spirits to a point. I agree that we pick up stuff from each other on many levels. I also agree that this so called transference of spirits is intensified to the degree that we invest in the exchange.

And since the local church is an "all in" system, the floodgates of transference juice was wide open.

That's why we've all still got Nee and Lee juice sloshing around in our noggin. There's prolly spirit-transference-juice of all kinds in us. I still got Southern Baptist fundamentalism that I can't shake; a transfer of spirits from diapers.

I think, therefore, that Dave is right. It'd prolly be best for all of us if Nee and Lee were thrown into the dustbin of history.

However, if some get help from their books, more power to them. Thank the Lord we live in a free country. At a very basic level just the entertainment factor has value.

I have contention with this Carol quoted:

TRANSFERENCE OF SPIRITS: Transference of spirits is the transfer of spirits from one person to another. Transference of spirits is part and parcel of every mankind here on planet earth. There are two types of transference of spirits: a. Positive or Holy transference of spirits b. Negative or Unholy transference of spirits A. Positive or Holy Transference of spirits: The passage of positive or Holy transference of spirits started from God. After God created Adam, the first man on planet earth. He breathed into Adam foundation and transferred His Spirit into Adam and Adam became a living being (Gen 2:7).

My contention is that there are more choices then just two types of transference of spirits. A couple of possible other choices could be c. The neutral choice, or, d. Indifference. In many many cases, practiced by all, indifference is commonly used to avoid any transfer of spirits.

Indifference would have prolly been wise when it came to the transference of the spirits of Nee and Lee. But that didn't happened for any of us out here, did it?

Maybe we can draw lines without coming down on each other ... I don't know.

[HERn]

As an update to my saga I've noticed how my conscience has caused me to change the way I pray. When I want to pray specifically for my brothers and sisters in the LSM local churches I can no longer pray "Lord bless the saints in the church in (enter name of the city here)"; I now pray "Lord please bless the saints in the LSM-associated local church in my city". But, when I pray for all my brothers and sisters in the entire city I pray "Lord please bless all the dear saints in my city". So, I think I'm slowly being saved from the spirit of exclusivity.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by awareness

I can buy into this idea of transference of spirits to a point. I agree that we pick up stuff from each other on many levels. I also agree that this so called transference of spirits is intensified to the degree that we invest in the exchange.

And since the local church is an "all in" system, the floodgates of transference juice was wide open.

That's why we've all still got Nee and Lee juice sloshing around in our noggin. There's prolly spirit-transference-juice of all kinds in us. I still got Southern Baptist fundamentalism that I can't shake; a transfer of spirits from diapers.

I think, therefore, that Dave is right. It'd prolly be best for all of us if Nee and Lee were thrown into the dustbin of history.

However, if some get help from their books, more power to them. Thank the Lord we live in a free country. At a very basic level just the entertainment factor has value.

I have contention with this Carol quoted:

My contention is that there are more choices then just two types of transference of spirits. A couple of possible other choices could be c. The neutral choice, or, d. Indifference. In many many cases, practiced by all, indifference is commonly used to avoid any transfer of spirits.

Indifference would have prolly been wise when it came to the transference of the spirits of Nee and Lee. But that didn't happened for any of us out here, did it?

Maybe we can draw lines without coming down on each other ... I don't know.

oh YEAH Harold!! being neutral, being indifferent is something we can pick up from other people too. But being indifferent or neutral leans towards the negative side I think. For example, if a kid is raised in a boring family that was neutral or indifferent, either the kid is going to go ballistic to escape that 'spirit' OR fall in line and grow up to be boring, neutral and indifferent.

I have learned some 'positive' stuff from the secular world such as 'hang out with positive people'. Think and speak positive. This type of thinking really does come from God. He is Light. He is Life. He is Love. He is Joy.

Religion is what has painted God in a negative light. Some people think that God was a 'mean, ugly God' especially in the OT. What most people don't understand is He was getting rid of the negative: Idolotry, wickedness, evilness that infected even animals.

Look... the Israelites were slaves in Egypt. They were exposed to idolatry for 400 yrs. When God finally set His people free and they saw and experienced His Blessings: Freedom from slavery, Wealth when they had been slaves, the opening of the red sea, etc.... but while Moses was having a talk with God, out of the gold God blessed them with, they made an idol. Where did they get that idea from? Egypt of course! They were out of Egypt but Egypt was not out of their souls. hmmm....


If we can wrap our puny heads around the fact that God was getting rid of evil, people might see Him in a Positive Light.

Love YA Mr A!

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's not true. I was told that if you leave the local church the Lord would strike you dead. That was 30 years ago and I'm still expecting it sometime in my future. Seems the Lord takes His time. I suppose that if I hadn't left I'd live beyond a hundred.

Awareness,

There are different "deaths".

".. for the day that you eat of it you will surely die" and he did eat of it and yet Adam lived another 930 years. Someone died that day in some way.

I do not know what was meant or the context when that was said to you but from your posts over the years it apparently hurt you and affected you. I feel sorrow about that and if I were with you at the time I might have come to your defense and also got the boot.

[Cal]

When it gets right down to it the main thing I appreciate from Lee and the LC is this:

"Christ in you, the hope of glory."

Now, I can't say how much those who never touched Lee's ministry appreciate this truth. Maybe they appreciate it some, maybe more than me, in their own way. I don't know for sure. I really don't. So I don't think it is fair to say flatly that they don't appreciate it enough. Perhaps their appreciation of Christ "in heaven" is really an appreciation of Christ in them. I don't know. Jargon gets in the way. It really does.

But everyone who has been in the LC appreciates this truth in a very deep and wonderful way. You can throw out most of what Lee said. But you can't throw that out. He was onto something and he passed it along to us. Of course, as I said, that doesn't mean others don't have it too, and just express it differently.

As Forest Gump said, that's all I have to say about that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by HERn

As an update to my saga I've noticed how my conscience has caused me to change the way I pray. When I want to pray specifically for my brothers and sisters in the LSM local churches I can no longer pray "Lord bless the saints in the church in (enter name of the city here)"; I now pray "Lord please bless the saints in the LSM-associated local church in my city". But, when I pray for all my brothers and sisters in the entire city I pray "Lord please bless all the dear saints in my city". So, I think I'm slowly being saved from the spirit of exclusivity.

This is great HERn. I celebrate the expansion of your heart with you.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

oh YEAH Harold!! being neutral, being indifferent is something we can pick up from other people too. But being indifferent or neutral leans towards the negative side I think. For example, if a kid is raised in a boring family that was neutral or indifferent, either the kid is going to go ballistic to escape that 'spirit' OR fall in line and grow up to be boring, neutral and indifferent.

I have learned some 'positive' stuff from the secular world such as 'hang out with positive people'. Think and speak positive. This type of thinking really does come from God. He is Light. He is Life. He is Love. He is Joy.

Religion is what has painted God in a negative light. Some people think that God was a 'mean, ugly God' especially in the OT. What most people don't understand is He was getting rid of the negative: Idolotry, wickedness, evilness that infected even animals.

Look... the Israelites were slaves in Egypt. They were exposed to idolatry for 400 yrs. When God finally set His people free and they saw and experienced His Blessings: Freedom from slavery, Wealth when they had been slaves, the opening of the red sea, etc.... but while Moses was having a talk with God, out of the gold God blessed them with, they made an idol. Where did they get that idea from? Egypt of course! They were out of Egypt but Egypt was not out of their souls. hmmm....


If we can wrap our puny heads around the fact that God was getting rid of evil, people might see Him in a Positive Light.

Love YA Mr A!

LOva Ya 2 Ms C. I've really enjoyed our discussion. I hope that this idea of transfer of spirits has helped HERn. At least maybe she can keep an eye out for it. That might help. Whatever works.

[HERn]

Hi All. Just read this in Ephesians chapter two this morning "In short, you aren't foreigners or resident aliens any more: you live with your fellow citizens, the holy ones, as members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone on which the entire building is constructed and rises into a holy temple in the Lord, in which you are also built into the structure so as to be in spirit a settlement of God."

Any guesses as to what Paul thinks is the ground of the church? I don't think it's locality.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Hi All. Just read this in Ephesians chapter two this morning "In short, you aren't foreigners or resident aliens any more: you live with your fellow citizens, the holy ones, as members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone on which the entire building is constructed and rises into a holy temple in the Lord, in which you are also built into the structure so as to be in spirit a settlement of God."

Any guesses as to what Paul thinks is the ground of the church? I don't think it's locality.

The "ground" of the church was an attempt to find the "missing link" to fix the problem of the church. It is a false construct, bringing forward the OT site of Mt. Moriah where Abraham sacrificed Isaac, and the temple was built. Didn't the Lord make it clear that this mountain location or that mountain location was totally insignificant, but to worship in spirit and reality. (John 4.19-24)

Our oneness is of the Spirit in our hearts. Lee has effectively created divisive hearts in all his adherents by claiming his assemblies alone to be the "standard" for oneness on the local ground.

[HERn]

One thing I'm not going to throw out (because I don't think it's leaven) is my revived love for my Lord Jesus. It may be that there are two extremes of people in what's known as the LSM-associated Lord's Recovery (most are probably somewhere in between). I don't know, but it may be that these two extremes are mutually exclusive. I can't imagine a simple lover of Jesus ever being a legalistic LSM follower, but I can imagine a simple lover of Jesus beginning in the LSM-associated Lord's Recovery leaving their first love and becoming a legalistic LSM follower. I would ask my lurking brothers and sisters first "Where would you place yourself on this imaginary scale?"; and second "Where would you like to be?"

Simple Lovers of Jesus>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Legalistic Followers of LSM

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee has effectively created divisive hearts in all his adherents by claiming his assemblies alone to be the "standard" for oneness on the local ground.

Look at the "you" addressed in Ephesians 2: "fellow citizens", and "holy ones", and "members of the household of God". It seems as if Nee and then Lee overtly embraced these kind of universalist declarations, but then promptly condemned all of Christianity as hopelessly off the mark, effectively "shunning" or "quarantining" them. Thus they claimed to be completely open and universal, fully within the words of Paul to the Ephesians, and yet act as the most exclusive and divided of all. And their remedy was for all Christianity to "come under the ministry", which ministry being the basis of their proposed oneness, fellowship, and building together.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by HERn

One thing I'm not going to throw out (because I don't think it's leaven) is my revived love for my Lord Jesus. It may be that there are two extremes of people in what's known as the LSM-associated Lord's Recovery (most are probably somewhere in between). I don't know, but it may be that these two extremes are mutually exclusive. I can't imagine a simple lover of Jesus ever being a legalistic LSM follower, but I can imagine a simple lover of Jesus beginning in the LSM-associated Lord's Recovery leaving their first love and becoming a legalistic LSM follower. I would ask my lurking brothers and sisters first "Where would you place yourself on this imaginary scale?"; and second "Where would you like to be?"

Simple Lovers of Jesus>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Legalistic Followers of LSM

It is great that you are a simple lover of Jesus...that is the only way to go from my perspective.... on your scale...Simple Lovers of Jesus> that is where I stand...if we don't love God and our brother then where are we?... Jesus fed the hungry and healed the sick...if we don't follow those precedents I am not sure what our beliefs actually mean... There has to be an outcome to beliefs. Beliefs are not isolated...okay...you believe, but what is the outcome of your beliefs in your life? Paul and other brethren also cared about the poor Gal. 2:10.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by HERn

Any guesses as to what Paul thinks is the ground of the church? I don't think it's locality.

The ground of the church is not a biblical concept. The idea is foreign to the Bible. So I would assume Paul didn't have a thought on the subject.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Any guesses as to what Paul thinks is the ground of the church? I don't think it's locality.

It is Christ! and Christ alone!

Colossians 2.6-7 Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude.

Christ is "the ground" we have been rooted into.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The ground of the church is not a biblical concept. The idea is foreign to the Bible. So I would assume Paul didn't have a thought on the subject.

As living plants on God's farm, we are rooted in Christ individually, our ground. Col 2.6-7

As the building or house of God, the Bible mentions no "ground" for the church corporately. If we use His words to the Samaritan woman in John 4.24, then the only "place" for true worshipers is "spirit and reality."

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by HERn View Post
Any guesses as to what Paul thinks is the ground of the church? I don't think it's locality.

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is Christ! and Christ alone!

Christ is "the ground" we have been rooted into.

Yeppers...
On Christ the SOLID ROCK I/WE stand... all other GROUND IS SINKING SAND.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The ground of the church is not a biblical concept. The idea is foreign to the Bible. So I would assume Paul didn't have a thought on the subject.

Thanks Igzy; The LSM concept of "the ground" is an extra-biblical concept, I should have used the term "foundation". I think the LSM concept is a mixture of exclusive-Brethren doctrine manipulated and massaged by LSM, right?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Yeppers...
On Christ the SOLID ROCK I/WE stand... all other GROUND IS SINKING SAND.

Great point. I forgot that parable. Once again, the ground is not corporate, but personal, "Every one who hears My words and does them shall be likened to the prudent man, who built his house on the rock."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great point. I forgot that parable. Once again, the ground is not corporate, but personal, "Every one who hears My words and does them shall be likened to the prudent man, who built his house on the rock."

Of course, they probably just do an end-run around the individuality of that passage by stating that the solid ground is the corporate church, therefore it is still not an individual endeavor.

It is amazing what new things you can see and learn when you put on a pair of Lee-colored coke-bottle glasses.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is amazing what new things you can see and learn when you put on a pair of Lee-colored coke-bottle glasses.

I still have my Lee-colored coke-bottle glasses. And my Southern Baptist glasses as well.

But I don't wear them. They distort reality too much. They're just relics now. I'd sell them on eBay but prolly wouldn't get any bids. LSM hands 'em out for free. So you'll buy their distorted books ... that require their glasses.

Ha ... rold

It is a real miricle that we on this forum are still believers and I believe most of us are. We wrestle not against flesh and blood. It's not hard for me to believe that today. As one poster has often said, how could something that looked so good be so bad? At 84 I have been conned more than once and the feeling is not so good.

I listened to WL for 25 years and to me the worst thing was the bait and switch. And it took me a while to see it was going on. Remember how often he used to speak of the "pure word of God". That was attractive to me. Then later he would hatchet whole chapters of the Bible. He harshly criticized other Christian leaders labeling them as hirelings then charging millions of dollars to hear him speak. but we all said praise The Lord and were so happy. Admittedly some of my trips were fun including Disnay Land an other things.
I have really come to the conclusion that "All the world's a stage" is as true as you can get outside of God and our knowledge Him is not that good. WL was certainly no exception. His act of quiet composure was... I heard him preach the gospel in my locale once in Chinese and it was a riot. Even though it has been over 30 years ago my distinct feeling was , this is the real Lee. Two hours later he had his other facade.

How many elders meetings have we heard of where the real WL spoke when he was venting his wrath. He would boast of himself to us peons but he would only show his wrath to the elders. Strange? It worked for him for 47 years and with the blendeds an additional 18.
Lisbon

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Of course, they probably just do an end-run around the individuality of that passage by stating that the solid ground is the corporate church, therefore it is still not an individual endeavor.

It is amazing what new things you can see and learn when you put on a pair of Lee-colored coke-bottle glasses.

Yeah, it does say, "on this rock i wil build My church." Sounds corporate.

[Cal]

Two things that are demonstrably bad ideas:

1) The NFL "Football Move" Rule.

2) The LC "Local Ground" Rule.

Sounded good in theory, but in practice... something else.

Go Dez!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Remember how often he used to speak of the "pure word of God". That was attractive to me.

And me too. But I think that even if they kept saying "pure word of God," it was really meant to be the "interpreted word of God," and the interpretation was always Lee's. No questions asked (unless you want the door).

BTW. Looks like the "Unregistered" here was really Lisbon. Probably had a system problem, or failed to check the " keep me signed no" box.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Two things that are demonstrably bad ideas:

1) The NFL "Football Move" Rule.

2) The LC "Local Ground" Rule.

Sounded good in theory, but in practice... something else.

Go Dez!

What I would give to be in Jerra's place tonight!

Go Buckeyes.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I have really come to the conclusion that "All the world's a stage" is as true as you can get outside of God and our knowledge Him is not that good. WL was certainly no exception. His act of quiet composure was... I heard him preach the gospel in my locale once in Chinese and it was a riot. Even though it has been over 30 years ago my distinct feeling was , this is the real Lee. Two hours later he had his other facade.

Lisbon, would you mind elaborating on this? I wasn't sure whether you mean he displayed anger in front of the Chinese members, but became calm in English -- or do you mean "riot" in the sense of "hysterical"?

[HERn]

I would like to say to anyone whose conscience is bothering them about following the LSM "Lord's Recovery" that having left I am enjoying the Lord, enjoying His word, and finding dear lovers of Jesus in what LSM has labeled Babylon and the daughters of the harlot. I believe there was only one minister of the age and that was Paul, not Luther, not Calvin and certainly not Nee or Lee.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by HERn

I would like to say to anyone whose conscience is bothering them about following the LSM "Lord's Recovery" that having left I am enjoying the Lord, enjoying His word, and finding dear lovers of Jesus in what LSM has labeled Babylon and the daughters of the harlot. I believe there was only one minister of the age and that was Paul, not Luther, not Calvin and certainly not Nee or Lee.

Can anyone tell me where that phrase 'minister of the age' originated from? I checked through various translations if I could find it in the bible. Did not find one. I have never heard anyone use that phrase outside the LSM system.

While he authored much of the NT and was inspired by the Spirit of God, it is not Paul who ministers to me, it is the Holy Spirit who ministers to me.

I have heard people hold apostle Paul in high esteem but have never heard them describe him as the 'minister of the age'.

Just wondering.

Carol

[HERn]

Parable of the Good Shepherd (slightly retold from Unvarnished NT)

He, trying to defend himself, said to Jesus, “But who is my neighbor?” By way of answer Jesus said, “Once there was a fellow coming back from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among thieves, who stripped him, gave him a beating, and went off leaving him half dead. Now by chance a blended brother walked by seeing the man but ignored him because he knew that he was not here for those kinds of things. Then a full-time serving one walked by seeing the man but ignored him because he was in a hurry to meet with young scholars on campus who were potentially good building material. But a certain member of one of the daughters of the harlot who was on the road came upon him and felt sorry for him, and went up and bandaged his wounds, poured oil and wine on them, and seating him on his own mount, brought him to the inn and looked after him. The next day he pulled out two drachmas and gave them to the innkeeper saying, ‘Look after him, and whatever you lay out I will repay you on my way back.’ Which of these three would you say turned out to be the neighbor of the one who fell among thieves?” He said, “The one who had mercy on him.” Said Jesus, “Go and do likewise.”

This was prompted by my hearing of a sermon on practical generosity this morning.

I think I'll throw out this LSM mindset on generosity.

[Lisbon]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Lisbon, would you mind elaborating on this? I wasn't sure whether you mean he displayed anger in front of the Chinese members, but became calm in English -- or do you mean "riot" in the sense of "hysterical"?

I'll have to admit it is not easy for me to describe WL's gospel preaching in Dallas. If you ever heard Max Rapaport preach the gospel, it would be a sound semilar but still louder and feistier. There was hardly a let up in the 30 min talk which was so unlike WL's mode. There was nothing of anger in his speaking.
Lisbon

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

I'll have to admit it is not easy for me to describe WL's gospel preaching in Dallas. If you ever heard Max Rapaport preach the gospel, it would be a sound semilar but still louder and feistier. There was hardly a let up in the 30 min talk which was so unlike WL's mode. There was nothing of anger in his speaking.
Lisbon

So perhaps this would imply that, to the extent that we were emulating Witness Lee and his particular style, we might really have been emulating Witness Lee's particular "English-speaking style"?

[HERn]

We were at our fourth home meeting at our new E-free church last night. First we ate a meal and fellowshipped, then prayed, and read and talked about Romans 5. We prayed for lots of things. I wish that the members of the Lord's Recovery who have been brainwashed to believe there is nothing of life outside of their little group could have experienced it. The brother who's house we met in is so precious. He owns a small organic produce farm smack in the middle of new apartment complexes that he probably needs to sell and retire because he's got some health issues and is older. But, he houses and employs about 6 needy ones that depend on him for survival. I'm sure he could sell out and move to Florida and retire, but I think he hangs on for them. I think I'm seeing Christ.

[HERn]

This morning in a class we are studying "A Praying Life Contacting God in a Distracting World" and the Spirit is using it to cause me to love and worship my Lord and His Father. The Spirit is exalting the Son even in the so-called denominations! Praise be to our God for being bigger than LSM's recovery God! Maybe the recovery's God is too small (thanks to JP Philips who wrote the book "Your God is too Small").

[OBW]

Originally Posted by HERn

Maybe the recovery's God is too small.

While I do not deny aspects of the premise of what I am about to mention, I do note that the LCM went so far in their "small" theology to sing about "How Small Thou Art." As I said, there is a truth in that. But just maybe the smallness of their God is that He (he?) is unable to be revealed in the lives of all Christians who love Him and actually stand as united in Christ while the LCM's God (god?) can only use the "perfect" theology of their little sect.

Note that one of the significant differences in the two is not the size of the God, but how they are expressed. One is in the lives of the people, the other is in the theology. And for the LCM, theology trumps living (or orthodoxy trumps orthopraxy). How you live is almost irrelevant.

Of course, the average member of the LCM does not really hold to this — at least not at that extreme and not in their personal lives. But they believe it is theologically true because that is what they are taught.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

But just maybe the smallness of their God is that He (he?) is unable to be revealed in the lives of all Christians who love Him and actually stand as united in Christ while the LCM's God (god?) can only use the "perfect" theology of their little sect.

Note that one of the significant differences in the two is not the size of the God, but how they are expressed. One is in the lives of the people, the other is in the theology.

That the LCM has their own God is not out of the norm. In a real sense we all imagine our own God.

It's that they think their God is the best one. Based on their allegiance it turns out their God is Witness Lee. They would never admit that. It's not in the Life-Study they're reading.

So, if we're wondering what to throw out I'd say throw out the LCM God. It's like the Jewish God, very exclusive. The real God cares about "the least of these."

[HERn]

I'm not comfortable with OBW's little "g" god or Awareness' "another God" because that implies something I can't agree with. Although LSM may have an exclusive view that the triune God's plan, move, and desire is mainly with their group, I do believe that their God is the same as that of the Apostles'. Are you saying something different?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

I'm not comfortable with OBW's little "g" god or Awareness' "another God" because that implies something I can't agree with. Although LSM may have an exclusive view that the triune God's plan, move, and desire is mainly with their group, I do believe that their God is the same as that of the Apostles'. Are you saying something different?

I agree with you here for sure. Even though Lee was excessively lifted up, i and all those we knew, only worshiped God, and His name was Jesus Christ.

Lee's exclusive views did make us proud, but we also excelled in our zeal more than most Christians. That said, i was always in a subset of the movement which mostly kept LSM at arm's length. Although Titus Chu did have his own ambitions to replace Lee, he gained many followers by remaining closer to the text of the Bible.

[OBW]

Sorry. I was not trying to suggest that their God is ultimately not the same God that we all are seeking to serve. But their understanding of what that means is sometimes so out of sync with even the plain words that you have to wonder sometimes if Justyn M (the main moderator on another forum) is not correct to suggest that the trinity in which Jesus is now the Spirit is teaching a "different Jesus."

I do not argue that as a point against them being Christian, but to say that their theology is egregiously flawed. If they were a group that still taught righteousness and sanctification in a way that reflects Peter's "we have all things for godliness" kind of way, then I could overlook more of their theological flaws. But since theology is essentially taught as trumping any kind of practical holiness or works in any way, the theology is laid bare and useless.

In short, are the things they attribute to God really of God? If not, then do they really know who they are talking about? I would agree that they are trying to talk about the same God. But they are horribly mistaken on many issues even though I actually think they are talking about the same God. They have not gone so far astray that what they say would be blaspheme. But you have to wonder if God is scratching his head at times.

As for the zeal that Ohio mentions, was our zeal for Christ what we brought? Was that slowly replaced by a zeal for The Unique Net Testament Ministry, the "church life," the MOTA, and so forth? I get the notion from some of the posts that for the last 15 to 20 years (if not much longer) the takeover of the church by the LSM to make them "ministry station churches" has squeezed the zeal of of so many.

Everything wonderful is not related to living, but to meeting. The only positive thing about someone is how they are so much "for the church and for the saints." (This was the substance of so many testimonies that I heard at a funeral several years ago.)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by HERn

I'm not comfortable with OBW's little "g" god or Awareness' "another God" because that implies something I can't agree with. Although LSM may have an exclusive view that the triune God's plan, move, and desire is mainly with their group, I do believe that their God is the same as that of the Apostles'. Are you saying something different?

I'm not saying they actually have a different God. That's not even possible. I'm saying the God they have in their imagination is not the real God. They, for example, imagine that they are the spearhead of what God is doing on the earth. That's a fiction. Therefore, in their imagination their God does not match the real God.

Throw out that God. It's a figment of their imagination.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Sorry. I was not trying to suggest that their God is ultimately not the same God that we all are seeking to serve. But their understanding of what that means is sometimes so out of sync with even the plain words that you have to wonder sometimes if Justyn M (the main moderator on another forum) is not correct to suggest that the trinity in which Jesus is now the Spirit is teaching a "different Jesus."

I can't remember Justyn saying anything useful. Lee sought to be unique by over-emphasizing the oneness side of the Trinity. He had his verses too. His troubles were little related to modalism as the other forum had for so long asserted.

I do not argue that as a point against them being Christian, but to say that their theology is egregiously flawed. If they were a group that still taught righteousness and sanctification in a way that reflects Peter's "we have all things for godliness" kind of way, then I could overlook more of their theological flaws. But since theology is essentially taught as trumping any kind of practical holiness or works in any way, the theology is laid bare and useless.

II Peter does say we have "have all things," yet he stresses the growth and development of these by "adding all diligence." Unfortunately, due to the coverups of unrighteousness, Lee "mechanized" all his practices in order to rally his base. The spiritual reality was the first thing to suffer as a result. During these times who cared about our personal spiritual walk with the Lord? It all came down to "are you one with Lee?"

As for the zeal that Ohio mentions, was our zeal for Christ what we brought? Was that slowly replaced by a zeal for The Unique Net Testament Ministry, the "church life," the MOTA, and so forth? I get the notion from some of the posts that for the last 15 to 20 years (if not much longer) the takeover of the church by the LSM to make them "ministry station churches" has squeezed the zeal of of so many.

This is a good point I have often addressed too. Lee equated "Christ and the church," and directed our zeal towards that entity. Later on (circa ~1985) he again redirected our zeal towards "the ministry," which was his own. Lee's intentions here were altogether self-serving and manipulative.

Once we place "Christ and the church" ahead of our family and our life, we end up with neither Christ nor the church nor our family. We end up with only Lee and LSM.

Everything wonderful is not related to living, but to meeting. The only positive thing about someone is how they are so much "for the church and for the saints." (This was the substance of so many testimonies that I heard at a funeral several years ago.)

Definitely agree. He over-emphasized the meeting life, which in itself might be innocuous, but set the stage for other problems which developed.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That said, i was always in a subset of the movement which mostly kept LSM at arm's length. Although Titus Chu did have his own ambitions to replace Lee, he gained many followers by remaining closer to the text of the Bible.

What would be accurate to describe Titus Chu? I never had the sense he wanted to take over the recovery as the accusations were levied against brothers from the late 80's.
I do have a sense, Titus had a burden for China which he felt requires no consent or coordination with the blendeds. The blendeds may feel differently which unfortunately made the Great Lakes area the battleground for battle of wills. In the end, churches are both sides were exposed as ministry churches. Of course there were a few (Detroit, Mansfield, etc) that saw this as a non-issue.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

What would be accurate to describe Titus Chu? I never had the sense he wanted to take over the recovery as the accusations were levied against brothers from the late 80's.

I do have a sense, Titus had a burden for China which he felt requires no consent or coordination with the blendeds. The blendeds may feel differently which unfortunately made the Great Lakes area the battleground for battle of wills. In the end, churches are both sides were exposed as ministry churches. Of course there were a few (Detroit, Mansfield, etc) that saw this as a non-issue.

Titus Chu wholeheartedly believed in the Recovery and viewed Lee as his "spiritual father." As such, he never criticized Lee for any failures, even supporting his coverups related to Phillip Lee. TC was forced to choose sides by Lee and company, and unfortunately he did not side with the truth. TC never felt any of the Blendeds were qualified to hold a position of leadership. He once referred to some as "five little boys," and felt that he alone was qualified to lead the Recovery post Lee.

I was told by a former full-timer, after TC returned from an Asian trip, that there were many overseas saints beginning to clamor for "Nee, Lee, Chu." Lee had programmed the saints for decades into believing that "God always had one man" to lead His move on earth. We were no different from the Catholics who cry for their next Pope. Lee knew that his false teaching would backfire in the face of incompetent sycophants and wordsmith book editors, so he then began to announce the "end of spiritual giants" and the new age of "blended brothers" prepared to lead the Recovery. All this nonsense was designed to keep the Recovery from falling into the hands of men like TC, DYL, or others, who would definitely decide to "clean house" after Lee's departure.

It is my belief that the Quarantine of Titus Chu was necessitated by these growing calls for "Nee, Lee, Chu" in the Asian world. Obviously such talk would filter back to Anaheim, and spook the likes of Benson and company. Make no mistake, TC had global aspirations to lead the Recovery, and that God had prepared him for this.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can't remember Justyn saying anything useful.

Overall I have to agree with this statement. I only note it for the fact that it is something he said and that on occasion I was somewhat persuaded (for reasons other than those Justyn ranted about).

But at the same time, while I do not consider the LCM's God to be a different God, the way they talk about Him in theological terms (not just the joyous parts of testimonies) did not sound like the God I read about in the Bible. I would agree that they have probably not crossed the line. But some of the stuff makes you wonder at times.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

But at the same time, while I do not consider the LCM's God to be a different God, the way they talk about Him in theological terms (not just the joyous parts of testimonies) did not sound like the God I read about in the Bible.

I could say the same thing about the way some Pentecostals talk about the "holy ghost."

[HERn]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm not saying they actually have a different God. That's not even possible. I'm saying the God they have in their imagination is not the real God. They, for example, imagine that they are the spearhead of what God is doing on the earth. That's a fiction. Therefore, in their imagination their God does not match the real God.

Throw out that God. It's a figment of their imagination.

Yes, I'm throwing out the narrow LSM opinion that the God of the universe, the God of Abraham, Iasac and Jacob, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has restricted Himself to only working through a group who falsely take the name of being "The Lord's Recovery".

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by HERn

I'm not comfortable with OBW's little "g" god or Awareness' "another God" because that implies something I can't agree with. Although LSM may have an exclusive view that the triune God's plan, move, and desire is mainly with their group, I do believe that their God is the same as that of the Apostles'. Are you saying something different?

As others have pointed out before, and I've mentioned it recently, certain LSM leaders sometimes speak about "what they will say" when they "see Witness Lee again." I think there's a kind of fear that goes along w/the idea of having to answer to Witness Lee (despite the fact that he is, obviously, already deceased).

Is this a kind of worship? Is that too much to say?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I was told by a former full-timer, after TC returned from an Asian trip, that there were many overseas saints beginning to clamor for "Nee, Lee, Chu." Lee had programmed the saints for decades into believing that "God always had one man" to lead His move on earth. We were no different from the Catholics who cry for their next Pope. Lee knew that his false teaching would backfire in the face of incompetent sycophants and wordsmith book editors, so he then began to announce the "end of spiritual giants" and the new age of "blended brothers" prepared to lead the Recovery. All this nonsense was designed to keep the Recovery from falling into the hands of men like TC, DYL, or others, who would definitely decide to "clean house" after Lee's departure.

"The age of spiritual giants is over." Did Witness Lee say this himself? That would be hubris indeed...

[HERn]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

As others have pointed out before, and I've mentioned it recently, certain LSM leaders sometimes speak about "what they will say" when they "see Witness Lee again." I think there's a kind of fear that goes along w/the idea of having to answer to Witness Lee (despite the fact that he is, obviously, already deceased).

Is this a kind of worship? Is that too much to say?

Yes, to me that is more than weird. It's non-Christian religious superstition.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by HERn

Yes, to me that is more than weird. It's non-Christian religious superstition. In my opinion WL is right now wishing he could repent for his errors, deception, and lies.

When people sell out their consciences in the way that sometimes happens in the Recovery, it makes one wonder what, or who, exactly, is being worshiped...O who has bewitched you?..

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

As others have pointed out before, and I've mentioned it recently, certain LSM leaders sometimes speak about "what they will say" when they "see Witness Lee again." I think there's a kind of fear that goes along w/the idea of having to answer to Witness Lee (despite the fact that he is, obviously, already deceased).

Is this a kind of worship? Is that too much to say?

Only one I am absolutely certain who said that was Dan Towle. Reinsert Witness Lee's name with any other dead person....yes it is a kind of worship. I would ask these questions:
1. Did Witness Lee die for your sins?
2. Were you baptized in Witness Lee's name?

If the answer is no, drop the absurd concept "what they will say when they see Witness Lee again".

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

Yes, I'm throwing out the narrow LSM opinion that the God of the universe, the God of Abraham, Iasac and Jacob, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has restricted Himself to only working through a group who falsely take the name of being "The Lord's Recovery".

That's accurate that's what they think. Though not everyone in the local churches shares Ron's concept only those in the local churches comprise the Body of Christ.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Yes, I'm throwing out the narrow LSM opinion that the God of the universe, the God of Abraham, Iasac and Jacob, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has restricted Himself to only working through a group who falsely take the name of being "The Lord's Recovery".

Good for you. The only Minister of the Age is Jesus Christ!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

"The age of spiritual giants is over." Did Witness Lee say this himself? That would be hubris indeed...

Numerous times ... my friend ... numerous times.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Only one I am absolutely certain who said that was Dan Towle. Reinsert Witness Lee's name with any other dead person....yes it is a kind of worship. I would ask these questions:
1. Did Witness Lee die for your sins?
2. Were you baptized in Witness Lee's name?

If the answer is no, drop the absurd concept "what they will say when they see Witness Lee again".

Lee said the same thing himself about Nee, "what will I say when I see Brother Nee."

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Numerous times ... my friend ... numerous times.

So my understanding would be something along these lines --

When Witness Lee was saying that "the age of spiritual giants is over," he was essentially denying that he himself had any such position (as a giant).

Fast-forward to the late 90's, after he had passed on. Saying that "the age of spiritual giants is over," at that time, was a kind of tacit acknowledgment that Witness Lee was a kind of giant, all along. But that w/his passing, the age of giants really was over (really, we really mean it now).

What do you think, Ohio?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

So my understanding would be something along these lines --

When Witness Lee was saying that "the age of spiritual giants is over," he was essentially denying that he himself had any such position (as a giant).

Fast-forward to the late 90's, after he had passed on. Saying that "the age of spiritual giants is over," at that time, was a kind of tacit acknowledgment that Witness Lee was a kind of giant, all along. But that w/his passing, the age of giants really was over (really, we really mean it now).

What do you think, Ohio?

Lee presented himself as the last, the greatest, amd the consummation of all the MOTA's. In order to succeed him, the Recovery needed a whole team of blendeds.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I could say the same thing about the way some Pentecostals talk about the "holy ghost."

Yes. That is often true.

And it is a bit of a tightrope that we walk when talking about the LCM here. If it was just a little of one kind of apparent disagreement on something (more like what marks the differences between denominations) then I could agree that it is the same thing. But it is not just a particular stance on one thing. Or an over-emphasis in one area. It is a collection of nuanced disagreements with the rest of Christianity that makes even the things that they actually agree on seem like disagreements because they have to say it differently (and behind closed doors they point to the fact that the way they say it is better and therefore enhances their experience of it).

It is not just too much emphasis on the Holy Ghost. Or sprinkling v emersion. It is a litany of both real and artificial differences of their own making with which they willfully separate themselves from the rest of the body of Christ. While I do not agree that they are teaching a truly different Christ, they are clearly interested in making enough separation in their teaching in virtually every area that there is something worthy of comment. It finally reaches the point where they, by their own admission, do not want to be associated with the broader body of Christ and thereby despise the desire of Christ when he prayed that we would be one.

Someone could say that because of books like the God-Men or the Mind Benders we have refused them entrance. But while they want to be understood as "mainstream" in so many ways, they insist on standing far away from everyone else while calling them whores and harlots.

Each single point of divergence can be commented on by reference to a similarity with someone else's divergence from what we might call the center. But when there is such a collection of divergence, it is no longer enough to say that group A does something sort of like LCM error X, and group B does something like LCM error Y, and group C does something like LCM error Z. The difference is that each of the other groups showed up with one or two divergences (and often of lesser extremes) while the LCM had its own similar divergence for every one of them — and then some.

It comes to a point where either they have to be almost completely right that the rest of Christianity is horrible and they got it right, or the LCM is really the collection of error that I keep seeing. A system of error. They are not just too Arminian or too Calvinist. They are intentionally divergent on virtually everything and that cannot be washed away by a reference to a somewhat similar single item in one other particular group. The rest of Christianity is mostly at peace with each other. Christianity does display unity. But as long as the view is only the issues of difference, and the large body of agreement is ignored, we can continue to miss that the LCM has intentionally stood against unity with other Christians and made big points on a lot of issues to drive wedges in.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee presented himself as the last, the greatest, amd the consummation of all the MOTA's. In order to succeed him, the Recovery needed a whole team of blendeds.

So Lee was either denying that he was the MOTA, or (the ultimate hubris), claiming to not only be the MOTA, but to be the last one -- the ultimate link on the chain.

[Awoken]

I was/am considering this matter myself. I recently read something written by a former LCer that opined that the real strength of the apostles was in the variety of their ministries; Peter for his earthiness and accessibility, Paul in his complex thought, John for his deep and mysterious spirituality, etc.

Even though I consider my LC backdrop to have left me rather poor and spiritually lacking in a lot of respects (more "out of Laodicea" than anything), while I was fellowshipping with a Baptist brother tonight I couldn't help but think of how wonderful the Lord's body and the sheer variety of the gifts in it really is. While I was in the LC and fully buying into its contemptuous attitude towards other Christians, there was no way I could appreciate that particular brother's approach to his spirituality. Today though it dawned on me that I have a deep appreciation for his much more practical, "do"-ing instead of "be"-ing approach to Christian life (prior LCers will know what I mean by this). Even though I am still carrying a lot of LC baggage with me I started to understand something about the variety of gifts. I can benefit from this brother's very practical approach to the Christian walk, and he could also benefit from fresher and more spiritual perspectives on the Word. I believe the early apostles probably tempered each other in this kind of way without trying to impress others about how "humble" and "spiritual" they were and how much better their interpretation of scripture was than all the other apostles.

I actually do not think that everything I learned in the LC was utter garbage. The idea that there is a deeper and more spiritual side to life and to knowing the Lord than most of Christianity experiences is not necessarily off the mark. I think the real problem was the attitude and assumption that "we have it but you don't". Another distinct feeling I had today was that my idea of "spiritual experiences" has been just as off-the-mark. Why the heck can't a rational and "in the mind" conversation end up being just as spiritually compelling and convicting as charismatic, feeling-based woo? (On the other hand, the super-spiritual stuff may just seem like feeling-based woo if we don't understand it and so we shouldn't entirely write that off either. Can you imagine what the brothers who received John's account of Revelation must have thought the first time they read it?)

Grace and peace,
Awoken

[aron]

Originally Posted by Awoken

I actually do not think that everything I learned in the LC was utter garbage. The idea that there is a deeper and more spiritual side to life and to knowing the Lord than most of Christianity experiences is not necessarily off the mark. I think the real problem was the attitude and assumption that "we have it but you don't".

Yes, there is a deeper side to life, and to knowing the Lord. And the LC movement was attractive in some regards, in contrast to much of the mainstream fare offered down at the "community church" of Protestantism or the liturgical, ritualistic Anglican or Catholic services. Lee was aware of this and often spoke of what the LC experience offered in contrast to other parts of Christianity. However, he made a fatal flaw, in my estimation, even greater than the scorning and despising and judging the experiences and contributions of others, as if he were qualified to do so.

This flaw, to me, was to say that there was no deeper or spiritual side to life than what he was offering. So there was #1 his teachings, which were supposedly superior to all others, and #2 the "Local Church life" experience, which was supposedly "building the Body and consummating the New Jerusalem", both of which couldn't possibly be reproduced, or surpassed, elsewhere. In other words, not only is our LC reality greater than can be found anywhere else, don't even bother looking anywhere else because how could any experience be greater than building the Body of Christ? For my reply to this, see my remarks below.

Originally Posted by Awoken

Another distinct feeling I had today was that my idea of "spiritual experiences" has been just as off-the-mark. Why the heck can't a rational and "in the mind" conversation end up being ... spiritually compelling...

It has become apparent to me that the source of Nee's and Lee's "revelations" concerning Christ, the human spirit, and the church, just to name three, were largely based on logical and/or rational constructions, many from 19th century Protestantism and Protestant spin-offs (see e.g. JN Darby and "The Bretheren"). These rationalizations ("this equals that" and "this means that") were held as end-all and be-all revelations from God, never to be questioned or supervened by other people's light from God.

God made us rational beings, at least partly. Supposedly Lee's light was so great that our rationality should be limited to "the apostle is always right", even when the thought-constructions of this supposed apostle were pretty thin, or even running against the plain words of scripture in front of us.

I've made a lot of hay over all this elsewhere so I won't belabor the point. But suffice it to say that there are a lot of places that Lee looked into scripture and essentially said, "There is no Christ here, only the fallen concepts of men". No possibility, according to Lee, that there is "a deeper and more spiritual side of life and knowing the Lord". But I've found that to linger, like Mary at the tomb, may occasionally be met by the 'parousia' of the Spirit of Christ: the Spirit of Christ reveals Christ, and Christ reveals His Father's kingdom. And yes this experience at some point includes the functioning of the rational mind. So there's more, in the word, beyond the "LC experience" as it has thus far been presented by Nee, Lee, and their acolytes.

But Lee dismissed this possibility out of hand, rejecting the native power of the Word, which power resurrected Jesus from the dead and gives life and breath to all things. So I can't take his work too seriously any more. Yes it helped once, but now I regard it as analogous to being in kindergarden or first grade. It may be developmentally preferential to wearing diapers in a crib with a rattle, but it's not the end-all and be-all of the human experience.

Having written the above doesn't mean that I'm now "somebody"; seeing something and then living it are two different propositions. "Blessed are the doers of the Word, not just the hearers thereof." But still, if you don't see or hear, how can you live it? As Paul said, "How can they believe unless they first hear? And how can they hear unless someone preaches to them?" (Rom 10:14) And Lee's thought-system effectively tried to keep us from seeing or hearing "this Jesus" (Acts 2:32). Supposedly if you prayerfully considered the Word you would always come to the same conclusions that "the ministry" gave you.

But suppose you prayerfully came to the Word, and considered, and suddenly the light began to shine, and "this Jesus" began to appear where Lee had said there was no light, and no truth, then what? How does the "LC life" experience allow one to go on? They either have to ignore the speaking Word, or throw out the ministry that ignores the Word.

[HERn]

RK's Comment re: Scanning

Some time ago at a blending conference RK made a peculiar comment that I often ponder upon. During a message he said something about being able to scan a person to make some kind of determination, and then said something like don't come up to me after the message and ask how we do the scanning because it's just something we do (not the exact words). Has anyone else heard similar comments on the topic of "scanning the saints"? I took it as him being able to assess or discern the spiritual condition of a saint. It sounded kind of weird then and it still seems weird...like having some kind of capacity to see through people "to scan the souls of men".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

RK's Comment re: Scanning

Some time ago at a blending conference RK made a peculiar comment that I often ponder upon. During a message he said something about being able to scan a person to make some kind of determination, and then said something like don't come up to me after the message and ask how we do the scanning because it's just something we do (not the exact words). Has anyone else heard similar comments on the topic of "scanning the saints"? I took it as him being able to assess or discern the spiritual condition of a saint. It sounded kind of weird then and it still seems weird...like having some kind of capacity to see through people "to scan the souls of men".

Sounds like Ray Graver. I have heard that some have called him "X-Ray Ray" because he could walk up to any (especially a young) brother and rebuke him for being "in the flesh."

To me that is a worthless skill, kind of like the ministry of condemnation. Wouldn't it be far better to bring others to God by speaking blessing to them?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sounds like Ray Graver. I have heard that some have called him "X-Ray Ray" because he could walk up to any (especially a young) brother and rebuke him for being "in the flesh."

That takes no skill to do. Besides the accounts alluding to Ray Graver in The Thread of Gold and through additional reports, he strikes me as one easily offended. All you need to do is critique the binding and covers of LSM printed books, as RG receives that as an attack.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

RK's Comment re: Scanning

Some time ago at a blending conference RK made a peculiar comment that I often ponder upon. During a message he said something about being able to scan a person to make some kind of determination, and then said something like don't come up to me after the message and ask how we do the scanning because it's just something we do (not the exact words). Has anyone else heard similar comments on the topic of "scanning the saints"? I took it as him being able to assess or discern the spiritual condition of a saint. It sounded kind of weird then and it still seems weird...like having some kind of capacity to see through people "to scan the souls of men".

A similar word could be uttered, "I don't need facts. All I need is to scan a brother or sister and that provides all the discernment I need."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

That takes no skill to do. Besides the accounts alluding to Ray Graver in The Thread of Gold and through additional reports, he strikes me as one easily offended. All you need to do is critique the binding and covers of LSM printed books, as RG receives that as an attack.

Interesting point.

Why is it that the more one rises in the ranks of the Recovery, the more he critiques everyone else, and the more easily he is offended?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sounds like Ray Graver. I have heard that some have called him "X-Ray Ray" because he could walk up to any (especially a young) brother and rebuke him for being "in the flesh."

To me that is a worthless skill, kind of like the ministry of condemnation. Wouldn't it be far better to bring others to God by speaking blessing to them?

Good thing Mr Graver was "in the spirit" while he rebuked others for being "in the flesh."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why is it that the more one rises in the ranks of the Recovery, the more he critiques everyone else, and the more easily he is offended?

There is something to be said for spiritual maturity and experience with the cross. Brothers easily offended may not have much experience with the cross.

[HERn]

I know the following quote is on the current home page of this site, but I wanted to copy it here so I could maintain access to it. I believe this quote is accurate.

"Many have assayed to define the Local Church of Witness Lee. As an ex-long term member and leader in the group, I will also attempt a final opinion: The Local Church of Witness Lee is a splinter sect of the Closed Brethren, modified by Asian culture and peculiarly developed because of its isolation from the rest of the Body of Christ."
John Myer
A Future And A Hope

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

I know the following quote is on the current home page of this site, but I wanted to copy it here so I could maintain access to it. I believe this quote is accurate.

"Many have assayed to define the Local Church of Witness Lee. As an ex-long term member and leader in the group, I will also attempt a final opinion: The Local Church of Witness Lee is a splinter sect of the Closed Brethren, modified by Asian culture and peculiarly developed because of its isolation from the rest of the Body of Christ."
John Myer
A Future And A Hope

And I would recommend Myer's book to any and all LC members attempting to leave that sect.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And I would recommend Myer's book to any and all LC members attempting to leave that sect.

Yes, I have read the book and can recommend it. http://www.Assemblylife.com

I can also recommend "The Thread of Gold" by Carolyn Anderson.
http://www.thethreadofgold.com

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

The Local Church of Witness Lee is a splinter sect of the Closed Brethren, modified by Asian culture and peculiarly developed because of its isolation from the rest of the Body of Christ."

Summed up rather accurately. The most obvious to me would have been to say splintered sect from the Closed Brethren. I haven't read any of John's in a few years. Thanks for the find HERn.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Terry

Summed up rather accurately. The most obvious to me would have been to say splintered sect from the Closed Brethren. I haven't read any of John's in a few years. Thanks for the find HERn.

Those were John Myer's contributions.

[HERn]

My first training at Anaheim was on mammon and while I was in the LSM book room standing in line to purchase the RcV NT CD a brother comes up to me and asks if I want to buy a directory of the local churches I said yes and that I would just add it to the stuff I had already picked out to purchase. The brother said that it was a cash sale only so I paid him $3 cash. I remember that he was selling them to other saints waiting in line. Kind of weird to see some type of sideline business going on while waiting in line to pay at the register, especially when the topic was on mammon!

[HERn]

Our One Another group was cancelled tonight, but the dear 84 yo retired Wycliffe translater brother showed up. He was the only one at the cancelled home meeting, but we had such a wonderful time reading the bible and talking. He served the Chacabos (spelling ?) for 25 years living with them and learning their culture and language so they could translate the New Testament into their language. He had to create a written language for them! Dear brothers and sisters in the lords recovery, please don't let LSM deceive you in thinking that the Lord Jesus is only working in their little group. He is so much bigger than the self-proclaimed "the lord's recovery". I fear that at the judgement seat of Christ He may say to some of the BBs "I never knew you".

[HERn]

Our pastor mentioned the following quote from Mark Ross in his sermon on the last Lord's day.

"Yet as we have seen, the church that is in Jesus is a diverse church. This diversity among Christians is due to our lack of conformity to Christ. He has chosen to sanctify us gradually in this world. As the progress we make in sanctification varies both in doctrine and in practice, there will always be a need in this world for those who are united in Christ to live in love with one another while dealing with differences. Sometimes these differences result in the formation of different churches and denominations in order to maintain a good conscience toward God. But such divisions need not be a defeat of unity among us, so long as we do not permit them to destroy our love and welcome for one another in Christ. Some divisions are of practical necessity anyway, for not all Christians in the world can meet together at the same time in the same place.

Many distinct gatherings of Christians spread throughout the world can actually serve the purposes of God, by sprinkling us among the lost to shine the light of Christ. Our multiple groupings can also serve us well, encouraging us to be faithful to what we believe Christ has taught us, bringing us together with those with whom we can cooperate most fully. But if we allow our divisions to become breaches of love and occasions for pride and rivalry, then we will have failed in our calling, and our witness for Christ will be marred."

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articl...ty-all-things/

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Our pastor mentioned the following quote from Mark Ross in his sermon on the last Lord's day.

"Yet as we have seen, the church that is in Jesus is a diverse church. This diversity among Christians is due to our lack of conformity to Christ. He has chosen to sanctify us gradually in this world. As the progress we make in sanctification varies both in doctrine and in practice, there will always be a need in this world for those who are united in Christ to live in love with one another while dealing with differences. Sometimes these differences result in the formation of different churches and denominations in order to maintain a good conscience toward God. But such divisions need not be a defeat of unity among us, so long as we do not permit them to destroy our love and welcome for one another in Christ. Some divisions are of practical necessity anyway, for not all Christians in the world can meet together at the same time in the same place.

Many distinct gatherings of Christians spread throughout the world can actually serve the purposes of God, by sprinkling us among the lost to shine the light of Christ. Our multiple groupings can also serve us well, encouraging us to be faithful to what we believe Christ has taught us, bringing us together with those with whom we can cooperate most fully. But if we allow our divisions to become breaches of love and occasions for pride and rivalry, then we will have failed in our calling, and our witness for Christ will be marred."

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articl...ty-all-things/

Exclusive ministers like Witness Lee would never abide by these principles. If they did, they would lose their identity and reason for being.

When J N Darby hijacked the Plymouth Brethren movement, his definition for Christian unity was explained in a circular entitled, "Separation from evil, God's principle for unity." It takes a while for these two divergent principles of Christian unity to completely manifest themselves. Another Brethren founder A N Groves properly noted that the Exclusives under Darby soon became identified with what they stood against, rather than what they stood for.

Witness Lee, at heart a Darby descendent, followed this same path. The two of them majored in minors concerning love. To follow Lee, one must judge all as he did. One was never permitted to pick and choose which items or which brothers to condemn. Lee could convincingly preach oneness all day long, yet never practice charity towards those who differed from his judgments.

What to throw out?

The first thing to discard is the exclusive form of unity.

[OBW]

I think that the most important words are "until we all arrive at the unity of the faith."

That stands in stark contrast to the way that so many super leaders want it to be. They would say "You must follow my version of the unity of the faith." The take no consideration for the possibility that they could be wrong, therefore are not the place to which unity is moving.

But the most important thing about the unity of the faith is that it is probably not based upon the right polar positions, or even the right mix of positions. It is probably not Calvinism, or Arminianinsm, or even some specific place in between. That does not mean that some particular place in there is not "right," but that even in being right, that is not "the faith."

And it is doubtful that any one of us (from among all Christians, not just the ones frequenting this forum) is even close to having it all "right." Yet many of us are fully in the faith. And many are arriving at unity in the faith as we continue to meet with people who are more similar to ourselves, yet not precisely so, as we recognize the faith in those who are more unlike ourselves.

I can not say that there is nothing in the Mark Ross quote that I might take exception to. While not said directly, it seemed to suggest that there is a need to create different groups. That might be less a function of need as of the reality of our inability to deal with all aspects of conflict. Of the inability to accept that we don't agree on everything, even though we do agree on the faith. It is the thing that still unifies us. It is the thing that brings people of quite diverse congregations together for many things, even if not the regular Sunday worship.

[Cal]

HERn, I enjoyed and agreed with the eloquent quote your post. But my first thought was how LCMers would be instantly suspicious of such sentiments. They would be inclined to call it "shaking hands over the fence." The problem with that view is not that it is wrong to desire strong expressions of unity, but that it insists that unity must be expressed in a certain specific way, in the LCM case submitting to LCM elders and leaders "on the ground of locality."

But, as OBW suggested, the arrival at the unity of the faith is not something whose practical outworkings are clear to us. We can assume there will be love, harmony and cooperation, but we cannot say how that will look from leadership or gathering standpoints. It is the height of arrogance to expect all Christians to submit to a specific set of leaders or meet in specific places, no matter what you think of the benefits.

The LCM got locked into a view of oneness which in essence meant nothing more than bowing before arbitrary elders (always their's interestingly) while mouthing platitudes about "one church one city." As Ohio suggested, it has become clear that this is nothing more than a conveniently disguised scheme to (1) control members and (2) discredit non-conforming Christians and groups. In other words, exclusiveness.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that the most important words are "until we all arrive at the unity of the faith."

Hear, hear. WL made being "absolutely identical" a starting point to the so-called normal church life. Yes, like bricks in the wall, daubed with slime. Each one absolutely identical. Full unity: dead and static.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When J N Darby hijacked the Plymouth Brethren movement, his definition for Christian unity was explained in a circular entitled, "Separation from evil, God's principle for unity."

What to throw out?

The first thing to discard is the exclusive form of unity.

Originally Posted by aron

Hear, hear. WL made being "absolutely identical" a starting point to the so-called normal church life. Yes, like bricks in the wall, daubed with slime. Each one absolutely identical. Full unity: dead and static.

Once we allowed Lee to define all that was evil, we began sliding down that slippery slope. We had thus abrogated our own responsibility to test and prove all things according to the scripture. Being "absolutely identical" then becomes the only safeguard against being singled out by those in power. Saints learn to live in fear of being singled out for standing out and being "different."

This uniformity program entered into full speed during the heyday of the "New Way." I was at one elders and deacons training meeting and watched a dear brother get ruthlessly excoriated for not wearing his LSM-issued blue or brown necktie. It was like time stopped and we all got to watch the trainer AY make an example out of this brother so that the rest of us would "learn a valuable lesson."

Here in the GLA, Titus Chu was always a marked man for refusing to be being "absolutely identical" to the other lackeys under Lee. How those LSM trainers longed to force TC to register as "just one of the brothers" at the training center, so that they could daily inspect his bed and underwear drawers like the rest of us. Forced humility to bring him under subjection.

Personally, I thought it was kind of humorous when I received an official citation for not arranging my underwear properly. These kids were assigned to enter our training dorms during scheduled activities, otherwise I would have made him sniff out my dirty laundry bag too.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This uniformity program entered into full speed during the heyday of the "New Way." I was at one elders and deacons training meeting and watched a dear brother get ruthlessly excoriated for not wearing his LSM-issued blue or brown necktie.

Unity became uniformity. How can one not say that this quenched the Spirit?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Unity became uniformity. How can one not say that this quenched the Spirit?

This brings up another one of Lee's favorite toys, something we have not discussed much on this forum -- the need for incessant training by Lee and company.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I was at one elders and deacons training meeting and watched a dear brother get ruthlessly excoriated for not wearing his LSM-issued blue or brown necktie.

I would not have done well in that kind of environment. It would have hastened my departure. I might have just told whoever that he was full of excrement and headed for the door.

Prior to my departure, I bought into the system. For a while afterward, I still had the thought that it was actually the right doctrines. But I would have left much clearer had I been faced with that kind of nonsense, or been present when it happened to someone else. I don't tolerate that brand of bovine feces very well. No amount of checking the brain at the door turns my BS-o-meter completely off. Probably a character flaw.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would not have done well in that kind of environment. It would have hastened my departure. I might have just told whoever that he was full of excrement and headed for the door.

You might have remained stranded (quarantined) on that island forever.

[HERn]

"But if we allow our divisions to become breaches of love and occasions for pride and rivalry, then we will have failed in our calling, and our witness for Christ will be marred."

In my opinion a fundamental problem with LSM Leeism is their refusal to receive anything outside of WL. The Spirit is rich in expression...to restrict yourself to Leeism is to refuse what the Spirit is providing through the entire body of Christ. Leeism fosters pride and and the rejection of the Spirit's working outside of LSM. If there is such a thing as an oracle of God it's Jesus Christ, it could never be someone like WL...Paul maybe, but certainly not WL. Do you think Paul would have his photo taken beside a huge RV that was built using the money from the saints?

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

In my opinion a fundamental problem with LSM Leeism is their refusal to receive anything outside of WL. The Spirit is rich in expression...to restrict yourself to Leeism is to refuse what the Spirit is providing through the entire body of Christ. Leeism fosters pride and and the rejection of the Spirit's working outside of LSM.

In any large metropolitan area, there are going to be numerous gatherings. You can't expect every Christian in town to be in the same building at the same time. Nowhere in the Scripture is this indicated. Even "Jerusalem" and "Zion" were surrounded and supported by a vast geographical and social network. So to expect everybody to get in one room, under one minister, as the only valid representation of God's people today, is unrealistic at best and delusional at worst.

Sure, WN saw division. And WL made a lot of noise about it, here in the USA. But their proposed solution of "one church" is simply not practical. In reality you'll have numerous meetings, gatherings, assemblies, whatever you call them (gasp - 'churches'!!). The Spirit moved across the earth, and people began to gather in Jesus' name. One gathering may have a piano. One may have a banjo. One may have 3 guitars. Whatever. God isn't bothered by a diverse representation.

But clearly the LC of WL, what you call 'Leeism', is bothered by diversity in representation. It sees diversity as a kind of proto-sectarianism. Its proposed solution is to have everyone get in the same room, read the exact same translation of the exact same Bible verses, then recite the exact same explanation to each other, and anyone who doesn't gets marginalized. This seems to go against the whole expression of the Bible: the Bible seems very inclusive, in Jesus' name. "Receive those whom God received in Christ Jesus". No qualifiers, beyond that we have sinned, repented, and confessed. Those saying, "None may add qualifiers" have themselves added the most restrictive qualifier of all. Because they've given themselves the license, or "the ground" to reject everyone. They can say they're the most inclusive, while rejecting everyone who isn't as inclusive as they are.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by aron

In any large metropolitan area, there are going to be numerous gatherings. You can't expect every Christian in town to be in the same building at the same time. Nowhere in the Scripture is this indicated. Even "Jerusalem" and "Zion" were surrounded and supported by a vast geographical and social network. So to expect everybody to get in one room, under one minister, as the only valid representation of God's people today, is unrealistic at best and delusional at worst.

Taiwan LCs have many meeting halls. The LC in my city meets concurrently in 4-5 different locations every Sunday. The point wasn't everyone gather under the same roof but that all Christian congregations recognise themselves as the church in that locality rather than identifying themselves along denominational lines. Lee's implementation is a mutated version of this ideal.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

Taiwan LCs have many meeting halls. The LC in my city meets concurrently in 4-5 different locations every Sunday. The point wasn't everyone gather under the same roof but that all Christian congregations recognise themselves as the church in that locality rather than identifying themselves along denominational lines. Lee's implementation is a mutated version of this ideal.

Since Lee and his successors forced all their member churches to be recognized by them, with numerous written and unwritten stipulations, can we not help but conclude that the Recovery has been organized along to denominational lines? Many of us have wondered if their brand of denominationalism is far worse than those which they regularly condemn.

Historians have stated, for example, that J N Darby became a far worse "pope" than the one in Rome he continually critiqued.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

The point wasn't everyone gather under the same roof but that all Christian congregations recognise themselves as the church in that locality rather than identifying themselves along denominational lines. Lee's implementation is a mutated version of this ideal.

So everyone agrees that one "ekklesia" can allow multiple gatherings in one city. But from there, a kind of narcissistic subjectivism takes over, it seems. When other congregations recognize each other as part of the one church, the Nee model (at least in my LC experience) said that this was merely "ecumenicalism"; the current leader was fond of saying, "We don't care for that." Yet when the LC did it they called it "building the Body of Christ".

The ideal, as I see it, is to love one another, even as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us "while we were yet sinners". The ideal is to "receive one another even as God received us in Christ Jesus." It's probably harder to mutate this ideal, than the Nee version. An ideal that so readily mutates isn't ideal. If you do a Google search of "one true church" you see how often this idea takes hold of people, and what are the consequences.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Since Lee and his successors forced all their member churches to be recognized by them, with numerous written and unwritten stipulations, can we not help but conclude that the Recovery has been organized along to denominational lines? Many of us have wondered if their brand of denominationalism is far worse than those which they regularly condemn.

Historians have stated, for example, that J N Darby became a far worse "pope" than the one in Rome he continually critiqued.

I think we need not wonder. The Recovery's brand of denominationalism is far, far, far worse. Two of the most ironic things about the Recovery:

1) It was designed to break down the spirit of denominationalism among Christians;
2) It is now a denomination that doesn't understand that it's a denomination.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by aron

So everyone agrees that one "ekklesia" can allow multiple gatherings in one city. But from there, a kind of narcissistic subjectivism takes over, it seems. When other congregations recognize each other as part of the one church, the Nee model (at least in my LC experience) said that this was merely "ecumenicalism"; the current leader was fond of saying, "We don't care for that." Yet when the LC did it they called it "building the Body of Christ".

The ideal, as I see it, is to love one another, even as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us "while we were yet sinners". The ideal is to "receive one another even as God received us in Christ Jesus." It's probably harder to mutate this ideal, than the Nee version. An ideal that so readily mutates isn't ideal. If you do a Google search of "one true church" you see how often this idea takes hold of people, and what are the consequences.

The gospel itself is ideal but is readily mutated into prosperity gospel, social gospel, liberation theology, etc. We must not judge a theory by its abuse.

I don't think Nee's model ever existed. The ones that we have are based on Lee's model.

You are absolutely right that our unity is more ontological than church polity per se. When we love one another as Christ has loved us, all these church unity and ecumenical movement models are secondary issues at best.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

The gospel itself is ideal but is readily mutated into prosperity gospel, social gospel, liberation theology, etc. We must not judge a theory by its abuse.

I don't think Nee's model ever existed. The ones that we have are based on Lee's model.

Communists will tell you genuine communism never existed either. All that really says is that communism is not practically applicable, and neither is Nee's model.

Nee's model is like perpetual motion machines or alchemy or risk-free investments. It is an inherent contradiction. Energy cannot be created, elements are by definition immutable, investors cannot expect payment for assuming risk when there is none. And oneness cannot be achieved through its own violation.

Other than being useless, these were great ideas.

(Not exactly useless. They do teach us what doesn't work. But the key is to learn and move on, not keep banging our heads against a wall trying to make something work that by definition cannot. We can only honor those hurt by Nee's model by learning from it.)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Communists will tell you genuine communism never existed either. All that really says is that communism is not practically applicable, and neither is Nee's model.

Great points.

Genuine "communism" did exist once. In Acts 4.32-37. It was a marvelous testimony of God's great salvation and grace. As quickly as it happened, it also ended. See Acts 5.1-11. I also believe that at certain times in church history "communism" happened again. Then it ended again.

I know InOmnibusCaritas might not like to hear this, but many of us former members have concluded that Nee's idealized church oneness program, much like Catholicism and modern day communism, was simply utilized as a ploy to bring others under subjection.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great points.

Genuine "communism" did exist once. In Acts 4.32-37. It was a marvelous testimony of God's great salvation and grace. As quickly as it happened, it also ended. See Acts 5.1-11. I also believe that at certain times in church history "communism" happened again. Then it ended again.

I know InOmnibusCaritas might not like to hear this, but many of us former members have concluded that Nee's idealized church oneness program, much like Catholicism and modern day communism, was simply utilized as a ploy to bring others under subjection.

Yes, and that's why Nees' "Deputy/Delegated Authority" should be thrown out. That was the rafters and beams of Nee's model ... and steeple.

And Lee ran wild with it.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great points.

Genuine "communism" did exist once. In Acts 4.32-37. It was a marvelous testimony of God's great salvation and grace. As quickly as it happened, it also ended. See Acts 5.1-11. I also believe that at certain times in church history "communism" happened again. Then it ended again.

I know InOmnibusCaritas might not like to hear this, but many of us former members have concluded that Nee's idealized church oneness program, much like Catholicism and modern day communism, was simply utilized as a ploy to bring others under subjection.

I don't know if Nee meant to bring others under subjection. I know that Lee certainly did. At any rate, I no longer have any vested interest in Nee/Lee.

But since my entire family and almost every friend I had from before 2006 are still in LSM LCs, I want to know if I can do anything to disabuse them from that system. Whatever Nee taught is moot because he is only paid lip service in LSM churches. It's all Lee for these people. I love them very much, I've served Pharaoh, I've done my time in the wilderness, I've learnt a thing or two, and now I'm back hoping to bring them out of Egypt (with apologies to Moses).

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You might have remained stranded (quarantined) on that island forever.

I thought quarantined meant you were out. That would have given me what I gave myself.

I see quarantine as only effective on those who think they have something to lose by not being engaged in the system. On those who will spend their last bit of strength trying to get the quarantine lifted.

If we admit that leaving on our own is like a self-imposed quarantine, that just shows the hold the system has had on us. That we take sometimes years to eject that system out of our nostrils — to lose the desire for its leeks and garlic — shows how it holds on even when we think we no longer have any interest.

If you leave, they have no right over you. If they toss you via quarantine and you keep trying to get back in, they have you by the throat.

So I don't see how walking out would leave me on any island forever. It would only be true if I still wanted back in.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

I don't know if Nee meant to bring others under subjection.

Haven't you read Nees' Submission and Authority?

I can get you a pdf copy if you like.

Also, I can get you a copy of Lily Hsu's book, My Unforgettable Memories: Watchman Nee and the Shanghai Church, in mobi or pdf.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Haven't you read Nees' Submission and Authority?

Authority and Submission should have been subtitled "How I Have Control Over You and There's Not a Darn Thing You Can Do About It! Ha Ha Ha!!"

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by awareness

Haven't you read Nees' Submission and Authority?

I can get you a pdf copy if you like.

Also, I can get you a copy of Lily Hsu's book, My Unforgettable Memories: Watchman Nee and the Shanghai Church, in mobi or pdf.

Yes, I have read S&A. Was taught it from young. Plenty of respectable Christian leaders teach this so we need to compare it with scripture. I must decouple my own anti-authoritarian sentiments from Biblical teachings. Maybe Nee was a despot and maybe that is wrong. I'm not too sure if it must always be so in all forms of LC experiment.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

Yes, I have read S&A. Was taught it from young. Plenty of respectable Christian leaders teach this so we need to compare it with scripture. I must decouple my own anti-authoritarian sentiments from Biblical teachings. Maybe Nee was a despot and maybe that is wrong. I'm not too sure if it must always be so in all forms of LC experiment.

Nee's primary (at least the most often repeated) prototypes were Moses and Noah. Both of them had detractors in their own family who were judged for "speaking out." IIRC Meriam had leprosy for 7 days and Ham (really Canaan) was judged by Noah. The message to us was clear -- no one was exempt from condemnation who spoke an opinion about God's chosen vessel, not even one as close as a family member.

I see nothing in the New Testament which likewise identifies an individual as God's deputy authority, even though Rome used Peter and Anaheim used Paul. Moses never was a type of any NT minister, rather he was a type of Christ who built God a house. (Hebrews 3. 1-6) Jesus Christ alone is qualified to be the Minister of the Age, the Pope, the Oracle, the Acting God, the Vicar, or whatever title one might use. All other NT authorities are subordinate and plural in number.

Looking at Romans 13, it seems that our submission in this age to secular authorities far exceeds that of church authorities. (Hebrews 13.17)

[Cal]

The Bible encourages us to be leaders more than it encourages us to be followers. By leaders I mean those who set examples, serve and sacrifice for others, and who are willing to endure criticism, even from other believers, to be faithful.

The LCM never taught leadership. It just taught following. That's what A&S was all about, teaching how to be a follower--specifically of Nee. Later it was abused to press people into following Lee. No wonder the movement has no real leaders.

IOC, you strike me as someone with leadership qualities. Don't lose that.

On another note, I think most respectable teachers wouldn't touch A&S with a ten-foot pole.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

Yes, I have read S&A. Was taught it from young. Plenty of respectable Christian leaders teach this so we need to compare it with scripture.

Hey it's been a while a go but I remember lots of scripture was used by both Nee and Lee in support of Delegated and Deputy Authority ... and for their Minister of the Age paradigm.

I've forgotten most of it but I can think of many OT examples off the top of my head. I'm sure you can too.

As far as "Plenty of respectable Christian leaders teach this," can you provide references?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey it's been a while a go but I remember lots of scripture was used by both Nee and Lee in support of Delegated and Deputy Authority ... and for their Minister of the Age paradigm.

Yeah. Nee littered the work with scripture. But from the very beginning, he was rewording the scripture he used, and asserting meaning that was not visible even aftger he asserted it was there, so the significance of saying there was scripture is questionable.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yeah. Nee littered the work with scripture. But from the very beginning, he was rewording the scripture he used, and asserting meaning that was not visible even aftger he asserted it was there, so the significance of saying there was scripture is questionable.

Good point bro OBW. There's as many using the Bible for their terms as there are those that's using the Bible ... Lee, a prime example.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey it's been a while a go but I remember lots of scripture was used by both Nee and Lee in support of Delegated and Deputy Authority ... and for their Minister of the Age paradigm.

I've forgotten most of it but I can think of many OT examples off the top of my head. I'm sure you can too.

As far as "Plenty of respectable Christian leaders teach this," can you provide references?

John Piper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvr_lV3thjU
Francis Chan: https://vimeo.com/19138092

At the lower echelon:
https://answersingenesis.org/answers...ch-leadership/

Of course Nee comes on more strongly than Western teachers due to cultural differences. What Westerners consider as submissive is probably too rebellious for the Chinese. Neither is superior to the other actually. We are all coloured by our cultural heritage. How a culture expresses submission differs but the idea remains.

What I cannot accept is the pressure to obey leadership even if they are unbiblical or living in sin. Threats of "the curse of Ham" are often repeated. "Yes, it was Noah's fault. But Ham got cursed for defying the MOTA".

[HERn]

Here's something I'm throwing out with the dirty kitty litter! That the measure of spirituality is solely whether you're in the spirit or not. I know that Jesus said something like you'll know them by their fruit. He never said you'll know them by whether they are in their spirit. I posted the following in another thread and decided to copy it here because I realized that it shows me something that I need to throw out with the kitty litter. I believe fruit or behavior is the only measure of whether a person is one with the Lord. LSM wants me to believe that fruit or behavior have nothing to do with whether a brother is one with the Lord. I apologize for double posting.

"There was a Lord's Table meeting at a certain local church after which all proclaimed that "Christ had been experienced". Immediately after the meeting one "small potato" brother leaned over and told another brother that he was sorry for not showing up to help mow the grass; while a so-called "leading" brother walked by and ignored the waving and calls of a grieving brother who was seeking reconciliation because he was told by the "leading" brother that "his humanity is deplorable, his kids were not in the church-life, and that he was 150 pounds over weight and could no longer sit on the good furniture". Of the two, which brother most likely "experienced Christ" at the meeting?"

In the above story the behavior of the two brothers helps provide evidence of alleged validity of "experiencing Christ". The humble brother who confesses that he is sorry for not showing up to mow grass is nearer to the kingdom of God than the elder brother who ignores the suffering and grief of another brother he has offended.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by HERn

Here's something I'm throwing out with the dirty kitty litter! That the measure of spirituality is solely whether you're in the spirit or not. I know that Jesus said something like you'll know them by their fruit. He never said you'll know them by whether they are in their spirit. I posted the following in another thread and decided to copy it here because I realized that it shows me something that I need to throw out with the kitty litter. I believe fruit or behavior is the only measure of whether a person is one with the Lord. LSM wants me to believe that fruit or behavior have nothing to do with whether a brother is one with the Lord. I apologize for double posting.

"There was a Lord's Table meeting at a certain local church after which all proclaimed that "Christ had been experienced". Immediately after the meeting one "small potato" brother leaned over and told another brother that he was sorry for not showing up to help mow the grass; while a so-called "leading" brother walked by and ignored the waving and calls of a grieving brother who was seeking reconciliation because he was told by the "leading" brother that "his humanity is deplorable, his kids were not in the church-life, and that he was 150 pounds over weight and could no longer sit on the good furniture". Of the two, which brother most likely "experienced Christ" at the meeting?"

In the above story the behavior of the two brothers helps provide evidence of alleged validity of "experiencing Christ". The humble brother who confesses that he is sorry for not showing up to mow grass is nearer to the kingdom of God than the elder brother who ignores the suffering and grief of another brother he has offended.

Fruits are manifested and visible for all to see. Thus, behaviour that points to love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control displays the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). "One with the Lord" is the way to produce the fruit (John 15:5). If a person claims to be one with the Lord but does not show its fruit, then the claim is false. So a person cannot be judged by how much he/she is one with the Lord (that is too ontological to judge). Rather, we are judged by whether we produce the fruit of the Spirit which points to whether we are one with the Lord.

So in your scenario, the elder brother is not one with the Lord because he does not show any fruit. The humble brother has a better case in this one.

[HERn]

Reading LSM with Discernment

In the past I had a sneaking suspicion that the verses quoted by LSM sometimes had little to do with some of their statements in the material they publish. So, I decided to check. I recently went to their website and found the outline of the first message in the full time training of the spring semester 2015. I took the first Roman numeral and compared the statement to the bible verses they quoted to determine how they compare. Here's the first statement.

http://www.lsm.org/outlines-archives/S15FTT01.pdf

I. The kingdom of God is God Himself—Mark 1:15; Matt. 6:33; John 3:3:

And here are the verses they quote.

Matthew 6:33New American Standard Bible (NASB)
33 But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be [c]added to you.

Mark 1:15New American Standard Bible (NASB)
15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

John 3:3New American Standard Bible (NASB)
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Can anyone understand how those verses support that statement? Dear brothers and sisters in the lord's recovery, please tell me how these verses support the statement that " The kingdom of God is God himself". I'm not disagreeing, I just want to know how these verses support the statement. It's obvious to me that these verses do not support the statement, so where does that leave the LSM wordsmiths? To me they are taking the opinions of WL as truth and then they try and find scripture that backs it up. None of the quoted verses come even close to supporting the statement in my opinion. To me this means that I cannot trust how the LSM wordsmiths use God's word, and that at least some of the statements they make are not biblical.

I'm throwing out a blind trust in LSM's use of scripture in support of some of their statements.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

Reading LSM with Discernment

In the past I had a sneaking suspicion that the verses quoted by LSM sometimes had little to do with some of their statements in the material they publish. So, I decided to check. I recently went to their website and found the outline of the first message in the full time training of the spring semester 2015. I took the first Roman numeral and compared the statement to the bible verses they quoted to determine how they compare. Here's the first statement.

I've had this suspicion for a long time. At least once I attempted to verify certain outline points by checking the corresponding scripture, but I couldn't see any connection. I left it at that assuming that I couldn't "see" what the brothers were talking about.

Unfortunately the lack of scriptural support for outline points probably isn't of much concern to LC members. The Bible is interpreted according to the ministry, so everything revolves around that. I guess that's how they come up with a statement like The kingdom of God is God Himself. What is that even supposed to mean anyways? And why would it be significant? I'm assuming that they start with statements that Lee made on any given subject, then they attempt to support it, rather than develop outlines from the scripture itself.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Reading LSM with Discernment

In the past I had a sneaking suspicion that the verses quoted by LSM sometimes had little to do with some of their statements in the material they publish. So, I decided to check. I recently went to their website and found the outline of the first message in the full time training of the spring semester 2015. I took the first Roman numeral and compared the statement to the bible verses they quoted to determine how they compare. Here's the first statement.

http://www.lsm.org/outlines-archives/S15FTT01.pdf

I. The kingdom of God is God Himself—Mark 1:15; Matt. 6:33; John 3:3:

And here are the verses they quote.

Matthew 6:33New American Standard Bible (NASB)
33 But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be [c]added to you.

Mark 1:15New American Standard Bible (NASB)
15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

John 3:3New American Standard Bible (NASB)
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Can anyone understand how those verses support that statement? Dear brothers and sisters in the lord's recovery, please tell me how these verses support the statement that " The kingdom of God is God himself". I'm not disagreeing, I just want to know how these verses support the statement. It's obvious to me that these verses do not support the statement, so where does that leave the LSM wordsmiths? To me they are taking the opinions of WL as truth and then they try and find scripture that backs it up. None of the quoted verses come even close to supporting the statement in my opinion. To me this means that I cannot trust how the LSM wordsmiths use God's word, and that at least some of the statements they make are not biblical.

I'm throwing out a blind trust in LSM's use of scripture in support of some of their statements.

Iirc, when the Lord said, "the kingdom is at hand," He was referring to Himself as being at hand.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Unfortunately the lack of scriptural support for outline points probably isn't of much concern to LC members. The Bible is interpreted according to the ministry, so everything revolves around that. I guess that's how they come up with a statement like "The kingdom of God is God Himself". What is that even supposed to mean anyways?

Luke 9:12 says, "A man of noble birth went to a far country to receive a kingdom for himself, and to return". This helped me realize that a kingdom consists of two things: a king and a country. When Jesus was on earth, who was the king? The Father. The Roman Centurion sent the message to Jesus, "I also am a man under authority", meaning that he (the Centurion) was under the Caesar. Thus, Caesar was king and the Centurion was his extension, his domain, his "country". As, likewise, were the slaves under him: because the Centurion was under the king's authority, he could tell the slaves to "go" and "come" and "do this" and they did it. Caesar had extended himself, his kingdom, through the Centurion. The kingdom is thus the extension, or sphere of influence, or domain (i.e. country) of the king.

Likewise, while on earth, Jesus was fully obedient to the Father. The human race by sin was cut away from God and became subject to God's enemy, but Jesus, though incarnated in the flesh of sin, was fully compliant with the Father's will. That's why the Centurion said, "Just speak a word and my servant will be healed." Because the Father's will for the servant was health, and Jesus was the obedient "vector" for the Father's will to be carried out, "on earth as it is in heaven." So the servants under Jesus, the healing angels (see e.g. John 5:4 "an angel occasionally went down and stirred the waters of the pool, etc") were able to carry out the Father's will through Jesus' word. Why do you think Jesus was able to just speak a word, and the servant was healed? Because He was obedient, and thus the healing powers were obedient to Him. He was the true vector of the Father. When you saw Him, you saw the Father, personified. When He spoke, the Father spoke through Him. Etc.

Now that Jesus has been raised, He is truly made King of kings and Lord of lords. He has been given "the Name above every name, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth". But remember that while on earth, in the flesh, He never bossed around anyone who was with Him. He didn't "lord it over the disciples" (ca 1 Pet 5:3). Once, someone tried to get Him to adjudicate a family dispute and He said, "Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?" (Luke 12:14) What Jesus demonstrated was self-control, or complete obedience to the Father's will (I consider those as synonymous). Thus He was the personified kingdom of God, while on earth. But now He's the King, and we're the kingdom, or at least we should be!

In our obedience training, or discipleship, we're learning how to be rulers. Not rulers of others but rulers of our selves, our bodies, our behaviors, our souls and our passions. If we can't control ourselves, how can God control anything through us? If we aren't subject to God, and obedient to His will, how can we ever participate in His ruling? To me, a big "church" message here is that while we yet remain in the flesh, we're to be subject to one another in fear and trembling. WN's scheme of "everyone must line up behind someone else" is complete rubbish; that's of the world, an organizational drama of the fallen soul. WN's "normal church" model inevitably ends up with a Maximum Brother (or Sister) and a bunch of proverbial "small potatoes" lined up behind. And what soulish drama always follows: rebellions and storms and turmoils oh my! But we are all small potatoes here. Any small potato who elevates themselves to virtual kingship while here on earth, as the Deputy God, or Vicar of Christ, or somesuch, supposedly to facilitate the kingdom's arrival, and "maintain good order in the church", in fact distorts the process of the kingdom's arrival. At best we get misled and distracted, as man-pleasers and sycophants line themselves up, and at worst we become stumbled and divided, sometimes seriously.

To re-iterate, I believe that a kingdom consists of a king and a subject (or subjects). In the gospels it was the Father and the Son (and, obviously, the Holy Spirit and/or legions of angels [Matt 26:53]), and today it's the Son and us: "If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commands and remain in his love." John 15:10 NIV

I suspect that WL's "the Kingdom is God Himself" is his usual "blended smoothie". Everything is everything. The Father is the Son, the Son is the Spirit, the Church is Christ, the LSM is Christ, WL is Christ, you are Christ and I am Christ, this message is Christ, this book is Christ. Everything is God and God is the kingdom. We are all God in life and nature and God is everything. To me that's meaningless drivel - initially it seems so high and spiritual but actually it's void of any real content. Everything seems to be everything but in reality everything becomes nothing.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

To me that's meaningless drivel - initially it seems so high and spiritual but actually it's void of any real content. Everything seems to be everything but in reality everything becomes nothing.

The Church of the Immaculate Lexicon.

"If it sounds better, it must be better."

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Caesar had extended himself, his kingdom, through the Centurion. The kingdom is thus the extension, or sphere of influence, or domain (i.e. country) of the king.

This story of the Roman Centurion slave suggests that WL's idea of everything morphing into everything else was dangerously misplaced. At the end of the gospel account, Caesar was still Caesar, and the Centurion was still a Centurion, and the slaves were still slaves. In an operational sense, the Centurion did become Caesar's extension by conveying his will, and likewise the slaves became extensions of the Centurion. Likewise, we could say that Caesar manifested himself, at least somewhat, through his subordinates, but nobody confused their thinking and claimed that they were now someone else. Operationally they were indeed "one", and the Centurion and slaves were arguably extensions of the Caesar's will, and components of his domain, or kingdom, but nobody said, "Caesar is everything and everything is Caesar. I am Caesar, now, and you are me and he is you, and she is he, and they are you and... etc..." A story making it all a blended smoothie with everything being equivalent to and indistinguishable from everything else is a story that eventually dissolves it all into bland homogeneous mush.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

The Church of the Immaculate Lexicon.

"If it sounds better, it must be better."

Or the Church of Elevated Phraseology... "Surely our words will lift us higher, and higher..."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Or the Church of Elevated Phraseology... "Surely our words will lift us higher, and higher..."

How can we be wrong when we are so sincere.

(with appologies to Charles Shultz)

[OBW]

"Lord! Lord! Did we not take the ground in your name? Follow the Minister of the Age with the ministry of the age? And sue those who spoke evilly of your Recovery?"

. . . . (drum roll, plus the sound of an envelope being ripped open) . . . . And the winner of this years "Depart From Me" award is . . . .

[InOmnibusCaritas]

"The kingdom of God is God Himself" is somewhat theologically tenable when viewed ontologically. However, the kingdom is properly the realm of God's rule, consisting of God's people, in God's presence (or place), and under God's rule and blessing. I strongly recommend Graeme Goldsworthy's trilogy. For an abridged version, read Vaughn Roberts' "God's Big Picture".

But on your point of LSM outlines, I agree. I used to think that I wasn't good enough to see the connection. Now I realised that I was simply hermeneutically out of sync with LSM. LSM is very comfortable with building multiple layers of interpretation so that at the end of day the outlines are several degrees separated from the Biblical text.

[HERn]

Family went to our first "Good Friday" service in probably 25 years at our community church and can testify that we adored and loved our Lord for the sacrifice of His precious humanity. We thanked Him for His suffering for us and we praised Him for being obedient to the Father's will. I think I experienced something weighty, genuine and human. The Lord as a 33 year old young man with human pain neurons throbbing from the physical blows, inhuman stretching of tendons, ligaments, muscles and joints, the ripping of sensitive flesh, human emotions of love, fear, hope, and the despair of having been rejected by His Father. He submitted to death, even the death of a Roman crucifiction. But even the strength of death, Hades and Satan could not snuff out the divine life. He allowed Satan a trivial victory of killing his human life for the joy of bringing real life to millions who deserved what He suffered. Who cannot love this young man!

I'm throwing out that only in LSM sanctioned churches can Christ be worshipped and the Father pleased.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Freedom

My impression is that LC leadership doesn't necessarily deny that they are "ministry churches", however, they would take great offense if makes that claim about any LC. The way that I have seen them sidestep the issue is by taking about how "rich" Lee's ministry is, and saying that the saints feel that it is the only ministry worth using. It's a poor excuse for the real issue at hand. When the "One Publication" proclamation was made, I remember the BBs said something about how the saints knew that Lee's ministry had the right "flavor" and all other ministries (especially those that had co-existed in the LC) didn't have the right "flavor".

It's interesting to consider whether or not the exclusive use of Lee's ministry was really something that all the saints in the LC felt best about. If you took a vote, I don't know if that's what everyone really would have asked for, but I'm inclined to believe that most in the LC would go along with whatever is pushed by LC leadership. If the BB's were to start promoting a non-LSM ministry, those in the LC would probably go along with it. From the days before Lee's ministry was used exclusively, I've noticed that there is a common set of non-LSM books that many who were around in those days have. No doubt, those books were suggested reading material at a certain point in time. Therefore, I think it's deceptive for the BB's to simplify the issue by saying that Lee's ministry is the only ministry the saints feel good about.

Finally, if those in the LCM don't like the label "ministry churches", then the following questions need to be answered: 1) Why are there no recognized "local churches" that don't use Lee's ministry? and 2) Why has the LCM ceased to recognize certain churches that have stopped using Lee's ministry? The answers are clear, however, I have never heard those in the LCM give good answers to these types of questions. That is because they can't. They know the truth, but the promotion of a man and a ministry is more important.

Pre-church life I was given a copy of "The Economy of God" by WL and after reading a chapter or two my thought was "this guy sure repeats himself a lot" and gave it up as being too difficult to read to be useful. A few months later I asked my relative why he only read material by Lee and Nee and he said "I only have a limited time to read and only want to read the best stuff". OK, made sense to me to only spend your time on what you think is the best material...to each his own. After coming into the Lord's Recovery (LC-speak for "joining the LSM-controlled LC") I sensed that there was a strong undertow of opinion (but since it came from the elders it wasn't "opinion") that no other material was to be used in the prophecying or home meetings, or any other meeting where two or more saints were together. Oh, there were a few approved authors (long since dead) that you could acknowledge as having touched God's economy, but only in a superficial way. Something happened to my thought processes that made what I previously thought as redundant and boring writing to become what we all called "living". I think there were two parallel phenomena occurring in me. One, was a non-LSM-dependent revival of my love for Jesus fueled by a Spirit-led turning of my heart back to Jesus (I believe this could have occurred in any christian venue, but for some reason the Spirit chose for it to occur in a LC). A second thing I think was also occurring and that was a self-arousing neurotransmitter flush associated with my mind being able to "see" or "perceive" the connections among many of Lee's weird opinions, statements and beliefs. I think the best analogy is the satisfaction one feels when he learns the trick of solving a difficult puzzle or problem. Having learned the trick I could repeat it anytime when reading the ministry. From what I've read on this forum I think Awareness has the best understanding or at least explanation of this phenomenon.

I got the quote from another thread and posted my reply here because it is part of my testimony.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

Pre-church life I was given a copy of "The Economy of God" by WL and after reading a chapter or two my thought was "this guy sure repeats himself a lot" and gave it up as being too difficult to read to be useful. A few months later I asked my relative why he only read material by Lee and Nee and he said "I only have a limited time to read and only want to read the best stuff". OK, made sense to me to only spend your time on what you think is the best material...to each his own. After coming into the Lord's Recovery (LC-speak for "joining the LSM-controlled LC") I sensed that there was a strong undertow of opinion (but since it came from the elders it wasn't "opinion") that no other material was to be used in the prophecying or home meetings, or any other meeting where two or more saints were together. Oh, there were a few approved authors (long since dead) that you could acknowledge as having touched God's economy, but only in a superficial way. Something happened to my thought processes that made what I previously thought as redundant and boring writing to become what we all called "living". I think there were two parallel phenomena occurring in me. One, was a non-LSM-dependent revival of my love for Jesus fueled by a Spirit-led turning of my heart back to Jesus (I believe this could have occurred in any christian venue, but for some reason the Spirit chose for it to occur in a LC). A second thing I think was also occurring and that was a self-arousing neurotransmitter flush associated with my mind being able to "see" or "perceive" the connections among many of Lee's weird opinions, statements and beliefs. I think the best analogy is the satisfaction one feels when he learns the trick of solving a difficult puzzle or problem. Having learned the trick I could repeat it anytime when reading the ministry. From what I've read on this forum I think Awareness has the best understanding or at least explanation of this phenomenon.

I got the quote from another thread and posted my reply here because it is part of my testimony.

In many ways, I can relate to your post. First of all, I still don’t fully understand what causes people to go off the deep end in regards to Lee’s ministry. I readily agree that there has to be some psychological explanation to this phenomena. Let’s face it, the vast majority of those in the LC now haven’t met or received direct help from Lee, therefore, their loyalty lies in how “helpful” they find his printed ministry.

It’s hard to pass off the Witness Lee fanaticism in the LCM as mere “appreciation” of his ministry. What compels someone to collect a whole wall of WL books? Most who have such a collection probably haven’t even read most of those books, or if they have, don’t have anything to show for it. It’s more of an obsession than anything else. If someone really wanted to study the Bible, I could see having a bookshelf full of various reference materials. Having hundreds of WL books doesn’t amount to anything more than being a WL expert (assuming the books have actually been read).
At one pointed in time, I was attempting to become a WL “expert” by reading the Life-Studies. I actually found the Life-Studies a bit more interesting than other of Lee’s books. There was one book I tried reading several times and I could never get past the first chapter. Like HERn mentioned, it also didn’t take me long to realize that not all of Lee’s books were something that I needed to read. I eventually stopped reading the Life-Studies, because I never felt them to be of any practical use. I got to the point where I knew exactly how Lee would interpret a given part of the Bible, but there never really seemed to be any use in knowing that. The Life-Studies also got to be pretty repetitive. It seemed to me that once you’ve read a few, you’ve read them all.

When I was younger, I did feel that because I was a church kid I was somehow “indebted” to Lee and therefore, it was in my best interest to read at least some of his ministry. It never became anything more than that. The side motive I had for reading Lee’s ministry is that I wanted to “impress” others with what I was reading. When I look at my experience with Lee’s ministry, however, I cannot understand why anyone would want to obsess themselves over it. Sure they might like it, and I can understand that, but there is a line that has to be drawn somewhere. People in the LC have gone far beyond just appreciating it. They “collect” all his books. They recite his ministry, they declare it, they “respeak” it and they pray-read it. It all brings certain questions to my mind. Are the people who are doing this really that appreciative of Lee, or are they just trying to fit in with everyone else who is doing it? I don’t have the answer, but even at the height of my appreciation of Lee’s ministry, I never felt the need to go that far with it. Those ideas was something completely external, mainly being pushed by older brothers. I still don’t understand what it is that compels people to get that fanatical about Lee. Maybe we will never know...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by HERn

A second thing I think was also occurring and that was a self-arousing neurotransmitter flush associated with my mind being able to "see" or "perceive" the connections among many of Lee's weird opinions, statements and beliefs. I think the best analogy is the satisfaction one feels when he learns the trick of solving a difficult puzzle or problem. Having learned the trick I could repeat it anytime when reading the ministry. From what I've read on this forum I think Awareness has the best understanding or at least explanation of this phenomenon.

Great to hear from you again HERn. You've been missed in your absence. This forum is way tooooo male dominated. We need feminine voices out here. Sorry if I'm too male to release my inner anima. I should work on that. And I'm not sure how much I understand the phenomenon you speak of.

I have to admit that I was completely intoxicated with Witness Lee, as long as I believed God was behind him.

When elder Mel Porter opened my eyes to the fact that God wasn't behind Lee, considering I had devoted my whole life to his movement, that hurt down to the bone.

It always hurts when we discover we've been wrong. It's more than sobering.

So far, in life, I've been wrong so many times I no longer trust myself. I suppose that's why I'm now so evidence obsessed.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Great to hear from you again HERn. You've been missed in your absence. This forum is way tooooo male dominated. We need feminine voices out here. Sorry if I'm too male to release my inner anima. I should work on that. And I'm not sure how much I understand the phenomenon you speak of.

I have to admit that I was completely intoxicated with Witness Lee, as long as I believed God was behind him.

When elder Mel Porter opened my eyes to the fact that God wasn't behind Lee, considering I had devoted my whole life to his movement, that hurt down to the bone.

It always hurts when we discover we've been wrong. It's more than sobering.

So far, in life, I've been wrong so many times I no longer trust myself. I suppose that's why I'm now so evidence obsessed.

And that is why so many won't leave. They can't say those three little words — "I was wrong." They can't be wrong, so they can't leave.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Great to hear from you again HERn. You've been missed in your absence. This forum is way tooooo male dominated. We need feminine voices out here. Sorry if I'm too male to release my inner anima. I should work on that. And I'm not sure how much I understand the phenomenon you speak of.

Yo awareness ... I thought he told you he was not a sister. You just messin' with him or what.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

And that is why so many won't leave. They can't say those three little words — "I was wrong." They can't be wrong, so they can't leave.

Funny, Jesus started His public ministry with that same word: "Repent". Then, some of the people said, "No, He's surely not talking about us; He's talking about those sinners over there."

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In many ways, I can relate to your post. First of all, I still don’t fully understand what causes people to go off the deep end in regards to Lee’s ministry. I readily agree that there has to be some psychological explanation to this phenomena. Let’s face it, the vast majority of those in the LC now haven’t met or received direct help from Lee, therefore, their loyalty lies in how “helpful” they find his printed ministry.

It’s hard to pass off the Witness Lee fanaticism in the LCM as mere “appreciation” of his ministry. What compels someone to collect a whole wall of WL books? Most who have such a collection probably haven’t even read most of those books, or if they have, don’t have anything to show for it. It’s more of an obsession than anything else. If someone really wanted to study the Bible, I could see having a bookshelf full of various reference materials. Having hundreds of WL books doesn’t amount to anything more than being a WL expert (assuming the books have actually been read).
At one pointed in time, I was attempting to become a WL “expert” by reading the Life-Studies. I actually found the Life-Studies a bit more interesting than other of Lee’s books. There was one book I tried reading several times and I could never get past the first chapter. Like HERn mentioned, it also didn’t take me long to realize that not all of Lee’s books were something that I needed to read. I eventually stopped reading the Life-Studies, because I never felt them to be of any practical use. I got to the point where I knew exactly how Lee would interpret a given part of the Bible, but there never really seemed to be any use in knowing that. The Life-Studies also got to be pretty repetitive. It seemed to me that once you’ve read a few, you’ve read them all.

When I was younger, I did feel that because I was a church kid I was somehow “indebted” to Lee and therefore, it was in my best interest to read at least some of his ministry. It never became anything more than that. The side motive I had for reading Lee’s ministry is that I wanted to “impress” others with what I was reading. When I look at my experience with Lee’s ministry, however, I cannot understand why anyone would want to obsess themselves over it. Sure they might like it, and I can understand that, but there is a line that has to be drawn somewhere. People in the LC have gone far beyond just appreciating it. They “collect” all his books. They recite his ministry, they declare it, they “respeak” it and they pray-read it. It all brings certain questions to my mind. Are the people who are doing this really that appreciative of Lee, or are they just trying to fit in with everyone else who is doing it? I don’t have the answer, but even at the height of my appreciation of Lee’s ministry, I never felt the need to go that far with it. Those ideas was something completely external, mainly being pushed by older brothers. I still don’t understand what it is that compels people to get that fanatical about Lee. Maybe we will never know...

I came into the church life in a very sweet locality were the lead elder was able to keep the LSM ministry hounds at bay. Oh, we were an LSM church; we took the morning revival, promoted the annual trainings, the regional conferences and even the video trainings. But, there was never an emphasis on these things. The emphasis was on the home groups, doing things together, we could even joke around about lots of things. For sure WL was highly elevated and respected and only his books were read. Although our locality sent people to the full-time training we never had a full-time serving one. We would support the full-timers in other LSs, but never had one. Looking back, I think that partly saved the church from the fanatical control administered through Anaheim via the recently trained full-timers. On a side note, before we started attending that LC the lead elder had been a full-timer who was a trainer of some sort and even right now is serving as a trainer, but not at Anaheim. We crossed paths with this brother when we were visiting before we joined and found him to be one of the most stiff, legalistic, thoroughly constituted, absolute dead brothers I've ever met. But, the words of WL could spew forth like a broken sewage main! All the saints agreed that when he was the lead elder he was very controlling and a real downer for the church life. After he left the new lead elder was very different and really cared for the sheep more than the ministry.

The LC we just left was totally the opposite. It was a LSM-franchised church from the beginning. The leading elder was full-time and his wife was employed by LSM. It was created by one of the migration calls and seemed to attract those ambitious brothers from other localities that were hoping to get an elder position. I enjoyed watching the brothers compete with each other in who was the most absolute and constituted. I attended a local brothers meeting at times and once a question came up re: some spiritual issue and the first comment out of the leading one's mouth was that he thought there was something WL had had written on the subject. No one ever asked the question of what does the bible say about this issue. The bible was not a resource for spiritual guidance for them because they believed the writings (ministry) of WL superceded the bible. The bible was not used to evaluate the teachings of WL; it was the teachings of WL that were used to explain the bible! It was ministry first and the bible second. Not a healthy, normal orthodox way to live the christian life in my opinion.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

I came into the church life in a very sweet locality were the lead elder was able to keep the LSM ministry hounds at bay. Oh, we were an LSM church; we took the morning revival, promoted the annual trainings, the regional conferences and even the video trainings. But, there was never an emphasis on these things. The emphasis was on the home groups, doing things together, we could even joke around about lots of things. For sure WL was highly elevated and respected and only his books were read. Although our locality sent people to the full-time training we never had a full-time serving one. We would support the full-timers in other LSs, but never had one. Looking back, I think that partly saved the church from the fanatical control administered through Anaheim via the recently trained full-timers. On a side note, before we started attending that LC the lead elder had been a full-timer who was a trainer of some sort and even right now is serving as a trainer, but not at Anaheim. We crossed paths with this brother when we were visiting before we joined and found him to be one of the most stiff, legalistic, thoroughly constituted, absolute dead brothers I've ever met. But, the words of WL could spew forth like a broken sewage main! All the saints agreed that when he was the lead elder he was very controlling and a real downer for the church life. After he left the new lead elder was very different and really cared for the sheep more than the ministry.

The LC we just left was totally the opposite. It was a LSM-franchised church from the beginning. The leading elder was full-time and his wife was employed by LSM. It was created by one of the migration calls and seemed to attract those ambitious brothers from other localities that were hoping to get an elder position. I enjoyed watching the brothers compete with each other in who was the most absolute and constituted. I attended a local brothers meeting at times and once a question came up re: some spiritual issue and the first comment out of the leading one's mouth was that he thought there was something WL had had written on the subject. No one ever asked the question of what does the bible say about this issue. The bible was not a resource for spiritual guidance for them because they believed the writings (ministry) of WL superceded the bible. The bible was not used to evaluate the teachings of WL; it was the teachings of WL that were used to explain the bible! It was ministry first and the bible second. Not a healthy, normal orthodox way to live the christian life in my opinion.

I have had mixed experiences as well with the different LC's that I been to. Some are really not all about the ministry and then there are some that are. There are some leading brothers that really care about the well-being of members and others could only care about their own image (mainly by helping to get everyone in line with the ministry). I think that because of the mixed experiences I have had, it makes it hard to completely "trust" any LC franchise.

[HERn]

I went through 9 months of living hell while making my departure. I had nightmares and woke up my wife cursing and yelling. I'm sorry to say that there were many nights that I could not sleep without a talk with Jack Daniels or Jim Beam. I'm so much happier now, no more nightmares. I'm in a church where everything is simple, the brothers are genuine, no one is competing to be the most absolute, and the dear pastors are gentle shepherds taking care of the flock without being controlled by a denominational headquarters. Jack and Jim still drop by for visits, but not as often.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yo awareness ... I thought he told you he was not a sister. You just messin' with him or what.

Gosh ... more male domination.

My bad .. His handle should be HErn ... But got it now ...

Chalk that up as one more wrong ... Can I get anything right?

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

The bible was not used to evaluate the teachings of WL; it was the teachings of WL that were used to explain the bible! It was ministry first and the bible second. Not a healthy, normal orthodox way to live the christian life in my opinion.

The LC saints would say, "no" to this statement, but in practice that's how it worked. Ministry first, bible second.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

My bad .. His handle should be HErn ... But got it now ...

No, it shoulda been HISn. Then we'd a got it clear from jump...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by HERn

I came into the church life in a very sweet locality were the lead elder was able to keep the LSM ministry hounds at bay. Oh, we were an LSM church; we took the morning revival, promoted the annual trainings, the regional conferences and even the video trainings. But, there was never an emphasis on these things. The emphasis was on the home groups, doing things together, we could even joke around about lots of things. For sure WL was highly elevated and respected and only his books were read. Although our locality sent people to the full-time training we never had a full-time serving one. We would support the full-timers in other LSs, but never had one.

Here is the evidence that a church that is not 100% gung-ho for the full enchilada can remain in the LSM fold. But the key is probably that they don't speak against the things the group (the LSM synod of the LCM) holds dear, like LSM materials only (a variant on KJV only), and supporting the full timers.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

And that is why so many won't leave. They can't say those three little words — "I was wrong." They can't be wrong, so they can't leave.

Which is why I'm so impressed with Lisbon. At such an age in his life, after 40 yrs in the LC, he could say "I was wrong." WOW! It blows my mind. How he did that I just don't know. Not many can do that. But it is encouraging that others in the LC have a chance to come to such an admission.

And throw that whole system out.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

No, it shoulda been HISn. Then we'd a got it clear from jump...

My handle has nothing to do with gender. It's an acronym of sorts that only those who know me well could decipher.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

My handle has nothing to do with gender. It's an acronym of sorts that only those who know me well could decipher.

I was trying to be funny. Sorry.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

I was trying to be funny. Sorry.

Hi bro Aron. No apology needed, I wasn't offended, but thanks for being sensitive. The acronym stands for "highly educated redneck". At first it was going to be HERN, but a brother told me that redneck was one word so I changed it to HERn.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

The acronym stands for "highly educated redneck". At first it was going to be HERN, but a brother told me that redneck was one word so I changed it to HERn.

Well most of the posters here seem to be of the thinking type. Then we like to inflict our thinking on others. People who are "feeling" oriented usually find some other outlet for their passions.

Not making a value judgment there at all. Sister Dorcas and the little old ladies of the church in Joppa (Acts 9) were not seen promoting a lot of theology, but they sure loved one another. I'm just saying that every one is different, and that's of God's arrangement. Everyone can serve, and glorify God.

Glad you landed on your feet in a Christian community. A lot of us were "sold out" or "wrecked" for the LC life and didn't know what to do when the rug got pulled out... an LC acquaintance of mine has been out for years, and can't meet anywhere. He was rejected as unfit building material (had too many issues, but don't we all?) yet since he's "seen the ground" he refuses to get any help from "fallen Christianity" and now he's in limbo.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

an LC acquaintance of mine has been out for years, and can't meet anywhere. He was rejected as unfit building material (had too many issues, but don't we all?) yet since he's "seen the ground" he refuses to get any help from "fallen Christianity" and now he's in limbo.

More "fruit" of the greatest ministry and theology ever to grace the planet.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Glad you landed on your feet in a Christian community. A lot of us were "sold out" or "wrecked" for the LC life and didn't know what to do when the rug got pulled out... an LC acquaintance of mine has been out for years, and can't meet anywhere. He was rejected as unfit building material (had too many issues, but don't we all?) yet since he's "seen the ground" he refuses to get any help from "fallen Christianity" and now he's in limbo.

Originally Posted by Igzy

More "fruit" of the greatest ministry and theology ever to grace the planet.

We as the children of God must exhibit unconditional love towards all our brothers and sisters. This is a strong proof that we are of Him, (I John 4.7-14) and that His Spirit dwells within us. LSM, on the other hand, has only a conditional love, i.e. they will "love" you as long as you are "sold out" for their program.

Conditional love is not real love at all, as the Lord clearly told us, "If you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them." (Luke 6.32, 27-28)

Witness Lee exhibited notable instances where he not only could not love his enemies, as the Lord instructed, (But I say to you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which spitefully use you.) but neither could he love those by his side. All brothers were expendable such that Witness Lee, his family, and his ministry would prosper.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

All brothers were expendable such that Witness Lee, his family, and his ministry would prosper.

A bit of autobiography: when I began to post online, I still considered myself quite positive toward the ministry of WL. My only critique in my first post, as I remember, was that they had an attitude of superiority which I realized was both unscriptural, and unwarranted. I had at that point been meeting with "Christianity" again for some time, and had found Christians whose living put the LCs to shame as far as "worldliness" was concerned, even "soulishness". They maybe didn't have the high peak doctrines, nor did they claim them, but the expression was real, both individually and corporately.

But when I first went into the LC I had no basis of comparison. The only "fellowship" I really knew was of the barflies down at the local watering hole. The LC seemed like heaven. It was fun plus it provided structure. So years post-LC, even with some basis for comparison, I was still favorably inclined toward the theology. What really changed for me was the Nigel Tomes article on plagiarism. I've been in and out of academia for most of my life and to copy someone else's work without attribution is sloppy at best and quite immoral at worst. When I see it in academia and/or research it really bothers me that a career is more important than truth.

Well, I write this to make a point, that the financial shenanigans of the Lee family that followed are quite understandable in this light. One poster (YP0534) found that Lee was copying 19th century Sunday School lessons. The Daystar thing was a total money grab - even if the OPEC crisis didn't hit, they were poorly mechanically constructed, and way too expensive. They were designed to fail. But it didn't matter because it brought short-term employment for an adult son.

As Ohio put it, conditional love is not real love at all. The LC love was toward extraction of resources from individuals. Once they lost utility, in this program, they were discarded.

My question, which I don't have an answer to, is how to show love toward such a program? I didn't start off writing online as a "bitter ex-member", but it seems my posts have become increasingly strident of late. That kind of bothers me.

Plus, a few years ago I chanced upon a forum in England where LC members were posting WL material. I made some critical comments and they said that I was dark, miserable and so forth. Slagging the poor deceased prophet who had given his all for the Lord and the church! Shame, shame! I simply said, "You have a publication called 'Affirmation and Critique'; why get so upset if I both somewhat affirm your ministry and critique it as well?"

They didn't respond, but I never forget what it felt like to have someone characterize me as such a vile creature! What a shock! So I really don't want to fulfill their prophecy. I want to be able to point out the truth, but without losing the real truth of God's love for us all in Christ Jesus.

On that count I may have failed as badly as WL did. Anyway, the question is there in front of me. How do we show love, in such a case?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

My question, which I don't have an answer to, is how to show love toward such a program? I didn't start off writing online as a "bitter ex-member", but it seems my posts have become increasingly strident of late. That kind of bothers me.

On that count I may have failed as badly as WL did. Anyway, the question is there in front of me. How do we show love, in such a case?

God loved Israel, so He sent prophets to her. That's the starting point for all critique. People got hurt in the LCM, and that became my incentive to speak up on their behalf.

There's no easy answer, my friend, and sometimes I am looking for it too. Above all I try to be fair and balanced, to quote a newscast, but for me that's important. Unfortunately for me, I get it from both sides. Why is it LC'ers, past and present, only deal in extremes?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

I didn't start off writing online as a "bitter ex-member", but it seems my posts have become increasingly strident of late. That kind of bothers me.

I think it's part of the process. Recall that progression of emotions after suffering a devastating loss:

Denial---Anger---Despondency---Acceptance

I think recovering from the LCM has a parallel trajectory. Only it's more like:

Confused Guilt---Angry Guilt---Freedom---Angry Freedom---Confident Freedom

I noticed as I began to see how the LCM had manipulated me that I went through various stages of anger and indignation. It was often expressed in my posts. As I go on I become less angry and more determined just to help people reach freedom themselves.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We as the children of God must exhibit unconditional love towards all our brothers and sisters. This is a strong proof that we are of Him, (I John 4.7-14) and that His Spirit dwells within us. LSM, on the other hand, has only a conditional love, i.e. they will "love" you as long as you are "sold out" for their program.

Conditional love is not real love at all, as the Lord clearly told us, "If you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them." (Luke 6.32, 27-28)

Oh Ohio, when I visit the local churches, how do I wish to be proven wrong there would be unconditional love instead of the conditional love I see being expressed.
As is the case, what is usually expressed is making distinctions between the Local Churches and rest of Christianity. "The ministry is so rich." To a case specific are attitudes towards brothers who are no longer wanted.

Miriam in the book of Numbers was treated far more favorably than former leading ones.

"So Miriam was shut up outside the camp for seven days, and the people did not move on until Miriam was received again."

If it were Local church practices, Miriam would have been cast out and the tribes would have moved on without her. It's these practices of conditional love and being ministry-centric that needs to be thrown out.

I think some brother and sisters, when they leave the local churches have an aversion to one man speaking (clergy laiety). I have an aversion to a church driven by a ministry publication. Even in the current state of the local churches, you could say there's a clergy laiety system driving it. Locally with Holy Word for Morning Revival and Extra-locally with the Blended brothers speaking at various conferences/trainings.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

God loved Israel, so He sent prophets to her.

You know, I was thinking about the question of how to show love to the grim, self-absorbed types. The ones who have no idea how to dialogue. Who already have the answers: everybody but them is in darkness. I realized that it's really the same as with everyone else. If you don't have anything to give, what difference does it make who you are talking to? And if you do have something to give, why not be like Paul, who said to present your gift whether "in season or out of season"? (2 Tim 4:2) Why not be like John, who was willing to write the churches in Asia and tell them to repent? In other words, if you have something to say, and it's a revelation from God, then trust the revelation. Don't worry about the situation. Just minister the Christ you have. God is a businessman. Don't worry about the increase, just hold forth what you hear Christ speaking.

My thought here is that this discussion really isn't about 'what's wrong with the LC' or 'what was WL really doing with situation A, B, or C' but rather 'what is Christ showing us today'...

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's the starting point for all critique. People got hurt in the LCM, and that became my incentive to speak up on their behalf.

But it has to be God speaking through you. If you are the one speaking then you are Moses hitting the Egyptian on the head with a shovel. That may seem justified, because you see the abuse and want to address it, but ultimately the situation really doesn't improve. You've merely added another criminal (yourself) to the saga.

But if you speak because God Himself is speaking, and unfolding His revelation before your eyes, and it is now imperative that you open your mouth, He will address the situation. And His love will be there.

Was it Amos who was the sheep farmer living among the sycamore trees, when the word of God came to him? "Go and speak to My people." So when he went, they laughed at him. "Go back to your sheep."

He replied, "I'd be very happy to be with my sheep. But God sent me here."

Our God is a God of revelation. The cloistered LC, with their deceased oracle, will get increasingly grim, self-absorbed, and eccentric, probably. Their revelations will get increasingly marginal. But if we are connected to the Body (i.e. the non-cloistered "rest of Christianity"), we probably will be able to access the visions and dreams that God is pouring out in His Spirit. In my case, it may be seeing Christ dialoguing with His Father in the Psalms. Someone else may see something else. This is what will profit us. We are not here to slag people but to hold forth revelation.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think it's part of the process. Recall that progression of emotions after suffering a devastating loss:

Denial---Anger---Despondency---Acceptance

I think recovering from the LCM has a parallel trajectory. Only it's more like:

Confused Guilt---Angry Guilt---Freedom---Angry Freedom---Confident Freedom

I noticed as I began to see how the LCM had manipulated me that I went through various stages of anger and indignation. It was often expressed in my posts. As I go on I become less angry and more determined just to help people reach freedom themselves.

Yes I've felt indignation. But I myself am imperfect, so my indignation is not a vehicle for God's correction. So I have to let it go, the quicker the better.

But I do see your point. It's a process. I just don't want to linger in it. People can get stuck in anger and it's a poisoned well.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

People got hurt in the LCM, and that became my incentive to speak up on their behalf.

Originally Posted by aron

But it has to be God speaking through you.

Each of us is on our own journey. I spoke up because others were hurt and, due to bad teachings, they remained quiet. They left the program quietly, leaving the rest of us with only insiders to explain what happened. For years I believed them, except for a little hiccup back in the mid-80's related to Phil Comfort.

Then about 10-12 years ago, "it" all hit the fan. I was badly beaten up by my leader in a fit of rage. LSM was breathing out threatenings toward TC and the GLA. A close friend was brutally shamed by TC, leaving the full-time work completely. Then I read Thread of Gold and Speaking the Truth in Love. My eyes were then opened to the abuse I had witnessed to for 30 years, and I then reached the conclusion that this program, which I gave my life to, "produces bullies out of beloved brothers." The disease was systemic and apparently incurable due to deep-seated pride.

I began to speak for others who could not or would not. Initially I was chastised by those who knew me, but I think eventually some of them even realized what I have said was right. For years we talked God, love, oneness, church, etc. yet in the end, we didn't even know how to treat one another with common courtesy.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

Well most of the posters here seem to be of the thinking type. Then we like to inflict our thinking on others. People who are "feeling" oriented usually find some other outlet for their passions.

I appreciate the thinkers...but at a party I would rather have more feelers than thinkers in the room!

[HERn]

Just wondering whether our Lord Jesus was a thinker or feeler? Probably, 100% thinker and 100% feeler.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

Just wondering whether our Lord Jesus was a thinker or feeler? Probably, 100% thinker and 100% feeler.

I'd argue that He was the only true 100% thinker. The rest of us have a veneer of logic to cover our fear. It's the proverbial "fig leaf" that we hide behind. Like frightened octopi, we eject inky clouds, attempting to obscure ourselves. We menfolk aren't really more logical than the weaker sex, just more determined to cover up our irrationality.

And Jesus was logical. How many times did He say, "Have you not read the scriptures that say 'X'? How then do you claim 'Y'?" But Jesus' logic wasn't clouded by fear. He was the truly rational human, who could both feel and think. No matter how the terror of the dark pressed on Him, He remained truly and fully functional.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

Well most of the posters here seem to be of the thinking type. Then we like to inflict our thinking on others. People who are "feeling" oriented usually find some other outlet for their passions.

Not making a value judgment there at all. Sister Dorcas and the little old ladies of the church in Joppa (Acts 9) were not seen promoting a lot of theology, but they sure loved one another. I'm just saying that every one is different, and that's of God's arrangement. Everyone can serve, and glorify God.

Glad you landed on your feet in a Christian community. A lot of us were "sold out" or "wrecked" for the LC life and didn't know what to do when the rug got pulled out... an LC acquaintance of mine has been out for years, and can't meet anywhere. He was rejected as unfit building material (had too many issues, but don't we all?) yet since he's "seen the ground" he refuses to get any help from "fallen Christianity" and now he's in limbo.

This makes me very angry and sad for that brother. The Nee/Lee/LSM/BBs system has been constructed such that even if you choose to leave the LSM LCs you have been brainwashed to believe that every other expression of Christianity is either the harlot or one of her daughters. How convenient! Where is the love and kindness? Most denominations (yes dear LC saints your LSM LC is nothing more than denomination claiming not to be a denomination) never poison the well by saying if you leave us and go to the (insert denomination here) you will be meeting with the harlot or her daughters in a place condemned by God and where the Spirit is absent and your Christian life will die and you will not be able to go on with the Lord. I don't know what to say to help this brother who can't meet anywhere else. This Nee/Lee/LSM/BBs teaching must be satanic if it stumbles a little brother like this to fall away from grace and the precious love of the Lord expressed through his body. I wonder how many are like him? I am lucky in that I came to Christ outside of the Witness Lee Recovery and knew that the Spirit works wherever He wills...kind of like the wind. If you get saved in the LSM LC and are taught that God is only pleased if you meet with them, and then you leave and can't find a home anywhere else and the spark of faith dies whose fault is that? It's not the fault of the dear stumbled brother, it's the fault of the Nee/Lee/LSM/BBs system!

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Terry

It's these practices of conditional love and being ministry-centric that needs to be thrown out.

Hi bro Terry. When I first touched the church life I was turned back to Jesus and was Christ-centric. And for several years I stayed Christ-centric while attending the local churches. But, the last LC I was in was just what you said "ministry-centric". There is an incurable sickness within the leadership of the recovery that cannot be healed without public confession and public apologies and requests for forgiveness. Notwithstanding Indiana's belief, it is obvious to me that the LSM hirelings will never confess and never ask for forgiveness.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then about 10-12 years ago, "it" all hit the fan. I was badly beaten up by my leader in a fit of rage. LSM was breathing out threatenings toward TC and the GLA. A close friend was brutally shamed by TC, leaving the full-time work completely. Then I read Thread of Gold and Speaking the Truth in Love. My eyes were then opened to the abuse I had witnessed to for 30 years, and I then reached the conclusion that this program, which I gave my life to, "produces bullies out of beloved brothers." The disease was systemic and apparently incurable due to deep-seated pride.

Around this time Ohio, even before the "Phoenix Accord", A Pacific NW elder at the time was reputed as pointing to the Midwest where the next "storm" would come from. Where does he come up with that thought? Certainly wouldn't draw it up himself unless it was a byproduct of Anahiem fellowship.
At any rate with several households I know of having migrated to the NW from Ohio and Michigan, logic indicates word would eventually travel back to their former localities.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

There is an incurable sickness within the leadership of the recovery that cannot be healed without public confession and public apologies and requests for forgiveness. Notwithstanding Indiana's belief, it is obvious to me that the LSM hirelings will never confess and never ask for forgiveness.

Until there is private and public confession, pride is difficult to cure. As I see one of the symptoms that leads to pride is the deputy authority teaching and practice.
As Ohio has often said, the system produces bullies out of good brothers.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Until there is private and public confession, pride is difficult to cure. As I see one of the symptoms that leads to pride is the deputy authority teaching and practice.
As Ohio has often said, the system produces bullies out of good brothers.

I never expect to hear any sort of confession. In fact, in many ways, the LCM is too far gone for that. LC leaders and the blended may be able to get away with not addressing these issues over the short term, but they will just keep making the same mistakes. History will repeat itself and with each new generation, there will be new sets of outcasts and "negative ones". As long as the same teachings and practices exist, there will be people hurt by the LCM. The bigger the LCM gets, the more public the splits and wrongdoings will become.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I never expect to hear any sort of confession. In fact, in many ways, the LCM is too far gone for that. LC leaders and the blended may be able to get away with not addressing these issues over the short term, but they will just keep making the same mistakes. History will repeat itself and with each new generation, there will be new sets of outcasts and "negative ones". As long as the same teachings and practices exist, there will be people hurt by the LCM. The bigger the LCM gets, the more public the splits and wrongdoings will become.

This has been going on since the inception of Christianity. It's nothing new. Let's go beyond it ... Let's throw it out ...

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I never expect to hear any sort of confession. In fact, in many ways, the LCM is too far gone for that. LC leaders and the blended may be able to get away with not addressing these issues over the short term, but they will just keep making the same mistakes.

My feeling is many LC elders have bought the fabricated message LSM has been selling for the last 25+ years. Many of the current blendeds had a role in the late 80's turmoil. They've been operating on damage control for so many years now, they can't possibly offer any confession....not without sacrificing their personal reputations before the brothers and sisters in the local churches.
The only one on record who had confessed to anything publicly was Minoru Chen.
As for the LC elders, they may have the thought if they disagreed with the blendeds, they would suffer loss with their locality. History indicates when an elder dissents with LSM, the majority of the locality for whom the elder serves, is supportive for their elder or elders.

[HERn]

I recently received an email from a dear LC brother (not a leading one but was recruited into the recovery by Max R.) apologizing for anything that he might have said that caused me enter into death (his words) and begging us to return to the church life where the genuine expression of God exists. I've copied my two responses. The second was an attempt to soften the first.



"Hi brother x! It is so good to hear from you, and yes we love you and your family. You have nothing to ask forgiveness for!! But, for the sake of your weak conscience I forgive you for any and every sin you may have committed (although I know of none). And if that is not enough I proclaim your absolution from every sin through the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ! Now tell satan to go to hell (he is after all a lord of only the dirty flies)!

Our break with LSM controlled churches was the sovereignty of God and has nothing to do with you and was very hard to go through considering all the dear saints. For our emotional health and to prevent communicating negative things we kept secluded. We are very happy and feel the Lord's love and approval as we meet with the dear saints in X Church, this is our home. We have no interest in returning to the LSM controlled local churches. X is doing excellent, X is happy to be out of the local churches and I'm learning to love and fellowship with brothers who are not infected with the pride and arrogance of knowing the so-called high peak truths. I have come to believe that there is only one oracle of God and that is Christ Jesus, and only one minister of the age and that is the apostle Paul, and one New Testament ministry which is contained solely in the bible. So where does that leave Nee and Lee? They are dear brothers who have have helped many to love Jesus, they are not on the level of Paul, and not even of Luther. Where does that leave the blended brothers? They are the ones that encourage the saints to use the writings of Lee to evaluate the bible, rather than using the bible to evaluate the writings of Nee and Lee. Where does that leave the dear local elders? I am afraid that some are pointing the dear seeking ones to a man and his writings, rather than to the Lord Jesus and His person.

I imagine that my response disappoints you, but I have a clear conscience and the assurance that the Father is pleased. Now as to the local church superstition that bad things happen to those who leave the recovery so far we have not been hit by a car, lightening, depression, or financial collapse, and contrary to the false teaching of x we are still going on with the Lord, loving His people, worshipping His person, enjoying His word and being sanctified by His Spirit. I recommend that you take a look at www.localchurchdiscussions.com if your conscience will allow.

with love from your non-LSM-LC brother,"

My second response a few days later.

"I realize that my last note was probably a shocker for you and was pretty strident so I wanted to make sure you know that I still value our friendship. I could probably count on one hand the men in the recovery that I would want to remain friends with and you would be number one on that list! But, I'm ok with any feeling you might have to stay away from me! I've been through the grieving process of leaving the recovery and am making new friends with other christian bothers that I believe are as genuine people and lovers of Jesus as you are. Outside of x you're the only one that knows how X and I feel. I emphasize X and I because there are rumors that I've forced X to take a way she didn't want to take. We are 100% in agreement and our marriage is doing even better since we left. There have been some brothers who tried to come between me and my wife who I believe were unknowingly being used by satan. Have you ever noticed how many screwed up marriages and families exist in the recovery? Some of the leading brothers are absolutely crazy! They equate a spouse's leaving the recovery on the same level as renouncing our christian faith and a justifiable cause for a wife to separate from her husband. I better stop here before I start preaching!! Have you read anything on www.localchurchdiscussions,com yet?

Take care, thanks for being a friend and enjoy the time in the x.

You ex-recovery friend,"

HERn - I do not personally know who he is and only know him by this HERn in this forum.
I came to this forum over a year ago and in recent few weeks I read it more often.
What HERn said in the two letters, I myself have almost identical experience and realization concerning (1) leaving 'the once intended to be true local churches', and (2) the living afterwards -which is closer to our dear saviour Lord Jesus Christ and our Father in heaven.
And the bible comes alive and enlightening progressively over the days and weeks and months and years - for over 20 years and continuing ...
And yes, I (we) over the years meet members of Christ we have not known before. We see this Jesus whom God raised from the dead and made Lord and Christ, is the one building the church. Christ is the head of the body. Every member obey Christ and the body is builded up in love (God's love is holy).
To the dear member of Christ whom HERn's letters addressed, may the Lord bless you with more abundant life.
His sheep hears His voice.

[UntoHim]

To Unregistered,

Thanks for being a faithful reader of the Forum. Please consider registering by emailing your desired UserName to LocalChurchDiscussions@Gmail.Com
Once you become a registered Member your post will no longer have to go through the moderation que and will appear on the Forum immediately. Also you will enjoy the benefit of being able to send and receive Private Messages from the various Forum Members.

[HERn]

As a family we did something today that I felt pleased the Lord. Our church has a sister church in Haiti that we visit annually with medical workers and supplies and things. They also have a support program for kids that provides meals, uniforms, tuition, books, and basic health and hygiene care. I think the church goal was to support 100 kids. We selected a 10-year old girl and I felt that the Lord was pleased and cherished that our family would help one of the "least of these". I'm throwing out the LSM LC practice of focusing on the middle class and above college students to the neglect of the poor and simple.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

As a family we did something today that I felt pleased the Lord. Our church has a sister church in Haiti that we visit annually with medical workers and supplies and things. They also have a support program for kids that provides meals, uniforms, tuition, books, and basic health and hygiene care. I think the church goal was to support 100 kids. We selected a 10-year old girl and I felt that the Lord was pleased and cherished that our family would help one of the "least of these". I'm throwing out the LSM LC practice of focusing on the middle class and above college students to the neglect of the poor and simple.

HERn, I appreciate a lot of the things you have posted about. It's good to see how someone has moved on beyond the LC. So many who are suck in the system see no way out. Many of those who leave might feel they have no hope left or they don't see any path forward. I'm sure that some have been in the system so long, that they couldn't envision anything else. Whatever situation that someone may be in, I think that it is important to realize that there are positive alternatives that are worthy of devoting time and energy to.

[HERn]

Here are two positive things I've learned in the LRC; singing lustily, and being able to share things with a group of people. Of course, one could learn those things in many places, but for some reason the Spirit chose for me to learn them in the LRC. In my men's SS class I am able to make short concise contributions (don't worry so far none of the LC jargon or peculiar doctrines/teachings have come out!). When we sing hymns I'm not embarrassed to sing with a bit of gusto and feeling.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

Here are two positive things I've learned in the LRC; singing lustily, and being able to share things with a group of people.

Same here. When I began to meet at the local community church, the pastor asked me to come up front and introduce myself. I was loud and to the point. And the point was Jesus Christ.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by HERn

Here are two positive things I've learned in the LRC; singing lustily, and being able to share things with a group of people. Of course, one could learn those things in many places, but for some reason the Spirit chose for me to learn them in the LRC. In my men's SS class I am able to make short concise contributions (don't worry so far none of the LC jargon or peculiar doctrines/teachings have come out!). When we sing hymns I'm not embarrassed to sing with a bit of gusto and feeling.

The Church of Christ (Campbellites, so called -- no musical instruments ... just a cappella) would just love you.

[HERn]

I think another thing I'm going to keep is the notion that every member of the body of Christ has a contribution to make towards the benefit, growth and comfort of all. When I was down in the LC trenches I really believed this and I still do. This despite the fact that for MANY of the brothers I knew in the LCs fellowship and help only went one way...from them to me. For these brothers there was a definite hierarchy that governed fellowship or help...it could only go from someone more absolute or constituted towards those who were less. So it essentially worked like this; Barber to Nee to Lee to the top blendeds to the not-so-blended coworkers to the elders and full-timers to the non-elder leading ones to the responsible ones to the serving ones then to the various small potatoes (and even among them I sometimes observed a hierarchy of length of time in the recovery or age or who brought you in or who your parents were or if you went to the full-time training). The reason this thought came to mind was because in our men's SS class there are some very young men that don't say much and I've thought maybe we loquacious oldies should stop at three comments so the younger ones can contribute. I'm throwing out the LC practice that suggests fellowship only flows downhill.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by awareness

The Church of Christ (Campbellites, so called -- no musical instruments ... just a cappella) would just love you.

I know them well. In college there was a church of Christ (crossroads group that eventually went to Boston) that had a strong work on campus called "soul talk" bible studies. I had a part-time job with one of them who believed that you had to be baptized to be saved AND that the baptism had to be in their church of Christ baptistery! He said you could only "touch the blood of Christ" in a church of Christ baptistry!! Not too far removed from the notion that you can only touch God's economy and current move on the earth in the LSM-controlled LCs is it?

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

The Church of Christ (Campbellites, so called -- no musical instruments ... just a cappella) would just love you.

There are other groups like that as well. The Mennonites come to mind.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/singacap.html

[Amcasci]

Originally Posted by HERn

I think another thing I'm going to keep is the notion that every member of the body of Christ has a contribution to make towards the benefit, growth and comfort of all. When I was down in the LC trenches I really believed this and I still do. This despite the fact that for MANY of the brothers I knew in the LCs fellowship and help only went one way...from them to me. For these brothers there was a definite hierarchy that governed fellowship or help...it could only go from someone more absolute or constituted towards those who were less. So it essentially worked like this; Barber to Nee to Lee to the top blendeds to the not-so-blended coworkers to the elders and full-timers to the non-elder leading ones to the responsible ones to the serving ones then to the various small potatoes (and even among them I sometimes observed a hierarchy of length of time in the recovery or age or who brought you in or who your parents were or if you went to the full-time training). The reason this thought came to mind was because in our men's SS class there are some very young men that don't say much and I've thought maybe we loquacious oldies should stop at three comments so the younger ones can contribute. I'm throwing out the LC practice that suggests fellowship only flows downhill.

Such is our sinful self. "The rulers of the Gentiles Lord it over them but it shall not be so among you." Sadly it is too often so among us.

[HERn]

Last night at our "one another group" the elderly brother that served with Wycliffe for the Chockabos said that when he was serving in South America one of the new brothers told his relatives that he could not participate in the worship of the "bird from above" because "his Lord inside" (Jesus) would not allow it. I think the Lord Jesus loves to save and rescue those in raw primitivism. This older brother gave his working years to bring the reality of God's Son Jesus Christ to a tribe that was not even on the radar screen of LSM. I'm throwing out the notion that only LSM sanctioned employees are serving the Lord.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

I'm throwing out the notion that only LSM sanctioned employees are serving the Lord.

RK said that only LSM sanctioned employees were building up the body of Christ. Everyone else was doing "absolutely nothing." He specifically singled out Billy Graham, and repeated, "absolutely nothing."

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

RK said that only LSM sanctioned employees were building up the body of Christ. Everyone else was doing "absolutely nothing." He specifically singled out Billy Graham, and repeated, "absolutely nothing."

If RK really believes this, then the darkness in him is indeed great...too great for me to trust anything he says. I'm throwing out RK's opinions.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

RK said that only LSM sanctioned employees were building up the body of Christ. Everyone else was doing "absolutely nothing." He specifically singled out Billy Graham, and repeated, "absolutely nothing."

Just like Nee and Lee Billy Graham wasn't what he appeared to be. And neither is RK. Looks to me, now, like a pot calling the kettle black. Don't we put others down trying to push us up? That need comes from insecurity. Showing, RK is actually insecure about the Recovery Movement. That's encouraging to me. Maybe RK is not completely out of his mind. There's still hope for him. We should pity him ... and pray for him.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

RK said that only LSM sanctioned employees were building up the body of Christ. Everyone else was doing "absolutely nothing." He specifically singled out Billy Graham, and repeated, "absolutely nothing."

This got me to thinking about Billy Graham's ministry. I believe he was one of the first modern evangelists that actually brought together various Christian denominations to pray for and participate in big evangelistic meetings. And from what I understand the dear seeking ones ended up in many different denominations, not just Southern Baptist. Also, I think Billy was one of the first modern evangelists to racially integrate the evangelistic meetings. I believe BG is a testimony of unity compared to WL who fostered exclusion, division, suspicion, and criticisms among God's many people.

[HERn]

I'm beginning to see that there is a controlling culture in the WL local churches that is unrecognizable until one has been out of it for many, many months.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

RK said that only LSM sanctioned employees were building up the body of Christ. Everyone else was doing "absolutely nothing." He specifically singled out Billy Graham, and repeated, "absolutely nothing."

Very easy to say. Since post World War II, how many men, women, and children did Billy Graham's speaking issue in salvation? Thus adding to the Body of Christ.

The quote I have to offer to Ron Kangas is this:

But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.”
Luke 9:50

[HERn]

I was thinking about the LSM-local church's adulation of WL and remembered my days back in college when I met with the Navigators. We were all very appreciative of Dawson Trotman the founder, but we never called him the minister of the age or God's oracle. I think Awareness has it right about WL having a grandiose personality.

[HERn]

» Listen Up!
La Gloria de Dios
Beautiful Father-
Daughter Duet (español)
Ricardo & Evaluna Montaner

Thanks UntoHim, that was beautiful!

[HERn]

At the small men's breakfast this morning at my community church I shared some of my recent history of leaving a group known as the lords recovery that follows the teaching of WL and one of the men said he met a Chinese man on campus that week with a similar name and the shared scripture back and forth. I told him that he was a fulltime worker on campus in the group that I had just left. He said they shared scriptures back and forth, but that he noticed something strange in that the LC brother never seemed to "hear" or receive what he shared. And I told him that I experienced that often with "professional" LC full timers and elders, that fellowship was only one way...downhill from a more "absolute" brother to a lower brother, and that fellowship was mostly one direction and not mutual.

Interesting how someone not associated with the LC would detect that kind of attitude. That attitude and practice is one of the things that showed me the hypocrisy among the leaders in the movement. They preached that there was no hierarchy and no division among the saints, but there was and it showed in how they interacted with one another. I think reading a sociological study of the movement would be fascinating! Does anyone know if there is such a study?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

I think reading a sociological study of the movement would be fascinating! Does anyone know if there is such a study?

Attached is the best I had seen.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Terry

Attached is the best I had seen.

That was an excellent scholarly review of the movement shortly after Sparks poked the bear and stirred up a hornets nest. I wonder if the rest of the dissertation is available? I think the 1968 date may be wrong because there are 1972 references cited in the document. Very enlightening and helps me understand some of the problems I have observed.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

At the small men's breakfast this morning at my community church I shared some of my recent history of leaving a group known as the lords recovery that follows the teaching of WL and one of the men said he met a Chinese man on campus that week with a similar name and the shared scripture back and forth. I told him that he was a fulltime worker on campus in the group that I had just left. He said they shared scriptures back and forth, but that he noticed something strange in that the LC brother never seemed to "hear" or receive what he shared. And I told him that I experienced that often with "professional" LC full timers and elders, that fellowship was only one way...downhill from a more "absolute" brother to a lower brother, and that fellowship was mostly one direction and not mutual.

Interesting how someone not associated with the LC would detect that kind of attitude. That attitude and practice is one of the things that showed me the hypocrisy among the leaders in the movement. They preached that there was no hierarchy and no division among the saints, but there was and it showed in how they interacted with one another. I think reading a sociological study of the movement would be fascinating! Does anyone know if there is such a study?

I was involved with LC campus work, not as a full-timer, but as a student. It's interesting that your friend so quickly noticed that there was something different about the LC campus worker he met. I know all too well what the attitude is with recruiting people campus, but I never heard much regarding how people viewed us. All I knew is that they would contact us and then quickly disappear.

What I found interesting is that there seemed to be little desire to invite other Christians to our campus Bible studies. Those I knew seemed mainly interested in finding those who had little to no Christian background. Why? Those types were easier to work on. Christians could ask intelligent questions, or stop and ask why a certain version of the Bible was being shoved down their throat.

As your friend indicated, the only desire among LCers on the campus is to find people who they could provide "downhill" fellowship to. Those who will swallow anything and everything. Unfortunately LCers are too blinded to realize what they are really doing. They think that only they posses the truth, thus no one else could possibly have anything important or significant to say. So they tolerate others and listen passively and wait for the opportunity to inject the teachings of WL.

I think what Jesus spoke to the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:15 also applies to the "work" that LCers are doing, especially on the campuses:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

[HERn]

One thing I learned from the thesis was that shortly after Sparks challenged Lee's exclusive doctrine of the ground and the co-workers started to speak messages along the same line the practice and requirement of using outlines for the co-workers messages was started. Seems like that practice is continued even today. Who writes and approves the outlines used in the winter and spring trainings?

[HERn]

Today in our community church we prayed for our grieving brothers and sisters in Charleston and for our country. Did any of the LSM-LC pray for them? I'm sure individual saints prayed.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

Today in our community church we prayed for our grieving brothers and sisters in Charleston and for our country. Did any of the LSM-LC pray for them? I'm sure individual saints prayed.

As for local churches, probably not since it's not according to their view of God's Economy.
Individually, yes at least on Facebook I saw there was prayerfully lamenting.

[TLFisher]

I find it interesting from the Open Letter of the Church in Los Angeles to the Church in Hong Kong (10/12/70), the LA elders (Samuel Chang, James, Barber, Bill Mallon, and John Ingalls) categorize the charges of "establishing his own totalitarianism by means of the structure of his own work to control the meetings in various places" and "centralized control of both workers and finance".
James Chen was accurate of what he told the saints in Hong Kong, but it was many years before Chen's charges became transparent in North America.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

shortly after Sparks challenged Lee's exclusive doctrine of the ground and the co-workers started to speak messages along the same line the practice and requirement of using outlines for the co-workers messages was started. Seems like that practice is continued even today. Who writes and approves the outlines used in the winter and spring trainings?

What would probably be the definitive account of Local Church (LC) beliefs and practices would be a chronological narrative of when various "storms" and "rebellions" occurred, and the subsequent doctrinal promulgations under the cover of "Bible Studies" (or "Life Studies" in their parlance). For example, I bet that if you looked at what LC events occurred prior to the Revelation Life Study training you would find something that led Lee to conclude that any problems in the LC was due to the various assemblies not being absolutely identical. Therefore he was able to read into the letters to the various Asian churches in Revelations 2 and 3 and see the "present need" of being absolutely identical. That, he said, would solve all our problems, right?

And so forth. Each training, each outline, was designed to meet a "present need" in the Lord's Recovery movement. Of course we all do this to some extent - we read into, and onto, the eternal Word our own temporal thoughts, values, dispositions, and understandings. Our own subjective history colors our assessment of the "present need", and we then read it into scriptures to find the answer. This is how we have the Worldwide Church of God of Herbert Armstrong, the Millerites and the Great Disappointment, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, the Mormons, the Christian Scientists, and sor forth. Nee and Lee were no different. They saw what they wanted to see. First it was to shake off the Western yoke, then it was to consolidate control, and on and on. Everything was done on the fly - there was no master plan. Just find whatever you have to, in order to meet the "present need". Life is nothing but exigencies for us mortals. Get through today. And that includes the self-proclaimed "seer of the age". No different, I bet. Was Lee getting caught smuggling gold part of some master plan? No - he was just trying to make it through another situation. Trying to keep the cash flow solvent. Just another day in the life.

Anyway, a double-stranded history of the years 1975 to 1995 showing Lee's various "flows" and the various "storms" that accompanied them, along with the development of LC thought in various Ministry trainings, outlines, and RecV footnotes would be nice. I think it would make a nice Amazon e-book. It would have a narrative structure, controlled by chronology (time). Without such a structure it is hard to get a clear picture: you get various statements at various times, which mean whatever people want them to mean today, just as they meant whatever Nee and Lee meant for them at that time. We cherry pick the Ministry to find statements that back whatever agenda or interpretation we're currently promoting. Just like Nee and Lee did to the Bible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

What would probably be the definitive account of Local Church (LC) beliefs and practices would be a chronological narrative of when various "storms" and "rebellions" occurred, and the subsequent doctrinal promulgations under the cover of "Bible Studies" (or "Life Studies" in their parlance).

And so forth. Each training, each outline, was designed to meet a "present need" in the Lord's Recovery movement.

Anyway, a double-stranded history of the years 1975 to 1995 showing Lee's various "flows" and the various "storms" that accompanied them, along with the development of LC thought in various Ministry trainings, outlines, and RecV footnotes would be nice.

This is so true.

I remember being at the "Timothy" training ~1981, which was after the so-called "Max Rebellion." We all marveled that the word was so timely to "inoculate" us from some future storm in the aftermath of what the LC's were just forced to pass through. I was totally clueless as to the actual facts of the "storm," so I bought into the "up-to-date ministry" completely, thinking that God had a special word to exactly meet our present need.

We really were His Recovery!

[Lisbon]

I'm not sure where this belongs but Sunday I went back to my LC. Actually I had been wanting to go for some time but felt too hypocritical. I'm certainly quite a hypocrite and don't see much way out at present. I met two elders just as I walked in the front door and was greeted very warmly by one and not that badly by the other. Actually had a very good visit. Many said they missed me and I had good conversation with several.

But the meeting! So poor. No Prayer, one poor song. To begin with there was so much noise that the song was drowned out by the talk. The song was a poor choice but probably the choice of Anaheim, don't know. The intro Bro stood and asked for the verses to be read following his five minute talk.

There were 30 speakings with the piano going off only two or three times. Their talks were mainly short. Quite a lot of one minute gaps which would not have been tolerated in the years past. I sat opposite the leading elder, who never spoke, and wondered if he was considering what I was thinking.
Almost no testimonies, just reading the HWFMR.

There were around 250 in the meeting about the same number we had in 1975. Sad. Forty years, little increase. Of course we now have eight other meeting places in the metroplex with I would guess 1500 to 2000 total attendees. The population of the metro is around 6 million.

One more thing of significance, the LC now has another meeting near the heart of the city where the yuppies live. Remember, no high, no low, no rich, no poor! With the Pope's blessing it's OK. Huh?

I don't think my daughter sees any difference. It's scarey. We're all that way. The RCC thinks they're so proper and the other 100,000 sects. I think the Lord needs to open our eyes too. Oh Lord!
Lisbon

[HERn]

I don't think anything happens spontaneously when it's from LSM and the BBs.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

the LC now has another meeting near the heart of the city where the yuppies live.

It's all about getting the yuppies. White, middle class, educated yuppies. That was what I was taught 20 years ago by the FTTA trainers and I don't think it's changed.

We were taught this, point-blank, in meetings of several hundred "college-age trainees". Go for the whitebread Middle American. They weren't subtle about it: if you could get a big, husky, corn-fed American boy off a college campus, you were a fisher of men, first class.

Me, I had the bad habit of dragging in all the poor and miserable detritus of the world. The bums and losers. I just couldn't resist; I related to them so well. How did Paul call it? The "scum and offscouring" of the world.

On the other hand, I must confess that they put up with me for several years. Maybe they thought they could yuppify me.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Anyway, a double-stranded history of the years 1975 to 1995 showing Lee's various "flows" and the various "storms" that accompanied them, along with the development of LC thought in various Ministry trainings, outlines, and RecV footnotes would be nice. I think it would make a nice Amazon e-book. It would have a narrative structure, controlled by chronology (time). Without such a structure it is hard to get a clear picture: you get various statements at various times, which mean whatever people want them to mean today, just as they meant whatever Nee and Lee meant for them at that time. We cherry pick the Ministry to find statements that back whatever agenda or interpretation we're currently promoting. Just like Nee and Lee did to the Bible.

I would love to see someone do this. It would essentially prove that Lee's ministry was a conglomerate of his innuendos about then-current LC events which he disguised as the "up-to-date-speaking".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

It's all about getting the yuppies. White, middle class, educated yuppies. That was what I was taught 20 years ago by the FTTA trainers and I don't think it's changed.

We were taught this, point-blank, in meetings of several hundred "college-age trainees". Go for the whitebread Middle American. They weren't subtle about it: if you could get a big, husky, corn-fed American boy off a college campus, you were a fisher of men, first class.

Me, I had the bad habit of dragging in all the poor and miserable detritus of the world. The bums and losers. I just couldn't resist; I related to them so well. How did Paul call it? The "scum and offscouring" of the world.

I've been called a lot of things in my life, but this one stands out ...

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

.. Lee's ministry was a conglomerate of his innuendos about then-current LC events which he disguised as the "up-to-date-speaking".

The core of my argument is that we all do this, to some degree. We can't help it. We try to present "the truth", but our version of the truth is always colored by our needs, wants, dispositions, opinions of how it ought to be, etc. All of Lee's teachings came out of this same fountain. But he sold it to us as "God's oracle." According to him, LSM put out the pure word of God, cut straight by the ministry of the age.

Nonsense. He was just trying to manage the day's events, just like the rest of us. And the witness of history is what gives his management and teachings and speakings proper context. If we can see a pattern of events and the spoken and written ministry that accompanied them, then the story of Witness Lee and the Local Church, and Lord's Recovery movement will have needed perspective.

The same thing happened for me, with looking at Watchman Nee's ministry in historical context. When I saw the backdrop of Chinese resentment against Western imperialism, with the Boxer Rebellion and so forth, then the "localism" of Nee with its emphases on Brethren teachings and Inner Life practices, and its appeal to the native Chinese Christian community with its Asian cultural ethos, makes sense. From there the focus was expansion of the Little Flock activities, consolidation (i.e. the Jerusalem principle), and control (i.e. handing over). And Nee's message when the Communists took over was also about managing an organizational response to government power. It was all exigencies. The truth was whatever you needed it to be today.

The particular example of the requirement for the Asian churches in Revelation 2 and 3 to be "absolutely identical" in the RecV footnotes would probably be informed by the events of the Local Church/Lord's Recovery movement leading up to that training. When you see a) the situation and b) Lee's response to the situation, then suddenly the footnote, or the outline, or the message makes sense. It now has context.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

What would probably be the definitive account of Local Church (LC) beliefs and practices would be a chronological narrative of when various "storms" and "rebellions" occurred, and the subsequent doctrinal promulgations under the cover of "Bible Studies" (or "Life Studies" in their parlance).

I recall in the late 90's there was a HWFMR that came out about rebellions. At the time I thought it was a reference to the late 80's. In retrospect, maybe it was a subtle preemptive word regarding the Great Lakes area?

[HERn]

Originally Posted by HERn

I don't think anything happens spontaneously when it's from LSM and the BBs.

Except for their condemnation of "poor, poor, degraded Christianity" and the brothers and sisters serving as clergy.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

Except for their condemnation of "poor, poor, degraded Christianity" and the brothers and sisters serving as clergy.

Reminds me, one of the brothers in the brothers house I was in, his first training was the 94 Summer Training. Poor poor Christianity was one of the few quotes he passed on from the training.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by HERn

Except for their condemnation of "poor, poor, degraded Christianity" and the brothers and sisters serving as clergy.

I want to confess and apologize to the body of Christ that I participated in condemning Christianity and the clergy.

[HERn]

I'm sorry that I could not find the thread where the Chandler-Village Church-divorce issue was posted, but I just read about where the elders of that church apologized for being controlling. Don't any of you LSM accolytes hold your breath waiting for the BBs or elders to apologize. Remember that the lords anointed is right even when he is wrong, and that we cover the sins of the leaders. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...ion-to-di.html

[HERn]

Thanks to Igzy for the idea used to create my signature.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

Remember that the lords anointed is right even when he is wrong, and that we cover the sins of the leaders.

Let's rephrase it,
remember those who claim to be the lords anointed are right even when he is wrong, and that we cover the sins of the leaders.

[Lisbon]

Above Awareness indicated that Mel Porter was not so 'in' in the past. In 1973 or 74 I heard of some problem with Porter but then never heard more.

Recently I heard he was in some kind of leading position in either Arizona or Colo. Does anyone know his situation at present.

Lisbon

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

Above Awareness indicated that Mel Porter was not so 'in' in the past. In 1973 or 74 I heard of some problem with Porter but then never heard more.

Recently I heard he was in some kind of leading position in either Arizona or Colo. Does anyone know his situation at present.

Lisbon

I think he is in south Florida. An elder told me that Mel supported me writing a letter to RK complaining about the behavior of other elders in my locality. I wrote a draft letter and asked the elder if he would sign it with me and he said no. To me this was a major red flag because he urged me to write the letter but would not sign it with me. I am so glad that I am not a part of that self absorbed sect of Christianity known as the lords recovery.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

Above Awareness indicated that Mel Porter was not so 'in' in the past. In 1973 or 74 I heard of some problem with Porter but then never heard more.

Recently I heard he was in some kind of leading position in either Arizona or Colo. Does anyone know his situation at present.

Lisbon

I'd like to know that too bro Lisbon. I only know what I've been told after leaving, from others that ran into the same problem I ran into with Mel. One of them was an elder with Mel when he gave me the ultimatum to take his personality or get out. He was there. I can picture him in my mind's eye, sitting to the left of me, while Mel was in my face. Then five years later, the same thing happened to him, and to others I was close to before and during the LC.

Apparently the fallout of high quality brothers leaving the LC in Miami caught Lee's attention and he fire Mel, if I can call it that.

Somewhere during that time I heard that Mel was in Tampa. So when I was visiting a friend in Tampa I tried to call him. I got his voicemail. I so wanted to think him for blowing me out of the LC.

But somewhere along the line Lee, and/or company, rehired Porter. I saw that in Oct 2006 -- I think bro Ohio was there when it went down -- Mel was a signatory on Titus Chu's excommunication encyclical, as representing "U.S.A."

He's got to be an ignorant old fart by now. He was ignorant back then. I really can't believe that Lee would put such a spiritually ignorant person in charge. It was a big factor in breaking my trust in Lee. That led to eventually breaking all my trust into smithereens. I've never been the same. Thanks Mel!

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'd like to know that too bro Lisbon. I only know what I've been told after leaving, from others that ran into the same problem I ran into with Mel. One of them was an elder with Mel when he gave me the ultimatum to take his personality or get out. He was there. I can picture him in my mind's eye, sitting to the left of me, while Mel was in my face. Then five years later, the same thing happened to him, and to others I was close to before and during the LC.

Apparently the fallout of high quality brothers leaving the LC in Miami caught Lee's attention and he fire Mel, if I can call it that.

Somewhere during that time I heard that Mel was in Tampa. So when I was visiting a friend in Tampa I tried to call him. I got his voicemail. I so wanted to think him for blowing me out of the LC.

But somewhere along the line Lee, and/or company, rehired Porter. I saw that in Oct 2006 -- I think bro Ohio was there when it went down -- Mel was a signatory on Titus Chu's excommunication encyclical, as representing "U.S.A."

He's got to be an ignorant old fart by now. He was ignorant back then. I really can't believe that Lee would put such a spiritually ignorant person in charge. It was a big factor in breaking my trust in Lee. That led to eventually breaking all my trust into smithereens. I've never been the same. Thanks Mel!

It's interesting to note that the letter attributed to Clement (First Clement 94-95AD), the 3rd Bishop of Rome, chastises the congregation in Corinth for ousting their elders. This is the first glimpse of Rome attempting to control other churches.

While Lee espoused the "local church" it was never local and it is not local today. He consistently tried to control all of the churches world wide which is what led him into problems abroad and at home. That is why you have someone like Mel in the leadership of a local church---it was Lee's attempt at having control which superseded any level of spirituality.

The same problem happened in Detroit with RK, HA, and TS as elders. RK and TS came from Eldon hall and were taught by Lee. They had no business being elders but they were self anointed when they arrived. TS left the church, divorced and who knows what happened to him. RK didn't migrate with us to Ft. Lauderdale but took the opportunity to move back to Anaheim where he is a big honcho in the LC.

This is an inherently significant problem with non-democratic congregations. Yes, democracy and the congregational model (Cambridge Platform 1648) can be messy but when you have one leader whom everyone follows it can lead to all kinds of machinations. When a "God (Lee)" appointed elder such as Mel is in charge and he really believes he is the anointed one in a locality there is going to be trouble. Imagine what it must be like if you are someone walking around thinking that you are the voice of God in a city such as Ft. Lauderdale or Miami. What power you have, what insight you have and what will befall those who go against you as you carry out God's(Lee) mission in your locality.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

It's interesting to note that the letter attributed to Clement (First Clement 94-95AD), the 3rd Bishop of Rome, chastises the congregation in Corinth for ousting their elders. This is the first glimpse of Rome attempting to control other churches.

While Lee espoused the "local church" it was never local and it is not local today. He consistently tried to control all of the churches world wide which is what led him into problems abroad and at home. That is why you have someone like Mel in the leadership of a local church---it was Lee's attempt at having control which superseded any level of spirituality.

The same problem happened in Detroit with RK, HA, and TS as elders. RK and TS came from Eldon hall and were taught by Lee. They had no business being elders but they were self anointed when they arrived. TS left the church, divorced and who knows what happened to him. RK didn't migrate with us to Ft. Lauderdale but took the opportunity to move back to Anaheim where he is a big honcho in the LC.

This is an inherently significant problem with non-democratic congregations. Yes, democracy and the congregational model (Cambridge Platform 1648) can be messy but when you have one leader whom everyone follows it can lead to all kinds of machinations. When a "God (Lee)" appointed elder such as Mel is in charge and he really believes he is the anointed one in a locality there is going to be trouble. Imagine what it must be like if you are someone walking around thinking that you are the voice of God in a city such as Ft. Lauderdale or Miami. What power you have, what insight you have and what will befall those who go against you as you carry out God's(Lee) mission in your locality.

Great post!

The "open" branch of the Plymouth Brethren, in response to Darby's centralized control, enacted the principle of unanimity for all serious church decisions. While it too has its drawbacks (it can easily be sabotaged by a few dissidents), it is an attempt to make decisions only after all the congregation has arrived at one mind via the prayer of each.

Lee's proposed solution to all the "evils" of denominationalism was autonomous "local" churches, each let by elders / shepherds. Today the LC's have become a far worse denomination than any of the ones they long have condemned. What kind of hypocrisy is that to declare to the world that all control is local? During the heyday of the "new way," Lee had become a far worse Pope than the one he had condemned his whole lifetime.

While in the LC's, I personally participated in two migrations to startup new churches. Over time I watched Titus Chu manipulate and nearly destroy two prosperous LC's via his full-time worker relocation programs. His primary concern was making sure that every satellite LC remained steadfastly under his dominion. The condition of the actual saints or the church seemed to be the last of his concerns.

[HERn]

The "denominations" aren't that bad! Went to a parents meeting where the pastor introduced the recently hired youth directors. Both gave testimonies to God's salvation and care in their lives AND passed out a survey asking how they could better serve the high schoolers. In the so-called recovery all you need to do is graduate from the FTT and you are "ordained" to serve. At least in this E-Free church parents were invited to hear the testimonies of those who would be influencing their children. In the so called recovery it's all about full-timers having attended the FTT. I praise God for leading me out of this self absorbed tiny Christian sect.

[HERn]

Another thing about the deputy authority nonsense and the wholesale twisting of scripture re: Ham uncovering his fathers nakedness being used as an excuse to hide the sins of a spiritual leader is WHAT ELSE ARE THEY HIDING? There have been many godly spiritual men and women leaders whose lives did not require that their lieutenants hide their sins. And there have been many so-called spiritual leaders whose ministries were proven to be false by the revelation of fraud, theft, manipulation, nepotism, greed, lies, self promotion, etc. (I left out sex so as not to set Awarness off). I want to ask WHAT ELSE ARE THEY HIDING? If the gross sins of other leaders have testified of their false teachings, then why can't the saints see that the sins of their leaders might also be a testimony of false teachings? I guess the answer is that if you're deceived to think that your leader is the MOTA, oracle of God, or God's last New Testament Apostle, then you can be intimidated to keep quiet and ignore the screaming testimony of the leader's sin.

I'm throwing out the deception that the sins of a leader have no relevance to the validity of his ministry.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

Another thing about the deputy authority nonsense and the wholesale twisting of scripture re: Ham uncovering his fathers nakedness being used as an excuse to hide the sins of a spiritual leader is WHAT ELSE ARE THEY HIDING? There have been many godly spiritual men and women leaders whose lives did not require that their lieutenants hide their sins. And there have been many so-called spiritual leaders whose ministries were proven to be false by the revelation of fraud, theft, manipulation, nepotism, greed, lies, self promotion, etc. (I left out sex so as not to set Awarness off). I want to ask WHAT ELSE ARE THEY HIDING? If the gross sins of other leaders have testified of their false teachings, then why can't the saints see that the sins of their leaders might also be a testimony of false teachings? I guess the answer is that if you're deceived to think that your leader is the MOTA, oracle of God, or God's last New Testament Apostle, then you can be intimidated to keep quiet and ignore the screaming testimony of the leader's sin.

I'm throwing out the deception that the sins of a leader have no relevance to the validity of his ministry.

You have covered a lot here, but with the current leadership, I would say:

A. They have a stewardship to Living Stream Ministry to be faithful stewards in order to run a efficient publishing business. Unfortunately, transparency is not one of their qualities.
B. Having had a role in two turmoils, leaders at LSM have their own reputations to preserve even if it means being disingenuous to the local churches.

[HERn]

Can anyone direct me to the reference of the WL quote in my signature?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

Can anyone direct me to the reference of the WL quote in my signature?

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...read.php?t=411
Under the heading :

CONFERENCE AND ELDERS’ MEETING IN PASADENA
November 1988

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Freedom

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...read.php?t=411
Under the heading :

CONFERENCE AND ELDERS’ MEETING IN PASADENA
November 1988

Thanks very much.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Can anyone direct me to the reference of the WL quote in my signature?

Sections are missing in that opening post.

Anyone have a complete copy of Ingalls' STTIL?

[UntoHim]

I haven't reviewed this version in years. What's missing? Let me know so I can scan in the missing parts and insert them. Maybe somebody has a scanned copy that has been reviewed for accuracy. If so, please let me know and I'll replace the one that's here.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Can anyone direct me to the reference of the WL quote in my signature?

Here is the entire section with that quote:

CONFERENCE AND ELDERS’ MEETING IN PASADENA November 1988

On the Thanksgiving Day weekend of November 1988 Brother Lee, just returned from Taiwan, held a conference of five meetings in the auditorium of the Pasadena City College in California. The conference was followed by an elders’ meeting November 27th in the meeting place of the church in San Gabriel. In that meeting Brother Lee proclaimed that though he had a hall in Anaheim, he was not happy to use it (no doubt because of certain people who were in Anaheim). The brothers in the Los Angeles area invited him to have a conference and arranged the place in Pasadena. He said that when he heard that it would be in Pasadena he was happy. These people, he said, "exalt" me: I am happy to be exalted.

Before the conference began a report came to us that a flyer had been printed and would be placed on the windshields of all the cars of those attending the conference in Pasadena. On the flyer, we were told, some sinful disorders were mentioned. We fully disapproved of such action. Not knowing who authorized or printed them or who intended to distribute them, but knowing a couple of brothers who we thought might be aware of it, we called them and urged them to do whatever they could to stop the distribution. It seems that our word was heeded, at least to some extent, for no flyers were distributed at the conference. We discovered later, however, that they were put on some cars in the Anaheim meeting hall parking lot. Such acts we believe to be of the flesh and not the way to protest wrongdoing. Some time later, after the conference, we obtained a copy of the flyer. It was entitled Significant Dates in the History of the Church in Anaheim.

In the first meeting of the conference, November 25th, Brother Lee was in a fighting spirit, fighting against "autonomy" and "federation." He referred to some books authored by George Henry Lang, a servant of the Lord in England during the latter part of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. In one of his books, entitled “The Churches of God,” G.H.Lang emphasized the need for local administration in the churches. This was the book that troubled Brother Lee. (I had read this book, and being deeply impressed with its strong scriptural basis and timely application to our present need, I had recommended it to others.) Brother Lee called Lang’s book heretical and told the saints if they had them to burn them. I consider this kind of talk reckless and lawless. Brother Lee in years past had commended Lang for his insight and writing on the truth of the kingdom. His books have been recently reprinted and are available today.

In the conference meetings he strongly vindicated himself and his work. He gave a message in which he recounted a number of revelations brought forth by him which he said no one else besides the Bible authors had ever seen. Regarding the enjoying of Christ he said, "I invented this term, enjoying Christ." He continued, "I invented this term, experiencing Christ, exhibiting Christ." I believe a number of saints could testify that they heard of enjoying Christ or enjoying the Lord long before Brother Lee ever came to the United States. I for one did. My step-mother, seeking to help me, spoke to me of this in 1949. No doubt she heard this from other Christian teachers. The term, experiencing Christ, has also been spoken by other Christian teachers for years. Brother Lee did not invent that term. He mentioned many other items, claiming that they had all been revealed to him in the past twenty or so years; no one else had ever seen or spoken of them.

He referred to the title he has used for the Holy Spirit – "the all-inclusive Spirit of Christ as the consummation of the processed Triune God" – and asked who made such a title. Webster? he asked. Then he answered his own question, "That Lee! Lee has to be famous! Lee! Lee! Lee must have the credit! And if you listen to me, you do not listen to Lee, you listen to the very God in His oracle spoken by me." A little later in his message he said, "Going with God’s oracle, surely there is the deputy authority of God in this oracle. Whoever speaks for God, he surely has certain divine authority. I’m claiming this for Lee!" Now I would ask, are these the words of a sober man, the words of a spiritual man, a man of God? To me it is shocking to hear him speak this way, for he has indeed been used of God in the past to speak His Word. But to vindicate oneself so blatantly and boastfully indicates to me a fall. May the Lord have mercy on us all.

Following his message he asked for testimonies to be given by brothers from five countries: Brazil, the Philippines, Korea, Taiwan, and the United States. All these told of the success of the new way in their place, especially giving statistics regarding the number of churches and new ones baptized. The Lord along knows the real situation. If there is any real blessing from Him we rejoice and give thanks. In the elders’ meeting following the conference Brother Lee read from a list of items, mentioning what he said were the top ten revelations received by him, seen previously by no one else. Some of them were as follows:

1. "The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
2. "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17).
3. Prayreading.
4. Calling on the name of the Lord.
5. The seven Spirits.
6. The dispensing of the processed Triune God into the tripartite man.
7. The New Jerusalem as a corporate man.
8. The lampstand as the embodiment of the Triune God.

Now we thank God for these revelations from His holy Word, but to claim that he was the first one to see these is going altogether too far. Moreover, concerning at least a number of these items, Brother Lee was in fact not the first to see them. Regarding the last Adam becoming a life-giving Spirit and our being one spirit with the Lord, there were a number of other Christian teachers who saw and wrote of these things. We have evidence of this. Concerning pray-reading, many have seen this and practiced this, as recorded in the book authored by Ray Graver and published by the LSM entitled, “Lord…Thou Saidst.” Calling on the name of the Lord was not a recent discovery by Brother Lee or by us. The New Jerusalem as a corporate person was also seen by others — T. Austin-Sparks for one. If we have time or if there is the need, we may document all these instances.

The revelations mentioned are indeed great and precious. Fairly speaking, some of these matters may have been fresh revelations to Brother Lee. The Lord alone knows. And some of them he may have enunciated more clearly than his predecessors. But for anyone to claim that no one had ever seen these things before, but him, is totally insupportable, since we are not omniscient. Moreover, such self-vindication is very unbecoming and repugnant. Brother Lee went on to say, "You cannot deny the fact that the Lord’s oracle has been with me. I claim this at the face of Jesus Christ. The deputy authority of God is in His oracle; so whoever speaks for God has His deputy authority. But I never used it."

In the elders’ meeting, Brother Lee referred to some anonymous papers being circulated and blamed the elders in Anaheim for not stopping the distribution. He then referred to the flyer which had been printed and was to be put on the windshields of the cars at the conference. I then rose from my seat and said that we wanted Brother Lee and all the brothers to know that we fully disapproved of that action and had done whatever we could to stop it. Brother Lee took the opportunity then, while I was on my feet, to question me publicly about a few things. He asked me about an anonymous writing entitled “Reconsidering Our Vision,” (which had troubled him greatly) and if we had done anything to stop its circulation. I said that we had not. Regarding some brothers, probably including me (or, especially me), Brother Lee said, “whether you are for me or not, I know; I know everything. I know what restaurant you were eating in, what day, and with whom. I have a lot of colleagues who write me long records of ten to twenty pages about you.” He said further, which church is under my hand? You have a church; I have none. I know which church welcomes me, and which has a cold heart toward me.

Near the end of his word he proclaimed, I don’t care for the loss of any church. Even if the entire U.S.A. is closed to me I don’t care. I only care for ten to twenty faithful ones meeting together to practice the truth. When he sat down and asked for fellowship, a brother from Anaheim, Paul Kerr, rose toward the end of the time and asked two questions. The first consisted of two queries: Why have other brothers besides you not been raised up? And, why do you have no contemporaries to challenge you and fellowship with you? Brother Lee’s answer was simply, "I don’t know." And then he said that since 1945 he has been watching to see if anyone else could speak God’s word as God’s oracle. He could find none. Paul Kerr’s next question concerned John So and John Ingalls. He asked, "How is it that in the past you referred to these two brothers as pillars and today’s Timothy, and today you have nothing good to say about them? Brother Lee’s reply was that brothers can change. Demas loved the Lord, but then he changed and loved the world. I can change, he said; we all can change. So we all need the Lord’s mercy.

Brother Lee was beside himself in this meeting. I had never personally observed him in such a state as I witnessed him there. He was obviously exceedingly agitated. That was the last elders’ meeting with Brother Lee that I ever attended.

[HERn]

Well, it's been a year now since I first posted here and I'm beginning to perceive that Satan has cleverly maneuvered (at least since the 1990's) LSM's teaching so as to glorify man and trivialize the cross by distracting attention away from Jesus Christ and His devil-destroying work towards the so-called "high peak" truths. Satan's strategy is effective because it is subtle and hidden. A common theme throughout the LSM-recovery is to mention the spirituality of "good" brothers. The praise of man begins with the honor of WN and WL for bringing great riches to the recovery and extends to leading brothers being fearful of what WN or WL will say to them at the judgement. Little brothers are often praised for being "absolute" or "poured out", but where is the praise for the Lord Jesus from whom all things flow? In 1 Corinthians Paul said "Christ didn't send me to wash people but to bring the good word, and not with cleverness of language, so as not to trivialize the cross of Christ". I believe the so-called high peak truths are just clever expressions of language being used by Satan to trivialize the cross of Christ by focusing attention away from the Savior towards the high peak teachings. The fact that the high peak proclamations contain an element of truth is a perfect covering in that it allows the saints to revel in the beauty of the proclamations rather than in adoration of the sacrificing Savior. This insidious stratagem is what causes leading brothers to evaluate the oneness and absoluteness that saints have towards the ministry of WL rather than towards our dear Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. We all must be careful that we are not drawn away from the simplicity that is in Christ to teachings that tickle the ears of self-centered man.

Would someone please ask Benson Phillips to reevaluate the truthfulness of his statement that anyone that leaves the LSM recovery has no way to go on with the Lord? I'm still alive, married and none of my children or grandchildren have died, (of course one day I'll die or something bad will happen then the naysayers can testify to God's judgement on those who criticize the MOTA) and I'm still loving the Lord and His word and enjoying fellowship with other Christians in a real local church that is not controlled by "fellowship" from an out-of-state headquarters; where the elders are not required to attend twice annual "alignment meetings" being indoctrinated with the writings of a man who claimed to be the oracle of God and even God's deputy authority on earth; where none of the college graduates are pressured to go to an exclusive two year denomination-controlled indoctrination program at the denominational headquarters where all the instructors are required to attend the same denominational church and read from the same denominational version of the bible; where the members are not retained by warnings of shipwreck and catastrophe if you leave; and where the foundation of the church and fellowship with other Christians is Christ and Him alone, not a contrived doctrine of locality or the twisted notion that the New Testament ministry solely resides with WL as promulgated by LSM.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Well, it's been a year now since I first posted here and I'm beginning to perceive that Satan has cleverly maneuvered (at least since the 1990's) LSM's teaching so as to glorify man and trivialize the cross by distracting attention away from Jesus Christ and His devil-destroying work towards the so-called "high peak" truths. Satan's strategy is effective because it is subtle and hidden. A common theme throughout the LSM-recovery is to mention the spirituality of "good" brothers. The praise of man begins with the honor of WN and WL for bringing great riches to the recovery and extends to leading brothers being fearful of what WN or WL will say to them at the judgement. Little brothers are often praised for being "absolute" or "poured out", but where is the praise for the Lord Jesus from whom all things flow? In 1 Corinthians Paul said "Christ didn't send me to wash people but to bring the good word, and not with cleverness of language, so as not to trivialize the cross of Christ". I believe the so-called high peak truths are just clever expressions of language being used by Satan to trivialize the cross of Christ by focusing attention away from the Savior towards the high peak teachings. The fact that the high peak proclamations contain an element of truth is a perfect covering in that it allows the saints to revel in the beauty of the proclamations rather than in adoration of the sacrificing Savior. This insidious stratagem is what causes leading brothers to evaluate the oneness and absoluteness that saints have towards the ministry of WL rather than towards our dear Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. We all must be careful that we are not drawn away from the simplicity that is in Christ to teachings that tickle the ears of self-centered man.

Great post!

Let's also provide the background for these "high-peak," ear-tickling stratagems of the enemy. Immediately prior to their "release," the ministry of Witness Lee was self-destructing due to internal corruptions by Lee's profligate son Philip, and external resistance from LC leaders around the globe. Lee needed a serious diversionary tactic. An old saying by Athanasius was dug up from the archives, dusted off, and promoted as the grand finale of Lee's ministry -- Are you on board, or not? Do you want to become God, or not?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

This insidious stratagem is what causes leading brothers to evaluate the oneness and absoluteness that saints have towards the ministry of WL rather than towards our dear Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. We all must be careful that we are not drawn away from the simplicity that is in Christ to teachings that tickle the ears of self-centered man.

One characteristic of many in the local churches that is unique you won't find in non-LSM/LC Christianity is making the ministry of WL the measuring stick or barometer in relationship to God's Word or other earthly ministries.

[Lisbon]

Originally Posted by HERn

Bob Marley

Sarc on-Sorry to sully these sanctified pages...but here goes!-Sarc off

Lyrics from one of Bob Marley's songs.

"Hallelujah"

Hear the children cryin',
but I know they cry not in vain.
Now the times are changin';
love has come to bloom again.

Smelling the air when spring comes by raindrops
reminds us of youthful days.
But now it's not rain that water the cane crops,
but the sweat from man's brow;
the substance from our spine.
We gotta keep on living, living on borrowed time:
Hallelujah time!

Yes, you can hear the children singing: Hallelujah time!
As they go singing by and by: Hallelujah time!
Oh, "hallelujah" singing in the morning.
Hallelujah time! Let them sing; don't let them cry.

Over rocks and mountains
the sheep are scattered all around.
Over hills and valleys,
they are everywhere to be found.
But though we bear our burdens now,
All afflictions got to end somehow:
From swinging the hammer, pulling the plough.

Why won't you let us be, to live in harmony?
We like to be free like birds in a tree.

Hallelujah time! Yes, you can hear the children singing.
Hallelujah time! Yes, as they go singing by and by.
Hallelujah time! Oh "hallelujah" singing in the morning.
Let them sing; never let them cry.
Hallelujah time! "Hallelujah" singin' in the morning.

sorry if you don't know the song, Jesus loves me this I know,
For the Bible tellsme so.

Years ago in the LRC we sang,
God is processed this I know
For the Bible tells me so
Incarnated as a man
Lived and died and raised a man

Yes God is processed
Now He's the Spirit
To constitute us
With the processed Triune God.

This was published by LSM, Hymns Jr, in 1983.

I can't help wondering what a new one today would think of this song. We had a lot of "good ones". A lot of songs like this we never hear today. You have to admit there has been a great change in the LRC today down on the street level, but not at the top level.

Lisbon

[HERn]

Had dinner and beers with an old high school / college buddy last week. We hung out and doped together until we both got saved and became Jesus freaks. Then we had Jesus parties (minus the drugs and alcohol) where a bunch of us young Jesus freaks would play guitars, beat on bongos, sing praises to Jesus until we got so sweaty we had to take our shirts off (just the guys not the gals). Hell, I beat those bongos so hard I broke my graduation ring! This went on for some time until finally a couple of deacons from the baptist church showed up to check us out. A lot of the baptist kids were hanging out with us because we were a cool alternative to organs, preachers and four-part choirs. Anyway, this brother I was having dinner with had contacted me about a year ago after 25 years of absence and was struggling in life, so I took the opportunity to share with him about the Lord's recovery and sent him an LSM hymnal and a book by WL on the topic of God can do good things with "losers" (not the exact title!). Last week at dinner I found out that over the last year he had been praying for me not to be deceived by WL and the Lord's recovery. After that first meeting a year ago he never spoke a negative word against anything, but just listened and talked whenever we got together. He knows what I've been through exiting the Lord's recovery, so at our dinner last week I told him that I had a meeting with my pastor about my concern for my friends "Jack" and "Jim" and he asked me if it was the pastor from my old local church (he didn't know that the LC does not have pastors). My response was an immediate and strong NO! HELL NO! It was then that I realized that I'm finally free from LC superstition and mind control. I think I'm making progress notwithstanding a few curse words here and there, a beer or two or three, and occasional conversations with "Jack" and "Jim"! I may not be an overcomer, but I'm happy in Jesus, enjoying a real local church that I'm now attending with brothers who are genuine, and my marriage is doing better. Thank you Lord Jesus!

[awareness]

Good for you bro. And continue on the path of freedom.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good for you bro. And continue on the path of freedom.

Thanks bro Awareness!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

Well, it's been a year now since I first posted here and I'm beginning to perceive that Satan has cleverly maneuvered (at least since the 1990's) LSM's teaching so as to glorify man and trivialize the cross by distracting attention away from Jesus Christ and His devil-destroying work towards the so-called "high peak" truths.

Yes, man does get glorified and the cross is trivialized. Anyone reading feel free to correct me, but my view is the matter of the cross has been skewed. In the local churches there's the culture of keeping everything positive. Whenever there's an issue or a conflict, take the cross. It becomes okay to verbally abuse a brother. If he's offended, just take the cross.
There's a saying I've heard, "don't make an issue of matters, person, or things."

[HERn]

Isaiah 42

8 “I am the Lord; that is my name!
I will not yield my glory to another
or my praise to idols.

Dear LC saints,

Please don't exalt in WL. Please don't make WL your idol.

https://youtu.be/SkvCWeqKVEQ

The above song is not "Babylonian", it's is the heart cry of young people.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by HERn

Isaiah 42

8 “I am the Lord; that is my name!
I will not yield my glory to another
or my praise to idols.

Dear LC saints,

Please don't exalt in WL. Please don't make WL your idol.

https://youtu.be/SkvCWeqKVEQ

The above song is not "Babylonian", it's is the heart cry of young people.

Isn't it that crying out to be close to God that made us susceptible to the LRM trap? Obviously there's a possibility that that crying out can lead us away from God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Isn't it that crying out to be close to God that made us susceptible to the LRM trap? Obviously there's a possibility that that crying out can lead us away from God.

I disagree. Jeremiah 29.13 says, "You will seek Me, and you will find Me, when you seek Me with all your heart."

What you say may come true when we are seeking something else, kind of like Israel when they sought after a king, and they were given Saul.

What Lee and his Blinded minions gave us was another "Saul."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I disagree. Jeremiah 29.13 says, "You will seek Me, and you will find Me, when you seek Me with all your heart."

What you say may come true when we are seeking something else, kind of like Israel when they sought after a king, and they were given Saul.

What Lee and his Blinded minions gave us was another "Saul."

Good point. So in essence, as it turns out, we cried out to God, "give is a king," and we got Lee. Did we deserve what we got? Is that really what GOD wanted?

[UntoHim]

We know what God wants. He has told us what he wants. It's called the B-I-B-L-E. The problem is that we are still fallen people in a fallen world. Our natural inclination is to go against what God wants. This is what false religion is all about. There has always been Witness Lees and Local Churches since the beginning, and there will be until the end.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

We know what God wants. He has told us what he wants. It's called the B-I-B-L-E.

But that doesn't clear up anything either. There's all kinds of Christian that hold to Sola scriptura that are in disagreement, harshly I might add, some of them. Even Lee would lay claim to sola scriptura.

I think what God wants is what Jesus spoke of in the gospel of John: Oneness with the Father, as Jesus was one with the Father.

And not oneness with people like Witness Lee.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

We know what God wants. He has told us what he wants. It's called the B-I-B-L-E.

Originally Posted by awareness

I think what God wants is what Jesus spoke of in the gospel of John: Oneness with the Father, as Jesus was one with the Father.

Harold, you're a funny man! The last time I checked the Gospel of John IS THE BIBLE.

Witness Lee could have laid claim to anything he wanted (and kind of did at times) but he was decidedly NOT "Sola scriptura". He considered his opinions as higher than the Bible, with the most notable examples being his dissing of the Psalms (calling them "natural", etc) and the dissing of James (claiming a writer of the God-breathed, divine revelation was "devoid of the divine revelation"!)

You confuse the interpretations of sinful, ignorant, fallen man with the actual Word of God itself. Sometimes the interpretations are in line with the Word and sometimes they are not. This is why God has given us his Holy Spirit, a brain, eyes and ears and even common sense, and this is why the many of the teachings of Witness Lee are so harmful - they ask us to put aside all of these in favor of the feelings and opinions of "the one apostle with the one ministry for the age".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good point. So in essence, as it turns out, we cried out to God, "give is a king," and we got Lee. Did we deserve what we got? Is that really what GOD wanted?

The ones i know never cried out for a king, rather it was ambitious lieutenants who thrust a "king" upon us. I am convinced that Titus Chu went along with the program in order to replace Lee as the latest MOTA, then cleaning house in Anaheim.

One thing is certain, that the very existance of a MOTA created ambitious men longing to be the next one, willing to eliminate the competition. Thus we can conclude that the MOTA is a root of evil.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The ones i know never cried out for a king, rather it was ambitious lieutenants who thrust a "king" upon us. I am convinced that Titus Chu went along with the program in order to replace Lee as the latest MOTA, then cleaning house in Anaheim.

One thing is certain, that the very existance of a MOTA created ambitious men longing to be the next one, willing to eliminate the competition. Thus we can conclude that the MOTA is a root of evil.

Which is probably why the Anaheim cult cut off Titus. They saved their salary and pension. RK is just an ear-tickling preacher, while TC actually founded several local churches.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by HERn

Which is probably why the Anaheim cult cut off Titus. They saved their salary and pension. RK is just an ear-tickling preacher, while TC actually founded several local churches.

My son went to TC 9 month training. At the time I thought it was satanic, now
I think TC was more normal than the butt kissers in Anaheim.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

...we can conclude that the MOTA is a root of evil.

The MOTA idea is a blend of oriental despotism, selective Bible reading, and specious logic. "Witness Lee is #4" after the Trinity - how is that taking the least place at the feast, as Jesus advised?

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

The MOTA idea is a blend of oriental despotism, selective Bible reading, and specious logic. "Witness Lee is #4" after the Trinity - how is that taking the least place at the feast, as Jesus advised?

Can anyone provide a citation or venue for this crazy quote "Witness Lee is #4"? I'm sure WL didn't say it, probably one of his butt kissers!

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

Can anyone provide a citation or venue for this crazy quote "Witness Lee is #4"? I'm sure WL didn't say it, probably one of his butt kissers!

During thr FTTT/New Way. One of a number of doozies. The Blended lackeys who now run the show.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Can anyone provide a citation or venue for this crazy quote "Witness Lee is #4"? I'm sure WL didn't say it, probably one of his butt kissers!

I think Don Rutledge records the event in his unfinished record of LC history.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

During thr FTTT/New Way. One of a number of doozies. The Blended lackeys who now run the show.

I doubt we'll ever find evidence of a claim that Lee was the fourth person of the trinity in LSM literature. But Lee did say that God became man so man could become God ... and therefore, man is the fourth person of the trinity.

Then likely some fanatical local church Witness Lee sycophant extrapolated that, and applied it to Lee specifically.

It would be interesting to know who cooked up that crazy notion.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

Can anyone provide a citation or venue for this crazy quote "Witness Lee is #4"? I'm sure WL didn't say it, probably one of his butt kissers!

An explanation of what happened is in Speaking the Truth in Love under Appendix A:
A statement made by Paul Hon to Don Rutledge in July 1986, in Don’s home in Dallas. (Witnesses present: Bill Lawson, Louis Chen, Tom McNaughton).
The following was spoken by Paul Hon in the context of how to be one with the ministry:

The Father is #1, the Son is #2, the Spirit is #3, and Witness Lee is #4; and then there are those with Witness Lee. Don Rutledge asked, Paul, who is #5. Paul replied that it is not yet clear who #5 is. Then Paul continued, You brothers don’t have access to Brother Lee; Andrew Yu and I do. We can walk into Brother Lee’s apartment any time and sit down to eat breakfast with him. The way to know what Brother Lee wants is to do is to be in contact with those who have access to him. They will tell you what he wants you to do. Don Rutledge asked, Isn’t this a hierarchy and the exercise of control? Paul replied, No! Then Don asked, How then does this differ from what we’ve been condemning. Paul answered, If the local brothers would practice in this way to carry out their burden, it would be a hierarchy and control. But if this is practiced to carry out the ministry’s burden, it is not hierarchy or control.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

I doubt we'll ever find evidence of a claim that Lee was the fourth person of the trinity in LSM literature.

Actually, when Lee heard this kind of speaking was going around he vehemently put a stop to it (from what I heard). So no, the LSM literature will never make such claims for Lee.

But he consistently and deliberately built a climate which fostered such statements. He built a system in which the route to the top was through loudly and repeatedly making outrageously positive statements about the person and work of Witness Lee. That was one's ticket to the top. Promote Lee and you got promoted. That's how the network got built.

So the idea of "taking the last seat at the banquet feast" was ignored. It wasn't consistent with Chinese cultural practice, and therefore it wasn't helpful to the cause, the network-building process.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

If the local brothers would practice in this way to carry out their burden, it would be a hierarchy and control. But if this is practiced to carry out the ministry’s burden, it is not hierarchy or control.

What's the difference? I don't see any whether it's one or two or a council. The result is still hierarchy and control. Case and point Bellevue, Washington and Vista, California.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

An explanation of what happened is in Speaking the Truth in Love under Appendix A:
A statement made by Paul Hon to Don Rutledge in July 1986, in Don’s home in Dallas. (Witnesses present: Bill Lawson, Louis Chen, Tom McNaughton).

People like Paul Hon, Andrew Yu, Ray Graver et al are now the ones running the show. They early on grasped where the bread was being buttered. It wasn't the ground of oneness, nor the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. It was the ministry of Witness Lee. And those who couldn't stand the growing stench got out. It is man-glorifying culture, pure and simple.

Of course the Asians aren't exclusive to pyramid-building schemes. But this one has the hallmarks of Asian culture, if you look closely. Statements that have nothing to do with the Bible reveal its cultural imperatives. "The age of the spiritual giants is over" is an example. The various Great Leap Forward-style pronouncements from the HQ. The total lack of accountability or reciprocity. The blatant disregard for the poor.... even the RCC at least pays lip service to helping those in need.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Actually, when Lee heard this kind of speaking was going around he vehemently put a stop to it (from what I heard). So no, the LSM literature will never make such claims for Lee.

But he consistently and deliberately built a climate which fostered such statements. He built a system in which the route to the top was through loudly and repeatedly making outrageously positive statements about the person and work of Witness Lee. That was one's ticket to the top. Promote Lee and you got promoted. That's how the network got built.

So the idea of "taking the last seat at the banquet feast" was ignored. It wasn't consistent with Chinese cultural practice, and therefore it wasn't helpful to the cause, the network-building process.

You made a good point. W. Lee didn't necessarily need to promote himself, because he had others to do it for him. If people complained enough (such as with what Paul Hon said), then Lee could give someone a slap on the wrist. It was convenient for Lee, because he could claim that he hadn't promoted himself and he could point a finger at others if LCers felt he was being uplifted.

Lee build a system that reward loyalty to him and his ministry. Those who are leaders today knew how to use that to their own advantage. They can claim that they are simply following the ministry, but the fact is, they like being leaders. Don Rutledge said the following about Benson: "Benson shared with me that when he was in high school he had received a special call from the Lord. One evening he went out to a golf course and lay on a green as he prayed. The Lord showed him that he would head a world-wide religious organization." I guess that worked out well for Benson. It is apparently what he wanted from the start. Loyalty to Lee and his ministry was the key.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Of course the Asians aren't exclusive to pyramid-building schemes. But this one has the hallmarks of Asian culture, if you look closely. Statements that have nothing to do with the Bible reveal its cultural imperatives. "The age of the spiritual giants is over" is an example. The various Great Leap Forward-style pronouncements from the HQ. The total lack of accountability or reciprocity. The blatant disregard for the poor.... even the RCC at least pays lip service to helping those in need.

Just saw a TV documentary about Mao. After he put in place one of his various Great Leap Forward-style pronouncements, millions were starving to death in China. His second in command and Mao's chosen successor -- Liu Shaoqi -- dared to blame the famine on failed public policy. Consequently Liu received the "Ingalls" treatment by Chairman Mao, paraded thru the streets as an enemy of state, and, of course, much worse. His only crime was expecting a little "accountability" from government when millions were starving.

It almost appeared like the cultural revolution was set up just to eliminate Liu.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

People like Paul Hon, Andrew Yu, Ray Graver et al are now the ones running the show. They early on grasped where the bread was being buttered. It wasn't the ground of oneness, nor the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. It was the ministry of Witness Lee. And those who couldn't stand the growing stench got out. It is man-glorifying culture, pure and simple.

Man-fearing instead of God-fearing. No matter how well intended elders may be, they are paralyzed by the man-fearing system LSM affiliated local churches are in.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

You made a good point. W. Lee didn't necessarily need to promote himself, because he had others to do it for him. If people complained enough (such as with what Paul Hon said), then Lee could give someone a slap on the wrist. It was convenient for Lee, because he could claim that he hadn't promoted himself and he could point a finger at others if LCers felt he was being uplifted.

Exactly.

Lee had it both ways. He is on record back in the early days saying he is nothing, only a servant, not an apostle, etc.

By the early 80's, that all had changed.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Terry

Man-fearing instead of God-fearing. No matter how well intended elders may be, they are paralyzed by the man-fearing system LSM affiliated local churches are in.

That is a true statement, and the only brothers that get tapped to be elders are the obsequious butt kissers. Those with an active conscience or those with kohonees get the boot or the knife. Only the relatives of the maximum brother could swagger and all they got was the booty until the status of the maximum brother was threatened and then they got the boot, but never the knife. The knife is saved for the elders that dare to follow their conscience.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It almost appeared like the cultural revolution was set up just to eliminate Liu.

Striking parallel, really; uncanny when you think about it*: all the turmoils, from the 'Young Galileans' forward, each ended with Lee more firmly in control. Turmoil and unrest was a way of eliminating potential rivals to power.

For example, when his son was discovered to be groping the help, Lee cast it as a "rebellion"**, which resulted in the removal of his former "closest co-worker" John Ingalls, whose name was then expunged from the records.

Maybe they do this in China instead of having periodic elections - they have periodic purges. Implement some grandiose "New Way", and then in the subsequent unrest, eliminate the competition***.

* But I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so it's probably just a remarkable coincidence.
** I.e. "Fermentation of the Present Rebellion", Witness Lee's account of the Philip Lee fiasco.
*** The unfortunate losses among the flock during the turmoil are collateral damage, or "storm damage" as I heard a LC member call it.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Striking parallel, really; uncanny when you think about it*: all the turmoils, from the 'Young Galileans' forward, each ended with Lee more firmly in control. Turmoil and unrest was a way of eliminating potential rivals to power.

For example, when his son was discovered to be groping the help, Lee cast it as a "rebellion"**, which resulted in the removal of his former "closest co-worker" John Ingalls, whose name was then expunged from the records.

Maybe they do this in China instead of having periodic elections - they have periodic purges. Implement some grandiose "New Way", and then in the subsequent unrest, eliminate the competition***.

* But I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so it's probably just a remarkable coincidence.
** I.e. "Fermentation of the Present Rebellion", Witness Lee's account of the Philip Lee fiasco.
*** The unfortunate losses among the flock during the turmoil are collateral damage, or "storm damage" as I heard a LC member call it.

For me, it just goes to show how much culture was really a part of things. In America, it seems like political figures love to talk about their differences and explain how they are different from their opponents. Dissension and debate are expectations. With Communist Party in China, all differences and dissension was met with purges. Lee definitely followed in their footsteps.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

For me, it just goes to show how much culture was really a part of things. In America, it seems like political figures love to talk about their differences and explain how they are different from their opponents. Dissension and debate are expectations. With Communist Party in China, all differences and dissension was met with purges. Lee definitely followed in their footsteps.

From the moment I learned that Lee assaulted the reputation of John Ingalls et. al. simply for trying to protect the sisters from Phillip Lee's "advances," I lost nearly all respect for Lee, his family, and his blinded supporters.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

From the moment I learned that Lee assaulted the reputation of John Ingalls et. al. simply for trying to protect the sisters from Phillip Lee's "advances," I lost nearly all respect for Lee, his family, and his blinded supporters.

What causes people to stay in the LC even after all that?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

What causes people to stay in the LC even after all that?

For those who know, the perks of leadership.

For those who don't know better, the "vision."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For those who know, the perks of leadership.

For those who don't know better, the "vision."

But we can now clearly see that the "vision" is just an illusion. So, I guess it holds true then. That, there's none so blind as those that refuse to see.

Like the brother now in the Church in Miami, that Kevin (another ex-LCer) and I spoke to on cell phones. We tried to share what we had learned on LC forums but he stopped us short and said, "I don't want to hear anything negative about Witness Lee! Even if it's true!"

But I know why he stays in. He's an alcoholic, and is a very broken, or messed up, brother. His mental disorders allows him to buy into the illusion of the vision. His out of whack brain is not necessary.

But there must also be other reasons that keep people in the LC, besides those staying for the perks of leadership. Maybe, for example, lack of education. Or maybe indoctrination from a Christian upbringing, that clouds their vision from seeing thru the illusionary "Vision." Or maybe lack of critical thinking. That would do it. In other words, they are mentally trapped, for some reason(s). And that's sad for them. Obviously they are in need of intervention, and deprogramming.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by awareness

But we can now clearly see that the "vision" is just an illusion. So, I guess it holds true then. That, there's none so blind as those that refuse to see.

Like the brother now in the Church in Miami, that Kevin (another ex-LCer) and I spoke to on cell phones. We tried to share what we had learned on LC forums but he stopped us short and said, "I don't want to hear anything negative about Witness Lee! Even if it's true!"

But I know why he stays in. He's an alcoholic, and is a very broken, or messed up, brother. His mental disorders allows him to buy into the illusion of the vision. His out of whack brain is not necessary.

But there must also be other reasons that keep people in the LC, besides those staying for the perks of leadership. Maybe, for example, lack of education. Or maybe indoctrination from a Christian upbringing, that clouds their vision from seeing thru the illusionary "Vision." Or maybe lack of critical thinking. That would do it. In other words, they are mentally trapped, for some reason(s). And that's sad for them. Obviously they are in need of intervention, and deprogramming.

For some in some localities, I think, there is some fellowship of the Spirit, some care for human needs, some friendships where the dear saints mostly ignore the BS from the blinding brothers and take care of one another.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by HERn

For some in some localities, I think, there is some fellowship of the Spirit, some care for human needs, some friendships where the dear saints mostly ignore the BS from the blinding brothers and take care of one another.

So to them it's a club. Nothing wrong with that. But don't give we, "we're better than fallen Christianity." Lots of churches have members taking care of each other.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by awareness

So to them it's a club. Nothing wrong with that. But don't give we, "we're better than fallen Christianity." Lots of churches have members taking care of each other.

Yes that attitude is sad. The Spirit is so large and so loving that he takes care of all the sheep.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

What causes people to stay in the LC even after all that?

From my experience, reports of Philip Lee's offenses is dismissed as rumors, lies, etc. That's because "the brothers said so".
Beyond that, I see people staying for several reasons:
1. Older brothers and sisters: vision regarding the ground of locality (aka doctrine of dirt).
2. Younger brothers and sisters: generally being ones raised in the local churches it's the only Christian environment they know so meeting in the local churches is tradition and a form. By comparison there's no difference from ones raised in a Southern Baptist Convention affiliated church. The thought of meeting anywhere else is not a consideration.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

But there must also be other reasons that keep people in the LC, besides those staying for the perks of leadership. Maybe, for example, lack of education. Or maybe indoctrination from a Christian upbringing, that clouds their vision from seeing thru the illusionary "Vision." Or maybe lack of critical thinking. That would do it. In other words, they are mentally trapped, for some reason(s). And that's sad for them. Obviously they are in need of intervention, and deprogramming.

There are a lot of reasons people stay, after all the LC is a system designed to keep people in. One example that comes to mind is when I was a college student and struggling financially, a LC member came to me and offered me significant financial assistance. At first, it sounded like an offer I should take that person up on. The more I thought about it, however, the more I realized that I needed to work things out on my own (which I did). I understood the implications, the feelings of "indebtedness" it would create, and I had no idea if there were any motives behind the offer.

I think situations like what I described are ways people can get trapped. It's not always so simple. It could be a brother giving another brother a job. It could be living in close vicinity to numerous other LC members. Anything that makes it hard to have an escape route once someone realizes they want out.

There are other reasons too. I've seen cases like your friend you described; recovering alcoholics, or people with significant personal problems. They tend to need community, and the LC can provide that. The LC also provides a soapbox (open meetings) where people can stand up and tell everyone about their problems. Maybe they see the LC as a better alternative to things like support groups and AA meetings. Unless there is something that meets the needs of these kinds of people better, they are going to stay. Like Rayliotta has said before, there is somewhat of a "revolving door". Some people are in for the LC for a while, then they disappear for a few months to a year, and as sure as the sun, they are back in eventually.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

What causes people to stay in the LC even after all that?

I think that the vision retained its hold over us because we didn't see it for what it really was - a viewpoint derived from and mediated by fallen human culture. Its very existence, and its retention in our minds and behaviors, was due to the fact that we didn't receive it critically, but accepted it as true and real in and of itself. However, as soon as one examines it critically, it unravels (i.e. reveals its source), and its power is gone.

Why did we accept the LC vision uncritically in the first place? From my experience and observation, because it was presented in a charismatic experience. Nobody told me about Daystar or Overseas Christian Stewards, but rather we were chanting, shouting, swaying, singing repetitiously and repeating words and phrases over and over and over to "get out of our minds" and "into our spirit". The sensory stimulus overload was emotionally affecting, and began to cloud my judgment (not that I had much to start with, he-he-he). You could have told me the sky was green and the moon was made of Gouda cheese and I'd have shouted it forth. It was real (I thought) and I wanted it to be my reality. So I swallowed the "church life" package whole, as we all did.

When this charismatic phenomena has settled in as the new normal, reinforced by all the perks of community life (housing, food, job, companions, sexual mate), it's hard to disentangle oneself, even when the obvious disparities between the Bible and our LC life become increasingly apparent.

But once you see it for what it is, that power or hold on your mind is broken. Teresa Zimmerman-Liu's work on the LC may be seen as a watershed, some years hence, because an objective assessment of the LC is needed, to really expose it for what it is. Ohio has his "GLA experience" and awareness had his "Mel Porter experience" and so forth. These forums have given us a place to vent our subjective experiences and reactions. But where's the bigger picture? Zimmerman-Liu's papers are arguably only scratching the surface.

Secondly, what will happen when the light of day finally dawns on this cloistered, controlling sect? Because it will, eventually. The light will shine into the darkness, and the darkness will not be able to overcome (i.e. withstand) it. The mantra of "I'm proud to be an ostrich with my head stuck in the sand" isn't really a recipe for long-term success, is it? Eventually, the light will shine into the dark places and all will be revealed. Then what?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Why did we accept the LC vision uncritically in the first place? From my experience and observation, because it was presented in a charismatic experience.

Definitely I agree with this, but ...

Within that charismatic experience was the real thing -- the Spirit of reality, the Lord Jesus Himself bring me to the Father. The abundant fruit in my life and others is just undeniable. I was a new person, and even those who didn't know my name came forward to tell me. And that was before I entered the LC.

This is not to say that all genuine faith requires incredible charismatic experience. Not at all. That is undeniable also. But I do pray that every child of God has such a dynamic salvation as mine, since it lays such a solid foundation for the endless trials that will surely come.

What is most criminal about the Recovery was the slow and steady indoctrination that our experiences of faith should be solely credited to Lee & Company, and not to our heavenly Father. Like I said criminal.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by awareness:
What causes people to stay in the LC even after all that?

I've come to realized that only way I would be able to leave the LC is by moving to a city where there isn't one.

For me it is because I grew up in the LC. All my friends, family, network, EVERYTHING I have is from there. To leave it just like that is to pull the rug from under my feet. I would have nothing to stand on. I would destroy solid relationships (not because they are not real friends, but it would create an awkwardness). The relationships would continue, but be quite difficult since LC members are advised not to hang out with negative people. Lastly, not to mention, it would be very difficult for my parents whose entire life depend on the LC network, especially at their old age. I think it is actually good for them. Many seniors are lonely, but my parents are not because they have a great network of friends and activities in the LC. Of course, they actually believe in all this stuff, which helps.

However, in heart, I have already left the LC's. I haven't really attended a meeting for a long time (I have a good excuse so no one really notices). I still hang out with the LC people though, but it is really all social for me at this point. And I do genuinely care for my friends in it. I do also enjoy being with them. We are going through the same phases in life, but our beliefs are very different now. I no longer believe in the "Vision of the Age" as preached by WL. Of course, no one knows this. Even though I no longer believe in my heart, I haven't official announced my stance, nor have I criticized WL's teachings and person apart from doing it anonymously on this forum.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

Lastly, not to mention, it would be very difficult for my parents whose entire life depend on the LC network, especially at their old age. I think it is actually good for them. Many seniors are lonely, but my parents are not because they have a great network of friends and activities in the LC. Of course, they actually believe in all this stuff, which helps.

Thanks for saying this Truth.

I have commented several times that many stay in the LC for friendships. Friendships and relationships grow increasingly important as one ages. This is especially true of older people. And I do appreciate your attitude not recklessly leaving the program with a trail of wounded family members. Also, many older saints have learned to filter out some of the LSM nonsense, while maintaining their walk with the Lord and love for His word. Look at the 7 churches in Revelation. The Lord had His lovers in every one of them, even where Jezebel was.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thanks for saying this Truth.

I have commented several times that many stay in the LC for friendships. Friendships and relationships grow increasingly important as one ages. This is especially true of older people. And I do appreciate your attitude not recklessly leaving the program with a trail of wounded family members. Also, many older saints have learned to filter out some of the LSM nonsense, while maintaining their walk with the Lord and love for His word. Look at the 7 churches in Revelation. The Lord had His lovers in every one of them, even where Jezebel was.

You are so right about older saints filtering out the nonsense. This doesn't apply to just older saints, but many of the younger ones as well. I have a hard time believing that every saint actually agrees with every comment that WL and LSM leaders ever made. Most don't want to cause trouble, however, so they just ignore what is said and move on.

Actually I witnessed this often in the FTTA as well. The ones who could not filter had a hard time in the training and eventually left.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Truth

I've come to realized that only way I would be able to leave the LC is by moving to a city where there isn't one.

For me it is because I grew up in the LC. All my friends, family, network, EVERYTHING I have is from there. To leave it just like that is to pull the rug from under my feet. I would have nothing to stand on. I would destroy solid relationships (not because they are not real friends, but it would create an awkwardness). The relationships would continue, but be quite difficult since LC members are advised not to hang out with negative people. Lastly, not to mention, it would be very difficult for my parents whose entire life depend on the LC network, especially at their old age. I think it is actually good for them. Many seniors are lonely, but my parents are not because they have a great network of friends and activities in the LC. Of course, they actually believe in all this stuff, which helps.

However, in heart, I have already left the LC's. I haven't really attended a meeting for a long time (I have a good excuse so no one really notices). I still hang out with the LC people though, but it is really all social for me at this point. And I do genuinely care for my friends in it. I do also enjoy being with them. We are going through the same phases in life, but our beliefs are very different now. I no longer believe in the "Vision of the Age" as preached by WL. Of course, no one knows this. Even though I no longer believe in my heart, I haven't official announced my stance, nor have I criticized WL's teachings and person apart from doing it anonymously on this forum.

Tough place to be. Worse than I had it. I at least had 18 years of life before the LC. But joining up was with family — father, mother, sister, and brother. Now all their families. But my wife and I left after only 14 years (for me) and that was almost exactly 28 years ago. At this point the only other one to leave has been my dad (left just a little over 2 years ago — after 40 years.

We lived in Irving within one mile of the meeting hall/printing/conference center there. Yet somehow we hardly ever saw anyone after leaving. It is like they dissappeared. Not suggesting you could have the same experience.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Definitely I agree with this, but ...

Within that charismatic experience was the real thing -- the Spirit of reality, the Lord Jesus Himself bring me to the Father. The abundant fruit in my life and others is just undeniable.

Absolutely. The charismatic experience has also been essential to my Christian life. I don't regret a minute of the LC experience, if that's what it took. But I have to admit that an awful bug came into my mind, and it took years to shake it out.

"Cry out and shout, O inhabitant of Zion" indeed. But also, "prove all things". We did the first in the LC but completely neglected the second. Instead of "prove all things" it was "Brother Lee says". And this is not exclusive to the LC experience. But I keep bringing it up because they pretend that charismatic mind-control is not part of the agenda, when it surely is. So what if they don't speak in tongues or practice laying on of hands? They're an extremely charismatic group, and these practices, combined with an attitude of unquestioning obedience (don't want to be 'negative', we were always reminded) allowed some really ruinous ideas to set up shop in LC brain pans.

It was conditioning, pure and simple. But we didn't realize it, so even if we left physically, we never bothered to de-condition ourselves mentally. So many who left the LC had no clue as to how to continue a christian life and living.

A word on the dangers of charismatic mind-control (I speak as a former and current charismatic [noisy Christian]). I once read a transcript from the podium of one of the Todd Bentley Lakeland Florida Revival meetings. The syntax was fractured, there was no coherent message, it was a pastiche of "Oh my God" and "I feel Jesus in my shoe" and a few Old Testament phrases. Where's the edification? As a Christian, it was embarrassing. We in the LC weren't much better: we'd chant-shout whatever our handlers fed us - "Let's all declare Banner Two up on that wall, over there!"

No opportunity for reflection, for correction, for adjustment, for uncertainty, for wonder. It was all volume, arm-waving, red-faced intensity; a dangerous mixture of zeal and ignorance.

Am I over-reacting? Of course. I always do. But there's a warning there, not to think that excitement equals divine transmission. In many cases excitement can distract us, and I highlight the danger that it weakens our God-given defenses of reason, to get us to uncritically accept things that are not of God. Scripture is ignored, or explained away. Eventually the disconnect between the plain words on paper in front of us and what we are saying becomes quite disconcerting. But we are too busy shouting, pray-reading, declaring, jumping up and down, and arm-waving to notice.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Truth

You are so right about older saints filtering out the nonsense. This doesn't apply to just older saints, but many of the younger ones as well. I have a hard time believing that every saint actually agrees with every comment that WL and LSM leaders ever made. Most don't want to cause trouble, however, so they just ignore what is said and move on.

Actually I witnessed this often in the FTTA as well. The ones who could not filter had a hard time in the training and eventually left.

I think most have learned to filter out the nonsense to a certain extent, but at the same time, they aren't willing to ask the very questions that leaders need to be pressed to answer.

I've seen people come into the LC and initially have a change for the better. It seems there is the tendency to let that experience be defining for the rest of their time in the LC. So if somewhere along the line someone starts having negative experiences in the LC, it's easy to just refer back to their initial positive experience and attempt to ignore the negative, thinking that the LC was instrumental in producing a positive experience. It makes it hard for people to leave.

Most people can only ignore concerns for so long. It would seem to me that LCers who have lasted a long time are either there for the social aspect, or maybe have managed to avoid most of the politics.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

... it just goes to show how much culture was really a part of things. In America, it seems like political figures love to talk about their differences and explain how they are different from their opponents. Dissension and debate are expectations. With Communist Party in China, all differences and dissension was met with purges. Lee definitely followed in their footsteps.

In the Blended Brothers' dissociation from Titus Chu, they note the existence of a "rivalry" and "independent work" ("Warning to All the Saints and All the Churches,” p. 2). Of course this is not tolerated in the LC movement, under the Blendeds. But why the surprise? It wasn't tolerated under WN or WL either. It was all about lining up, and handing over, and being blended one with another in a faceless proletariat under Maximum Brother. This is the way of social harmony, and this will build up the Whole. Whether you call it the People or the Party or the Body of Christ, the methods and the result is the same. Keep your head down and your mouth shut. Glorify the State (Body of Christ) and the Maximum Brother(s).

But why is it that the Maximum Leader is the Deputy God on earth, while every other work is a "rivalry"? Why did WL get to "raise up" hundreds of local churches in the LC while any meeting not under his ministry was "drawing others after oneself"? Why did WL get a special pass, extended to none other? I believe that it was consistent with a cultural view of building up a social network, which required a clear center and no discussion of the path to that center. So if Maximum Brother comes up with a ruinous plan like Daystar or Door Knocking, we all shout what glorious wisdom from on high, that God has spoken to us from his present Oracle. Any ones who question, or wonder, or point out deficiencies, are removed from the network. To me, this is very Asian, not Western, and thus the 'cult' label sticks. An organization that brooks no conversation, no question, no individuality, looks like a cult to Western eyes. This is a rigidly Asian religious group. Initially the recruit may think, "Wow, these people are hard-core religious", but really they are a religious group that formed itself and runs itself through a very rigid and unyielding Asian cultural filter. This is the Local Church Way. Take it or leave it.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

So if Maximum Brother comes up with a ruinous plan like Daystar or Door Knocking, we all shout what glorious wisdom from on high, that God has spoken to us from his present Oracle. Any ones who question, or wonder, or point out deficiencies, are removed from the network. To me, this is very Asian, not Western, and thus the 'cult' label sticks. An organization that brooks no conversation, no question, no individuality, looks like a cult to Western eyes. This is a rigidly Asian religious group. Initially the recruit may think, "Wow, these people are hard-core religious", but really they are a religious group that formed itself and runs itself through a very rigid and unyielding Asian cultural filter. This is the Local Church Way. Take it or leave it.

Those in the leadership that take the approach "image is everything" at all costs (i.e. the ends justifies the means) in respect to Maximum brothers and LSM, yes I would agree. Yet generally I would prefer sect or denomination as a more appropriate description as the whole.

[HERn]

It's been over a year since I've left the lords recovery and I can testify that I'm happy, enjoying the Lord and learning to be one with normal Christians. My family life is much better, my daughter is doing great in our local community church. If any of you have a feeling that the LSM LC is off or not healthy, please know that there is life, truth, and love in the body of Christ not associated with the LSM sect.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by HERn

It's been over a year since I've left the lords recovery and I can testify that I'm happy, enjoying the Lord and learning to be one with normal Christians. My family life is much better, my daughter is doing great in our local community church. If any of you have a feeling that the LSM LC is off or not healthy, please know that there is life, truth, and love in the body of Christ not associated with the LSM sect.

Dear LC Lurkers,

If the elders in your locality look to the writings of WL before they look to the Bible, then your locality may be under the influence of evil spirits.

If the elders in your locality consider WL to be their spiritual father, then your locality may be under the influence of evil spirits.

If the elders in your locality teach that only LSM associated local churches are the genuine church of Jesus Christ, then your locality may be under the influence of evil spirits.

If the elders in your locality care for the human needs of only those absolute for the ministry of WL, then your locality may be under the influence of evil spirits.

If the elders in your locality teach that all other Christian groups are prostitutes, then your locality may be under the influence of evil spirits.

If the elders in your locality teach that only LSM approved music is acceptable to God, then your locality may be under the influence of evil spirits.

If the elders in your locality warn the saints to ignore their consciences, then your locality may be under the influence of evil spirits.

If the elders in your locality try to hide the sins of elders and LSM officials, then your locality may be under the influence of evil spirits.

If you sense that your locality may be under the influence of evil spirits, then pray that the Father would open your eyes to what you need to see, and close your eyes to things you don't need to see.

[HERn]

I need to add the following:

If any of the elders in your locality or blended brothers at LSM claim to have drunk from WL's spirit or from the spirit of any man except Christ, then run like hell because they are certifiably crazy (in my opinion).

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

I need to add the following:

If any of the elders in your locality or blended brothers at LSM claim to have drunk from WL's spirit or from the spirit of any man except Christ, then run like hell because they are certifiably crazy (in my opinion).

Whenever the blendeds started foaming at the mouth that Lee was the 4th person of the Trinity, he'd knock them down. "Don't say that! I'm just a Bible expositor". But he'd let them go up to that point of absurdity. He just wouldn't let them cross the line.

And then, he surrounded himself with such yes-men. Where in the LC history do you see a situation in which there was "much discussion" a la the conference in Acts 15 (see esp v 7)? The Apostles of Lee existed, and continue to exist, for one reason: to repeat verbatim what came out of the mouth of the Master. No discussion is warranted.

So Lee deliberately created an environment in which such ridiculous statements as "I have drunk from the spirit of Witness Lee" would come forth. The really bad ones, the clunkers, got shuttled back into darkness, but the ones that they felt could survive in the light became banners on the wall. "God's humble bondslave" and "the ministry of the age" etc.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

If you sense that your locality may be under the influence of evil spirits, then pray that the Father would open your eyes to what you need to see, and close your eyes to things you don't need to see.

Forgive me if I drag this thought astray. But there are arguably evil forces working throughout the world. Who is pure? God. The Baptists, the RCC, the EO all have non-divine, i.e. 'fallen' influences at work. So the LC faithful look at the world, and decide to prefer the devil they know, than the devil they don't.

In the LC I remember the schema of Israel = the Church; Babylon = Religion, and Egypt = the World. In the LC we were attuned to accept the darkness in the [LC] church life while rejecting the darkness everywhere else. WL called it the "messy kitchen" - we were supposed to overlook ours, and have patience with its imperfection, while constantly highlighting that of others'.

I believe that this has its source in cultural influences. You must begin to appreciate the amount of resentment in China during the first decades of the 20th Century. This was a civilization with centuries if not millennia of development. And along come these people, the "barbarians", who take over essentially because they have more guns. Technology. Remember that this was 19th century foreign policy. The whole continent of Africa, for instance, was divvied up by the people with the most guns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Conference

And Asia was no different. So even though the simplicity of the gospel had its attraction - believe into Jesus Christ and be saved - its association with the hated, feared, and resented Westerners was very problematic. Watchman Nee thought that he'd cut the proverbial Gordian Knot with his indigenous localism. Tens of thousands agreed, and streamed in during the 1920s and 1930s. Whole churches abandoned Western affiliation and came onboard with the "normal church model" proposed by Nee.

Now the problem is, as I see it, that a model built upon intrinsic criticism and rejection of the previous version is itself going to be blind to its own faults. Because its existence owes itself to the rejection of "other" (non-self), then it cannot take input from that which it rejected. Even though Nee supposedly read all the Christian classics, and drew from them, once he got the "localism" revelation/virus he was perforce cut off from fellowship (read: guidance, critique, adjustment) of those "non-local others" who'd also drank from the same Christian well. Thus, any errors or darkness which he'd missed lacked the way to be pruned over time, and grew and grew until the whole thing became a great tree, lodging many dark birds. And the entire Nee tree continually owes its existence to the idea that it's without birds... so the branches groan, and bird droppings magically appear everywhere, but there are no birds here!

[HERn]

At our one-another meeting Thursday night a brother who is Eastern Orthodox prayed a heartfelt prayer for the persecuted and being-martyred Christians in the Middle East, it was then that I realized that these saints are the real overcomers, not the ministry loving WL honoring blended brothers. The lord said the first will be last and the last will be first. What does this say about the LSM LS group who claims they are the only ones one for gods move on the earth.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

At our one-another meeting Thursday night a brother who is Eastern Orthodox prayed a heartfelt prayer for the persecuted and being-martyred Christians in the Middle East, it was then that I realized that these saints are the real overcomers, not the ministry loving WL honoring blended brothers. The lord said the first will be last and the last will be first. What does this say about the LSM LS group who claims they are the only ones one for gods move on the earth.

Growing up in the LC, I always felt so happy to be part of the group that had supposedly "recovered" long lost truths and unlocked the Bible. Unfortunately, the only thing that mindset led to was pride. There are plenty of other Christian groups out there, not claiming to be anything special, not claiming to be better than anyone else. It's really sad when you see the LC pride compared with the humility of others.

Some time back, there was a community church that sent out flyers about an event they were holding for the community. A brother brought this flyer to a meeting and used it to attack what they were doing, saying how in the LC we don't have such "gimmicks". It made me feel sick inside to hear him speak that way. Here was a community church opening their arm to the community to have such an event. In contrast, the LC is so exclusive that they hardly have any contact wit the community. They think they're too good for that. Sad, sad, sad!

I remember being in a meeting where a brother stood up to say how we don't speak the "low gospel" like Billy Graham, Greg Laurie or Rick Warren. When I think about how often I've seen empty seats in LC meeting halls, it disgusts me to think they would criticize others like that. They criticize the so-called low gospel, yet their "gospel" isn't relevant to most people. What hypocrites LCers are!

[HERn]

Originally Posted by HERn

At our one-another meeting Thursday night a brother who is Eastern Orthodox prayed a heartfelt prayer for the persecuted and being-martyred Christians in the Middle East, it was then that I realized that these saints are the real overcomers, not the ministry loving WL honoring blended brothers. The lord said the first will be last and the last will be first. What does this say about the LSM LS group who claims they are the only ones one for gods move on the earth.

Correction: He's not a member of the EO church, but receives the teachings from the Apostolic and Eastern Church Fathers.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

Correction: He's not a member of the EO church, but receives the teachings from the Apostolic and Eastern Church Fathers.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to tour a Greek Orthodox Church. It was an interesting experience. Above anything else, I came to realize that despite all the icons they venerate, they are just as devout as any group, and even have a rich history that they are quite excited to share about. Is the LC excited to share about their history, or do they seek to hide it from view? When I was member immersed in the system, I would have been quick to criticize such groups. Now, I am happy to appreciate those who are different. There is no need to criticize, for I am no better. There is much value in having a mutual respect for other Christians.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I came to realize that despite all the icons they venerate, they are just as devout as any group, and even have a rich history that they are quite excited to share about.

Freedom, thank you for your kind words! As an Eastern Orthodox, I must admit that it's true that we venerate icons but there is a difference between veneration/reverence and worship. We pray in the presence of icons but we do not pray to the images. Icons are just images of the Lord and His faithful saints who pray for us and with us in His Church. Besides, icons remind us of heavenly realms and work as a trigger for prayer that helps to focus our attention.

Lately, I have found this article about Dura Europos Synagogue ~ 244 A.D: ‘Ancient Jewish synagogues were filled with icons. While Scripture required the inside of the Jerusalem Temple to display icons of angels, the icons in Jewish synagogues depicted numerous scenes from Scripture. Dura Europos Synagogue is one of the oldest synagogues in the world and it has extensive figurative wall-paintings. The Early Church emerged from Israel, and we inherited the Israelite’s ancient love for icons. Like the early Jewish synagogues, the catacombs and the most ancient Christian Churches were filled with holy icons’. The images look foreign for modern Americans but the Church was not founded in the US but in Palestine, 33AD.

Originally Posted by Freedom

When I was member immersed in the system, I would have been quick to criticize such groups. Now, I am happy to appreciate those who are different. There is no need to criticize, for I am no better. There is much value in having a mutual respect for other Christians.

The LC's exclusivism and constant criticism of Christianity made me leave the LRC. It was not even constructive criticism. They were rather statements and mere assertion. In the LC's conferences and meetings, they used to tell us how good it is to be in the Local Church and how blind those who are in denominations. "Denomination" itself was like a curse word. And the worst case was Roman Catholics. I used to hear such conversations in the LRC: "Is she Christian?" "No, she is Roman Catholic". I find it very sectarian to make such a division between “Us” and “Them”.

Originally Posted by HERn

Correction: He's not a member of the EO church, but receives the teachings from the Apostolic and Eastern Church Fathers.

I know it's a different topic but what I like about Orthodoxy is that since “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever”, the Church has no need to conform to the newest fads, philosophies, and doctrines. In Orthodoxy, the criterion of truth is not my bishop's, or my pastor's, or my personal understanding of the Bible, but the consensus of the Church Fathers. The Church Fathers don't have to all agree on every detail. Orthodox doctrine is determined by the consensus of the Holy Fathers - those points on which they do agree. As St. Vincent of Lerins says in his Commonitoria (434 AD), “ we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.”

My wife is still very active in the LRC. But I'm glad she has enough wisdom, tolerance and love to stay with her husband who "has gone astray". As for me, I left WL and his teaching behind more than a year ago. And thank God, I still keep my wife.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

We pray in the presence of icons but we do not pray to the images. Icons are just images of the Lord and His faithful saints who pray for us and with us in His Church. Besides, icons remind us of heavenly realms and work as a trigger for prayer that helps to focus our attention.

I grew up in Puritanism, today called Fundamentalist Protestant Evangelicalism, in which icons and outward religious trappings were avoided like the plague. I'd get a nervous rash in the presence of liturgical things like icons, incense, vestments; my strong conditioning would make me uncomfortable. (Some might say that this reaction speaks to separation from the Father of Lights, but I'll leave that alone, because it's not my point). But in spite of strict training to avoid liturgical devices and flourishes, like those found in Anglican, RCC, and EO, over years as a "seeking one" I came to believe that the repository of faith, wisdom, experience in the EO is unparalleled. See ICA's comments, below.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I know it's a different topic but what I like about Orthodoxy is that since “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever”, the Church has no need to conform to the newest fads, philosophies, and doctrines. In Orthodoxy, the criterion of truth is not my bishop's, or my pastor's, or my personal understanding of the Bible, but the consensus of the Church Fathers. The Church Fathers don't have to all agree on every detail. Orthodox doctrine is determined by the consensus of the Holy Fathers - those points on which they do agree. As St. Vincent of Lerins says in his Commonitoria (434 AD), “ we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.”

It isn't a different topic, because this thread is on what to throw out, in a post-LC Christian life. In the various ruptures, most notably the Great Schism of 1054 and the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, a connection to the past fell away; in fact, so much was lost that we didn't know what had been lost! Subsequently, a minister like WN or WL could rise up, elevate themselves, and unfettered by external restraints could impose their logical trains of thought upon the flock. And because WN & WL weren't purely logical, but like us were sometimes driven by hidden passions, and because the consensus of the past no longer was there, when they inevitably went into a ditch, the whole group followed them.

This type of unbalanced reliance upon a single "seer of the divine revelation", and one so recently arrived at the present truth, and thus so divorced from the wisdom of the Ancient Fathers, is a recipe for ruin. WN was a brother, and maybe a better Christian than I, but to tie the Church to one man's inspiration and/or logic alone isn't going to work. Likewise, WL and the Blendeds claimed to be "closely following the apostles" but how could they, being separated from the past and oblivious to the vast gulf?

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

The LC's exclusivism and constant criticism of Christianity made me leave the LRC. It was not even constructive criticism. ... I find it very sectarian to make such a division between “Us” and “Them”.

One of WL's last public spoken messages (Feb '97) included a repentance for errors in the matter of receiving others. Yet in WN's first "Lord's table" meeting in mainland China, gathered apart from external oversight and celebrating the Lord's death and resurrection in simple faith, they claimed the presence of the Lord, and I don't doubt it. But what happened between that celebration and WL's repentance 75 years later? I've tried to address this question, not to solve the puzzle so much as to satisfy my curiosity: how could something so simple eventually go so wrong?

My best answer is that in being divorced from the safeguard of ancient witness, they were left the bare text of translated scripture and their thoughts and imaginations, and thus were blind to their own introduction of human culture in its interpretation. WN supposedly had read all the early commentaries available, but again, this was largely within the Reformation/Protestant canon, at least twice removed from the early saints and their collected wisdom. But we shouldn't hold it against him and his Little Flock efforts, because they did what they could. Would I have done better? I doubt it.

But I do reject the idea of having somehow arrived at the 'Conclusion of the New Testament' (see, e.g. http://www.christianbook.com/the-con...5720/pd/335720 ) when the initial Christian discussion(s) were effectively ignored as if non-existent, or passe. Today we've hardly begun to explore the New Testament! I mean, why is the church's testimony so weak, and circumscribed? Because we're ignorant. Why do our individual lives lack the power of testimony? Because we're ignorant. Nothing wrong with being ignorant - the problem is being ignorant while thinking that you've attained wisdom. Then, "your blindness remains".

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by aron

My thought is that in the various schisms, notably the Great Schism of 1054 and the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, a lot was lost; in fact, so much was lost, that we didn't know what was lost! So a minister like WN or WL could impose their logical trains of thought upon the entire populace, unfettered by any restraint.

Aron, thank you for your thoughtful comment. I can’t stand up to your intelligence, so I can only speak from simplicity of my mind. I agree with you that lots of things were lost. Unfortunately, the loss can be only noticed by people like you who have a good understanding of what the Church was before.

Look at the modern Christianity. Since the Great Schism and the Reformation, it’s falling apart, breaking into thousands and thousands of churches. Some of them allow gay priesthood and same sex marriages. Some of them reject the Trinity. Some don’t believe in the Resurrection. Some doubt that Christ is the Son of God. They all share the same Bible but have thousands of interpretations.

The early Christians didn’t have the Bible but they managed to keep the union by one faith, one practice, one mind, the same Sacraments, and the uninterrupted transmission of spiritual authority. There were small groups of people who had their own views but they were called heretics. Heretics did not belong to the Church. They opposed her.

The Church was created by our Lord as a vessel of salvation. Jesus Christ as the Captain gave His crew the right directions, promising that His ship would never sink. A thousand years later, a respected member of the crew decided to lead the ship by himself. He usurped the position of His Captain and called himself His vicar. But most of the crew stayed faithful to their Captain and rejected the usurper. The latter separated himself from the first ship and became the captain of his own boat. With time, his boat became even bigger and stronger than the first ship. However, the vicar of the Captain abused his power to such an extent that many passengers and members of his crew became displeased with his course. There was a big riot. During the riot, the protestants left the second boat and started to build their own boats. 5 centuries later, the boats and their captains still grew and multiplied. Almost nobody remembered the first ship. Some captains even said that she had never existed. For them, the Church was no longer the ship of salvation, but a collection of row boats.

So, they all had different captains, different crews, different faith, different practices, different minds, and different understanding of Sacraments. The numerous boats almost had no connection to the first ship. The only link was the Manual and a few doctrines (like the Trinity). All captains used the Manual of the first ship, rejecting her history, experience, practices, and knowledge. The captains believed that the first ship was a wreck and her crew went rogue. However, the same captains trusted the Manual which the “rogues” of the first ship had produced, protected, and actively preserved.

Accepting the Manual, the captains didn’t bother about its original interpretation. They thought they were smart enough to figure out the course. Few of them knew that the ship was first, and the Manual was second. They even forgot that the vessel of salvation is the Captain’s ship, not the Book, much less their boats. The Manual can give an idea about the course, show the direction and tell a lot about the Captain, but the Book can’t replace the Captain and His ship. Besides, the Manual doesn’t explain itself. Therefore, it is not enough to have the Manual to reach the shore. But who cares when you have your own boat?

So, one day WN and WL became captains of their own boats, too. They were natural-born captains, smart, well-trained and knowledgeable. Before they became captains, they were ship’s boys and got lots of information from captains of other boats. Surely, WN and WL thought they knew the direction better than others. They had the ancient Manual. What can be wrong with it? WL studied the Book well enough to announce that all other captains were miles off course. It was only him who knew the direction. He also claimed that his boat is the only right boat and only those who follow him will reach the shore of salvation. (Well, many captains claimed the same. So we can’t blame him. Will his boat bring her passengers to the shore?.. God knows. I am not sure about my own salvation, how can I judge others?)

As for the first ship, it’s still there. Her Captain has kept His promise. He has steered His ship through years and storms and she has survived. The passengers and the crew have kept the union by one faith, one practice, one mind, the Seven Sacraments, and the uninterrupted transmission of spiritual authority. They still remember the importance of the Manual but don’t forget the writings of the ancient crews whose consensus helps them interpret the Manual, keeping the same faith. They know that the ship is a vessel of salvation, but they also remember that not everyone on the ship can be saved. Judas was one of the Twelve and still perished. So, to stand on the ship and to reach the shore is not the same. The salvation is not granted automatically with the ship. It’s just the first step, the beginning of the journey and not the end. Salvation is a process of transformation. It’s not a matter of being declared “not guilty” by legal decree. It’s an organic restoration to union with the Captain, a process of “being saved” by God’s grace. The process doesn’t depend on membership or ranks. Moreover, the first ship has no monopoly on grace and truth and love. It belongs to her Captain Who saves those whom He wills; and He desires the salvation of every human being.

So, how much to throw out? According to who and compared to what? Where is the criterion of truth? Is it my own understanding of the Bible or WL’s interpretation or some other captain’s understanding?

No one knows for sure until he sets the right criterion and starts his own research. But who to ask? Passengers, crews, and captains of other boats? But where is the criterion which can guarantee that it’s the original teaching of the Church and not a personal opinion of some people in a boat?

To find out the truth, explorer should begin... at the beginning, from the original texts of ancient Christians: Gospels, the books of the Apostles, the Didache, The Shepherd of Hermas, the books of Apostolic Fathers (the disciples of the Apostles), the writings of their disciples and other Church Fathers, the Creeds, documents on the Church Councils, the lives of saints and the lives of ascetic Desert Fathers. Such an explorer can figure out the differences between his modern faith and the faith of early Christians. If the explorer's version of Christian faith, doctrines and practices doesn’t match the consensus of the Church Fathers, then the conclusion is easy: it’s whether his or their version of Christianity is wrong. And it’s up to him what to do with it. To throw his views and accept theirs, or to continue living in his comfortable boat.

I am sorry, I could be wrong but that is how I see it. Please, brothers and sisters, excuse me and my poor English.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Few of them knew that the ship was first, and the Manual was second...

Now of course as a Protestant, "Sola Scriptora"-type, I immediately cry 'Wrong' but because of respect one must not reject outright, but must consider. And when considering, a funny thing happens... you know, it was the saints, meeting in groups - ekklesia - who wrote the texts we today call scripture. So the saints met in the name of Jesus, loved one another and exhorted one another "while it is still called today" (Heb 3:13), and out of this continued fellowship and mutual encouragement there arose documents which we call the New Testament. I.e. the manual, to use ICA's analogy.

Therefore I cannot reject outright ICA's statement. It has merit.

Now, what's the point of the exercise? For me, it is that different perspectives may shine light, and even bright light, on my path. The scriptures may jump out in bold relief, quivering with newness and vitality, where they once lay flat and cold.

[OBW]

ICA,

I think that you elevate the position of the EO above the RCC in a manner that is not truly sound. While there was the Schism, it was a split from the beginning. For either to declare that they are the original and the other is the one that split off is self-serving.

Truth is that both are the largest part of what had come to be out of the early church, but neither is simply the same as the first century church.

And both have veered-off, mostly because they listen only to their own counsel. Just like all those Protestant groups. None are simply the original. And none (well generally none) are simply wrong. The truth is that all have wandered relative to what we find in the scripture.

But you are correct to note that Protestantism has mostly dumped both the EO and the RCC as simply error. It is so popular to point to pet issues a being so severe that we should not even look upon them. Sort of a Medusa-like revulsion to even the mention of their names.

And that is a serious mistake. For all that we might argue has gone wrong with either, there is an aspect of connection to the history of the faith that is greatly missing within Protestantism. And it is not just some of the historic ways of worship.

I disagree that we can look at the general landscape of Christianity and declare any to be, in terms of your metaphorical story, the first ship. I would suggest that the EO and the RCC may have some claim to being among the older of the ships. But other than through clever retelling of history, they were not the beginning. And neither is now what they were in centuries past. To say otherwise is just wishful thinking. And I would not suggest that any should simply be what was in the first century. But none has a lock on the link to the start. That is part of the heritage of all of us.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by OBW

While there was the Schism, it was a split from the beginning.

OBW, probably, you have more information, but I have never heard anything about the split from the beginning. Eastern Orthodox still read the Latin Fathers and venerate certain saints and even 68 bishops of Rome: St. Linus (+ c. 78), first pope, martyr and a disciple of the Apostle Paul. One of the Seventy Apostles, he is mentioned in 2 Timothy 4,21.; St. Clement of Rome (+ c. 101), martyr. One of the Seventy Apostles, mentioned in Philippians 4:3; St Ambrose of Milan (340–397); St Jerome (347–420); St Augustine (354–430); St Leo I the Great, Pope of Rome (440-461); St. Gregory I, 'the Great' (+ 604). Pope Gregory I condemned as 'antichrist' any bishop who claimed universal jurisdiction and supremacy; St Zacharias (+ 752), the last Orthodox saint in the see.

Thus, there could be no split from the beginning. From what I read from an Orthodox source, prior to 1054, the Eastern and Western halves of the Church had frequently been in conflict but still kept the union. Bishop Kallistos Ware writes, "But even after 1054 friendly relations between east and west continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them, and people on both sides still hoped that the misunderstandings could be cleared up without too much difficulty. The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in east and west were largely unaware. It was the Crusades which made the schism definitive."

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I disagree that we can look at the general landscape of Christianity and declare any to be, in terms of your metaphorical story, the first ship. I would suggest that the EO and the RCC may have some claim to being among the older of the ships. But other than through clever retelling of history, they were not the beginning.

The Bible is a complicated book. Many authors, different languages, education or lack, viewpoints. The NT was composed by a Greek physician, several Galilean fishermen, and a Pharisee of pharisees (Acts 23:6). So we sort through it all, and if we are not careful we merely have a collection of disjointed aphorisms. What is the larger narrative? How to make sense of it all?

Ultimately, we do present those aphorisms - "do unto others as you would have done to you" - within a larger narrative. The problem of losing the past is that we create our own narrative. Surely the EO narrative is warped. But it is legitimate, in that it has a connection to the past. To reject it outright, as the Protestants have essentially done (I speak as a Protestant of Protestants) is to necessitate the creation of a new narrative which may be unconnected to the original. We lose the safeguard of past experience. The EO as an example (I also think of the Abyssinians/Ethiopians as another example) have a link to the past. This link is not paramount, hegemonic, and supreme... but I feel that it's essential. Why? It's a link.

Contrast that to WN and WL, who proposed a hegemonic link to the past: WN's "church ground", composed without even any understanding of the usage of the Greek word "ekklesia", from what I can see. Likewise WL's vaunted "economy of God" misses Jesus' use of the term "oikonomia" (in Luke 16) meaning responsibility, stewardship. Etc. We all do this, if left to our own devices. We create stories that make sense to us, and presume that through them we have an untrammeled link to the past. WN claimed guidance from the past, but Pember, Penn-Lewis and Miss ME Barber is not enough.

And sorry, but China wasn't "virgin soil" for the re-interpretation of scripture, and reconstruction of the original 'normal' church. China was populated by fallen human beings, struggling back to God, just like the Europeans, North Americans, Egyptians and Greeks before them. And left to their own devices, these Chinese ministers created a narrative just as warped by fallen human culture, with its values and shared expectations, as any of the ones they abandoned as useless. Look at any HWFMR: you get a few verses and the LSM narrative. And that narrative is quite possibly entirely disconnected from the original. The link to the past has been severed.

The EO doesn't have a monopoly on this link. Few that I've seen claim this (in the RCC, by contrast, claims of spiritual hegemony seem more common). But they do have a critical link to the original, shared narrative. Today I see that, and appreciate it.

[OBW]

The "Quote" button is not working, so here is a quote from ICA:

OBW, probably, you have more information, but I have never heard anything about the split from the beginning.

I reread my post and there is clearly something missing there. I was trying to say that the two groups, which had been at least somewhat one for some centuries, were jointly the result of a progression from the beginning. Neither was the owner of legacy or a right to claim to be the only true, original church.

Your comments about reading of the early fathers in Latin is irrelevant. Naming early Popes is irrelevant. For both it is a function of the tradition of how you claim that your group precedes and is superior to others.

But organizations and traditions are not the proof of legitimacy. Especially not of superior legitimacy. Unlike the LCM, I do not despise tradition. But it is only of value to the extent that it is useful in the formation of the Christian life. It has no value as a proof of superiority.

From my perspective, the primary cause of division today is not that there are differences of opinion on doctrines and practices. It is not even that most think theirs is superior to all others. If we didn't think our doctrines and practices were right, we would change them. It is the dismissal of others and contention that all must go our way that is the cause of division.

Note that of the problems represented in the church letters in Revelation 2 and 3, all seven of the recipients were churches. None were collections of mooing cows. None were the Whore of Babylon. None were cited as superior. But I do note that the first one mentioned, the one that had such a strong "first love," had lost that spark. Claims of being first is he sure way to find yourself last. We should all simply serve the part of the universal body of Christ that comes to meet with us in the best way we know how.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

The problem of losing the past is that we create our own narrative. Surely the EO narrative is warped.

I was not suggesting that the EO is warped or inferior. I might have issues with its doctrine and orthopraxy, but I do not deny it as being church.

And I was not suggesting that the connection to the past is irrelevant. In fact, I think that I at least hinted that the Protestant tradition has been somewhat lacking due to its almost wholesale jettison of anything that smacks of EO or RCC. There is a serious loss in that position.

What would you think of a church that had no serious hierarchy (maybe some hierarchy, but no Pope or magisterium), no worship of saints or Mary, no bread that turns into the actual body of Christ and has to be locked away at the end of communion to keep people from stealing some and taking it home to heal people. But in all other ways it looked like the RCC with a twist — it believed in justification by faith, open communion, and a few of our evangelical fundamentals (without the funnymentalism and dogma that too often comes along with it). That sang ancients hymns, more recent hymns, and modern songs of worship. That still had a lot of liturgy.

Quite a mixed-up thing. Right? But might this be what we could have had if the RCC had not simply fought Luther?

Could you worship in that? Or is the need to jettison forms and traditions the new tradition? Or do we need to do it the way we think that the earliest churches did it?

You misunderstand my points. I am not dissing the EO. I am dissing the ideas in it that make it think of itself as superior to all others. To relinquish the hollow claim of being first. There is no first. There is only now. There is no right assembly of believers, only assembly of believers.

I am not suggesting that we simply ignore our thoughts of what is the better way and refrain from choosing on that basis. But how we view those who disagree needs to change. We need to see Christ and not EO, RCC, Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed/Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Baptist, CofC, AOG, Bible churches, Acts 29, or whatever free groups or associations there are.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

...how we view those who disagree needs to change. We need to see Christ and not EO, RCC, Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed/Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Baptist, CofC, AOG, Bible churches, Acts 29, or whatever free groups or associations there are.

Amen to that. Receiving those with whom I disagree, even fundamentally, brings two things: first was suggested earlier, that my suspension of surety, allowing the view of the "other" Christian to temporarily supersede mine, can produce radically new light shining on the familiar tropes of my upbringing. Not right or wrong, or better or worse, but as their Christ begins to shine upon my consciousness, it can radically transform it.

Second, where we still differ, we all being unique at least in some aspects (being living stones and all), my view is uniquely and starkly mine. It's a gift, or a bequest, to me from my Father in heaven. I don't see Witness Lee's Christ, or Cardinal Newman's Christ, but mine. I own it; I made it mine through hard experience. It was indeed a fire, but my Christ has endured. This to me is more precious than fine gold.

Let me give an example. I probably appreciate Clement of Alexandria more than any writer outside the Bible. But we still disagree in places. Yet where we agree, which is the bulk of it, I find his view infuses my feeble thoughts with a charge that's unbelievable. It's like I took a few prepatory courses, did okay, survived, and now I'm in Cal Tech or Los Alamos with the best researcher and scholar I could imagine. It's incredible, to get the view of Christ from the first or second century. Absolutely incredible. Does the EO own this? No. But they have been the keepers of many such views, over the centuries, and this should be acknowledged. And I like to think that I "see" things that Clement didn't see; as if my seeing gives me a part of the Great Conversation.

Another example is my strong preference for Desiderius Erasmus' writings over those of Martin Luther. I remain in the Protestants of my birth, but still enjoy and appreciate Erasmus the Catholic scholar. No need to leave my group and join the RCC; in fact Erasmus' views pushed him to the narrow fringe of his group. Yet he remained firmly there, and I likewise remain a great fan of his work, and must respect the religious order that held him.

So my Christ is my own unique amalgam. I built it, or it built me, and that is that. But the Christ that owns me is the Christ that is both theirs and ours.

1 Cor 1:2 "I am writing to God's church in Corinth, to you who have been called by God to be his own holy people. He made you holy by means of Christ Jesus, just as he did for all people everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours." (NLT)

"All people everywhere... their Lord and ours." Nobody has primacy except Christ.

[OBW]

aron's comment about appreciating the Catholic scholar would be near heresy for some. Yet many Catholic scholars have depth that is too often missing from Protestant scholars. The Protestants begin within their own little world and nary venture outside it. So the breadth of their scholarship is often narrow. We presume a pre tribulation rapture in a Darbyesque dipsensationalism and read everything with that overlay. Not a whole lot different than what Lee did in covering the Bible in his version of God's economy and as a result dismissing the book of James along with significant parts of the Psalms (to name a few errors).

I think that an appreciation of confessional and crisis salvation, more traditional views of the eras of man and the end times and dispensationalism, Calvinism and Arminianism, modern and ancient forms of worship (liturgies) is important to real Christian unity. Not that we have to agree with everything, but rather to have enough knowledge about them to know what we actually do and do not agree with rather than just toeing the line (as given to us by someone else, or as belligerently created by that church-of-one — me). (BTW, we all have liturgies. It is just that the evangelical version is so free-form that it is not identifiable as such.)

[HERn]

Just wondering if any of the current or ancient EO brothers and sisters ever gave any of the Apostolic or Church Fathers the kind of reverence and deference given to WL. Did any of our EO brothers claim to have drunk from the spirit of one of the Fathers?

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by HERn

Just wondering if any of the current or ancient EO brothers and sisters ever gave any of the Apostolic or Church Fathers the kind of reverence and deference given to WL.

Well, yes and no. We may ask any of the Church Fathers to pray for us because we believe the Church is composed of all who are in Christ - in heaven and on earth. We believe the saints are the Lord's friends who stand near the Throne of God. Those in heaven with Christ are alive, in communion with God, doing their part in the Body of Christ. So we pray to the saints who have departed this life, seeking their prayers, even as we ask Christian friends on earth to pray for us. But we don't single out or venerate one of the Church Fathers more than others. (BTW, any Apostle is revered more than a Father). We may call some of the Church Fathers "great" but even the greatest ones are not infallible. That's why we are looking for the consensus in their teachings, and we differ it from their personal opinion which can be erroneous. Thus, we show a more profound respect and love for the Church Fathers than the reverence given to WL, but there is no single Apostolic or Church Father who would be called the Minister of the Age.

Originally Posted by HERn

Did any of our EO brothers claim to have drunk from the spirit of one of the Fathers?

That's impossible. Firstly, if someone singles a Church Father out, then what about the other Fathers? Our faith is not build on a Holy Father and his personal opinion. Secondly, the statement would sound too boastful and prideful. For example, if I claim that I have drunk from the spirit of one of the Fathers (or even from all of them), then, for my EO brothers and sisters, it would be a sign that there is something wrong with my spiritual health. In Russian, it's called "prelest" which means "self-delusion", "spiritual delusion", "spiritual deception". It's not a somatic mental illness of any kind. It is rather a spiritual illness, a false spiritual state when a person becomes possessed with the strongest pride, self-opinion, and self-conceit.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

Just wondering if any of the current or ancient EO brothers and sisters ever gave any of the Apostolic or Church Fathers the kind of reverence and deference given to WL. Did any of our EO brothers claim to have drunk from the spirit of one of the Fathers?

Did any of the apostolic or church fathers claim the sole oracle; that God could only speak through them and no other, that once they died the age of spiritual giants was over and everyone else would be 'small potatoes', that there could only be one trumpet (them), and that everyone else had to be 'absolutely identical' (WL) and 'get in line' (WN) with them and their ministry? No? Oh, I wonder why not?

Also, did any of the early commentators indicate that large sections of scripture were "fallen" and full of "natural concepts" and only useful to show us what God didn't actually want? Did anyone massively re-configure scriptures thus? No? I don't know, maybe because... a clear consensus prevented them? Maybe because if they'd tried, they would have been laughed out of the room?

No, I think you'd have to build your own private kingdom, to get away with statements like that. Because it wouldn't fly in the church of Christ. Too many people would burst into laughter, and deflate your pretensions.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Well, yes and no. We may ask any of the Church Fathers to pray for us because we believe the Church is composed of all who are in Christ - in heaven and on earth. We believe the saints are the Lord's friends who stand near the Throne of God. Those in heaven with Christ are alive, in communion with God, doing their part in the Body of Christ. So we pray to the saints who have departed this life, seeking their prayers, even as we ask Christian friends on earth to pray for us. But we don't single out or venerate one of the Church Fathers more than others. (BTW, any Apostle is revered more than a Father). We may call some of the Church Fathers "great" but even the greatest ones are not infallible. That's why we are looking for the consensus in their teachings, and we differ it from their personal opinion which can be erroneous. Thus, we show a more profound respect and love for the Church Fathers than the reverence given to WL, but there is no single Apostolic or Church Father who would be called the Minister of the Age.
That's impossible. Firstly, if someone singles a Church Father out, then what about the other Fathers? Our faith is not build on a Holy Father and his personal opinion. Secondly, the statement would sound too boastful and prideful. For example, if I claim that I have drunk from the spirit of one of the Fathers (or even from all of them), then, for my EO brothers and sisters, it would be a sign that there is something wrong with my spiritual health. In Russian, it's called "prelest" which means "self-delusion", "spiritual delusion", "spiritual deception". It's not a somatic mental illness of any kind. It is rather a spiritual illness, a false spiritual state when a person becomes possessed with the strongest pride, self-opinion, and self-conceit.

Prelest! Wow! Thanks for that word. I just read on wiki that there is quite a bit from EO writings on this topic. It's a spiritual sickness involving deception characterized by pride and vain glory. I'm going to read more on this, but now I have a valid term to describe what was wrong with WL and now the blinded brothers...they really are deceived and blinded. I think this Protestant has suffered from prelest in that I basically ignored much of the teachings before Luther and Calvin which has probably made me all that more spiritually impoverished.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by HERn

Prelest! Wow! Thanks for that word. I just read on wiki that there is quite a bit from EO writings on this topic. It's a spiritual sickness involving deception characterized by pride and vain glory. I'm going to read more on this, but now I have a valid term to describe what was wrong with WL and now the blinded brothers...they really are deceived and blinded. I think this Protestant has suffered from prelest in that I basically ignored much of the teachings before Luther and Calvin which has probably made me all that more spiritually impoverished.

I gotta add this: I wonder if our EO brothers and sisters have their own version of prelest if they refuse teaching from "God's Bastard Children" those "black Protestants"?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by HERn

Prelest! Wow! Thanks for that word.

So Prelest is a sort of spiritual egomania? That seems to fit Lee and Co. ... and Nee as well.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by HERn

I gotta add this: I wonder if our EO brothers and sisters have their own version of prelest if they refuse teaching from "God's Bastard Children" those "black Protestants"?

In the EOC, I have never heard these terms "God's Bastard Children" and "black Protestants". Protestants were not offspring of the EOC, so we have no ground to condemn them. (We refuse Protestant teaching because there is little consensus between them and the Church Fathers). On the other hand, we don't condemn the Roman Catholic Church either. The direct confrontation is in the past. We don't agree with many of their dogmas and doctrines, but the only right Christian way to behave towards the RCC, is not to condemn the church but to pray for her.

From the Orthodox point of view, we (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, atheists, etc) are all in delusion. Adam was contaminated by it when he accepted a lie for the truth. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov writes, "Spiritual deception is the wounding of human nature by falsehood. Spiritual deception is the state of all men without exception, and it has been made possible by the fall of our original parents. All of us are subject to spiritual deception. Awareness of this fact is the greatest protection against it. Likewise, the greatest spiritual deception of all is to consider oneself free from it. We are all deceived, all deluded; we all find ourselves in a condition of falsehood; we all need to be liberated by the Truth. The Truth is our Lord Jesus Christ."

I like a piece of good advice that Fr John Alexeev gives in his book "Christ Is in Our Midst: Letters from a Russian Monk". Fr John was a Valaam elder and a Schema-abbot at the Valaam monastery. Once, he was sent to a small monastery, where he became amazed by the number of monks who suffered from severe conceit (Prelest). The monks thought themselves men of prayer and miracle workers. They believed they could walk on thin ice without falling under it, and many died at that. So, Fr. John gives such an advice: "Do not trust yourself until you go to last home."

Thus, everyone can suffer from Prelest: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, and those who are from non-denominational churches. (Remember the "snake handling" pastor of a Pentecostal church who died after being bitten by a rattlesnake?)

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by awareness

So Prelest is a sort of spiritual egomania? That seems to fit Lee and Co. ... and Nee as well.

Indeed, Prelest has a lot to do with spiritual egomania, pride, and obsessive self-centeredness. Another sign of Prelest is the lack of humility.

This is how Fr Andrew Phillips, an Orthodox priest from the UK, describes “Prelest” in English:

“So in English it could be translated simply as (spiritual) illusion, but perhaps the English word ‘self-delusion’ is even more exact. ‘Prelest’ simply means a state of mind in which we imagine that we are something that we are not, in other words, we are deluded. There are two states that greatly contribute to the development of self-delusion. The first is an emotional state, an excess of imagination and strong feelings. Feelings of self-exaltation, sentimentality, vanity, narcissism and superiority, living in the imagination, which are all simply forms of pride, create fertile soil for self-delusion. Ultimately, these feelings can even develop into psychic phenomena like self-hypnosis, levitation and the production of physical marks like ‘stigmata’. The antidote to them is inner sobriety – a quality most characteristic of the Fathers and the Saints, for it is based on modesty and humility. The second state is isolation. People who isolate themselves from others and condemn them, because they think they are better than them, soon fall into self-delusion.”

[aron]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Indeed, Prelest has a lot to do with spiritual egomania, pride, and obsessive self-centeredness. Another sign of Prelest is the lack of humility.

Here's a note on the Eastern Lightning cult:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The group was founded in 1990 in Henan by Zhao Weishan (赵维山, born 1951) who later fled to the United States from where he continues to lead the church. The followers believe that the biblical God has returned to earth as a woman named Yang Xiangbin "born to an ordinary family in the northern part of China" in order to guide mankind for the third and final time. According to the group, the first and second times of active guidance of mankind were as Yahweh of the Old Testament and as Jesus in the New Testament.

The group teaches that a woman who styles herself "Almighty God" (全能神), from Zhengzhou, Henan, is the second Christ. Her most widely distributed book, The Word Appears in the Flesh (《话在肉身显现》) proclaims itself the Word of God. The book claims the first coming of Christ was to redeem humanity, while the second is to judge and purify mankind and defeat Satan. It also claims that those who do not accept her words will receive severe punishment when the judgment ends...

I believe that the woman Yang Xianbin, originally associated with the Witness Lee-affiliated "Shouter" sect, failed her university entrance exams, went into a bad psychiatric state and decided that she was indeed "God": not only God in life and nature but also God in the Godhead. Now she (or her handlers) run a despotic cult that uses violence, isolation and intimidation to control the lives of thousands, maybe tens of thousands.

Here's my attempt at a thought-provoking question: By contrast, how many crazy cults has the EO spawned in the last 50 years? I earlier characterized the EO testimony as "warped" but I meant in the sense that we all are. Nobody has a pure testimony, 2,000 years after Christ. But a downside of these Protestant off-shoot alternative groups that reject "Babylon" and try to establish a pure spiritual bloodline to the original church is that they isolate, condemn everyone else, and this subjective egoism (sometimes helped by continued charismatic performances, a la the "Shouters") lends itself to all sorts of imbalanced and even dangerous fruit. And yes I'm definitely including the LC here: isolationism, superiority, hyper-excitement and subjectivity, and narrow definitions of truth or "reality" that can only be fulfilled by their own peculiar practices. Obsessive self-centeredness, indeed.

WL told us that there were tens of millions of Shouters in the PRC, which he felt was good; how many millions of those Shouters now hold WL as God incarnate? And how many even weirder sects and cults have they spawned besides the EL?

To my cultural/religious upbringing, the Orthodox world is indeed strange and unfamiliar, and I point to stuff that makes me uncomfortable -- "That's not in the Bible". But again I ask, how many 'Prelests' has EO church created in the last few decades, compared to the Protestants? Branch Davidians, Jim Jones & People's Temple, polygamous, child-abusing Mormon "fundamentalists", Heaven's Gate, Family of God, etc etc. There may be safety in the link to the ancients' testimonies and accrued experiences, and we'd do well to humble ourselves and consider that possibly we don't have a firm grip on truth, even when using words like "recovery" and "reformation" as our founding and guiding motifs. If we're so heavenly, why do we spawn so many devilish children?

Just thinking aloud here. Not joining any group, or starting another, or abandoning my grandfather's church. Just trying to be a little less arrogant, and a little more circumspect. Perhaps a futile task, but maybe God will give me some credit for trying.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

I believe that the woman Yang Xianbin, originally associated with the Witness Lee-affiliated "Shouter" sect, failed her university entrance exams, went into a bad psychiatric state and decided that she was indeed "God": not only God in life and nature but also God in the Godhead. Now she (or her handlers) run a despotic cult that uses violence, isolation and intimidation to control the lives of thousands, maybe tens of thousands.
...
WL told us that there were tens of millions of Shouters in the PRC, which he felt was good; how many millions of those Shouters now hold WL as God incarnate? And how many even weirder sects and cults have they spawned besides the EL?

LC leaders vehemently deny any connection whatsoever to the EL. The excerpt below describes a EL leader declaring that WL is considered the "forerunner" to their "female Christ":

The sister felt humiliated and defeated, while "preacher Wang" took center stage and explained the teachings of the Eastern Lightning. He quoted many verses from the Bible and systematically explained what they believe step by step, in the order of, for example, the incarnation of Christ, the reason the Jews did not accept Him since the name prophesied was "Emanuel" not "Jesus". They said it is thus understandable why the Jews do not believe. In this way they would gradually lead the listeners to the doctrines of the "Eastern Lightning." They said John the Baptist had been the forerunner of Jesus, and he was gone, so gone with him was the Era of Law. In the same way, Li Changshou (Witness Lee) had been the forerunner of the "female Christ." He was gone too, and gone with him was the Era of Grace. Now the Era of the Kingdom has come. The Jews do not accept the Messiah who has already come because they remain in the Era of Law. Likewise, the "almighty female Christ" has already come, but Christians are still lingering in the Era of Grace. The members of the congregation took turns speaking, trying to instill into the sister their false doctrines, so that she became confused and started to say to herself, "It sounds reasonable."

http://www.chinaforjesus.com/EL_4.htm

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

LC leaders vehemently deny any connection whatsoever to the EL. The excerpt below describes a EL leader declaring that WL is considered the "forerunner" to their "female Christ":

The EL gives a window to the LC thought and methodology that we might not otherwise see, because they do copy LC tactics; the difference is the extreme level to which they take it. By going to the extreme, the LC "camouflage" is stripped away, and it can be seen in rawest form.

First, they establish a connection with the prospective member, and find areas of common agreement. "God loves us and sent His Son." "Believe God's command and be saved." And initially they pretend to be "just Christians". At this stage it's all about consensus, commonality, and comfort. "We're just like you. Let's all go on together."

From this base of agreement, they attempt to convince the prospective member that this bunch of humble nobodies is actually a Special Group under a Special Leadership with the Special Truth of the present age. Everyone and everything else is wrong, but us. The recruit is then isolated from other possible influences, (everything else being poisonous) and bombarded with stimulus, and social pressure, and are put in a situation where it's (hopefully) easier for them to go along with the group, than to resist it. They bring the new one to a crisis point, or several of them. They are told that they have to give up something, to get something. Eventually the recruit is required to renounce their identity apart from the group.

The levers of coercion and control continue to work... next the new member needs to share in God's present move on earth, and bear fruit, in order to be rewarded by God. "You don't want to go into outer darkness, do you? You do want to be an overcomer, right?"

When I look at the EL, I just see the LC on steroids. They have God's special messenger, God's speaking, God's blessing, etc. Outside the group is held to be nothing but darkness. Only within the group is the true light of God.

The whole operation is about recruiting new members, assimilating them, extracting emotional and financial commitments, and getting them to recruit others. You can see tight operational control, secrecy, isolation, and circular reasoning with loaded language. The dialog is: don't question, don't think, don't be negative. Just go with the "flow from the throne"... If you want to be right with God, you have to be "one" with the group. Etc. Isolation and control - like the prophet said, there's nothing new under the sun.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

The EL gives a window to the LC thought and methodology that we might not otherwise see, because they do copy LC tactics; the difference is the extreme level to which they take it. By going to the extreme, the LC "camouflage" is stripped away, and it can be seen in rawest form.
...
When I look at the EL, I just see the LC on steroids. They have God's special messenger, God's speaking, God's blessing, etc. Outside the group is held to be nothing but darkness. Only within the group is the true light of God.

The whole operation is about recruiting new members, assimilating them, extracting emotional and financial commitments, and getting them to recruit others. You can see tight operational control, secrecy, isolation, and circular reasoning with loaded language. The dialog is: don't question, don't think, don't be negative. Just go with the "flow from the throne"... If you want to be right with God, you have to be "one" with the group. Etc. Isolation and control - like the prophet said, there's nothing new under the sun.

You made some very good points. It is exactly why the EL should be so concerning - it's the LC on steroids. Aside from their "connection" to the LC by supposedly viewing WL as their "forerunner", the similarities to the LC are striking. Of course everything associated with the EL is extreme, but the EL is what happens when people allow leaders to go unchecked. No one sets out to become something like the EL, but if a crazy leader is allowed free reign, then anything goes. The end result will be anyone's guess, and it won't turn out good.

[HERn]

Learned something from Demetrios a used car dealer today when I bought a car from him. We had some good fellowship and one of his comments caught my ear. He said that in the EO church that you pay attention to what the priest says during mass, but ignore what he does that might be sinful. I told him that would be hard for a Protestant to do regarding his spiritual leader. I asked him if the reason the EO could have this opinion was because the message of the church was greater than life of the priest he agreed. To me this relates to the teaching in the LSM LC where we were told to just listen to the ministry and ignore the sins and unrighteousness of the speakers of the ministry (or something like that). He was a dear brother but had never heard of the sin of prelest. I welcomed his offer for his priest to call me about this and other questions. He also shared with me that as a young man he had strayed from the church and then spent a night or two in a monestery in Greece where after two days of open and mutual conversations with a priest he said that he found himself confessing and not even realizing that he was doing this. He said an enormous burden was lifted from him. When I asked him if he thought it was an epiphany he said maybe something close to that. When I asked him whether he felt any emotion or love for God during the litergy of the EO mass he said yes and that he lifted his heart to God. I was one with this dear brother during our fellowship.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by aron

And initially they pretend to be "just Christians".

That was my would-be wife's answer many years ago when I asked her about her church. At our first conversation about her faith, she never mentioned the Local Church or Witness Lee. She just said, "We are just Christians". That time, it sounded safe and calming. But it must be an alert.

Originally Posted by aron

When I look at the EL, I just see the LC on steroids.

For me, one of the most weird things in the LC was to see a huge number of people in a state of exaltation. I was the only white guy in their Chinese community. First, I took their exaltation for an aberration, then for a local and national peculiarity, and later - for a norm. I started to think that shouting was their way to "touch the Spirit". (Now I believe it's a path to spiritual delusion).

I am sure those brothers and sisters were mentally healthy in their daily life but at the meetings and conferences they did not look spiritually sober. And maybe, if the state of exaltation lasts long and repeats often, it can cause not only spiritual sickness but also some kind of mental disorder.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by HERn

He said that in the EO church that you pay attention to what the priest says during mass, but ignore what he does that might be sinful.

Just a few small remarks to give an explanation. In the EOC, mass is called the Divine Liturgy. Probably, about 70% of the service is a common prayer, with hymns and the prayer Kyrie Eleison! Lord Have Mercy! Господи помилуй! The priest's sermon only takes a small part. It is not the center of the Liturgy. The main part is the sacrament of the Holy Communion.

The EO priests are human beings. None of them is perfect. So, there are bad priests in the EOC. (Personally, I have never met them, but I can't deny the fact that they exist). However, the Sacraments are still valid even through bad priests. And if a layman has some problem with his priest, he can ask the bishop to solve the problem.

Personally, I think the sins of bad priests are not the sins of the Church but the sins against the Church. Since we don't judge Christ and His apostles by Judas, we also don't judge a church by her sinners. Prof. Osipov writes, "Indeed, any Local Orthodox Church or non-Orthodox church can be judged by her saints. Tell me who your saints are and I will tell what your church is. Any church calls as saints only those who realized in their life the Christian ideal, as this Church understands it. That is why canonization of a certain saint is not only testimony of the Church about this Christian, who according to her judgment is worthy of the glory and suggested by her as an example to follow. It is at the same time a testimony of the Church about herself. By the saints we can best of all judge about the true or imaginary sanctity of the Church..."

When I compare WL and WN with EO saints, monks, Church and Desert Fathers (like St Anthony the Great, John Chrysostom, St Seraphim of Sarov, Optina Elders, and Russian Hieromartyrs, Martyrs and Confessors of the Communist Yoke), the two "spiritual giants" of the LRC don't look that big.

PS I want to share a story about a Russian Orthodox priest, not a saint. The story was told by the White Army officer who had been arrested by the reds (the Red Army) and kept in a jail. In the jail, he met an EO priest who was also arrested. The officer knew the priest before the Russian Revolution. It was a "bad" priest. He had a weakness for vodka and he was often seen drunk. Sometimes laymen even had to carry the priest home because he could not walk. Nobody had any respect for the priest. So, the officer was very surprised to meet the same priest in the cell. The reds interrogated and beat up the priest severely every day. But every time when the priest, covered with blood, came back to his cell after the interrogation, he told to his cellmates: "Brothers, let's pray for our prosecutors so that the Lord may forgive their sins". He sang "Our Father" and everyone joined his prayer. The officer asked the priest, "Why are you here? What do the reds want from you?.." "They want me give a sermon in the church that Communism and Christian faith are similar. They say Christ fought against the rich and we also fight against the rich. Christ helped the poor and we also came to help the poor", said the priest. "But" he continued, "I tell them that they are mistaken. Christ taught, 'Give away' but you teach, 'Take away' (rob)... Later the priest was shot dead by his prosecutors. Thus, this ordeal showed what kind of men his was. In spite of his weakness, he had a pure heart and was faithful to the Lord until the end. But there were also "good priests" who left the Church after the first signs of danger. So, it's not for us to judge people, even priests. Only God knows their hearts.

PPS In Greek, Prelest is "Plani".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Personally, I think the sins of bad priests are not the sins of the Church but the sins against the Church. Since we don't judge Christ and His apostles by Judas, we also don't judge a church by her sinners.

When I compare WL and WN with EO saints, monks, Church and Desert Fathers, the two "spiritual giants" of the LRC fall flat.

In spite of his weakness, he had a pure heart and was faithful to the Lord until the end. But there were also "good priests" who left the Church after the first signs of danger. So, it's not for us to judge people, even priests. Only God knows their hearts.

I have some problems with this. You can vindicate EO priests, yet judge LCM ministers. You have your bias, and your judgments reflect it. Shall we judge Phillip Lee for drunkenness, but not the EO priest in your story?

Truthwise we have no place to judge others, but we must address their actions especially when they hurt others. The EO priest in your story brought shame to God, setting a poor example to the church, but apparently beyond that he was only hurting himself. PL, otoh, hurt and damaged many others. When people are being hurt, we can NOT take the attitude, "judge not, lest we be judged."

Whether or not the sins of priests / ministers are OF the church or AGAINST the church depends on how others, especially the responsible leadership in the church, handle their sins. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and to some degree, all sin brings shame to God, but when sins against church members are condoned, covered up, or even endorsed, then we have a completely different matter.

Too much vodka is bad, but abusing and molesting other members after too much vodka is criminal.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have some problems with this. You can vindicate EO priests, yet judge LCM ministers. You have your bias, and your judgments reflect it. Shall we judge Phillip Lee for drunkenness, but not the EO priest in your story?

Ohio, you are right. Unfortunately, I am bias. Not only because I am an Eastern Orthodox and not an LRC member but also because of the facts that I know about the priest and Philip Lee. So, I agree with you. I prefer the drinking Russian priest to the son of WL. Both of them could be a shame for any church. But the former was destroying his own life and the latter was corrupting lives of others. Their lives had different fruit. (I don't know how PL will finish his days but the Russian priest died like a Christian. This change didn't happen overnight. It means that in spite of his personal sin, his core was not rotten. The priest sinned against the Lord and the Church (like we all do by our sins) but by his death, he proved his faithfulness to the Lord. (I am not sure if I'd do the same, even if I can't stand vodka)).

I think we must distinguish between judgement (which is a juridical aspect) and exposure/disclosure (which can have a therapeutic effect).

The Apostle Paul writes, "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." (Ephesians 5:11)
"But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning." (1 Timothy 5:20)
"These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority." (Titus 2:15)

We can expose the drinking Russian priest for his alcoholism and PL for his drinking, abusing, and molesting. But we cannot judge them. The judgment belongs to God only. Who are we? We are just the same sinners: imperfect, corrupt, blind, self-centered, and bias. We can't judge with right judgment because we don't see the whole situation. We don't know people's hearts. We can't know their thoughts on their deathbed. Moreover - because we don't love them. The Russian priest and PL are strangers to us. But to God, they are His children. We must not hate them. And we can't and must not judge them (i.e. pass sentence on others). But we can expose their sins because our indifference can lead towards a bigger sin. We have no rights to say that a certain sinner will go to hell. It's not for us to decide. But it's our duty to expose and stop evildoers.

I like this short story about a Russian Orthodox elder (an old monk). When people told him something negative (and true) about another person, he always replied with the prayer, "Lord, save the brother... and have mercy on me, a sinner".

[aron]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

That was my would-be wife's answer many years ago when I asked her about her church. At our first conversation about her faith, she never mentioned the Local Church or Witness Lee. She just said, "We are just Christians". That time, it sounded safe and calming. But it must be an alert..

Once you are in, you get the special revelation: "We're just Christians, but..." I was told that Christians had justification, but in the LC they got sanctification. So they made me feel special, at first. They propped up my feelings with "warm fuzzies"... and repeatedly manufactured states of exaltation by shouting, screaming, arm-waving, jumping up and down. In my case, I was several years immersed in all this, when I realized that there was no love. For example, Paul had taught that he remembered the poor ("which very thing I was eager to do" - Gal 2:10) but the FTTA trainers taught us to go after the young, affluent college students. "Good building material" they called it. A trainee who showed any heart for the poor was publicly admonished: "don't waste your time."

It turns out that Nee and Lee were scrupulous to follow the Bible except where it conflicted with their fallen human culture. Then they dropped it like it was a hot coal. By the time many realize what they're dealing with, they're already in the LC system, with relationships, job, housing, etc. In my case I was sitting in a meeting of the FTTA, when the light began to shine. It was another 2 years before I got out. Also, members are continually told that there is nothing for them outside the Local Church group. Everything else is hopelessly corrupt. So they have nowhere to go. They feel that there is no exit. In this the EL and the LC are quite similar.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

we have no place to judge others, but we must address their actions especially when they hurt others. The EO priest in your story brought shame to God, setting a poor example to the church, but apparently beyond that he was only hurting himself. PL, otoh, hurt and damaged many others. When people are being hurt, we can NOT take the attitude, "judge not, lest we be judged."

A similarity of the EO and the LC is that with both, the church impinges upon the relationship with God. In the EO you don't leave God, but leave the church (in the testimony that ICA wrote). Likewise, the LC song goes, "His glory broke upon us when we saw Him in the church... here are all His riches... etc" The revelation is not Jesus but Jesus in the Church.

A difference between EO and LC is that the Matthew 18 principle still holds in the EO, but it has been superseded by human culture in the LC. In the EO a sinning priest would still be (presumably) held accountable, after a first and second (private) admonition, but the "drunken Noah" of the LC must be covered over. Period. Any attempts to "tell it to the church" are viewed as rebellion in the LC. See Steve Isitt's testimony for example.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I think we must distinguish between judgement (which is a juridical aspect) and exposure/disclosure (which can have a therapeutic effect).

The Apostle Paul writes, "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." (Ephesians 5:11)
"But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning." (1 Timothy 5:20)
"These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority." (Titus 2:15)

We can expose the drinking Russian priest for his alcoholism and PL for his drinking, abusing, and molesting. But we cannot judge them. The judgment belongs to God only. Who are we? We are just the same sinners: imperfect, corrupt, blind, self-centered, and bias. We can't judge with right judgment because we don't see the whole situation. We don't know people's hearts. We can't know their thoughts on their deathbed. Moreover - because we don't love them. The Russian priest and PL are strangers to us. But to God, they are His children. We must not hate them. And we can't and must not judge them (i.e. pass sentence on others). But we can expose their sins because our indifference can lead towards a bigger sin. We have no rights to say that a certain sinner will go to hell. It's not for us to decide. But it's our duty to expose and stop evildoers.

I follow what you're saying ICA. What sets some off emotions of forum posters (myself included) is in the LC practices where the leadership doesn't want anything exposed. To do see is considered "eating from the wrong tree". Rather anything warranting exposing is labeled "imagined wrongdoings".

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by aron

A similarity of the EO and the LC is that with both, the church impinges upon the relationship with God.

Aron, at least the Eastern Orthodox Church has more facts and arguments than the LC when the EOC says that she preserves the fullness of Christian faith. The LC’s claim about the “recovery” of the truth (like a claim of any sect) is solely based on the words of their leader. They cannot proof their claim with the Holy Bible, dogmatically or historically. So, they have to believe their founder. As for the EO, I can share some arguments. I'm sorry, I don’t want to take space in this tread which seems to be irrelevant, so I’ll post my answer to my blog:

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...4487#post44487

I also don't want to start an new long discussion there because I don't have time for that. (I just want to share my arguments). But I'll welcome any constructive criticism.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Aron, at least the Eastern Orthodox Church has more facts and arguments than the LC when the EOC says that she preserves the fullness of Christian faith. The LC’s claim about the “recovery” of the truth (like a claim of any sect) is solely based on the words of their leader. They cannot proof their claim with the Holy Bible, dogmatically or historically. So, they have to believe their founder.

One of the side-effects of the Reformation was the "atomization" of faith, for good and for ill. Now a believer can church-hop as they see fit, or skip organized religion altogether. One's relationship with church is seen as irrespective of one's relationship with God.

The LC tried to address this, but with less ground than the EO has, as you note.

[HERn]

I copied this post from micah6v8 from another thread because it touches on something my wife and I were talking about on our way home from church this morning. We talked about how in the Blendeds' Recovery poor poor Christianity is mocked because the believers don't get to "function" as the saints in the Blendeds' Recovery do. In Christianity we were told that the people just sat in their chairs and were preached to. So we did a little mental calculation. If you take the seven feasts, a couple of conferences and the Wednesday night ministry meetings the recovery saints are exposed to an average of two 2.5 hours of sermons per week. In my real local community church I only get on average one 1.5 hours of sermons per week.

It is true that after most of the LSM sermons the small potatoes get a chance to speak, which does not occur after sermons in Christianity. But in my real local church I get to speak in Sunday School and in our one-another-meetings on Thursday night, and I can share what the Spirit prompts rather than regurgitate the LSM message with praises for such a wonderful ministry and minister of the age.

I think I understand why the Blendeds hate for saints to be in their minds; it's because our God-given minds might reveal the truth that the Blendeds' Recovery is a man-honoring, deceptive sect of Christianity where the Christ on the cross has become the seven-fold-intensified-spirit, and the true gospel has been replaced by a so-called higher gospel that none of the writers of the New Testament had the vision to see.

Dear recovery saints please don't let the brothers control your thinking and what you can and cannot read.

"I could add an 11th item to Freedom's list of 10 examples of "Double-Standards"

11) When a non-LSM church pastor gives a "sermon", it is frowned upon because "the congregation becomes non-functioning". Yet when a Blended Brother gives a one and a half hour "Message" in a conference, no one frowns upon the fact that the congregation is also passive/non-functioning during the one and a half hour.
Apart from the labels, a sermon and a message are the same thing. What may differ is simply the contents of the message/sermon."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

I copied this post from micah6v8 from another thread because it touches on something my wife and I were talking about on our way home from church this morning. We talked about how in the Blendeds' Recovery poor poor Christianity is mocked because the believers don't get to "function" as the saints in the Blendeds' Recovery do. In Christianity we were told that the people just sat in their chairs and were preached to. So we did a little mental calculation. If you take the seven feasts, a couple of conferences and the Wednesday night ministry meetings the recovery saints are exposed to an average of two 2.5 hours of sermons per week. In my real local community church I only get on average one 1.5 hours of sermons per week.

It is true that after most of the LSM sermons the small potatoes get a chance to speak, which does not occur after sermons in Christianity. But in my real local church I get to speak in Sunday School and in our one-another-meetings on Thursday night, and I can share what the Spirit prompts rather than regurgitate the LSM message with praises for such a wonderful ministry and minister of the age.

I think I understand why the Blendeds hate for saints to be in their minds; it's because our God-given minds might reveal the truth that the Blendeds' Recovery is a man-honoring, deceptive sect of Christianity where the Christ on the cross has become the seven-fold-intensified-spirit, and the true gospel has been replaced by a so-called higher gospel that none of the writers of the New Testament had the vision to see.

Dear recovery saints please don't let the brothers control your thinking and what you can and cannot read.

"I could add an 11th item to Freedom's list of 10 examples of "Double-Standards"

11) When a non-LSM church pastor gives a "sermon", it is frowned upon because "the congregation becomes non-functioning". Yet when a Blended Brother gives a one and a half hour "Message" in a conference, no one frowns upon the fact that the congregation is also passive/non-functioning during the one and a half hour.
Apart from the labels, a sermon and a message are the same thing. What may differ is simply the contents of the message/sermon."

Everyone in the LC is convinced that Christians elsewhere don't "function". What WL did was to create a straw man argument of epic proportions in relation to other Christians just being "bench warmers". Of course, there are some Christians who are just that, but did he ever for just a movement, take the time to visit other churches and see just what was going on outside the LC? I don't think anyone besides those who have left have ever taken the opportunity to see if WL's characterization of Christians was correct or not.

The LC claims to have "functioning" members, because everyone does this thing that they call "prophesying" (which has nothing to do with real Biblical prophesying, since members merely parrot WL). I think in most churches outside the LC, members have the opportunity to participate in a variety of ways, and speaking is left to those who have the true gift to do so. In the LC, the function of "prophesying" is imposed upon all members. All members are assigned the same function. There is no opportunity for each members gift to be realized.

How much to throw out? Throw it all out, the good with the bad, the spiritual with the fleshly, the theory with the fact, the false with the true...

And start over. Raised in a southern Church of Christ (Campbellites), suffering hit and run with Pentecostalism and charismatic areas, I found myself deeply enthralled with Watchman Nee in the early '70's.

By '75, Watchman Nee's bio had hit me hard. For I read that "Watchman Nee reckoned to read the entire New Testament each month"...

I felt that to be a speaking from our Lord to me, personally. My answer to that, was to read the entirety of the New Testament twice a month since mid-June 1975 (every thirteen days in fact. twenty six times a year). By the time I ricocheted off Witness Lee and the local church in '79 and 80, I was but very little put out when the LC put me out...I didn't hang around long after Basil Waters, with the brothers alongside him, promised to speak my name in the meeting as an undesirable and contentious brother.

For by then, I had read the bible enough to learn to accept it as what it says it is, that it says what it means, and that it means what it says.

I spent many years doing my best to get rid of all that junk I'm been raised in and on. I began to believe that every newly born Christian should leave the church he or she had been raised in, and spend at least two years alone immersed totally in the Word.

For you cannot fill an already full glass. The glass filled with pond scum must be emptied (and washed clean) to exactly the same degree it is to be filled with fresh, clean water.

Religion had filled my glass. Witness Lee and the LC topped it off with what appeared to be whipped cream and a cherry, only to end up being more of the same, said somewhat differently. A better class of pond scum you might say, but pond scum just the same.

So toss it all. Become that empty glass and let God fill it anew with life, light and blessing. You do that by reading the Bible, day in and day out...and by praying constantly, allowing prayer to be your 'default position' in life; and the Bible to be your home page, with links leading you straight to the Word of God in every part of your life.

For in order for "all things (to) become new" all old things must have passed. After all, Paul gave us the divine order with, "...but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, I press forward". First, forgetting the past. Secondly, pressing forward.

We need to forget the behind things, and press forward to the highest things.

We need to toss it all, every bit of it. After all, what do you have to lose? If you lose some of the good with the bad, God will return the good, polished and burnished and fit for our growth in Jesus, and replace the bad with the good as well. The result will be all good.

God bless you,

I am and remain sincerely yours in Jesus Christ,

Julabee Jones

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Everyone in the LC is convinced that Christians elsewhere don't "function". What WL did was to create a straw man argument of epic proportions in relation to other Christians just being "bench warmers". Of course, there are some Christians who are just that, but did he ever for just a movement, take the time to visit other churches and see just what was going on outside the LC? I don't think anyone besides those who have left have ever taken the opportunity to see if WL's characterization of Christians was correct or not.

The LC claims to have "functioning" members, because everyone does this thing that they call "prophesying" (which has nothing to do with real Biblical prophesying, since members merely parrot WL). I think in most churches outside the LC, members have the opportunity to participate in a variety of ways, and speaking is left to those who have the true gift to do so. In the LC, the function of "prophesying" is imposed upon all members. All members are assigned the same function. There is no opportunity for each members gift to be realized.

Yes, WL did create a straw man, but I think he knew there was life and reality elsewhere, it's just that he could not figure how to make money on it. Recovery saints that are born into or saved into the recovery are subject to strong satanic delusion in believing all outside of the recovery is dead. I spent a long time in Christianity before coming into and leaving the recovery and knew there was life and reality outside of the recovery. I understand why when recovery-saved saints leave the recovery they believe there is nowhere else to go. This is a satanic lie and those who teach that sanctification can only be found in the LSM LC are oracles of satan, in my opinion.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

Yes, WL did create a straw man, but I think he knew there was life and reality elsewhere, it's just that he could not figure how to make money on it. Recovery saints that are born into or saved into the recovery are subject to strong satanic delusion in believing all outside of the recovery is dead. I spent a long time in Christianity before coming into and leaving the recovery and knew there was life and reality outside of the recovery. I understand why when recovery-saved saints leave the recovery they believe there is nowhere else to go. This is a satanic lie and those who teach that sanctification can only be found in the LSM LC are oracles of satan, in my opinion.

This is a good point. I'm fairly certain that WL at least had some realization that his sect wasn't an end-all. It was his need for the soap box that the LC provided for him that kept things going. Other churches were a threat in that LCers might find them more attrative, so Lee had to misrepresent other Christians.

[HERn]

http://www.reasons.org/blogs/reflect...ay-part-2-of-3

"However, theologically speaking, the Adventist pioneers made some very bold claims that according to Scripture must be tested for their compatibility with biblical faith (Galatians 1:6–9; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1–4; Jude 3). These early Adventists proclaimed to be “a special people, with a special message, for a special time!” They also declared themselves to be the “remnant church” that uniquely kept the commandments of God. In addition, they asserted that God was providing unique guidance to the early Adventists through the prophetic voice of Ellen G. White."

I was reading about how the Seventh Day Adventists made a reform and became part of historic orthodoxy and found the above. Does any of the above sound like WL's LC?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

Recovery saints that are born into or saved into the recovery are subject to strong satanic delusion in believing all outside of the recovery is dead. I spent a long time in Christianity before coming into and leaving the recovery and knew there was life and reality outside of the recovery. I understand why when recovery-saved saints leave the recovery they believe there is nowhere else to go.

Brothers and sisters I know who have been meeting with the local churches 40 years or more really bought into the ground of locality doctrine. For them there is no where else to go.
As for ones raised or born into the recovery, it's no different from those who were raised Baptist. For them it's all they know. There is no venturing outside their comfort zone.
LSM may teach certain things about Christian life and reality outside the recovery. General membership in the local churches may seem to go along with the LSM leadership, but when the rubber meets the road they see value other ministries have to offer what LSM cannot.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Terry

Brothers and sisters I know who have been meeting with the local churches 40 years or more really bought into the ground of locality doctrine. For them there is no where else to go.
As for ones raised or born into the recovery, it's no different from those who were raised Baptist. For them it's all they know. There is no venturing outside their comfort zone.
LSM may teach certain things about Christian life and reality outside the recovery. General membership in the local churches may seem to go along with the LSM leadership, but when the rubber meets the road they see value other ministries have to offer what LSM cannot.

Thanks bro Terry. I got saved in high school without any formal church influence by reading some gospel literature and talking to some other kids. I joined the baptist church because it had a bowling alley and lots of pretty girls. Shortly after I got saved I attended Explo 72 and met other lovers of Jesus from several different groups. For awhile I thought that the baptists had it all together, but I was also hanging out with charismatics who came from many different backgrounds. I praise God for the diversity in the Body of Christ; where others see division I see richness in expression for love of the Savior. At the judgement seat of Christ there will be no LSM LC saints, no RCC or EO saints, no Protestants or Episcopal, just saved sinners washed in the blood of the Lamb and full (may it be so) of good works toward all men and especially towards those of the household of faith.

[Freedom]

http://www.reasons.org/blogs/reflect...ay-part-2-of-3

"However, theologically speaking, the Adventist pioneers made some very bold claims that according to Scripture must be tested for their compatibility with biblical faith (Galatians 1:6–9; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1–4; Jude 3). These early Adventists proclaimed to be “a special people, with a special message, for a special time!” They also declared themselves to be the “remnant church” that uniquely kept the commandments of God. In addition, they asserted that God was providing unique guidance to the early Adventists through the prophetic voice of Ellen G. White."

I was reading about how the Seventh Day Adventists made a reform and became part of historic orthodoxy and found the above. Does any of the above sound like WL's LC?

It all is strikingly similar to the LC. The whole "remnant" mindset is quite addictive. When people are convinced that they are special, they default to that mindset, even when they know it's wrong. What really helped me to see past the LC is to understand that there are other groups who see themselves to be the exact same thing that those in the LC perceive themselves to be.

Most non-LC Christians I know live their lives in a manner such that they fear God and do their best to bring glory to God. They don't claim to be perfect, nor do they claim to be anything special. They are only trying to live a normal Christian life. It's so far removed from the LC paradigm that it should put most LC members to shame. Those in the LC are so prideful that it disgusts me. If only they could see the humility of other Christians.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It all is strikingly similar to the LC. The whole "remnant" mindset is quite addictive. When people are convinced that they are special, they default to that mindset, even when they know it's wrong. What really helped me to see past the LC is to understand that there are other groups who see themselves to be the exact same thing that those in the LC perceive themselves to be.

EXACTLY!

A couple years before I departed the Lord burdened me to read about our "predecessors" the exclusive Plymouth Brethren. Imagine my shock to learn about their own lineage of MOTA's! Egads! We were just like them, only about a 100 years behind, and catching up quickly.

[aron]

How much to throw out?

1. Our group is special.

2. Our leader was raised up by God in these last days to restore the church to its glorious state.

3. Everyone else is dark, dead, fallen, degraded. We alone have the light.

4. Our leadership is always right. Never question them, because this is rebellion against God's anointed.

5. You can ignore those parts of the Bible which our leadership isn't interested in. Just pay attention to the latest speaking from God's chosen vessel, the Maximum Leader.

6. In all other situations, refer to point 4. Leadership is always right. No need to think, because that would only lead to independence and result in division, confusion and frustration. We must all be in harmony. Conform to the Hive.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

EXACTLY!

A couple years before I departed the Lord burdened me to read about our "predecessors" the exclusive Plymouth Brethren. Imagine my shock to learn about their own lineage of MOTA's! Egads! We were just like them, only about a 100 years behind, and catching up quickly.

It seems WL was aware of the history of the exclusives, but he didn't see it as a lesson to be learned from. The LC was already perceived to be so much better than their predecessors. It was full speed ahead.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It seems WL was aware of the history of the exclusives, but he didn't see it as a lesson to be learned from. The LC was already perceived to be so much better than their predecessors. It was full speed ahead.

Not only did WL not learn from the failures of the Exclusives 100plus years ago, he did not learn from his own failures. And not only that, we can go back and find Lee's own teachings which contradict what he has done in his ministry.

Responding to aron's "right-on" list above, I would add the following:

1) "Our group is special". The Word says clearly that God is does not show favoritism. (Romans) There is also an old saying that goes something like "humility leaves when it sees its own face". Therefore, as soon as you think you are special, you are not. Of course, the Word also says that ALL of us have received favor from God--reinforcing the fact that we are all the same before Him. No one is "extra-special".

2) "Our leader was raised up by God in these last days to restore the church..." If this were, indeed, true, would He not have mentioned it in Scripture so that everyone would know that they were to come? Would He want anyone to "miss the boat"? Shouldn't there be a verse that says somewhere: "Behold, there shall come forth from the land of the Dragon two last great witnesses?" But no--"only" the two great witnesses during the time of Jacob's sorrow are mentioned and their ancestry is Jewish or, at the least, directly in the ancestral line of Jacob.

3) "Our leadership is always right. Never question them, because this is rebellion against God's anointed." So, then, our beloved Paul was in rebellion when he "withstood Peter to his face" about separating from the Gentiles? After all, wasn't Peter a "super-apostle", while Paul was sort of "second generation-afterthought"? And when the Bereans "searched the scriptures to find out if these things are so"--would they have remained silent if they had found it not to be or would they have spoken? You catch my drift, I am sure.

And on another page, another posting, someone mentioned how they claim not to have a formal seminary. "A rose by any other name" is still a rose. Full-time training followed by more full-time training is a seminary--even if you play the semantics game and say it is not. No one is fooled.

A LC member who no longer meets with the LC shared that once it was declared in a meeting that they were going to hold an "Advance" at a local denominational church camp. (They don't mind using their "degraded" facilities.) Others, it was shared, may have "retreats", but not the LC--they had "Advances"! Ha!

I believe it was Freedom that pointed out elsewhere that the members really do not function but, rather, read from the HWFMR, thereby just re-speaking what Lee said. True. One has only to go to a meeting or two before this is clearly seen. To leave the script is dangerous. So, in effect, they do not share what God has surely given them (because we ARE assured that "each man HAS"--present tense), but what one man said years and years ago. Only Lee is functioning, really.

Finally, the Word is not read (except, perhaps, very rarely) unless the footnotes are then consulted. (THE HWFMR is actually the Recovery Version verses with footnote materials expanded into full pages.) These "footnotes" are actually a complete Bible commentary, which anyone is entitled to write and publish if they so choose. These, however, are inserted into the pages of this version itself and treated as part and parcel of the Holy Word. How embarrassing it is to open a page of the Recovery Version and see just one or two small verses at the top with Lee's footnotes filling the entire rest of the length of the page! When visitors come to the church and try to read or share from their version of the Bible, much effort is made to thrust this "Recovery Version" into their hands and get them to read, instead, from it. By the way, I find this version to be clumsy and difficult to understand in many places. (By "understand", I mean the difficulty in following a sentence that is a looping of one clumsy phrase to another to try to stay in "word for word" translation.) It lacks the beauty and rhythm of the KJV and certainly the clarity of the NIV or ASV, among many others. This is just my own opinion, however.

UnregisteredSO

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

... the members really do not function but, rather, read from the HWFMR, thereby just re-speaking what Lee said. True. One has only to go to a meeting or two before this is clearly seen. To leave the script is dangerous. So, in effect, they do not share what God has surely given them (because we ARE assured that "each man HAS"--present tense), but what one man said years and years ago. Only Lee is functioning, really.

In order to understand the LC experience, I think that you have to understand the historical/cultural matrix that gave it birth.

Just as Marxism was born out of a critique of capitalism's ills (which were, and remain, many), so did Watchman Nee's "normal" christian church life arise as a response to the dormancy and stagnation he saw in the Western clergy/laity model.

But in Nee's and later Lee's Asian-influenced mindset, any functioning organizational model needed strong central leadership. Therefore ideas like "deputy God", "Authority and Submission", etc were promoted as necessary. Therefore the original thought of every member functioning became sublimated to the idea of every member being in harmony with the center, which ultimately reduced the notion of 'functioning' to every member standing up, one by one, and declaring, "Gee, Chief, what a great idea!!" and then sitting down. Because of their cultural lens they can't see the absurdity of it. And their cultural lens is threatened by any give-and-take as disorder, chaos, disharmony. Order must prevail. Freedom is secondary.

By contrast, if you look at the "normal" christian experience in the Book of Acts, on Pentecost each one declared in a unique tongue the glory of God. Yet there was harmony.

And there was "much discussion" in Acts 15 at the conference in Jerusalem, on what to do about the Gentiles flooding the church. (see e.g. v. 7). Yet it wasn't disorder. On the contrary, disorder was temporarily allowed, to find the true order, i.e. God's will for the group at that moment.

The LC attempt to externally impose "oneness" or "harmony" or "coordination" or "blending" or however they put it, looks an awful lot to me like the oneness imposed by Babylon - "And whoever didn't have the mark was not permitted to buy or sell", etc. That is the "oneness" that says, "If everybody did exactly as I say, then there would be peace." Well, duh.

[HERn]

Well, I learned something interesting about my new community church (E-Free) last weekend. They had home coming and invited an Episcopalian priest to speak. He got saved in college and attended our church and was sponsored by the church to attend Reformed Theological Seminary, his tuition and expenses were paid. What's amazing to me was that there was never any expectation that after graduation he would serve in our church or even be a minister in the E-Free denomination. While in seminary events and a burden led him to consider serving in the Episcopal Church. When he told Dr. Sproul (a bigwig in evangelicalism) at the seminary his response was something like "leave it alone and let it die" regarding the Episcopal Church. This priest preaches the gospel in this very liberal denomination. His sermon on Sunday was a very simple and clear presentation of the gospel I have heard in a long time. Compare this to the FTTA where students are expected to serve only in the small narrow sect of Christianity known as the Lord's Recovery.

[HERn]

Well, I'm hesitant to write about this, but as a family we're facing our first conflict in our new church. Our slightly mentally handicapped daughter has been attending the high school youth group and was hoping to attend the upcoming high school retreat. The youth workers said she was to immature and would not accept the registration fees from my wife. When my wife offered to drive our SUV and chaperone our daughter she was told by the youth workers that they did not want to put my wife out. I wrote an email to our senior pastor and we have a meeting with him on Monday. We did not ask him to change the decision, but let him know that we are offended, hurt and angry. My wife spent an hour on the phone talking to the youth worker in tears. I know that people have different capacities when it comes to accommodating mentally handicapped people, but for God's sake this is the body of Christ where we are supposed to care the weaker members, right? Sorry for the dirty laundry, but this is where we are at. I don't think we will leave, but our hearts are sad.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

...this is the body of Christ where we are supposed to care the weaker members, right? Sorry for the dirty laundry, but this is where we are at. I don't think we will leave, but our hearts are sad.

I am sad to hear your testimony. The only thing that I can think of to tell the pastor at the meeting on Monday is this: 1 Cor 12:22,23 "On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable,…"

If this member seems "less presentable" then the body should redouble itself to accomodate, and cover with honor. Not for some politically-correct "human rights" stuff but because this will please God. God loves every human being. We should not exclude, based on human frailty or slow development.

This is basic stuff, folks; what are we showing our high school members if we haven't figured out the ABCs of Christian living?

And no, I wouldn't leave, either: it seems that this group needs your input. There is spiritual labor to do. God bless your efforts, and give you and your wife compassion and endurance, until the others find it as well.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by HERn

Well, I'm hesitant to write about this, but as a family we're facing our first conflict in our new church. Our slightly mentally handicapped daughter has been attending the high school youth group and was hoping to attend the upcoming high school retreat. The youth workers said she was to immature and would not accept the registration fees from my wife. When my wife offered to drive our SUV and chaperone our daughter she was told by the youth workers that they did not want to put my wife out. I wrote an email to our senior pastor and we have a meeting with him on Monday. We did not ask him to change the decision, but let him know that we are offended, hurt and angry. My wife spent an hour on the phone talking to the youth worker in tears. I know that people have different capacities when it comes to accommodating mentally handicapped people, but for God's sake this is the body of Christ where we are supposed to care the weaker members, right? Sorry for the dirty laundry, but this is where we are at. I don't think we will leave, but our hearts are sad.

Hi HERn

Thanks for sharing your situation with us. It is not easy to share personal stuff.

I can't offer any specific advice and I don't think you are asking for any advice anyway. I do like to say that in this age, while sin is present, we cannot expect any churches to be perfect. However there are model churches (1 Thessalonians 1:7). (Not easy to tell whether one church is a model church)

Similarly marriage and working life will not be perfect:- we will experience conflicts. We do not divorce our spouses simply because of our first argument nor do we quit our jobs simply because of one bad colleague.

May God guide your family and may all parties grow spiritually through this matter.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Well, I'm hesitant to write about this, but as a family we're facing our first conflict in our new church. Our slightly mentally handicapped daughter has been attending the high school youth group and was hoping to attend the upcoming high school retreat. The youth workers said she was to immature and would not accept the registration fees from my wife. When my wife offered to drive our SUV and chaperone our daughter she was told by the youth workers that they did not want to put my wife out. I wrote an email to our senior pastor and we have a meeting with him on Monday. We did not ask him to change the decision, but let him know that we are offended, hurt and angry. My wife spent an hour on the phone talking to the youth worker in tears. I know that people have different capacities when it comes to accommodating mentally handicapped people, but for God's sake this is the body of Christ where we are supposed to care the weaker members, right? Sorry for the dirty laundry, but this is where we are at. I don't think we will leave, but our hearts are sad.

I too have been in your situation, and unless your daughter has a history of disturbances, there is no way any church should reject her when Mom is there as a chaperone / driver.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Hi HERn

Thanks for sharing your situation with us. It is not easy to share personal stuff.

I can't offer any specific advice and I don't think you are asking for any advice anyway. I do like to say that in this age, while sin is present, we cannot expect any churches to be perfect. However there are model churches (1 Thessalonians 1:7). (Not easy to tell whether one church is a model church)

Similarly marriage and working life will not be perfect:- we will experience conflicts. We do not divorce our spouses simply because of our first argument nor do we quit our jobs simply because of one bad colleague.

May God guide your family and may all parties grow spiritually through this matter.

I'm ok with receiving advice from those comfortable giving it. For the most part the folks who post here have been through the "clothes ringer of life" and are very measured and thoughtful...except for me when I get on an anti-LSM rant!

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I too have been in your situation, and unless your daughter has a history of disturbances, there is no way any church should reject her when Mom is there as a chaperone / driver.

Not disruptive at all. She's about 3-4 years behind her peers in emotional development, but can sit through sermons and such. She was home schooled until this year and has been doing great in public school (non-diploma track) and is even on the soccer team (as a freshman not much playing time but she loves being part of the team). She makes cookies for the team and for her church friends. She has sometimes gone overboard on asking girls to text her and has pestered some girls to the point where she was asked to not contact them. She's working with a counselor on interpersonal communication skills. Other than that she is a normal teenage girl trying to figure life out. She came to us as a foster child one month old and we were very blessed to be able to adopt her at 2-years old.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

She came to us as a foster child one month old and we were very blessed to be able to adopt her at 2-years old.

Bless you and your wife being able to adopt her. I know foster children tend to be bounced from home to home with no real sense of love from their foster parents.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UnregisteredSO

Finally, the Word is not read (except, perhaps, very rarely) unless the footnotes are then consulted. (THE HWFMR is actually the Recovery Version verses with footnote materials expanded into full pages.) These "footnotes" are actually a complete Bible commentary... inserted into the pages of this version itself and treated as part and parcel of the Holy Word. How embarrassing it is to open a page of the Recovery Version and see just one or two small verses at the top with footnotes filling the entire rest of the length of the page!

Psalm 109 "Mem" says

Originally Posted by Psalm 109 Mem

97 Oh, how I love your law!
I meditate on it all day long.

98 Your commands are always with me
and make me wiser than my enemies.

99 I have more insight than all my teachers,
for I meditate on your statutes.

100 I have more understanding than the elders,
for I obey your precepts.

101 I have kept my feet from every evil path
so that I might obey your word.

102 I have not departed from your laws,
for you yourself have taught me.

103 How sweet are your words to my taste,
sweeter than honey to my mouth!

104 I gain understanding from your precepts;
therefore I hate every wrong path.

"How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth"

Which words, I ask, the words of "law" or words of "grace"? The words which are revelatory of Jesus Christ, or the words which are natural, soulish, and derived from fallen human concepts? WL's scriptural exegeses clearly divided the word of God into these two classes. See his commentary throughout the Psalms, and in Job, and in James' epistle. Etc. Words which were "sweet" to WL got reams of footnotes. As UnregisteredSO says above, you can open the RecV and get 2 verses of scripture and the rest of the page is 15 or 20 paragraphs of small-print commentary. But open a page in Psalms and you might get one dismissive comment for 30 verses of scripture, or maybe no footnote, just 2 or 3 cross-references for an entire page! Where does Paul or another NT writer receive scriptures thus? Or suggest that we do so? I'd say, on the contrary.

I propose an alternative to Recovery Version footnotes: Who kept His feet from every evil path in v 101, in order to obey God's word? Who didn't depart from God's laws in v 102? Who hated every wrong path in v 104? I propose that it was Jesus who fulfilled these declarations. Jesus was the Promised Seed who truly tasted the sweetness of God's word, as verse 103 says. Our faith is in this Jesus, who delights to obey the Father's word (expressed will, or law, or precept, etc), and thus tastes sweetly. See e.g. "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me". Our faith is not in Paul, not in David, not in WL, and certainly not in ourselves. No; it's "this Jesus" whom we see and believe into. (See Acts 2:32; cf Heb 2:9) It's "this Jesus", revealed in Scripture, whom we follow. And I ask, How can we follow, or obey this Jesus, if we don't see Him? How can His sheep move to greener pasture, and still waters, without hearing their Shepherd's voice?

WL's footnotes present a nearly violent and schizophrenic treatment, where he'd say, "natural, natural, natural" in covering the text, then suddenly he'd see a verse like 103 where the word was called "sweet" and suddenly declare "Revelation!! A revelation from God!!" And a long footnote would ensue (of course tied to some LC practice like "eating the word" - i.e. pray-reading). Then it was back to "natural, natural, fallen, natural". Strange and disjointed stuff; wrenching a so-called revelation totally out of context from the surrounding narrative. WL's pet verses got reams of ink, and the rest were relegated to silence, or outright dismissal, as vain words of men. Again, where's the precedent for this sort of exegesis?

But look at Peter's treatment of Psalmic text on Pentecost. Peter didn't say that David was ignorant, and natural, and that suddenly David had a "squirrel" moment in the midst of his natural and vain philosophizing. No, Peter said that David was a prophet and knew what, or more specifically, 'Who' was coming after him, fulfilling God's promise of an eternally reigning Seed. Or should we reject Peter's interpretive approach in favor of WL's? (See Acts 2:30; also Jesus' 'David was in spirit' of Matt 22:23). Or is Peter's interpretation limited to a few verses from Psalm 16, after which we're invited to form our own personal, subjective (and with WL, clearly disjointed) hermeneutical treatment elsewhere?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Psalm 109 "Mem" says..

Sorry, that was Psalm 119, not 109. I admit to being a hasty writer, and not a careful or systematic thinker. But even a rank and unschooled layperson can see that WL treated the Bible differently than the Bible treated itself. The reception and use of OT scripture in the NT gives a pattern, and WL abandoned this pattern in adhering to his "NT economy" exposition.

In a sense, WL fell into the pit that he dug, and was ensnared by a net of his own creation (Psa 57:6). His teachings were to promote his ministry, and his ministry was to become the centerpiece of the Lord's recovery. But when scripture couldn't be conformed to his teachings, he was forced to abandon scripture as "low" and without merit. Instead we were expected to conform to the "high peak" theology of men.

Again I ask, Which words were sweet to WL's taste - merely the ones that could be lined up with his "economy" metric? Then why does it say, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God"? In order to preserve his theology and ministry, WL was forced to jettison this. His inability to find the Christ in scripture suggests his inability to find the Christ of scripture. He'd essentially invented his own; one that didn't need to be reconciled with the word of God. Yet clearly, Christ is the Word of God.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Words which were "sweet" to WL got reams of footnotes... open the RecV and get 2 verses of scripture and the rest of the page is 15 or 20 paragraphs of small-print commentary. But open a page in Psalms and get one dismissive comment for 30 verses of scripture, or maybe no footnote...

I checked a RecV and in four pages of verses from Psalm 119 (vv 65-144), there's only one footnote, consisting of a sentence on "the unfolding of God's word" in v 130. That's it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Finally, the Word is not read (except, perhaps, very rarely) unless the footnotes are then consulted. (THE HWFMR is actually the Recovery Version verses with footnote materials expanded into full pages.) -- UnregisteredSO

I grew up in the Catholic Church: baptized, confirmed, altar boy, choir boy, 12 years parochial education, named after my uncle who was ordained Franciscan OFM, etc.

They constantly promoted the instruction to their people that the laity could not read the scriptures alone without the proper and official interpretations. Every week our church service was based on the Catholic Missal.

The LCM has become exactly the same. Their members must read from the "Interpreted Word" from the footnotes, the Life-Studies, and the HWfMR lest they "misinterpret" God's word. The HWfMR has become their "Recovery Missal."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They constantly promoted the instruction to their people that the laity could not read the scriptures alone without the proper and official interpretations.

While that is beyond what either the RCC or the LCM should claim concerning their interpretations of scripture, there actually is some level of safety in the idea that I should generally remain within standard interpretations and understandings except when there are a number of people truly willing and able to take on hashing through ideas that might not square with what was otherwise held. In other words, I am much better off sticking to what I know rather than what I think that is different from anything I knew before.

Besides, while the claim of 33,000 truly different sects is far from real, at some level, the opening of the idea of personal study and revelation over the past 100 to 200 year has resulted in a plethora of novel ideas. In some arenas you can find that the number of different opinions on certain subjects is as great as the number of people there. I'm not talking about minor nuances, but significant differences. Of course, as long as it is just about the peripheral stuff, it really doesn't matter — at least until someone speaks from their idea and it somehow insults someone with a different idea and a sort of small schism erupts.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by HERn

Well, I'm hesitant to write about this, but as a family we're facing our first conflict in our new church. Our slightly mentally handicapped daughter has been attending the high school youth group and was hoping to attend the upcoming high school retreat. The youth workers said she was to immature and would not accept the registration fees from my wife. When my wife offered to drive our SUV and chaperone our daughter she was told by the youth workers that they did not want to put my wife out. I wrote an email to our senior pastor and we have a meeting with him on Monday. We did not ask him to change the decision, but let him know that we are offended, hurt and angry. My wife spent an hour on the phone talking to the youth worker in tears. I know that people have different capacities when it comes to accommodating mentally handicapped people, but for God's sake this is the body of Christ where we are supposed to care the weaker members, right? Sorry for the dirty laundry, but this is where we are at. I don't think we will leave, but our hearts are sad.

We had a good meeting. Kind and loving, but their capacity is limited. We will be working with the the youth minister to help her prepare for for next year's retreat. She can't go this year even with her mother as a chaperone. We are worried that if we tell her that if she improves next year she can go, but does not make it she will feel like a failure. Her soccer coach invited the girls to her church youth group, so she will visit. In coordination with her councilor we have restricted her to only 10 unsolicited phone texts per day. This will help her from pestering her church friends. We will not force her to continue in her current youth group if she feels rejected and like "she's a project". There is an Assembly of God church who's youth group she may visit because when she was home schooled where one of the moms was a youth pastor there. One comment that hurt was that there was a senior girl who we were told wanted her last year in the group not to be negatively affected by our daughter's needs. We just went to a ballet were two of the senior girls were performing and several families were there, but we felt ignored. This rejection of our daughter will probably factor in to me taking early retirement and moving in with my wife's widowed father. Our daughter has a dear disabled friend in his church that we really like.

[Lisbon]

Isn't it strange that the last conference and so present HWfmr is "the crucial points of the major items of the Lords Recovery. They have little desire for the truth.

Lisbon

[HERn]

Things are going well. Our daughter is loved by the youth group and I've been asked to serve as a deacon in our elder, deacon format church. I served as a deacon back in the '80s before we moved away. I am very much enjoying the worship even more than when I was in the LSM LC. I attended a work day this weekend and drank from the fellowship of Christian brothers. I am so happy to have escaped the religious superstition of the LSM LC. A dear sister in our real local church is going to serve as a nurse practioner to nomad Muslims in Africa and we are supporting her. The Spirit is so much greater than the narrow sect known as TLR.

[HERn]

My dear wife hesitantly followed me out of the sect known as the Lord's recovery and we as a family have been blessed. We are meeting with a normal Christian group that is not imprisoned by the teachings of one man. I urge any husband or wife to listen to their spouses about leaving TLR. There are life, love and faith in many places, not just the TLR. The Lord has not limited Himself to the narrow sect of the TLR. You can escape and find life in other places.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

My dear wife hesitantly followed me out of the sect known as the Lord's recovery and we as a family have been blessed. We are meeting with a normal Christian group that is not imprisoned by the teachings of one man. I urge any husband or wife to listen to their spouses about leaving TLR. There are life, love and faith in many places, not just the TLR. The Lord has not limited Himself to the narrow sect of the TLR. You can escape and find life in other places.

That was my experience also roughly 5 years ago. While home meetings were socially enjoyable, there was little else to offer. Quite unlike in Bellevue when there was actually meetings comprised of praying for one another.
During the LTM, my wife was in the back with the children during the prophesying so she never witnessed the divisive speaking that I saw and heard.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Terry

That was my experience also roughly 5 years ago. While home meetings were socially enjoyable, there was little else to offer. Quite unlike in Bellevue when there was actually meetings comprised of praying for one another.
During the LTM, my wife was in the back with the children during the prophesying so she never witnessed the divisive speaking that I saw and heard.

Hi bro Terry,

I've been in a real local community church for over a year now and I can say that I have never experienced politics like I did in the local church. Before I left I was being pressured by three brothers (one an elder) to write a letter to RK about what was going on. Two brothers had already written a letter to RK, but I hand no heart to do it, although I did write a draft letter and showed it to an elder. He agreed with the letter but when I asked him to co-sign it with me he refused. I finally realized that several of the so-called elders were snakes so I just cut them off.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by HERn

Hi bro Terry,

I've been in a real local community church for over a year now and I can say that I have never experienced politics like I did in the local church. Before I left I was being pressured by three brothers (one an elder) to write a letter to RK about what was going on. Two brothers had already written a letter to RK, but I hand no heart to do it, although I did write a draft letter and showed it to an elder. He agreed with the letter but when I asked him to co-sign it with me he refused. I finally realized that several of the so-called elders were snakes so I just cut them off.

To escape the LSM LC I had to be ballsy. The so-called elders wil never control the Spirit or my married life.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

To escape the LSM LC I had to be ballsy. The so-called elders wil never control the Spirit or my married life.

Why is it that we looked up to all the great men of God who defied the system they were in and then moved on, but we were incredibly afraid to do the same?

[HERn]

My experience was that the more "absolute" the brother the closer he followed the teaching of WL and the less he referred to the bible on spiritual matters. It was WL or the highway. I would be ok with "it's Paul or the highway" because at least Paul was inspired to write parts of the New Testament which led to billions of Christians on the earth. Does anyone really equate WL with Paul?

[HERn]

Originally Posted by HERn

My experience was that the more "absolute" the brother the closer he followed the teaching of WL and the less he referred to the bible on spiritual matters. It was WL or the highway. I would be ok with "it's Paul or the highway" because at least Paul was inspired to write parts of the New Testament which led to billions of Christians on the earth. Does anyone really equate WL with Paul?

I would like to hear from our dear recovery bothers and sisters why they think WL was the minister of the age, apostle, oracle of God, etc.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why is it that we looked up to all the great men of God who defied the system they were in and then moved on, but we were incredibly afraid to do the same?

Excellent point!