Local Church Speak - Merged with The Lexicon

[OBW]

I'm sure that there is a legitimate way to understand this phrase. But does it actually have a real meaning, or is it LC-spiritualeze for "something I've been thinking about" or praying about, or concerned about.

Or what?

Is it like "cool"? Cool can mean "groovy," "great," all the way down to "I guess I can live with that." So if you say "cool," what did you say? And if two people say "cool," did they say the same thing?

So what is "exercised in your spirit"? Does it have a somewhat singular meaing? Is the meaning variable based on the context? Is "my spirit" necessarily involved just because I use the term? Is it just a LRC cliche?

Opinions? Does Lee or someone else ever give this term a somewhat difinitive meaning? Or is it just jargon?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm sure that there is a legitimate way to understand this phrase. But does it actually have a real meaning, or is it LC-spiritualeze for "something I've been thinking about" or praying about, or concerned about.

Or what?

Is it like "cool"? Cool can mean "groovy," "great," all the way down to "I guess I can live with that." So if you say "cool," what did you say? And if two people say "cool," did they say the same thing?

So what is "exercised in your spirit"? Does it have a somewhat singular meaing? Is the meaning variable based on the context? Is "my spirit" necessarily involved just because I use the term? Is it just a LRC cliche?

Opinions? Does Lee or someone else ever give this term a somewhat difinitive meaning? Or is it just jargon?

That's easy: Jargon

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Dave

That's easy: Jargon

Agreed. I never really got what the meaning of that statement other than the "implied" meaning. I know that they pull out this verse a lot when some asks what exercising the spirit is: Tim 4:6 "But reject profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise yourself toward godliness."

I know that the screaming at the top of the lungs and fist pumping is considered being "exercised in spirit". I think that maybe Lee left the meaning somewhat vague on purpose. In many cases I've seen the idea of being "exercised in spirit" as a way to correct people: so and so is argumentative, so they are not "in their spirit". A brother is too quiet when he's sharing, so he's not "exercised" enough. It is kind of a catch-all tool that the leading brothers can use to direct everyone. Because the meaning is unclear, no one questions it, they just assume they messed up somehow. I know that because it's been used like that to "correct" me many times.

[zeek]

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

Mark 10:42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.

Luke 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

Acts 24:16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void to offence toward God, and toward men.

1 Timothy 4:7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.

1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

Hebrews 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Hebrews 12:11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

2 Peter 2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:

Revelation 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

That's a list of every verse using of the word exercise in the KJV New Testament. "Exercise of the spirit" is not among them. Thus, exercise of the spirit is an extra-Biblical expression of uncertain meaning apparently coined by Watchman Nee. Before one could know what it means to exercise the spirit one would have to know what the spirit is and that is never defined by Nee or Lee as far as I have heard or read. I have given my definition on another thread and you dismissed it. What, if anything, you mean by spirit, OBW, I haven't seen you define either.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Agreed. I never really got what the meaning of that statement other than the "implied" meaning. I know that they pull out this verse a lot when some asks what exercising the spirit is: Tim 4:6 "But reject profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise yourself toward godliness."

I know that the screaming at the top of the lungs and fist pumping is considered being "exercised in spirit". I think that maybe Lee left the meaning somewhat vague on purpose. In many cases I've seen the idea of being "exercised in spirit" as a way to correct people: so and so is argumentative, so they are not "in their spirit". A brother is too quiet when he's sharing, so he's not "exercised" enough. It is kind of a catch-all tool that the leading brothers can use to direct everyone. Because the meaning is unclear, no one questions it, they just assume they messed up somehow. I know that because it's been used like that to "correct" me many times.

The Release of the Spirit….The breaking of the outer man and the release of the spirit. What has happened in the LC is that WL and the BB can retain their outer man and break everyone else. People become so weakened (or broken) they are unable to think for themselves (or exercise their mind) and bound forever in “brokenness” making it impossible to break away because that would be the exercise of the outer man. WL and the BB hold themselves up to have been broken but the fruits of their lives don’t reflect that experience. They hold dominion over others.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

The Release of the Spirit….The breaking of the outer man and the release of the spirit. What has happened in the LC is that WL and the BB can retain their outer man and break everyone else. People become so weakened (or broken) they are unable to think for themselves (or exercise their mind) and bound forever in “brokenness” making it impossible to break away because that would be the exercise of the outer man. WL and the BB hold themselves up to have been broken but the fruits of their lives don’t reflect that experience. They hold dominion over others.

You can add Titus Chu to your list.

[awareness]

My experience in the LC was that "exercise your spirit" was a euphemism, for "get with the program."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

My experience in the LC was that "exercise your spirit" was a euphemism, for "get with the program."

Yes. I would agree. That is at least one common use of the term.

But without disparaging anyone, I started this thread because of a reference someone said about themselves. Therefore it was a statement about really being engaged in doing something. Or something like that. Or possibly being determined not to be brushed aside on an issue.

And it made me wonder what caused being intent about something to be "exercised in my spirit." Why not just determined not to ignore my conscience, or not willing to give in to sinful men. Or whatever the plain explanation would be. Seems that saying things like this could be a way to defer determining that something really is worthy of your effort. Say spiritual words about it and it has been declared to be righteous. Only say ordinary, secular words and it might not actually be righteous.

But either it is righteous or it is not. It is worthy of the effort or it is not. How you say it is only a way to keep others from questioning motives or reasoning because the motives and reasoning are veiled behind "spiritual" words.

[Mephibosheth2]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's a list of every verse using of the word exercise in the KJV New Testament. "Exercise of the spirit" is not among them. Thus, exercise of the spirit is an extra-Biblical expression of uncertain meaning apparently coined by Watchman Nee. Before one could know what it means to exercise the spirit one would have to know what the spirit is and that is never defined by Nee or Lee as far as I have heard or read. I have given my definition on another thread and you dismissed it. What, if anything, you mean by spirit, OBW, I haven't seen you define either.

According to WL, the spirit is an organ for apprehending spiritual things just as the body is an organ for contacting the material world. He adds on and goes further to say that the spirit is actually a 'vessel' purposely created for containing God.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

According to WL, the spirit is an organ for apprehending spiritual things just as the body is an organ for contacting the material world. He adds on and goes further to say that the spirit is actually a 'vessel' purposely created for containing God.

Witness Lee had a lot of teaching about the human spirit, exercising the spirit, etc.

A line in a hymn said, "Get out of your mind, get your spirit in gear!" As a kid, I heard a lot that I should "get out of my mind."

Is there something in the Bible that indicates we should "get out of our mind"?

A rapper named Lil John has a track called "Get Outta Your Mind." It's a little unpleasant (Lil John is famous for screaming a lot), and I'm pretty sure he's talking about getting wasted. This reminds me that someone mentioned awhile back that Philip Lee was known to have shared marijuana, on occasion, w/some church young people.

Considering Recovery culture, I have to say that pot use does not strike me as all that out-of-sync w/being a member of the Lord's Recovery. While it may not be particularly helpful for fist-pumping spirit-exercising in the meetings, it really doesn't hurt when you're in that mellow, not-asking-too-many-questions, post-meeting mode.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Dave

The Release of the Spirit….The breaking of the outer man and the release of the spirit. What has happened in the LC is that WL and the BB can retain their outer man and break everyone else. People become so weakened (or broken) they are unable to think for themselves (or exercise their mind) and bound forever in “brokenness” making it impossible to break away because that would be the exercise of the outer man. WL and the BB hold themselves up to have been broken but the fruits of their lives don’t reflect that experience. They hold dominion over others.

Ron Kangas used to talk a lot about being broken. (Probably he still does.) He gives the example of when they rented out their house in Texas after moving back to California (if I'm remembering the details correctly), and the house was subsequently trashed by the renters. That was part of the breaking of his outer man.

I think people admire him and respect his sharing because he is seen as someone who has gone through this "breaking process". I know that's how I heard him when I was there.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

According to WL, the spirit is an organ for apprehending spiritual things just as the body is an organ for contacting the material world. He adds on and goes further to say that the spirit is actually a 'vessel' purposely created for containing God.

Thanks for the response Mephibosheth. The idea that the spirit is an organ is, I believe, wrong. That idea makes the spirit an object. As such it is peripheral to you as the experiencing subject. That is a mistaken notion of spiritually deadly consequences as I can testify because of my experience in Witness Lee's cult. Remember the diagram of the three circles? That symbol got it right because it shows spirit in the center. The spirit is the true you. Accept no substitute.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

According to WL, the spirit is an organ for apprehending spiritual things just as the body is an organ for contacting the material world. He adds on and goes further to say that the spirit is actually a 'vessel' purposely created for containing God.

Yet the verses that Nee listed to define the spirit were quite interesting. And anything but a "vessel." In fact, they looked a lot like the same functions as the soul. In fact, despite the claim of discovering unique functions for each of the three "parts of man" — body, soul, and spirit — it seemed that the spirit was more like an aspect of the soul than something so independent. Probably one of the reasons that it took a sharp, two-edged sword to separate them. But the fact that it indicated that the Word was such a sword, that did not mean that a list of verses was the wielding of that sword.

That is just a list of definitions. And while the things that scripture defines is important, I'm not sure that it is definitions that separate soul and spirit. The spirit knows. But so does the mind. And so on. Given that kind of differentiation, they begin to look more like slightly different aspects of one thing than completely different things that can be defined into separation.

[Mephibosheth2]

Originally Posted by OBW

— it seemed that the spirit was more like an aspect of the soul than something so independent. Probably one of the reasons that it took a sharp, two-edged sword to separate them.

Given that kind of differentiation, they begin to look more like slightly different aspects of one thing than completely different things that can be defined into separation.

I'm generally inclined to agree with you, though I'd reverse your order and hazard to say that it is the soul which is an aspect of the spirit, rather than the other way around. Let me explain. If you journey back to the creation of Adam, you will find that after God formed Adam's body out of the ground, He then breathed Adam's spirit into him, and then Adam 'became a living soul': According to the text, God did not specifically create or form Adam's soul. Adam's soul 'became' or 'came about' as a direct result of the interface between his formed body and the spirit breathed into him (this is an important distinction that was later remarked upon by the apostle Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians). Therefore, the soul, per se, is not really a separate entity on its own, but the product -or hybrid, if you will- of the spirit and the flesh. The three (but really two acting in synergy), together, constitute the whole person.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

I'm generally inclined to agree with you, though I'd reverse your order and hazard to say that it is the soul which is an aspect of the spirit, rather than the other way around. Let me explain. If you journey back to the creation of Adam, you will find that after God formed Adam's body out of the ground, He then breathed Adam's spirit into him, and then Adam 'became a living soul': According to the text, God did not specifically create or form Adam's soul. Adam's soul 'became' or 'came about' as a direct result of the interface between his formed body and the spirit breathed into him (this is an important distinction that was later remarked upon by the apostle Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians). Therefore, the soul, per se, is not really a separate entity on its own, but the product -or hybrid, if you will- of the spirit and the flesh. The three (but really two acting in synergy), together, constitute the whole person.

Interesting Me'th ... you would have enjoyed our lively forum discussions cencerning the Last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

I'm generally inclined to agree with you, though I'd reverse your order and hazard to say that it is the soul which is an aspect of the spirit, rather than the other way around. Let me explain. If you journey back to the creation of Adam, you will find that after God formed Adam's body out of the ground, He then breathed Adam's spirit into him, and then Adam 'became a living soul': According to the text, God did not specifically create or form Adam's soul. Adam's soul 'became' or 'came about' as a direct result of the interface between his formed body and the spirit breathed into him (this is an important distinction that was later remarked upon by the apostle Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians). Therefore, the soul, per se, is not really a separate entity on its own, but the product -or hybrid, if you will- of the spirit and the flesh. The three (but really two acting in synergy), together, constitute the whole person.

You may have forgotten, but Nee posited this theory. Can't remember which book. (Of course, he probably ripped it from someone else.)

Anyway, I'm disinclined to come to the conclusion that the wording implies that soul is a by-product ("Jesus died to save my by-product?"), particularly that it is a by-product of spirit combined with flesh, implying if there were no flesh there would be no soul. But if soul is mind, emotion, will, doesn't God have one? But he has no flesh. Not sure that dog hunts, Meph.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

I'm generally inclined to agree with you, though I'd reverse your order and hazard to say that it is the soul which is an aspect of the spirit, rather than the other way around. Let me explain. If you journey back to the creation of Adam, you will find that after God formed Adam's body out of the ground, He then breathed Adam's spirit into him, and then Adam 'became a living soul': According to the text, God did not specifically create or form Adam's soul. Adam's soul 'became' or 'came about' as a direct result of the interface between his formed body and the spirit breathed into him (this is an important distinction that was later remarked upon by the apostle Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians). Therefore, the soul, per se, is not really a separate entity on its own, but the product -or hybrid, if you will- of the spirit and the flesh. The three (but really two acting in synergy), together, constitute the whole person.

I would have to take a different approach to it. It is generally stated that the other animals have a form of soul, and what is missing is the spirit.

Besides, the breathing of God into man to make him become living is the addition of breath. It is interesting that the word for breath is the one also used for what we call spirit. But that does not mean that we are constantly inhaling and exhaling "spirit" in the sense that we mean spirit in these discussions (and in the sense of what is spoken of in the Bible). Otherwise, everyone would always be filled with the spirit because they are filled with breath.

No. The soul was to be part of man with or without a spirit. It was the spirit that was added that, as someone pointed out, gave us a different connection with God. Yet it is not simply some organ that we can locate. We kind of think we have located a lot about our soul. But to the extent that the spirit is in any way different, it is not findable. Yet it must be essentially "married to" the soul because the two cannot be distinguished so easily. (Of course the comment in Hebrews about the difficulty in distinguishing is juxtaposed with "joints and marrow" which we can fairly easily distinguish on a medical anatomy chart.)

But either way, the point is that if you go find Nee's verses on soul and spirit and read them carefully (without simply accepting his determination about what it means) you will see that the ones concerning the aspects of the spirit are things that you would attribute to your mind, will, emotions — your soul. Therefore the spirit is not some separate thing, but more of an identification of the soul in connection with (or not in connection with) God. It could be that the divider of soul and spirit is not like dissection, but observation of the source of speaking and actions. When put up against the Word, the actions of the soul are simply human while those of the spirit are beyond human.

I'm sure that this is a pathetic way to look at it, but that is what was coming to me as I was writing. I don't know if I would try to sell this version of the difference between soul and spirit. But I'm pretty sure that there is no identifiable "organ" in man that can be described so perfectly as all those verses tied to that three-concentric-ring diagram.

Man is not "tripartite." He is a unit. A whole. We are not little trinities. My body does not go off to do things without my mind (although my wife might disagree sometime).

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

The idea that the spirit is an organ is, I believe, wrong. That idea makes the spirit an object. As such it is peripheral to you as the experiencing subject.

The spirit is an organ? Does the Bible say that, or did somebody rather push that notion forward? I would be curious as to the source of that.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

The spirit is an organ? Does the Bible say that, or did somebody rather push that notion forward? I would be curious as to the source of that.

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth View Post
According to WL, the spirit is an organ for apprehending spiritual things just as the body is an organ for contacting the material world. He adds on and goes further to say that the spirit is actually a 'vessel' purposely created for containing God.

The immediate source of the quote is Mephibosheth. My guess is that it is traceable at least to Watchman Nee. The spirit is never called an organ in the Bible in any of the versions I've read. I would check further for you but Living Stream Online Publication site is down at the moment.

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

The spirit is never called an organ in the Bible in any of the versions I've read.

Each person has an angel, it seems (see "their angels always watch the face of My Father in heaven" and "They said, 'it is Peter's angel'"). And angels are spirits. So maybe your spirit is an angel.

The Great Spirit witnesses with your angel that you are children of God (Romans 8:16)

Now, it doesn't say that, does it? But it also doesn't say that the spirit is an organ. So my 'leap of logic' has as much ground, scripturally, as Nee's did. The only thing that I can see supporting Nee's "organ" idea is that he was the Minister of the Age and was God's Oracle. So we mistakenly took it at face value.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The spirit is an organ? Does the Bible say that, or did somebody rather push that notion forward? I would be curious as to the source of that.

Our spirit has been likened to a muscle that needs to be exercised to operate at "peak efficiency."

Hebrews mentions "having faculties exercised for discernment."

The difficulty with the "organ" analogy is basic lack of control. How does one exercise his liver?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

... the soul, per se, is not really a separate entity on its own, but the product -or hybrid, if you will- of the spirit and the flesh. The three (but really two acting in synergy), together, constitute the whole person.

Long before Mary McDonough wrote God's Plan of Salvation (1926), the Dutch writer Erasmus did a marvelous essay on the 3 parts of man. Like, in 1509 or something. He said that the spirit is immaterial, incorporeal, and always longs for its home in the courts of heaven. The flesh is physical, temporal, and only cares for its comfort, safety, and pleasures. The soul is neutral; it is in between, and must choose the path it will take.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Long before Mary McDonough wrote God's Plan of Salvation (1926), the Dutch writer Erasmus did a marvelous essay on the 3 parts of man. Like, in 1509 or something. He said that the spirit is immaterial, incorporeal, and always longs for its home in the courts of heaven. The flesh is physical, temporal, and only cares for its comfort, safety, and pleasures. The soul is neutral; it is in between, and must choose the path it will take.

I like that explanation.

It sounds like Lee's translation and exposition on Romans 8.6

Looking at numerous translations of this verse, they seem to be evenly divided between whether the mind is choosing, or the spirit (or flesh) is controlling the mind.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Our spirit has been likened to a muscle that needs to be exercised to operate at "peak efficiency."

Hebrews mentions "having faculties exercised for discernment."

The difficulty with the "organ" analogy is basic lack of control. How does one exercise his liver?

Being likened to something and being something are not the same thing. My dog is like my cat in that both are smallish, furry house pets. But my dog is not my cat. In WL's local church, if X had any analogous characteristics of Y, and WL decided it might be profitable ($), then X=Y. End of conversation. The Oracle has rendered pronouncement.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I like that explanation.

It sounds like Lee's translation and exposition on Romans 8.6

Looking at numerous translations of this verse, they seem to be evenly divided between whether the mind is choosing, or the spirit (or flesh) is controlling the mind.

Erasmus used 1 Cor 6 analogizing the man being joined to a harlot as "becoming one flesh"; he connected that with the advice to the young man in Proverbs, to avoid the harlots' enticements, which is the path of Sheol (death). The soul must choose. Faith in the unseen spiritual realm allows the soul to find the path of eternal life.

[Mephibosheth2]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You may have forgotten, but Nee posited this theory. Can't remember which book. (Of course, he probably ripped it from someone else.)

Anyway, I'm disinclined to come to the conclusion that the wording implies that soul is a by-product ("Jesus died to save my by-product?"), particularly that it is a by-product of spirit combined with flesh, implying if there were no flesh there would be no soul. But if soul is mind, emotion, will, doesn't God have one? But he has no flesh. Not sure that dog hunts, Meph.

But who said that the soul is mind, emotion, and will? Is this strictly Biblical? God, indeed, is spirit; but where does it say that God has a soul? Are there words to that effect? I am afraid that this definition of the soul -offered as a dogmatic statement, at best, and received without question because it seems to make sense- though it may be true, has quite purposefully left out the role the flesh plays in the structure of the soul. Does not even science attest that our minds are a nebulous mesh of criss-crossing and interconnecting neural pathways and a heady mix of neuro-chemicals? Is not that of the flesh? Or are you going to correct me and say that that refers to the brain and not to the mind...Really? Do you not think, for example, that a doctor can change your whole personality by simply altering the hormonal balance in your brain, or by introducing outside chemical compounds, or even by disabling key areas of it? This has been done. Where then is the soul's independence from the flesh?

We know that God formed 'man of the dust of the ground' and then 'breathed into his nostrils the breath of life'... My challenge is for anyone to show me where in the Scripture it is written that God actually made a soul for the man? Or did He form it, too, from the ground? Or did He breathe it into him as well? If so, where does it say this?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

But who said that the soul is mind, emotion, and will? Is this strictly Biblical? God, indeed, is spirit; but where does it say that God has a soul? Are there words to that effect? I am afraid that this definition of the soul -offered as a dogmatic statement, at best, and received without question because it seems to make sense- though it may be true, has quite purposefully left out the role the flesh plays in the structure of the soul. Does not even science attest that our minds are a nebulous mesh of criss-crossing and interconnecting neural pathways and a heady mix of neuro-chemicals? Is not that of the flesh? Or are you going to correct me and say that that refers to the brain and not to the mind...Really? Do you not think, for example, that a doctor can change your whole personality by simply altering the hormonal balance in your brain, or by introducing outside chemical compounds, or even by disabling key areas of it? This has been done. Where then is the soul's independence from the flesh?

We know that God formed 'man of the dust of the ground' and then 'breathed into his nostrils the breath of life'... My challenge is for anyone to show me where in the Scripture it is written that God actually made a soul for the man? Or did He form it, too, from the ground? Or did He breathe it into him as well? If so, where does it say this?

There are verses which indicate we "have" a soul and verses which show that we "are" a soul, implying the soul is who we are, corresponding with creation, "and man became a living soul."

[Mephibosheth2]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There are verses which indicate we "have" a soul and verses which show that we "are" a soul, implying the soul is who we are, corresponding with creation, "and man became a living soul."

And hence, my question: how did we get that soul which we 'have' or 'are'? how did we 'become a living soul'? I have not denied that we have a soul or that we became a soul. My intention here is to challenge and poke holes in the received wisdom of our concept of the soul; a concept that does not seem to have any firm underpinnings in Scripture.

Again, when and where was it that God made our souls?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You may have forgotten, but Nee posited this theory. Can't remember which book. (Of course, he probably ripped it from someone else.)

Anyway, I'm disinclined to come to the conclusion that the wording implies that soul is a by-product ("Jesus died to save my by-product?"), particularly that it is a by-product of spirit combined with flesh, implying if there were no flesh there would be no soul. But if soul is mind, emotion, will, doesn't God have one? But he has no flesh. Not sure that dog hunts, Meph.

Nee's 3 Volume set, "The Spiritual Man". All the scriptures, sources etc are located in this 3 volume set for spirit, soul and body. He took a lot from Jessie Penn-Lewis but it is all there. Unfortunately I either sold my copies or they are in the garage or I tossed them but all the info is in those volumes. You can obtain your own copies on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Man-...+spiritual+man
On Amazon you can "look inside" and view the table of contents which lists extensive discussion about the "soul" etc You can also read prefaces and some introductory info about the spirit, soul and body without buying the books. The 3 volumes comprise 740 pages. I read it many years ago. It was an amazing read at that time.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

And hence, my question: how did we get that soul which we 'have' or 'are'? how did we 'become a living soul'? I have not denied that we have a soul or that we became a soul. My intention here is to challenge and poke holes in the received wisdom of our concept of the soul; a concept that does not seem to have any firm underpinnings in Scripture.

Again, when and where was it that God made our souls?

Sorry but you are querying the wrong guy. I am seriously short of that "received wisdom" you were talking about.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

And angels are spirits. So maybe your spirit is an angel.

A fallen angel ....

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

A fallen angel ...

Yes, thus the need to be "born again". Jesus said, "You are gods, but you will die like men". This word was spoken to the counsel of the bene elohim, the sons of god. So yes, the fallen angels. Exactly.

Remember the prodigal son? He was alive. Then he died. Then he was born again.

"My son was dead, and is alive again." Luke 15:24 How could the son be dead, if he wasn't first alive? Doesn't make sense, to me.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You may have forgotten, but Nee posited this theory. Can't remember which book. (Of course, he probably ripped it from someone else.)

"The soul represents the man and expresses the characteristics of his personality. The soul is the organ of man's free will, and both the spirit and the body are incorporated into it. It has a free will. If it chooses to obey God, it can make the spirit the master of everything, according to God's design. But it can also suppress the spirit and take as its master the part that it likes.
The three things—the spirit, the soul, and the body—are like a lighted electric bulb. Within a bulb, there is the electricity, the filament, and the light. The body is like the filament, the spirit is like the electricity, and the soul is like the light. Electricity is the source of light, and light is the consequence of electricity. The filament is a physical material for conducting electricity and for emitting the light."

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground." This refers to man's body. "And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." This refers to the fact that man's spirit comes from God. This man then became "a living soul." This speaks of man's soul. When the spirit caused the body to come alive, man became a living soul, a living person with his own consciousness.

The body was dead, but when it met the spirit of life, a third entity was produced, the soul. Without the spirit, the body is dead. When the spirit came, the body became alive. When the spirit is in the body, something organic is produced. This something that is organic is called the soul.

Nee - The Spiritual Man Vol 1 - page 15 in pdf version

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

Each person has an angel, it seems (see "their angels always watch the face of My Father in heaven" and "They said, 'it is Peter's angel'"). And angels are spirits. So maybe your spirit is an angel.

The Great Spirit witnesses with your angel that you are children of God (Romans 8:16)

Now, it doesn't say that, does it? But it also doesn't say that the spirit is an organ. So my 'leap of logic' has as much ground, scripturally, as Nee's did. The only thing that I can see supporting Nee's "organ" idea is that he was the Minister of the Age and was God's Oracle. So we mistakenly took it at face value.

Honestly, does supposing that your spirit is an angel really help you understand what the term means? What, after all, do we know of angel?. The Bible contains stories about them showing that they are messengers of God. They are depicted in illustrations as idealized statuesque humans with wings. Where are we now, in terms of understanding? How does this relate to our experience of ourselves? Haven't we complicated and mythologized the problem? What does this have to do with the real world? Wouldn't we be better off deciphering what the mythical symbols mean,seeing if they have any relevance to the phenomenal world we live in, and, if not, discarding them except as bedtime stories for the children?

[aron]

What does this have to do with the real world? Wouldn't we be better off deciphering what the mythical symbols mean,seeing if they have any relevance to the phenomenal world we live in, and, if not, discarding them except as bedtime stories for the children?

When Jesus comes with the reaping angels you be sure to tell them that. "Get out of here: you're just an irrelevant, mythical symbol." I'm sure they'll be impressed.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

When Jesus comes with the reaping angels you be sure to tell them that. "Get out of here: you're just an irrelevant, mythical symbol." I'm sure they'll be impressed.

If that happens, I will have no frame of reference with which to adapt to the situation than the images conjured in my mind from reading the Bible or in myths and legends or at the movies or on TV. So, it doesn't help me understand what, if anything, the spirit is that is proposed to be part of myself as in "body, soul and spirit."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Wouldn't we be better off deciphering what the mythical symbols mean,seeing if they have any relevance to the phenomenal world we live in . . .

Revelation was written for an audience during the time it was published. And it spoke to them of the phenomenal world they were living in, in that day.

Originally Posted by Z

. . . and, if not, discarding them except as bedtime stories for the children?

And since it wasn't written for today's audience, it makes for some fantastic bedtime stories ; howbeit at least R rated, if not NC-17. Cuz it would give children nightmares ... and make 'em scared of Jesus, that's cartooned, as a mean, mean, dark monster, coming to spill out giant bowls of divine vengeance and human, suffering, torture and slaughter.

Surely we shouldn't read this book to children just before bed.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Revelation was written for an audience during the time it was published. And it spoke to them of the phenomenal world they were living in, in that day. And since it wasn't written for today's audience, it makes for some fantastic bedtime stories ; howbeit at least R rated, if not NC-17. Cuz it would give children nightmares ... and make 'em scared of Jesus, that's cartooned, as a mean, mean, dark monster, coming to spill out giant bowls of divine vengeance and human, suffering, torture and slaughter.

Surely we shouldn't read this book to children just before bed.

We were discussing the spirit not the Book of Revelation.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

We were discussing the spirit not the Book of Revelation.

I thought I responded to bedtimes stories for children .... My bad. Sorry.

But I'm not sure reading bedtimes stories about the Spirit would be a good thing either.

In fact, I don't think it's wise to expose them to a meeting where fist pumping, vain popping, screaming, while exercising of your spirit is going on.

But now I don't know for sure what your remark about reading bedtime stories to children means at all. Did you mean the whole Bible? That would be scary to.

Maybe I'm just failing to follow very well. Sorry for that. Maybe you meant reading this thread to children. Please continue. Maybe I'll catch on.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

But now I don't know for sure what your remark about reading bedtime stories to children means at all. Did you mean the whole Bible? That would be scary to.

I think zeek meant my reference to angels being spirits. We may talk about the spirit being an organ, and I pointed that there's as much scriptural basis for saying that an the spirit is an angel. Not an organ.

But I led the conversation astray and I apologize. I am a "shoot first, think later" writer and I doubt my interjection was profitable. More like annoying and distracting.

Let me retry: we may say, that the human spirit is a "part of man", and "a vessel to contact God" and an "organ to sense God". So it is a part, a vessel, and an organ. I am saying that it can be seen as LIKE, in some very limited sense, a part/vessel/organ. But we can also say a cat is like a dog. They can be said to share some similarities, and this may be useful for assessment. To a limited degree.

But in the WN/WL school of theology, if they said a cat was a dog, because it was convenient, we were expected to bellow "A cat is a dog!! A cat is a dog!!" over and over until we "saw the revelation". WL would simply say "These 3 verses show us that a human spirit is an organ, etc", and we were expected to "get it".

But we have to be wary of our logic. We can also say, "Mary is the mother of Jesus, (i.e. "the mother of my Lord" [Luke 1:43]), and Jesus is God incarnated, (John 1:4), then Mary is the mother of God. It's clear, right? Logical. You can take any two or three verses and use your logic to "prove" anything you want. I think the "exercise your mingled spirit" notion, (like we are teaching God to jump rope) should be re-evaluated. Like most in the LSM oeuvre, its basis is perhaps not what we thought. Especially when "exercise your mingled spirit" is tantamount to bawling "four legs good, two legs bad!!" over and over. This is just oriental pentacostalism; it's a thinly veiled social control mechanism. Don't think, just shout.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

I think zeek meant my reference to angels being spirits. We may talk about the spirit being an organ, and I pointed that there's as much scriptural basis for saying that an the spirit is an angel. Not an organ.

But I led the conversation astray and I apologize. I am a "shoot first, think later" writer and I doubt my interjection was profitable. More like annoying and distracting.

Let me retry: we may say, that the human spirit is a "part of man", and "a vessel to contact God" and an "organ to sense God". So it is a part, a vessel, and an organ. I am saying that it can be seen as LIKE, in some very limited sense, a part/vessel/organ. But we can also say a cat is like a dog. They can be said to share some similarities, and this may be useful for assessment. To a limited degree.

But in the WN/WL school of theology, if they said a cat was a dog, because it was convenient, we were expected to bellow "A cat is a dog!! A cat is a dog!!" over and over until we "saw the revelation". WL would simply say "These 3 verses show us that a human spirit is an organ, etc", and we were expected to "get it".

But we have to be wary of our logic. We can also say, "Mary is the mother of Jesus, (i.e. "the mother of my Lord" [Luke 1:43]), and Jesus is God incarnated, (John 1:4), then Mary is the mother of God. It's clear, right? Logical. You can take any two or three verses and use your logic to "prove" anything you want. I think the "exercise your mingled spirit" notion, (like we are teaching God to jump rope) should be re-evaluated. Like most in the LSM oeuvre, its basis is perhaps not what we thought. Especially when "exercise your mingled spirit" is tantamount to bawling "four legs good, two legs bad!!" over and over. This is just oriental pentacostalism; it's a thinly veiled social control mechanism. Don't think, just shout.

Oh brother, just exercise your organ and don't ask questions.

[zeek]

My angel is an organ.

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

My angel is an organ.

O yeah well you should hear my piano! I was once called the best piano player west of the Mississippi by someone in the business.

[aron]

In actuality (experience) I think "exercised in your spirit" means whatever they want it to mean. We now go back to the old argument of orthodoxy being a cover for heteropraxy. You can be ushering in a meeting, or taking care of children "in your mingled spirit" and that is great, so they say. That means that the Big Boss is happy with you.

Or you can take care of children's meeting, or usher on Sunday Morning, or clean the meeting hall in a supposedly proud, independent, and arrogant way, which means Big Boss is not happy with you. Really, it means nothing; it means whatever Big Boss wants it to mean at any time. It is all about control. "Exercised in your spirit" just gives them verbiage to approve or disapprove of you. And believe me, nothing can change that! If Lee wanted to pan you, and dress you down, too bad for you. I doubt it has changed 20 years later. Same system.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

O yeah well you should hear my piano! I was once called the best piano player west of the Mississippi by someone in the business.

Love to. Got any YouTube videos?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

In actuality (experience) I think "exercised in your spirit" means whatever they want it to mean. We now go back to the old argument of orthodoxy being a cover for heteropraxy. You can be ushering in a meeting, or taking care of children "in your mingled spirit" and that is great, so they say. That means that the Big Boss is happy with you.

Or you can take care of children's meeting, or usher on Sunday Morning, or clean the meeting hall in a supposedly proud, independent, and arrogant way, which means Big Boss is not happy with you. Really, it means nothing; it means whatever Big Boss wants it to mean at any time. It is all about control. "Exercised in your spirit" just gives them verbiage to approve or disapprove of you. And believe me, nothing can change that! If Lee wanted to pan you, and dress you down, too bad for you. I doubt it has changed 20 years later. Same system.

The psychological can say everything about the spirit the spiritual can. Only the spirit knows the difference.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The psychological can say everything about the spirit the spiritual can.

So should we use the DSM as our Bible?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Dave

What has happened in the LC is that WL and the BB can retain their outer man and break everyone else. People become so weakened (or broken) they are unable to think for themselves (or exercise their mind) and bound forever in “brokenness” making it impossible to break away because that would be the exercise of the outer man. WL and the BB hold themselves up to have been broken but the fruits of their lives don’t reflect that experience. They hold dominion over others.

It is a means to hold dominion. How can we tell if you are in your mingled spirit, or exercising your human spirit? If you yell loud enough?

It is sold to the prospective new ones, the so-called contacts, couched in Bible-ese. "Cry out and shout, o thou inhabitant of Zion"; you are told to "call on the Lord" and so forth. You are encouraged to "Draw from the wells of salvation", and "Eating Jesus is the way". I noticed immediately that this was one of the loudest meetings I'd ever been to. I mean, no amplification, just everybody in a circle in someone's living room, and it felt like the walls were shaking. So I got in, and "when in Rome", I began to make a lot of noise as well. "O Lord Jesus" and "amen" and "praise the Lord" and "hallelujah" over and over again.

So it was an overwhelming sensory experience. And I was weakened thereby, and surrendered control. Subjectivity reigned. I "felt the spirit/Spirit". So it was actually a charismatic dodge, looking back. I have had many charismatic experiences since leaving the LC and I have learned to trust none of them. The only charismatic experience you should trust is when/if you get to the Bema and you hear the voice, "Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter now into the joy of your Master." Until then, trust no one and nothing. Especially your self! Especially your senses!

We were arguably caught by the "sensual" nature of the ministry. Shouting in ecstasy, we thought we were "home in the church". And when the long knives came out, and we heard whispers of "rebellion", or vague references in the podium about being "negative", we trusted that sensual experience. When our conscience protested, we trusted that sensual experience. When the Bible was ignored or overturned, we trusted that original charismatic feeling. So we continued to "exercise our mingled Spirit". Don't worry, have another sip of Kool-Aid. Everything is fine.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

So should we use the DSM as our Bible?

No, the psychological I was referring to is that which is translated as the natural man in I Corinthians 2:14. In Greek the words are ψυχικος ανθρωπος or psychological man or psychic as opposed to the spiritual man or pneumatic.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

It is all about control. "Exercised in your spirit" just gives them verbiage to approve or disapprove of you.

That's the point. There is really not much wrong with most LC inner life verbiage. A case can be made for "exercise the spirit," "the mingled spirit," "the law of life," "the sense of life," all this stuff. It's not bad in itself. That wasn't the problem with the LC, although the vague subjective nature of the inner life talk served what was wrong with the LC. But, let's face it, the inner life is mysterious. It's mysterious because it's about us approaching and even touching God, so of course at some point it's going to be over our heads. Like John Ingalls once said, we talk about saving souls and we don't even know what a soul is. But that's okay. We don't need to know everything.

No, what was really wrong with the LC when you get right down to it was the abuse of authority. All the possibly good things were used not to serve God and people, but to serve "the ministry, "the work," "the Recovery," and were abused to control people who should have been honored with the freedom to decide for themselves whether they should submit themselves to LC leaders.

They weren't. That was and is the problem. The debate about whether "exercise the spirit" is appropriate language can go on forever because in the end what one thinks it means is so subjective that it can vary from person to person.

Take away the evil controlling aspect of the LC and "exercise the spirit" is a benign phrase. That's true for a lot of things we debate here.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

...the vague subjective nature of the inner life talk served what was wrong with the LC. ...Take away the evil controlling aspect of the LC and "exercise the spirit" is a benign phrase. That's true for a lot of things we debate here.

The fact that it is vague and subjective makes it ripe for abuse. It can mean anything Big Boss wants it to mean. And the charismatic experience, as Dave said, makes you let down your powers of discernment, and weakens your defenses where you're willing to accept anything they say. Supposedly you can scream "The sky is green" loudly enough and repeatedly enough and it will be so. That is what I was talking about with the idea of the "sensual seduction" of the charismatic experience. It's a thinly disguised veil for control mechanism(s).

This is not what the Bible means by faith. This is an abuse, a co-opting of faith. It becomes the beach-head of what Paul called a "system of error". You have unbalanced teachings and partial truths reinforcing unbalanced behaviors. And behind it all is the desire for control, masquerading as "good order in the church". The disorder and chaos of the charismatic experience, under the rubric of exercising your spirit, becomes the entry point for a different order, which puts man and not God at the top. This is entirely different from the letter and the spirit of the Bible, irrespective of Paul's dictum of "apostles, prophets and teachers": it's a complete subversion of the divinely inspired order.

This is the slavery Paul warned against in Galatians. It is the imposition of Satanic control via man-inspired behaviors and hierarchies, under the guise of God-pursuing and God-pleasing activities.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would have to take a different approach to it. It is generally stated that the other animals have a form of soul, and what is missing is the spirit.

Besides, the breathing of God into man to make him become living is the addition of breath. It is interesting that the word for breath is the one also used for what we call spirit. But that does not mean that we are constantly inhaling and exhaling "spirit" in the sense that we mean spirit in these discussions (and in the sense of what is spoken of in the Bible). Otherwise, everyone would always be filled with the spirit because they are filled with breath.

No. The soul was to be part of man with or without a spirit. It was the spirit that was added that, as someone pointed out, gave us a different connection with God. Yet it is not simply some organ that we can locate. We kind of think we have located a lot about our soul. But to the extent that the spirit is in any way different, it is not findable. Yet it must be essentially "married to" the soul because the two cannot be distinguished so easily. (Of course the comment in Hebrews about the difficulty in distinguishing is juxtaposed with "joints and marrow" which we can fairly easily distinguish on a medical anatomy chart.)

But either way, the point is that if you go find Nee's verses on soul and spirit and read them carefully (without simply accepting his determination about what it means) you will see that the ones concerning the aspects of the spirit are things that you would attribute to your mind, will, emotions — your soul. Therefore the spirit is not some separate thing, but more of an identification of the soul in connection with (or not in connection with) God. It could be that the divider of soul and spirit is not like dissection, but observation of the source of speaking and actions. When put up against the Word, the actions of the soul are simply human while those of the spirit are beyond human.

I'm sure that this is a pathetic way to look at it, but that is what was coming to me as I was writing. I don't know if I would try to sell this version of the difference between soul and spirit. But I'm pretty sure that there is no identifiable "organ" in man that can be described so perfectly as all those verses tied to that three-concentric-ring diagram.

Man is not "tripartite." He is a unit. A whole. We are not little trinities. My body does not go off to do things without my mind (although my wife might disagree sometime).

OBW,

For reasons you have stated, my time in the LC was spent, to some extent, wondering "Where am I?" Am I "in spirit" or "not". One day I stumbled upon this verse:

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

What? Is it possible that I could be "In the Spirit" and not be "in spirit"? My conclusion? No. Further, I was done with the word games.

Once upon a time a single brother was riding in my car on the way to another locality. He was screaming "Oh Lord Jesus" at the top of his lungs. I was really getting tired of it, so I said to him..."now that you're 'in spirit' could you please lower the volume?" That did not go over well.

I was riding to work with several sisters. They all began singing a hymn. I did not join them in singing...I just didn't. No reason. I just didn't want to sing. Soon one of them began praying at me "Oh Lord...the oneness...the oneness, Lord..."

Experiences like these highlight just how shallow and pathetic we were. I think the best "fellowship" I ever received went something like this: "Nell, in spiritual matters, we can't see past the nose on our faces."

Nell

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

That's the point. There is really not much wrong with most LC inner life verbiage. A case can be made for "exercise the spirit," "the mingled spirit," "the law of life," "the sense of life," all this stuff. It's not bad in itself. That wasn't the problem with the LC, although the vague subjective nature of the inner life talk served what was wrong with the LC. But, let's face it, the inner life is mysterious. It's mysterious because it's about us approaching and even touching God, so of course at some point it's going to be over our heads. Like John Ingalls once said, we talk about saving souls and we don't even know what a soul is. But that's okay. We don't need to know everything.

No, what was really wrong with the LC when you get right down to it was the abuse of authority. All the possibly good things were used not to serve God and people, but to serve "the ministry, "the work," "the Recovery," and were abused to control people who should have been honored with the freedom to decide for themselves whether they should submit themselves to LC leaders.

They weren't. That was and is the problem. The debate about whether "exercise the spirit" is appropriate language can go on forever because in the end what one thinks it means is so subjective that it can vary from person to person.

Take away the evil controlling aspect of the LC and "exercise the spirit" is a benign phrase. That's true for a lot of things we debate here.

Igzy,

Everything you have said I agree with. But in the case of this thread, we have been wandering farther and farther from the question, and what do/did we think "exercised in my spirit" meant. (or "exercise my spirit" or "exercise of the spirit" etc.) In other words, what did we think the term meant that then allowed men to come along with additional rules about other things and convince us that if we were "exercised in our spirit" we would understand and follow (whatever you want to fill in here).

Yes, it was a tool for those who abused authority. And the meaning is at least somewhat subjective. But we had to tack some meaning to it by itself to then become ensnared in subjugation to the abuse of leaders due to it. This particular phrase may not have been that much of a problem. But when it was written here on the forum, it suddenly looked naked to me, especially since it seemed clear that another phrase was accurate concerning what was being said. But I could not really get "exercised in my spirit" to fit that case other than remotely.

At some level, saying things like that was reinforcement of our special position among Christians. We used special words and phrases because common words were not good enough. We even looked our own LRC brethren funny when they incorrectly used some of the "old" terminology that regular Christians did.

Yes, "exercised in my spirit" may simply mean whatever the user wanted it to mean at the time, even if not much of anything other than to be in sync with LRC ways. Then again, it was also used at times in such a manner that it was a tool to reinforce the edicts of the leadership. "If you are exercised in your spirit you wil . . ." or "you won't . . . ." So when I declare myself to be exercised in my spirit, I am forcing what I am doing to fit inside of what I think is the LRC way.

And then, I could just be doing what a lot of people do when they say that something is "biblical" or "scriptural." What they mean is that according to me, or the group that I run with, this is what we interpret the Bible to say and mean. So any suggestion that it might mean something else is "unbiblical."

Teachings like deputy authority, Lee's overlay use of "God's economy," the ground of the church, and much more, are built upon something that comes before those teachings. We might be able to point to the problem that deputy authority creates, but if you are convinced that the teaching is sound, what do you do about it? Suck it up and stay in line. The fact that the teaching allows for so much abuse by leadership is not the reason that the teaching is bad if you think that it is a correct teaching.

So let's try to dismantle the structure that supports deputy authority. If the reasons that Nee could get there are removed, then the emperor will be seen in his nakedness. Men like BP and RK will no longer have the authority granted to them by some of their current followers who come to see the error in the teachings that seemed to give them such authority.

A lot to say "Let's stick with 'exercised in my spirit'" and leave deputy authority for another thread.

On the other hand, if there are other "spiritual" clichés that we even find ourselves still using, add them in as an item to think about. What does it mean and what did it do to/for us?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Igzy,

Everything you have said I agree with. But in the case of this thread, we have been wandering farther and farther from the question, and what do/did we think "exercised in my spirit" meant. (or "exercise my spirit" or "exercise of the spirit" etc.) In other words, what did we think the term meant that then allowed men to come along with additional rules about other things and convince us that if we were "exercised in our spirit" we would understand and follow (whatever you want to fill in here).

Yes, it was a tool for those who abused authority. And the meaning is at least somewhat subjective.

Well, I didn't want to turn the subject to deputy authority. The question what "exercise the spirit" means is a worthy one for discussion. But I just don't think such phrases are themselves the problem. I think the problem was who was using them and what for.

"Exercise the spirit" is one of those things whose meaning can only be obtained by interpretation and assumption. You hear the words and say to yourself, "What's he talking about? I guess he's talking about that." To me "exercise the spirit" meant become aware of your spiritual senses. It meant focus on the Lord's/Spirit's presence and any leading that might come from that. Now, probably to others it meant something different. But what I tried to do when I heard spiritual descriptions was I tried to put them in context with what I experienced in ways that made the most sense, because they didn't do me any good if they weren't applicable.

An example is that my pastor talks about the Lord's "nudges." Well, what does he mean by that? People can come up with all kinds of ideas, but for me all I can do is ask "what do I experience that might be considered a "nudge" from the Lord?" and try to apply the idea as best I can. I could dissect the phrase and find all kinds of problems with it, or I could go off some deep end with it. There are lots of things I could do.

But a domineering leader could probably use "nudge" as insidiously as "exercise the spirit." So my point is I don't really think there is anything that bad about the phrase "exercise the spirit." "Nudge" ostensibly could be used to mean a sense of the Spirit, but could easily come to include the way you feel when experiencing disapproving peer pressure.

You can investigate a lot of the "tools" the LC used and try to find fault with them and say we were misled because they used this term instead of that one. I'm not saying that's never the case. I'm just saying many times the problem wasn't the tool, it was how and why it was being used.

Even "be faithful" meant something very different in the LC. It meant don't leave "the Vision." Is there a problem with the phrase "be faithful?" If "be faithful" can be used to deceive then anything can. And so the onus falls on the hearer to not be such a sap.

[HERn]

I guess I'm just a simple saint. To me "exercise your spirit" is whatever happens when I interact with my Lord. It happened to me frequently before I landed in the LSM-controlled local churches...I just didn't know what to call it. Before the LC I don't think I would have used that term because my pastor told me that the words "soul" and "spirit" were synonymous and back then there was the fear that if you focused too much on the spirit you would eventually start speaking in tongues and the Baptist church wouldn't let you teach Sunday School!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I know that the screaming at the top of the lungs and fist pumping is considered being "exercised in spirit".

Can't you be "excercised in spirit" through silence? Instead of the generic "look at me I can be loud" exercise of vocal chords whether or not it produces being "exercised in spirit". At the minimum, it draws attention to yourself.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by HERn

...back then there was the fear that if you focused too much on the spirit you would eventually start speaking in tongues and the Baptist church wouldn't let you teach Sunday School!

That is classic.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, I didn't want to turn the subject to deputy authority. The question what "exercise the spirit" means is a worthy one for discussion. But I just don't think such phrases are themselves the problem. I think the problem was who was using them and what for.

And there is really something in that idea.

And I think it is the collection of little phrases of uncertain meaning that could be manipulated in some or fashion that collect together into a system of error. A place where the truth is so intermingled with bits of error that in retrospect it is actually dangerous to try to use what you think is sound because it is difficult to determine if you have found all that erroneous leaven and excised it. (And since the mixture of wheat with leaven does not just make a mixture, but changes the very nature of the thing it was mixed with. There is no longer simply wheat or leaven. There is leavened bread.)

So while this one phrase it not, by itself, such a big deal, it is a really big deal when we look at the sum of all the similar playing with words, whether just redefinitions like taking only one definition of "religion," or some of the word choices Nigel brought up in the recent article.

The issue is not this term v that term. It is the collection of peculiar terms. It is convincing us that being out of sync with the rest of the body of Christ was a good thing. And talking in religious mumbo-jumbo was a significant part of it.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

The issue is not this term v that term. It is the collection of peculiar terms. It is convincing us that being out of sync with the rest of the body of Christ was a good thing. And talking in religious mumbo-jumbo was a significant part of it.

I agree, OBW. These terms are so wrapped up with the individuals who coined them and used them for their own spiritual empire-building. Why the need to "rehabilitate" the terminology?

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, I didn't want to turn the subject to deputy authority. The question what "exercise the spirit" means is a worthy one for discussion. But I just don't think such phrases are themselves the problem. I think the problem was who was using them and what for.

Igzy, those who were using these terms are also those who came up with this vocabulary in the first place. What loss is it to you to wipe the dust off your feet and move forward, sans the high-sounding vocab?

[OBW]

One problem that I have now is that we are constantly seeking evidence that God is busy working in every aspect of our lives. While there are indications of certain changes between the OT and the NT, the history shows that God is often somewhat silent. Not entirely absent for long periods, but not necessarily doing a lot that we can see or identify.

For the LRC, saying things like "exercised in my spirit" is a way of asserting a constant realization of God's activity in our lives. It is not just a LRC thing. But it is a need by some to be more than just "saved" with a charge to live right and worship only the one true God.

And then along comes another spiritual sounding phrase to wrap ourselves in the cloak of "me and God."

And it is true that when someone wants to capture people into their little flock of error, they will play on the need of some to be special to God. And since the LRC was composed heavily of people who wanted more than the existing churches were providing, many were easily turned into seekers of that something special. So when those who are "exercised in their spirit will always ______," then a phrase with some validity becomes are trap.

[aron]

It reminds me to the idea of unity, or in LSM parlance "oneness". Surely this is prescribed in the scripture. But in actuality it becomes a vehicle for abject servility. We have to be "one" with so and so, they say. We have to be one with God's latest move, with God's current speaking, with the "brothers", with the "Body", etc.

In such exclusive groups, words and phrases take on two meanings, the exoteric or open meaning, arguably derived at least tangenitally from scripture, and then the esoteric, hidden, meaning, which everybody who is "in" tacitly understands. Sooner or later you will "get it", or you will be "out".

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

It reminds me to the idea of unity, or in LSM parlance "oneness". Surely this is prescribed in the scripture. But in actuality it becomes a vehicle for abject servility. We have to be "one" with so and so, they say. We have to be one with God's latest move, with God's current speaking, with the "brothers", with the "Body", etc.

In such exclusive groups, words and phrases take on two meanings, the exoteric or open meaning, arguably derived at least tangenitally from scripture, and then the esoteric, hidden, meaning, which everybody who is "in" tacitly understands. Sooner or later you will "get it", or you will be "out".

I have begun to see being one in a very different way. In fact, the core of the real heart of ecumenicalism is an agreement to recognize what makes us one above what seems to differentiate us. That we don't agree on everything is not allowed to cause us to simply have nothing to do with each other. That is the old way. Some groups still prefer it. But many are seeing beyond it. They recognize their differences as insignificant in comparison to that which unites.

The insistence that not dropping everything and simply meeting together is based on the notion that the differences are a sort of "dark side" that has so much power that the oneness in Christ cannot overcome it. I say that is hogwash. It is only those who want to not be one that are unable to get there. And the LRC is among those that don't want to be one. They just want to use the lingo of oneness to separate themselves.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

One problem that I have now is that we are constantly seeking evidence that God is busy working in every aspect of our lives. While there are indications of certain changes between the OT and the NT, the history shows that God is often somewhat silent. Not entirely absent for long periods, but not necessarily doing a lot that we can see or identify.

For the LRC, saying things like "exercised in my spirit" is a way of asserting a constant realization of God's activity in our lives. It is not just a LRC thing. But it is a need by some to be more than just "saved" with a charge to live right and worship only the one true God.

Growing up, there were times when I was borderline obsessed with trying to figure out whether I was "in my spirit" or not. It shouldn't require a psychology degree to recognize how unhealthy that kind of thinking can become.

[rayliotta]

Here is how I contextualize this discussion:

Those who grew up outside the Lord's Recovery, who were blessed to have had a language/vocabulary with which to speak of these things before relearning them in the Recovery, may find it relevant to discuss what to include, and what not to include, in their future pursuits.

But for those of us for whom this was our "first language," as it were -- those of us who grew up in the Recovery -- it shouldn't be too hard to understand that we're more likely to drop the pursuit of religion altogether.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

But for those of us for whom this was our "first language," as it were -- those of us who grew up in the Recovery -- it shouldn't be too hard to understand that we're more likely to drop the pursuit of religion altogether.

And that is a shame because it leaves you like a ship without a rudder.

[OBW]

I find references to exercise with respect to "myself," "senses," "heart," the body, and "will," but not "spirit." This does not mean that we do not have such an exercise, but it does question the meaning, especially since it seems to have no definitive use.

So if I say it with respect to myself, what am I saying? Seems as if I am declaring my thoughts and intents as spiritual without discussion. I have made my determination God's determination and you have nothing to say about it except "amen."

If I say it with respect to you, it is to state that certain actions or thoughts are the sign of an exercise of the spirit and others are not.

And yet the very idea that we are capable of specifically exercising our spirit is questionable since it is not an activity mentioned in the Bible and the Bible refers to the virtual inability to separate the spirit from the soul. Use the term however you want. But that does not make it real. It might just be a questionable label for something else. But if so, let's find out what that something else is and describe that accurately rather than just keep saying this inaccurate, questionable term.

This seems more like the notion of redefining everything into "simply Christ." While there is truth to the idea that grace is Christ, and mercy is Christ, and strength is Christ, etc., if we just turn everything into Christ, we have a new version of the Smurf language in which every fifth word is "Christ" and we have no real idea what is being said. Yet the lexicon of the LRC is to use the "high" language. It is their symbol of superiority. It makes them feel they have a better inroad with God. Do we still believe it works that way?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

One problem that I have now is that we are constantly seeking evidence that God is busy working in every aspect of our lives. While there are indications of certain changes between the OT and the NT, the history shows that God is often somewhat silent. Not entirely absent for long periods, but not necessarily doing a lot that we can see or identify.

For the LRC, saying things like "exercised in my spirit" is a way of asserting a constant realization of God's activity in our lives. It is not just a LRC thing. But it is a need by some to be more than just "saved" with a charge to live right and worship only the one true God.

And then along comes another spiritual sounding phrase to wrap ourselves in the cloak of "me and God."

I would have to say this sounds a bit cynical and "glass half-empty."

In my experience God is never doing nothing in regards to his relationship with me. He may seem silent, but I don't believe he is ever just doing nothing. James 4:8 says draw near to God and he will draw near to you. In my experience, when I truly seek the Lord, he's always there actively engaging with me in fellowship, love, joy, wisdom and encouragement. He never says, "Got nothing for you today. Run along." If I feel that way, it's because of some lack in me, not in Him. And if I become, dare I say, sharper in my spirit, I will gain sight of his amazing presence.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I find references to exercise with respect to "myself," "senses," "heart," the body, and "will," but not "spirit." This does not mean that we do not have such an exercise, but it does question the meaning, especially since it seems to have no definitive use.

If the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets (1 Cor 14:32), that would seem to imply that it is up to the prophets to exercise their spirits in certain ways, either to let loose in tongue-speaking or hold back or choose understandable prophecy or even post on an Internet forum, no?

One of your pet peeves (and I agree with it) has long been that the LC is too passive when it comes to exercising (!) their wills to obey God's commandments. Well, to me this is part of that. Exercising your spirit is just exercising your will to reach out to God in a spiritual manner. I can exercise my will to pet my dog, but I'm not necessarily exercising my spirit as well. But when I reach out to God, it's both, or nothing happens. I don't know how I know what my spirit is any more than how I know what a thought is. But I know it when I experience it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I would have to say this sounds a bit cynical and "glass half-empty."

In my experience God is never doing nothing in regards to his relationship with me. He may seem silent, but I don't believe he is ever just doing nothing. James 4:8 says draw near to God and he will draw near to you. In my experience, when I truly seek the Lord, he's always there actively engaging with me in fellowship, love, joy, wisdom and encouragement. He never says, "Got nothing for you today. Run along." If I feel that way, it's because of some lack in me, not in Him. And if I become, dare I say, sharper in my spirit, I will gain sight of his amazing presence.

My view is far from cynical or "half empty." Instead, I am proposing that much of life is not simply ordained or directed. Rather it is there and we have a choice of how we will face it.

And even if I am fully set to be in concert with God, the day may not be good. I might have a flat tire in a place where there is no one to preach the gospel to, and the delay does nothing but become a delay. I might be in an accident. I would not attribute that to the will of God, or to his ordination of what would be. Yet what I do with each is meaningful. And it says something about how I actually relate to God. If I simply go off on the jerk who changed lanes into my car, I have not borne the image of God very well.

Yeah, I understand that when we phrase it as "Got nothing for you today. . . run along" it sort of makes God into a jerk. But even if you think that there has been silence and have not received something for the day, there is never a time when we do not have plenty for the day. What we already have and know should not be dismissed simply because it did not arrive fresh this morning. Have we really made it ours? Why the need for something new when we still have to deal with the old? His mercies are new every morning. But they are often the same mercies that we needed yesterday.

No, it should not result in a feeling of being sent out without breakfast. But neither does it need to be the realization of a fresh word for the day. You are right that the problem is the attitude of the believer, not anything about God.

But experiences of fellowship, love, joy, wisdom and encouragement are not promised as a daily thing. And when we insist on them in this way, we are setting ourselves up for a difficult time when we are unable to recognize those things for some period of time. When the thunder roars, the earthquakes shake our existence and we recognize nothing from God. Then we get a small voice. Nothing huge. Just a small voice.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets (1 Cor 14:32), that would seem to imply that it is up to the prophets to exercise their spirits in certain ways, either to let loose in tongue-speaking or hold back or choose understandable prophecy or even post on an Internet forum, no?

One of your pet peeves (and I agree with it) has long been that the LC is too passive when it comes to exercising (!) their wills to obey God's commandments. Well, to me this is part of that. Exercising your spirit is just exercising your will to reach out to God in a spiritual manner. I can exercise my will to pet my dog, but I'm not necessarily exercising my spirit as well. But when I reach out to God, it's both, or nothing happens. I don't know how I know what my spirit is any more than how I know what a thought is. But I know it when I experience it.

I take exception to part of what you have said. But at the same time, you have then later redefined things so that they are something else. And that part I somewhat agree with.

There are two problems when thinking about that verse about the spirits of the prophets. First, given the rather large range of what is meant when the word "sprit" is spoken, are we sure that the mention from 1 Cor is consistent in definition to what is being spoken of in the generic declaration that you made? Second, the fact that something is "subject to" us does not make it "exercisable." (And third, but not germane to this discussion, it is not certain that "prophets" refers to more than 2 or 3 people present in a meeting.)

The context of 1 Cor 14 seems to be saying that one who is speaking is not under some spell and unable to simply stop when it is appropriate, nor is someone who is not already speaking simply unable to contain themselves and are therefore compelled to jump up and start speaking without really thinking about it.

Remember the analysis we did some years back where we began to realize that the verses that Nee had derived to prove the functions of the spirit as distinct from the soul and discovered that it looked more like the spirit and the soul were more nearly one, or aspects of the same? While there is surely something more than "soul" at work here, if we cannot define it an isolate it, how can we say we exercise it?

Then you redefine exercise of the spirit to exercise of the will to "reach out to God." Maybe the better way to put it would be to exercise your will to have your mind set on the Spirit. There is something a little hokey about "reaching out." Sounds like a televangelist or something.

But does the Bible really discuss our relationship with God like that of a close friend that we are constantly bumming around with? Or is that a recast of what the Bible actually says into terms that may not actually mirror the relationship actually described.

I have noted in the discussions about abiding that it seems the first step in abiding is believing and obeying. One verse says that if we believe and obey, the Father and the Son make their abode with us. Then shortly after that, abiding is stated in terms of the relationship of trunk and branches of a vine. That relationship is not as some want to think — of resting or being in a house. Instead, it is the fact of being connected. Yet belief and obedience were the starters for the abiding. Maybe the abiding is more about our living than about our spirituality or even "private time."

In other words, the connection with God is about us being better equipped to live the life we were intended for, bearing his image instead of our own or that of the fallen world. It is not about having a great pal that we talk to constantly and have joyous fellowship with. I am not saying that we don't ever get any of that, but just as we are his hands and feet, is our fellowship with God really nonexistent without being part of fellowship with others? And is that nearly irrelevant if it is not lived daily as the image-bearers of God?

Question (not necessarily to be answered here). Where is spiritual warfare actually undertaken?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't know how I know what my spirit is any more than how I know what a thought is. But I know it when I experience it.

This may be a function of skepticism. But it may be a valid observation. Consider it over time and see where it takes you.

If we only know it because we experience it, is it possible that we have been trained to identify certain triggers of synapses in the brain as being an exercise of the spirit? I do not ask because I doubt it is real, but because the very concept is somewhat extra-biblical and we came to recognize this "event" based on criteria supplied by extra-biblical sources.

The real question is whether joy should be from "spiritual" activities, or from the understanding of our part in the exercise of the kingdom on the earth as the image bearers of God? I know that I seem stuck on this idea lately. But I am bothered that it seems that the things that mattered for all of history up to the time of the start of the church were swept aside in favor of a new thing. Yes, we have a new and better way. And we have a new covenant.

But based on the teachings of Jesus — and even of Peter, John, Paul, etc. — it seems to me that there was never a change from obedience and righteousness to spirituality and focus on "my spirit." Instead, the focus on righteous living and obedience remains and is even key to getting the truth that sets you free (not the other way round). The difference is that the sacrifice for atonement from sin is no longer required to be repeated over and over. It was done once for all. And with that, God has come nearer in the Spirit to empower us in that continuing endeavor by our submission to his will. Yes, there is something mystical going on here. we are empowered beyond our own abilities. But that empowerment does not come by asking for the empowerment, but by (in terms of Romans 8) setting the mind on the Spirit and walking (living life) according to it. That was not stated as a complicated thing that we have to focus on. Rather I would presume that the good Jew in the first church would start their day off a lot like pre-Christ days — "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is one. Thou shalt love . . ." along with something probably patterned after the Lord's prayer." Then followed by living with their eyes open to consider their living as they move among the city they are in.

We have turned it from bearing God's image into seeking experiences and becoming spiritual. As if living a Godly life is not spiritual.

I am not suggesting that you do not think mostly in this way. But I think it is a problem for all of us, even those who have never been part of a group like the LRC. We want our religious experience to be more about me and my feelings, thoughts, ideas, spiritual status, etc., than about just living a righteous life. But it would seem that living the righteous life was the thing that Jesus spent more of his time talking about when he spoke with anyone other than those he was training to be leaders. They got a lot more. That was because a lot more was going to e expected of them.

[OBW]

Igzy,

you will probably respond to my previous emails before reading this one. But I do not completely disagree with the issues of experience, or of having a sense of things. But I am wondering whether the real importance is the problem. Is having a sense of things or realization, what is important? Or is it being one who is believing and obeying?

At some level, getting a feeling about something may be no more than a realization of something real or right. But is it more important to realize it or to live it? Is having an experience the important thing? Does the bulk of the NT support a life of experience, or of living? You can say that to live is to experience what you live. But the things that we mostly talk about as "experience" in terms of spiritual things is about feelings, thoughts, revelation, etc., and not about what you live. What you do with what you have is the only real experience that matters. Yes, you have to believe. But that is not the sum of our living. It is the base upon which we live. So, as I see it, orthopraxy is the bulk of Christian existence and experience. Orthodoxy is just the foundation.

Living for spiritual experience and private "aha" moments is the wrong focus. It defines experience as an extension of orthodoxy rather than orthopraxy. And that seems very misplaced.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

But experiences of fellowship, love, joy, wisdom and encouragement are not promised as a daily thing. And when we insist on them in this way, we are setting ourselves up for a difficult time when we are unable to recognize those things for some period of time. When the thunder roars, the earthquakes shake our existence and we recognize nothing from God. Then we get a small voice. Nothing huge. Just a small voice.

Sorry, I disagree. Jesus wanted our "joy to be full." Periods of dryness happen. But they are the exception, not the rule. At least in my experience.

The small voice is the entrance to a huge kingdom. In my experience if I draw near to the small voice, amazing riches open up and become very real to me. If I hang back, the small voice is always there, but it remains small. But that's my choice, not his.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Second, the fact that something is "subject to" us does not make it "exercisable."

Exercise to me just means "use." It doesn't mean to me "have a workout." So if my spirit is subject to me, then I can to some extent use it for what it was meant for. Like "exercise your right to vote."

I know Lee used "exercise yourself to godliness" to justify "exercise the spirit." But it never made sense to me in the sense of "give your spirit a workout." But "use your spirit" does make sense to me.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

At some level, getting a feeling about something may be no more than a realization of something real or right. But is it more important to realize it or to live it?

Well, if you don't feel anything or just trust your mental appreciation of things with no emotional response then I think you eventually lose track of what it all means. It become theoretical. I mean, you seem to be basically saying that Christian activity with no emotional zest is a pretty good thing. I would say if you never or rarely or usually don't have any emotional zest for your faith then why not? Does nothing about it excite you? Have you grown bored with it? Is it never fresh? How's your worship? Do you ever get carried away? If not I think you are missing something. Now, I'm not judging, I'm just trying to make a point.

Your comment about not needing anything fresh because the old things will do kind of makes me wonder. Yes, God never changes, so yesterday's truths are fine for today. Yet, God is also ever new. He doesn't get old. So if there is not a sense of freshness, of something new about stuff you have in a sense known for a long time, then I think to some extent you've gotten a little stale. That's my experience anyway.

[OBW]

The question I have is this. Where do we get a promise of experience?

I do not find "joy" in the Bible to always be about an emotional high or lofty experience. In fact, some of the places joy is used it is evident that there is not an emotional high. Rather there is a kind of satisfaction in the realization of the truth. And the truth about our active (as opposed to theoretical understanding of) participation in the kingdom here on earth.

My concern is that the joy is the result of something else, not the thing that should be sought. And you haven't actually said to seek for joy. But joy should be the response to the knowledge of our participation in the kingdom more than something we work up to have an experience. You don't seem to exercise anything to get joy. You get joy from belief and from experience.

There is mention of joy in the Holy Spirit (not from the exercise of my spirit). Paul refers to himself and his companions as helpers of the Corinthians joy.

The thing is that in some places joy is somewhat insisted upon, not stated as something to get.

And the more I read, the more I see things like joy as a state of being rather than an emotional experience. And I find too many of the things that we seek after to be viewed as the goal of seeking them rather than either the result of doing and being as we should or being in such a state.

I cannot see myself as a regular participant in one of the more liturgical groups, but there is something about their regular focus on Christ and his work rather than us and our experience and desires that is very appealing. And the problem may be that we in the western world have lost sight of the true core of living the faith because we don't really have adversity. We live such grand lives that we don't think we have joy unless it is foaming out of the cup like the virtual explosion that occurs when Mentos are dropped into a 2-liter bottle of Diet Coke.

We seek a kind of experience and joy that is beyond what an impoverished, worn-out person scraping to survive in the 3rd world could imagine. No, most of us are not seeking a nearly Pentecostal experience, but it is generally about our positive experience that seems so disconnected from the purpose of our salvation and the resultant living.

We rightly point at the prosperity gospel as seeking a sugar daddy. And somewhat similarly at those who think that America will be so blessed if we can force public schools to allow prayer and the gays and abortionists to be villains again. But are we doing the same thing at a lesser level when we seek some kind of experience through "spiritual" activity that is undertaken in the seeking of that experience rather than gaining whatever it is we do from actually participating in the kingdom in our daily lives.

Righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, not seeking joy through so-called spiritual activity.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, if you don't feel anything or just trust your mental appreciation of things with no emotional response then I think you eventually lose track of what it all means. It become theoretical. I mean, you seem to be basically saying that Christian activity with no emotional zest is a pretty good thing. I would say if you never or rarely or usually don't have any emotional zest for your faith then why not? Does nothing about it excite you? Have you grown bored with it? Is it never fresh? How's your worship? Do you ever get carried away? If not I think you are missing something. Now, I'm not judging, I'm just trying to make a point.

Your comment about not needing anything fresh because the old things will do kind of makes me wonder. Yes, God never changes, so yesterday's truths are fine for today. Yet, God is also ever new. He doesn't get old. So if there is not a sense of freshness, of something new about stuff you have in a sense known for a long time, then I think to some extent you've gotten a little stale. That's my experience anyway.

If you are just experiencing joy and getting a high and it is not resulting in works then I wonder about its reality. I would suggest that if you are not experiencing joy in your Christian experience then shelter the homeless, feed the poor, take care of the downtrodden. This will renew your spirit!
Luke 4:18
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
1 John 3:17-18
But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.
James 2:14-18
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

The question I have is this. Where do we get a promise of experience?

I do not find "joy" in the Bible to always be about an emotional high or lofty experience. In fact, some of the places joy is used it is evident that there is not an emotional high. Rather there is a kind of satisfaction in the realization of the truth. And the truth about our active (as opposed to theoretical understanding of) participation in the kingdom here on earth.

My concern is that the joy is the result of something else, not the thing that should be sought. And you haven't actually said to seek for joy. But joy should be the response to the knowledge of our participation in the kingdom more than something we work up to have an experience. You don't seem to exercise anything to get joy. You get joy from belief and from experience.

Experience does not just mean "feeling." It's the whole gamut of things that we are aware of as we consciously go through life. Experience is what actually happens to us, externally and internally, as opposed to what we just theorize about. Of course, theorizing is part of our experience. But there is a difference between being in place and just thinking about being in the place.

A lofty experience isn't really lofty if it is sought simply for the lofty feeling, otherwise we could just take drugs to affect our emotions and be happy. Real satisfaction comes from knowing you have a real reason to be satisfied, not from the feeling itself. Feelings are the reflection of our experience of reality (and fantasy). But the fact is feelings exist and they are good, not bad. And I think being overly suspicious of them is unnecessarily limiting.

You, as we all know, value reason, and are bit suspicious of feelings. But I'm sure you wouldn't hold this perspective if at some level it didn't feel right to do so. In the end, what's more important, thoughts or feelings? I can't imagine life without either, so to me they are both important. Minimizing either too much is a mistake.

I'm hard-pressed to imagine experiencing "joy" without it affecting my feelings in some way. I'd like some examples where the Bible specifies that joy can be experienced without any feeling accompanying it. Satisfaction is the same way. I can't imagining truthfully saying I am satisfied without actually feeling satisfied. Surely you aren't going to argue that love does not include feeling. Love and joy with no feeling? Maybe in your reality, but not mine, sorry. Must be some parallel universe.

Let me put it this way, if your appreciation of what salvation has brought you doesn't make you occasionally want to dance with joy and happiness about it, then I'd say you don't appreciate it enough. If your emotion isn't affected by who God is and what he has done for us, then I'd say you're missing something.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to feel joy (who says "I have joy so I don't need to feel it." ?). As C.S. Lewis said, joy is the serious business of heaven. And Dave is right, one of the best ways to feel joy is to go serve someone. Just make sure you don't muzzle the ox as he treads the grain.

Let me use another analogy. Theoretically you can have sex and reproduce without enjoying the act. But who the heck wants to do that?! Likewise, who wants to go through life without enjoying it? I don't think God begrudges us for wanting to feel good.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Experience does not just mean "feeling." It's the whole gamut of things that we are aware of as we consciously go through life.

What! aware? consciously? You've got my attention! We go thru life exercising the awareness reading these words right now, in everything we do and experience. That's what it really means to exercise our spirit in life. But apparently it's not enough, and we want it to mean something more. But it never does. Only the awareness reading these words remains ... and apparently, according to the Bible, we take it with us into the next life ... our awareness, our spirit.

[Dancing]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Experience does not just mean "feeling." It's the whole gamut of things that we are aware of as we consciously go through life. Experience is what actually happens to us, externally and internally, as opposed to what we just theorize about. Of course, theorizing is part of our experience. But there is a difference between being in place and just thinking about being in the place.

A lofty experience isn't really lofty if it is sought simply for the lofty feeling, otherwise we could just take drugs to affect our emotions and be happy. Real satisfaction comes from knowing you have a real reason to be satisfied, not from the feeling itself. Feelings are the reflection of our experience of reality (and fantasy). But the fact is feelings exist and they are good, not bad. And I think being overly suspicious of them is unnecessarily limiting.

You, as we all know, value reason, and are bit suspicious of feelings. But I'm sure you wouldn't hold this perspective if at some level it didn't feel right to do so. In the end, what's more important, thoughts or feelings? I can't imagine life without either, so to me they are both important. Minimizing either too much is a mistake.

I'm hard-pressed to imagine experiencing "joy" without it affecting my feelings in some way. I'd like some examples where the Bible specifies that joy can be experienced without any feeling accompanying it. Satisfaction is the same way. I can't imagining truthfully saying I am satisfied without actually feeling satisfied. Surely you aren't going to argue that love does not include feeling. Love and joy with no feeling? Maybe in your reality, but not mine, sorry. Must be some parallel universe.

Let me put it this way, if your appreciation of what salvation has brought you doesn't make you occasionally want to dance with joy and happiness about it, then I'd say you don't appreciate it enough. If your emotion isn't affected by who God is and what he has done for us, then I'd say you're missing something.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to feel joy (who says "I have joy so I don't need to feel it." ?). As C.S. Lewis said, joy is the serious business of heaven. And Dave is right, one of the best ways to feel joy is to go serve someone. Just make sure you don't muzzle the ox as he treads the grain.

Let me use another analogy. Theoretically you can have sex and reproduce without enjoying the act. But who the heck wants to do that?! Likewise, who wants to go through life without enjoying it? I don't think God begrudges us for wanting to feel good.

I just popped in for a minute to answer a message and took a glance around to see how you all are doing and found Igzy's response. I just want to thank Igzy for these good words But I want to add, not only does God NOT begrudge our wanting to feel good, it's what He uses to draw us on. What a misery life would be without His joy... Joy doesn't always mean exuberance on a grand scale. It can be soft and peaceful. It can be His simple assurance despite the hardship, or His gentle prod to keep going. I LIVE by His joy... Don't know how anyone else does it. Even when I'm mad (at Him or anyone) His joy is there to beckon me on. To know Him IS joy. "In His presence is fullness of joy." Psalm 16:11

[Dancing]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thanks for the response Mephibosheth. The idea that the spirit is an organ is, I believe, wrong. That idea makes the spirit an object. As such it is peripheral to you as the experiencing subject. That is a mistaken notion of spiritually deadly consequences as I can testify because of my experience in Witness Lee's cult. Remember the diagram of the three circles? That symbol got it right because it shows spirit in the center. The spirit is the true you. Accept no substitute.

I agree, M, and apparently so does Jesus when he says to the Samaritan woman, "true worshipers...worship in spirit and in truth [sincerity, genuineness, "alethia", in Gk.]"

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dancing

I agree, M, and apparently so does Jesus when he says to the Samaritan woman, "true worshipers...worship in spirit and in truth [sincerity, genuineness, "alethia", in Gk.]"

Do you suppose that M said what you quoted? In any case, "in spirit" in John 4:24 might at least imply that when an individual worships they ought to be conscious of what they intend by it rather than merely go through the motions a physical act. It is possible to kneel without submitting and to submit without kneeling. To intentionally submit and kneel simultaneously is to worship in spirit and truth.

[Cal]

Given the human species' vast need for feeling good, I would say that by de-legitimizing all other kinds of enjoyment other than "enjoying the Lord," the LC pretty much pushed itself into overemphasizing spiritual enjoyment, to the fault OBW noted.

Said another way, if the only means to feeling good is some way of enjoying the Lord, then naturally that is what you are going to emphasize, at the expense of other experiences.

However, the reality is God gives us a lot of different things to enjoy: creation, our families, relationships, work, hobbies, art, intellectual pursuits, creativity, physical activities, laughter, etc. In all these we can experience the joy of the Lord. However, if you believe you should only "enjoy the Lord," then your natural need for pleasure is going to make getting pleasure the focus of your spiritual life, and every meeting is going to be a quest for a high, since all other forms of fun are suspect at best.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Given the human species' vast need for feeling good, I would say that by de-legitimizing all other kinds of enjoyment other than "enjoying the Lord," the LC pretty much pushed itself into overemphasizing spiritual enjoyment, to the fault OBW noted.

...

However, if you believe you should only "enjoy the Lord," then your natural need for pleasure is going to make getting pleasure the focus of your spiritual life, and every meeting is going to be a quest for a high, since all other forms of fun are suspect at best.

Absolutely. And given the subjective nature of "spiritual enjoyment," "enjoying the Lord," etc, focusing intensely on these things opened us up to manipulation. Because others helped us determine what was truly "enjoying the Lord," and what was not.

So what is "exercised in your spirit"? Does it have a somewhat singular meaing? Is the meaning variable based on the context? Is "my spirit" necessarily involved just because I use the term? Is it just a LRC cliche?

Opinions? Does Lee or someone else ever give this term a somewhat difinitive meaning? Or is it just jargon?

*Yes***"Exercise your spirit"****when I was there meant, "don't use your mind to think" don't carry on a normal conversation , don't question ,rather get with the program , be spiritually upbeat, ie. chant or shout amen lord Jeeesus! Use your a strong emotional tone and emphasize hand gestures to go along with it , like a small fisted up -swinging motion , while quoting a piece of witness Lee's message or slogans and then say amen Jeeesus again!

[Nell]

So the OP in this thread from 11/2014 begins with "Exercise your spirit".

Exercise your spirit is not a verse. It's not Scripture. It's LC-speak.

I think calling LC-speak "The Lexicon" is generous, but here you are.

Nell

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Nell

So the OP in this thread from 11/2014 begins with "Exercise your spirit".

Exercise your spirit is not a verse. It's not Scripture. It's LC-speak.

I think calling LC-speak "The Lexicon" is generous, but here you are.

Nell

I remember at the beginning when we first touched the church life that I asked the leading elder if there was a glossary of recovery terms to help me understand their teaching. He smiled and said he did not know of one. I was serious. I don't know why I didn't see that as a red flag.

[Nell]

1. I don't have the peace.
2. I just don't have the grace for that.
3. Turn to your spirit.
4. You're in your soul.
5. Get out of your mind.
6. Halleluuuuuuuuuuujah
7. Praaaaaaaaise the Lord
8. We only care for life.
9. Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, ...
10. Oooooohhhhhhhhhh Loooooooorrrrrrrrrrrdddddddddd Jeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzuuuuuuuuuuuuusssssssssss
11. The Lord's Recovery (I personally believe that "the Recovery" is not recovering anything, and "it" is not of "the Lord." So why call "it" the Lord's Recovery?)
12. Kill the flesh
13. Arm pump while pray reading.
14. Let us EAT CHRIST
15. WE ARE OUT OF BABYLON
16. ( Insert Catholic church basing x100)
17. Onenessssssss
18. BLENDINGGGGGG
19. Any kind of talk that sounds like they are diminishing another’s own ability to think/choose for them self and talking over them as if they know what is better.
20. "Drunken Noah" - Witness Lee's sons got caught molesting the church secretaries, and making off with the church funds.
21. "Rebellion" - Anyone who mentions Witness Lee's sons. See also, "Storms" and "Turmoils"
22. "Proper" - Anything being promoted by LSM/Anaheim.
23. "Attack" - Anything said to critique LSM/Anaheim, or that wasn't slavishly subservient.
24. "Critique" - When LSM/Anaheim said something to correct others, such as their broadsides "Affirmation and Critique"
25. "Deputy God" - The Alpha Male in Anaheim, aka "God's oracle", "today's Moses", or "Today's Paul".
26. "Saints" - Anyone on the "proper" ground. Once , in conversation, I said I was from a city with no LR church group. The listener frowned, puzzled. "Are there any saints there?" He asked me.
    "Yes, thousands of them" I replied. "You know what I mean", he said, nonplussed.

This should get us started on an updated glossary...is this helping, StG?

Nell

[jigsaw44]

11. Kill the flesh
12. Arm pump while pray reading.
13. Let us EAT CHRIST
14. WE ARE OUT OF BABYLON
15. ( Insert Catholic church bashing x100)
16. Onenessssssss
17.BLENDINGGGGGG

[NZexCK]

18. Any kind of talk that sounds like they are diminishing another’s own ability to think/choose for them self and talking over them as if they know what is better.

[aron]

Originally Posted by NZexCK

18. Any kind of talk that sounds like they are diminishing another’s own ability to think/choose for them self and talking over them as if they know what is better.

We had a thread on this forum once: "Things Witness Lee knows but others don't". It was all quotes from WL saying, "Not may Christians realize..." and "Not many Christians appreciate..." or "Most Christians don't understand this, but..."

Somehow WL had these abilities - not only to know what most other Christians thought (even though he hadn't been to their meetings for years) and to know what was superior to that thinking. And these godlike abilities would be transferred to us if we just sat in the proper chairs, in the proper meeting on the proper ground, listening to the oracle of God for these present times. Then we'd likewise know what was best for everyone else.

19. "Drunken Noah" - Witness Lee's sons got caught molesting the church secretaries, and making off with the church funds.
20. "Rebellion" - Anyone who mentions Witness Lee's sons. See also, "Storms" and "Turmoils"
21. "Proper" - Anything being promoted by LSM/Anaheim.
22. "Attack" - Anything said to critique LSM/Anaheim, or that wasn't slavishly subservient.
23 "Critique" - When LSM/Anaheim said something to correct others, such as their broadsides "Affirmation and Critique"
24. "Deputy God" - The Alpha Male in Anaheim, aka "God's oracle", "today's Moses", or "Today's Paul".
25. "Saints" - Anyone on the "proper" ground. Once , in conversation, I said I was from a city with no LR church group. The listener frowned, puzzled. "Are there any saints there?" He asked me.

"Yes, thousands of them" I replied. "You know what I mean", he said, nonplussed.

[Sons to Glory!]

Some of the ones on this list are scriptural - like using the word "saints" for Christians. Of course, using the word in an elitist way is the error (as Aron points in in #25). But other things like "turn to your spirit" are not scriptural, at least as far as I can tell. Turn to the Lord is what is scriptural. The Lord is joined to our spirit, but saying "turn to your spirit" I think excludes something important - The Lord Spirit!

And I think we need to show grace to those who still use some of these words too. For instance, a brother and I here noticed that some speak sometimes of "turning to your spirit." We know it's off, but would hopefully not go to them to try and correct them. That would just be legalism.

I just don't have the grace for that.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Some of the ones on this list are scriptural - like using the word "saints" for Christians. Of course, using the word in an elitist way is the error (as Aron points in in #25). But other things like "turn to your spirit" are not scriptural, at least as far as I can tell. Turn to the Lord is what is scriptural. The Lord is joined to our spirit, but saying "turn to your spirit" I think excludes something important - The Lord Spirit!

And I think we need to show grace to those who still use some of these words too. For instance, a brother and I here noticed that some speak a lot of "turning to your spirit." We know it's off, but would hopefully not go to them to try and correct them. That would just be legalism.

Scriptural or not...it's still LC-speak. Who talks like this?

If you want to communicate with other people, Christians, Christians who are wounded, LCKids who are wounded, unbelievers, don't use expressions that are cringeworthy to your audience. Why would you do that? You've asked for clarification...you've been told...over and over again.

When someone writes or speaks, they write or speak for the sake of the audience. Don't make it about you! LC-speak doesn't care about people...it's all about Witness Lee, LSM, Local Church. It's all about the "heavenly language" of the high-minded speaker condescending to the ignorant, moo-cow listener.

On the contrary, we are charged to be "all things to all people".
1 Cor. 9:22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.

Nell
******************
3. Remember It's About The Audience
Most talented speakers are great at storytelling. However, when telling your story, never forget that you are doing it for the sake of the audience. It shouldn't be about you, so make it crystal clear why, and how, your story can help the audience. That way your message will be more than entertaining, it will also be empowering and inspirational! - Donald Hatter, Donald Hatter Inc.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Some of the ones on this list are scriptural - like using the word "saints" for Christians. Of course, using the word in an elitist way is the error (as Aron points in in #25). But other things like "turn to your spirit" are not scriptural, at least as far as I can tell. Turn to the Lord is what is scriptural. The Lord is joined to our spirit, but saying "turn to your spirit" I think excludes something important - The Lord Spirit!

And I think we need to show grace to those who still use some of these words too. For instance, a brother and I here noticed that some speak sometimes of "turning to your spirit." We know it's off, but would hopefully not go to them to try and correct them. That would just be legalism.

Not in my experience, in the denominations I go to, they say “brothers and sisters” instead of “saints”.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I just don't have the grace for that.

Not sure what "that" is. Last post? Opening post?

It helps to quote what you are commenting on.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I just don't have the grace for that.

I noticed that this comment followed StG's post:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And I think we need to show grace to those who still use some of these words too. For instance, a brother and I here noticed that some speak sometimes of "turning to your spirit." We know it's off, but would hopefully not go to them to try and correct them. That would just be legalism.

I'm not sure if allowing error is "showing grace". Perhaps you can give a message in your church on the perils of reflexive groupthink? I know in the LCs they would introduce new people to each other, and then they'd nod and say, "Amen, amen" to nothing at all, as if they meant, "I'm part of the group, I'm part of the group". It's just mindless conformity.

In LC context, "turn to your spirit" is to engage in repetitive activity meant to suppress critical thinking. "Get out of your mind, get your spirit in gear" was another phrase I remember. That's where Nell's "Ooooooooooooohh Loooooooooooord Jeeeeeeeeeeezussssssssss" comes in. It's mindless ritual.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not sure what "that" is. Last post? Opening post?

It helps to quote what you are commenting on.

It's LC-speak. A universal "that".

N

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Not in my experience, in the denominations I go to, they say “brothers and sisters” instead of “saints”.

Agreed. Growing up in Catholicism, "saints" were dead people, canonized by the Pope. At least for me, many *words* were also spoiled by the Catholic church, e.g. Communion and Confession.

Sorry, it's just hard to purge your soul of habits. I wish others could also be tolerant of STG here. We are trying to accommodate both the old and the young looking forward.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

It's LC-speak. A universal "that".

N

Right. As in, "We don't care for that"... and, notice it's the "royal we". It's all manipulation and mindless conformity, with a thin veneer of spirituality on top.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Not in my experience, in the denominations I go to, they say “brothers and sisters” instead of “saints”.

Some churches actually introduce themselves, learn names and talk like real people.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I'm not sure if allowing error is "showing grace".

Perhaps you can give a message in your church on the perils of reflexive groupthink?

Wow! Can we examine how "group-speak" resulting from "reflexive group-think" is now "error." (I'm not defending any LC speak here.) Perhaps a little tour of "Twitter-verse" might prove that the whole world is now in speech "error."

Have you ever had teenagers? Every new generation develops a new "group-speak" to identify who is "in" and who is "out."

And, yes, I agree that some of the WL/LC-speak is juvenile.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Agreed. I wish others could also be tolerant of STG here. We are trying to accommodate both the old and the young looking forward.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

...And regarding the "LC speak" thing, I must say I'm not even aware of that in my words. This may be because for 20+ years I've been involved with what could be termed an exLC splinter group. I have a brother here, who was with the LC in the 60s, but hasn't been since, and he sometimes gets after me for LC speak too! I'll try to watch that, but again, it's hard for me to recognize. If someone could let me know when this is occuring, I'm certainly open to hearing it. (and please provide a suggestion as to how something might have been better worded . . .)

Thanks again for your efforts to reset this mess - it is appreciated!

StG has asked to be notified when he's in the LC-speak mode.

N

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

OK ... fair enough.

STG ... listen up ... stop saying 'saints!'

This discussion does get into some interesting things, does it not!? I don't normally use the word "saints" (or at least I don't think I do), but I also don't shy aware from it's usage. The word is used over 50 times in the NT and means holy or set apart. But perhaps on here I should make some effort to avoid using it . . . ?

What about the phrase "enjoying the Lord"? Should that be on the list too? I have read other (non-LC) authors who use that phrase (or something real close), but I don't hear it used very often in general Christendom.

Regarding the #1 item, "I don't have the peace," let me ask this. How do we sense the Spirit's leading on something we are about to do? We do have peace with God through Jesus Christ our Lord. However, have you not experienced getting ready to do something and there's an uneasiness within you? And when you say, "Okay Lord, I don't think you want me doing that" and then don't do it, the uneasiness goes away? I'm not talking a condemning thing, but just a small impression. I've certainly also had the inverse (many, many times) - that is I go ahead and do the thing I felt uneasy about, and then the lack of peace/uneasiness remains and often gets stronger. When I repent and tell Him about it, and just stand on His blood and righteousness, then I sense the peace again - my conscience is at peace.

A big challenge, at least in my walk with the Lord, is determining what's just feelings and what's the Anointing. Many times I've dismissed the "still small voice" within me, as just my feeling. Life is like a big laboratory, where we learn to distinguish His voice from all the other chatter going on in our soul!

So now I need to ask, did I just spit out a whole bunch of LC-speak, or not?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

This discussion does get into some interesting things, does it not!? I don't normally use the word "saints" (or at least I don't think I do), but I also don't shy aware from it's usage. The word is used over 50 times in the NT and means holy or set apart. But perhaps on here I should make some effort to avoid using it . . . ?

What about the phrase "enjoying the Lord"? Should that be on the list too? I have read other (non-LC) authors who use that phrase (or something real close), but I don't hear it used very often in general Christendom.

Regarding the #1 item, "I don't have the peace," let me ask this. How do we sense the Spirit's leading on something we are about to do? We do have peace with God through Jesus Christ our Lord. However, have you not experienced getting ready to do something and there's an uneasiness within you? And when you say, "Okay Lord, I don't think you want me doing that" and then don't do it, the uneasiness goes away? I'm not talking a condemning thing, but just a small impression. I've certainly also had the inverse (many, many times) - that is I go ahead and do the thing I felt uneasy about, and then the lack of peace/uneasiness remains and often gets stronger. When I repent and tell Him about it, and just stand on His blood and righteousness, then I sense the peace again - my conscience is at peace.

A big challenge, at least in my walk with the Lord, is determining what's just feelings and what's the Anointing. Many times I've dismissed the "still small voice" within me, as just my feeling. Life is like a big laboratory, where we learn to distinguish His voice from all the other chatter going on in our soul!

So now I need to ask, did I just spit out a whole bunch of LC-speak, or not?

StG, What do the following quoted paragraphs mean to you? All of them. Everything quoted , for the second time, including the bold text. And especially the part that says “don’t make it about you.”

Scriptural or not...it's still LC-speak. Who talks like this?

If you want to communicate with other people, Christians, Christians who are wounded, LCKids who are wounded, unbelievers, don't use expressions that are cringeworthy to your audience. Why would you do that? You've asked for clarification...you've been told...over and over again.

When someone writes or speaks, they write or speak for the sake of the audience. Don't make it about you! LC-speak doesn't care about people...it's all about Witness Lee, LSM, Local Church. It's all about the "heavenly language" of the high-minded speaker condescending to the ignorant, moo-cow listener.

On the contrary, we are charged to be "all things to all people".
1 Cor. 9:22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.

Nell
******************
3. Remember It's About The Audience
Most talented speakers are great at storytelling. However, when telling your story, never forget that you are doing it for the sake of the audience. It shouldn't be about you, so make it crystal clear why, and how, your story can help the audience. That way your message will be more than entertaining, it will also be empowering and inspirational! - Donald Hatter, Donald Hatter Inc.

[UntoHim]

Son to Glory!

Maybe try this. You have said that you are still engaged in some sort of business dealings.

I'm assuming that when you're discussing something to do with your business, or negotiating some business matter, you do not use such terms as "I don't have the peace to discuss this business deal" or "before we consummate this contract, let's turn to our spirit and call on the Lord 3 times!" I'm exaggerating for effect, but I think you get my drift.

Just speak with people on the forum like you would in your business dealings. That would be a good start, I think.
-

[Curious]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Wow! Can we examine how "group-speak" resulting from "reflexive group-think" is now "error." (I'm not defending any LC speak here.) Perhaps a little tour of "Twitter-verse" might prove that the whole world is now in speech "error."

Have you ever had teenagers? Every new generation develops a new "group-speak" to identify who is "in" and who is "out."

And, yes, I agree that some of the WL/LC-speak is juvenile.

This is a great thread, I noticed the LC lingo too, 'mingled' is both a false doctrine and another lingo word.

However, it's also helpful to keep in mind, it's not the lingo itself that's the problem. It's the motivation behind it. In this case it's all designed to guide the person along a prescribed track. Not all lingo is towards such a goal, as Ohio has pointed out. So by the same token, not all persons using any particular lingo have the same purpose in mind.

For example, StG uses the LC lingo, yes, (has been using...) but he's not trying to control anyone, subvert anyone, bully or badger or brainwash. He has kept the habit and was not himself deeply harmed by the LC so doesn't have the same negative associations with the lingo. Then he's stayed in a breakaway group, so the lingo has remained but the toxicity that is associated with the LC itself didn't develop.

That is how it looks to me, looking on. Tolerating some lingo from those who mean no harm, could be like taking a vaccination. The virus isn't active, it's dead, but choosing to mentally seperate the residual lingo in a 'safe' setting can help it to cease its triggering effect. In brief, It's the motivation behind the words that is the potential enemy. Not all use of the lingo is necessarily evil in itself.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Nell

What does this mean to you?

Which part are you referring to?

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Son to Glory!

Maybe try this. You have said that you are still engaged in some sort of business dealings.

I'm assuming that when you're discussing something to do with your business, or negotiating some business matter, you do not use such terms as "I don't have the peace to discuss this business deal" or "before we consummate this contract, let's turn to our spirit and call on the Lord 3 times!" I'm exaggerating for effect, but I think you get my drift.

Just speak with people on the forum like you would in your business dealings. That would be a good start, I think.
-

Thanks. In that context I would probably say something like, "I need to think about that some more" or "I'm not completely comfortable with . . ." (although, our biggest client is owned and operated by Christians, so I might actually have some more leeway there! )

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Curious

For example, StG uses the LC lingo, yes, (has been using...) but he's not trying to control anyone, subvert anyone, bully or badger or brainwash. He has kept the habit and was not himself deeply harmed by the LC so doesn't have the same negative associations with the lingo. Then he's stayed in a breakaway group, so the lingo has remained but the toxicity that is associated with the LC itself didn't develop.

That is how it looks to me, looking on. Tolerating some lingo from those who mean no harm, could be like taking a vaccination. The virus isn't active, it's dead, but choosing to mentally separate the residual lingo in a 'safe' setting can help it to cease its triggering effect. In brief, It's the motivation behind the words that is the potential enemy. Not all use of the lingo is necessarily evil in itself.

BIG thanks for that observation!!

Yes, I don't associate many of those words or phrases with something as negative as many on here do, for the reasons you. But this is educational for me, to realize that a number here have a stronger association with those words to the pain and hurt they experienced.

Thanks again, Curious . . . most helpful I think!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can we examine how "group-speak" resulting from "reflexive group-think" is now "error."

Error is error. Group-speak and group-think disseminate error, without the critical examination it needs.

"Exercise your spirit, brother!" is a push to shout and jump and wave. But where does this shouting and waving come from? The Bible says, "Exercise yourself to Godliness" but does that mean jump up and down and shout repetitively? I think such interpretation is error.

Suppose I created a meme that said, "Don't think, just repeat this meme" - it might get some traction, unless someone said, "Why shouldn't I think? Who says, 'Don't think'?"

So "exercise your spirit" was the "don't think" part of it, and then we disseminated the meme with group-think and group-speak. "Don't think - drink!" Remember that one? Unthinking, reflexive action was how the error got disseminated widely.

"Exercise yourself unto Godliness" really means what James meant - Godliness (true religion) is to visit widows and orphans and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. God so loved us that he sent His only begotten Son to save us. This son was holy, as the Father is holy.

The Son then said that we his disciples are to obey his commands, just as he obeyed the Father's commands. So we're likewise sent as emissaries to the unlovely, the unloved, the unlovable (in our eyes). That's what James meant by "visit widows and orphans". To love them, in this context, is to show some actual blessing. Healing, comfort, encouragement, food, clothes, shelter, something. Pay attention to them, listen to them.

And the second part is to keep unspotted from the world, like Jesus did. That is "exercise yourself unto Godliness". Not jump up and down and shout. And notice where the jumping and shouting got us: 1) We were told to ignore obvious sin in church leadership; 2) We were told to despise the poor., the widows, the orphans. "Don't waste your time" was the word at FTTA. Get good building material instead.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, I don't associate many of those words or phrases with something as negative as many on here do... But this is educational for me, to realize that a number here have a stronger association with those words to the pain and hurt they experienced.

But you do still disseminate and recommend teachings of Bill Freeman, knowing full well the "pain and hurt they experienced" at the hands of Patsy Freeman? Were those two ministries totally disconnected, as you seem to suppose? Does the reflexive group-speak that you note in your church cover over this? How much has been examined, really? I don't know, but I'm suspicious.

Those "words and phrases" used by Bill Freeman, still used by some it seems, were the vehicle for the Freeman ministry, in all its facets, to work. I think until you unpack that, the proprietary words and phrases should be held gingerly and not disseminated reflexively. Test all things, hold what is good. Really test it. Don't take it at face value. Try to deconstruct it. See what it's really made of. Go deeper than the shallow 'good feelings' that they seem to engender.

I daresay that same thing is what needs to happen with Witness Lee, with Titus Chu, with Dong Yu Lan. These ministers trafficked in naivete. Don't give them a free pass. Look at the fruit, all of it, not just the parts you want to remember.

https://culteducation.com/group/932-...-of-faith.html

See also:

I, Steve Kirk, met Bill and Patsy Freeman in 1970 at the age of 20 when a friend from Campus Crusade for Christ invited me to their meeting. Three months later I moved out of the University of Washington crewhouse and into their community called the Church in Seattle.
My wife, Deborah Nielsen, 20 at the time, was recruited in 1971 during a summer waitressing job at the Northgate Mall in Seattle. When she recognized a fellow Young Life leader at a meeting she thought she’d found a group of sincere, committed Christians.

Shortly after joining, we realized that daily life consisted of unwritten rules and authoritarian shepherding of all aspects of our lives by more experienced members. We were counseled to cut all ties with our past life, family and friends.
When Deborah wanted to give a Christmas gift to her mother, Patsy Freeman quoted Luke 14:26, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes even life itself, cannot be my disciple.” Bible verses were used to justify their beliefs and practices.

During a leadership meeting in January 1972 we were discussing the shortage of couples willing to be “houseparents” and host single men who were at least 18 years old. Patsy suggested to me that I marry Deborah, who was attending the Church in Portland at that time and was a senior at Lewis and Clark College.
Patsy called Deborah the next morning and told her that God had revealed His plan for us to marry each other. Deborah agreed, dropped out of college and moved into the Freeman’s home in Seattle.
Both of our parents, without meeting or speaking to one another, suggested that we wait six months before marrying. Patsy told us it would be disobedient to wait since we were sure it was God’s purpose for us to marry. Three weeks later we were married at a Sunday evening communion meeting.

One month later, two single men moved into our small two-bedroom house. Three years later there were 10 single men living with us in a six-bedroom house with Deborah doing all the cooking and most of the cleaning.
We moved on average every six months for the first six years of our marriage. In this and so many other matters we willingly took the Freeman’s suggestions. It wasn’t until we were kicked out of their group in 1979 that we realized how brain-washed we had been. We praise the Lord our marriage is strong today.
Of course this is not the message we presented to newcomers. We used deceit and believed that the end for God justified the means.
When one of the Freeman daughters enrolled at Seattle-area Bellevue Community College, Deborah was requested to accompany her. Deborah took German for the main purpose of recruiting students into the assembly. We used to pray for God to severely punish any who left.

Throughout the years they have used different names for identification. They believe they are patterning themselves after the New Testament churches, the Church in Rome, Church in Corinth, etc. There was never a shortage of money or free labor. We gave nearly all our free time and much more than 10 percent of our income to the church.
It is not uncommon for lawsuits to be threatened to silence criticism of their “cult-like” practices. This has caused some concerned ex-members to remain anonymous. Fortunately, there are people willing to express their opinions on the Internet (www.religionnewsblog.com).
We share this personal testimony to hopefully spare any of Spokane’s young people from similar painful experiences.
We pray for God’s love to overcome all fear and control. We know the Lord’s love is strong enough to help these Christians break free from following the Freemans. We hope the broken bonds between family members can be rebuilt. We have faith that these brothers and sisters can find healthy, positive, loving church communities.

In God’s grace,
Steve & Deborah (D.) Kirk

There are probably dozens of such testimonies online. I'm deeply suspicious of disseminating any of the words and phrases indiscriminately, if this is the kind of pain and hurt that followed. And I'm not picking on the Freemans or SonstoGlory! but rather saying that we should be very careful of what we write and say. We may think it harmless and "enjoyable" and even "biblical" but we really need to test all things.

[aron]

26. "Poor, poor Christianity. Too poor." If I got a dollar for every time I heard Witness Lee speak that, I could go out and buy a nice steak dinner.
27. "Rich ministry of Witness Lee" Ditto. Do a google search sometime and it is eye-opening. They really flog that one. They love the word "rich", also the word "golden" (I think that one has cultural provenance). "This is a golden opportunity" was the catch-phrase at the trainings.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Which part are you referring to?

Uh...all of it.

All of Post #19. Or all of post #7. I quoted myself to make sure you would read it, all parts. Did you read any of it?

Nell

[Nell]

1. I don't have the peace.
2. I just don't have the grace for that.
3. Turn to your spirit.
4. You're in your soul.
5. Get out of your mind.
6. Halleluuuuuuuuuuujah
7. Praaaaaaaaise the Lord
8. We only care for life.
9. Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, ...
10. Oooooohhhhhhhhhh Loooooooorrrrrrrrrrrdddddddddd Jeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzuuuuuuuuuuuuusssssssssss
11. The Lord's Recovery (I personally believe that "the Recovery" is not recovering anything, and "it" is not of "the Lord." So why call "it" the Lord's Recovery?)
12. Kill the flesh
13. Arm pump while pray reading.
14. Let us EAT CHRIST
15. Crazy Jesus eaters
16. WE ARE OUT OF BABYLON
17. ( Insert Catholic church basing x100)
18. Onenessssssss
19. BLENDINGGGGGG
20. Any kind of talk that sounds like they are diminishing another’s own ability to think/choose for them self and talking over them as if they know what is better.
21. "Drunken Noah" - Witness Lee's sons got caught molesting the church secretaries, and making off with the church funds.
22. "Rebellion" - Anyone who mentions Witness Lee's sons. See also, "Storms" and "Turmoils"
23. "Proper" - Anything being promoted by LSM/Anaheim.
24. "Attack" - Anything said to critique LSM/Anaheim, or that wasn't slavishly subservient.
25. "Critique" - When LSM/Anaheim said something to correct others, such as their broadsides "Affirmation and Critique"
26. "Deputy God" - The Alpha Male in Anaheim, aka "God's oracle", "today's Moses", or "Today's Paul".
27. "Saints" - Anyone on the "proper" ground. Once , in conversation, I said I was from a city with no LR church group. The listener frowned, puzzled. "Are there any saints there?" He asked me.
    "Yes, thousands of them" I replied. "You know what I mean", he said, nonplussed.
28. ”Poor, poor Christianity. Too poor." If I got a dollar for every time I heard Witness Lee speak that, I could go out and buy a nice steak dinner.
29. “Rich ministry of Witness Lee" Ditto. Do a google search sometime and it is eye-opening. They really flog that one. They love the word "rich". Also the word "golden" (I think that has cultural provenance) "This is a golden opportunity" was the catch-phrase at the trainings.
30. Let us LIVE Christ
31. Tripartite
32. Mingling
33. Divine romance
34. I really appreciate... (insert message/ministry/life-study/this point in the HWFMR/outline point etc.)
35. I was really impressed...
36. If you take care of the Church, God will take care of your family. (This one really disgusts me.)

Sorry the numbers are changing. I'm using the[List] formatting tool.

Nell

[Nell]

Aron...typo?
"Exorcise your spirit,...

Oops!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

Aron...typo?
"Exorcise your spirit,...

Oops!

Thank you. Still, we need to exorcise the wrong spirit, that we once let in with our naive good will.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by aron

Thank you. Still, we need to exorcise the wrong spirit, that we once let in with our naive good will.

I thought that might be where you were going with that, just checking...

Nell

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

I thought that might be where you were going with that, just checking...

Nell

Even though it was a typo, it brings up an interesting perspective. Jesus did exorcise spirits. "Come out of him" were his words. Likewise LC-speak can become a vehicle for ungodly influence and should be called out and rejected. I physically left the LC but it took a long while to realise how deeply engrained these hurtful ans error-laden words were within in me. It was, "Not I, but the spirit that operates in me." And that spirit wasn't from God. But in retrospect that's not shocking. I lived it 24/7 for years. Of course it took over my consciousness, even my unconscious to some considerable degree. I was steeped in the LC spirit.

[NZexCK]

29. Let us LIVE Christ
30. Tripartite
31. Mingling
32. Divine romance

[Trusting]

33. I really appreciate... (proceed to insert message/whatever a brother has spoken/ministry/life-study/this point in the HWFMR/outline point etc.)

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Trusting

33. I really appreciate... (insert message/ministry/life-study/this point in the HWFMR/outline point etc.)

Yes. This one was particularly ... something ... to me, along with "I was really impressed...".

It usually began as a testimony after the meeting. The same people would stand and say the same thing about something slightly different. "I really appreciate ...", "I was really impressed..." I could almost give the testimony along with them. In fact, I did give the same testimony for years and made myself sick.

One fateful Sunday morning I had had enough. I was bored. The testimony tape began looping. I just got up and left. Never to return. Really. I never went to another meeting.

A young woman I had known for years followed me out. (You know how that works... remember? No one leaves unexpectedly without a chase plane...)

She asked me if I was OK. I said yes. I'm OK.

In a moment of inspiration, I decided to tell her the truth:
"I'm just bored out of my mind."
"I've heard all of this before...so many times, I just don't need to hear it again. If all this was as impressive as everyone says, things here would be different."

She was, needless to say, taken aback. In her stunned silence, she couldn't think of anything to say that would salvage the conversation. I hopped in my car and took off...headed for my favorite Mexican Restaurant, el Jarro de Arturo on North San Pedro, and its fantastic guac. Adios!

OK. Maybe I didn't go to el Jarro's but I might have.

I know. TMI

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Error is error. Group-speak and group-think disseminate error, without the critical examination it needs.

"Exercise yourself unto Godliness" really means what James meant - Godliness (true religion) is to visit widows and orphans and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

So we should address the errors, and this we have always done. We should also expose LC terminology with scripture. In this way we purge out the old leaven, and return to the truth in the Lord's words. The errors are not in the actual words, but in the use of these words, redefining words contrary to the truth.

As an aside, for example, I don't think "exercise yourself unto Godliness" is the same as "true religion." I prefer to use the context and Paul's own words to define this phrase. And these types of discussions are far more beneficial to many ex-members that have passed thru this site, and have said as much. Without belaboring the point, my study points to "exercising to have a conscience void of offense." But ... either way ... and this is helpful to all ... it does not mean screaming, fist-pumping, slogan-repeating, etc. Agreed?

So, do we eliminate the vernacular of the scripture spoiled by WL? Or do we correct the semantics? There are some folks incensed by the word "Jesus." How do we accommodate them? Do I then stop mentioning His name? What will be the outcome of that? How many more words shall we ban from the forum? There is a major difference between some poster like myself using words familiar to ex-LC members, and someone shoving these words down someone's throat. How many times do we get to shame STG for his "mistakes?"

[Kevin]

[37] Amen! (Uses as a greeting instead of saying hi or good morning.)
[38] O Lord, Amen, Hallelujah, Praise the Lord, Jesus, Triune God! (What are they blubbering?)
[39] God-man attire (It's just a suit with a tie.)

[Curious]

This list would not be complete without the term 'Seeker', to indicate a person associating with, but not joined to the LC. That code term alerts all in the room to what level of expression (pretense) is applicable in their presence. It also implies the person is not saved.

[Nell]

1. I don't have the peace.
2. I just don't have the grace for that.
3. Turn to your spirit.
4. You're in your soul.
5. Get out of your mind.
6. Halleluuuuuuuuuuujah
7. Praaaaaaaaise the Lord
8. We only care for life.
9. Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, ...
10. Oooooohhhhhhhhhh Loooooooorrrrrrrrrrrdddddddddd Jeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzuuuuuuuuuuuuusssssssssss
11. The Lord's Recovery (I personally believe that "the Recovery" is not recovering anything, and "it" is not of "the Lord." So why call "it" the Lord's Recovery?)
12. Kill the flesh
13. Arm pump while pray reading.
14. Let us EAT CHRIST
15. Crazy Jesus eaters
16. WE ARE OUT OF BABYLON
17. ( Insert Catholic church basing x100)
18. Onenessssssss
19. BLENDINGGGGGG
20. Any kind of talk that sounds like they are diminishing another’s own ability to think/choose for them self and talking over them as if they know what is better.
21. "Drunken Noah" - Witness Lee's sons got caught molesting the church secretaries, and making off with the church funds.
22. "Rebellion" - Anyone who mentions Witness Lee's sons. See also, "Storms" and "Turmoils"
23. "Proper" - Anything being promoted by LSM/Anaheim.
24. "Attack" - Anything said to critique LSM/Anaheim, or that wasn't slavishly subservient.
25. "Critique" - When LSM/Anaheim said something to correct others, such as their broadsides "Affirmation and Critique"
26. "Deputy God" - The Alpha Male in Anaheim, aka "God's oracle", "today's Moses", or "Today's Paul".
27. "Saints" - Anyone on the "proper" ground. Once , in conversation, I said I was from a city with no LR church group. The listener frowned, puzzled. "Are there any saints there?" He asked me.
    "Yes, thousands of them" I replied. "You know what I mean", he said, nonplussed.
28. ”Poor, poor Christianity. Too poor." If I got a dollar for every time I heard Witness Lee speak that, I could go out and buy a nice steak dinner.
29. “Rich ministry of Witness Lee" Ditto. Do a google search sometime and it is eye-opening. They really flog that one. They love the word "rich". Also the word "golden" (I think that has cultural provenance) "This is a golden opportunity" was the catch-phrase at the trainings.
30. Let us LIVE Christ
31. Tripartite
32. Mingling
33. Divine romance
34. I really appreciate... (insert message/ministry/life-study/this point in the HWFMR/outline point etc.)
35. I was really impressed...
36. If you take care of the Church, God will take care of your family. (This one really disgusts me.)
37. Amen! (Uses as a greeting instead of saying hi or good morning.)
38. O Lord, Amen, Hallelujah, Praise the Lord, Jesus, Triune God! (What are they blubbering?)
39. God-man attire (It's just a suit with a tie.)
40. God-man socks. For real. God-man socks. Spotted by Harvest House personnel during the lawsuit proceedings.
41. Seeker - a person associating with, but not joined to the LC. That code term alerts all in the room to what level of expression (pretense) is applicable in their presence. It also implies the person is not saved.

[jigsaw44]

For number 36. If you take care of the church then God will take care of your family. This seems like clear manipulation. Do they use this phrase to isolate every aspect of your life that can possibly take time away from the church such as family and or friends? Or is this a tactic for people to pool resources/money solely for the church? Idk that phrase really does feel devious in a certain manner. It seems to me that LC destroys families not takes care of them.

- You folk have any stories of people being subdued to this phrase/practice of LC above everything and anything else mentality?

[aron]

42. Little grinders: Witness Lee term for children.
43. Little bankers: WL term for children with money.
44. Oneness: means "Do what you are told."
45. Fellowship: means "Don't do anything without permission."

[Bear]

These is definitely a certain language.
46. Calling people ‘ones’. For example ‘Serving ones’

[Ohio]

Being "negative."

Is that one listed yet? That expression was used all the time referring to those who were not entirely "positive" about the entire program.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Bear

46. Calling people ‘ones’. For example ‘Serving ones’

Right - 'serving ones', or 'new ones', or 'seeking ones'. Part of it's intellectual laziness. Just use what terms others use, irrespective of whether it makes much sense, or best fits the job at hand. But another part is in-group acculturation. If you use the same words, then the implicit assumption is that you share the same meanings, values, and understandings.

It's more than simply a short-cut. Using the shared catchphrase means, "I'm in the group". Those who use different terminology, even if it's defensible, will be looked at with suspicion... are they with "Us" or with "Them"... are they "Inside" or are they "Outside"?

Someone who goes to all the meetings, reads the books and such, but uses different terms will be seen with skepticism, and held aloof. They may even be challenged by some of the bolder group members who see themselves as gatekeepers of a sort.

But a lot of it is simply laziness. Just like hippies saying, "Man" or surfers saying, "Dude" or Valley Girls saying, "Like, totally!" - it's a way to release energy without actually thinking about what you are doing. You are on autopilot.

If you meet the middle-aged LR couple and they both nod and say, "Amen, amen" it's because that's what they've been doing for the past 25 years. It's the easiest way for them to get past a moment, it's a reflex. Same with terminology, and group leaders, or - ahem - 'responsible ones' know this, and use this to keep them within the LR fences. Control the language, control their thoughts and behaviours. Those who are "In" use language to show their status.

[Nell]

All--
I've added categories to the list. Does it help? Suggestions? I'm not sure some of the categories are descriptive. Help!
Nell

1. Attack: Anyone who tells the truth about Lee, LSM, is attacking.
2. Attack: Anything said to critique LSM/Anaheim, or that wasn't slavishly subservient.
3. Authority: Cover the brothers: WLee's sons got caught molesting the church secretaries
4. Authority: Drunken Noah
5. Babylon: Catholic Church
6. Babylon: WE ARE OUT OF BABYLON
7. Blend: Anonymous Blended Brothers
8. Blend: BLENDINGGGGGG
9. Call on the Lord: Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus,
10. Call on the Lord: Ooooohhhhh Looorrrrrrddddd Jeeezzzzuuuuussssssss
11. Classification: Co-workers
12. Classification: Good brother
13. Classification: Negative "Don't say anything negative."
14. Classification: Ones: Serving ones, seeking one, new ones
15. Classification: Saints: Anyone on the "proper" ground.
16. Classification: Seeker
17. Critique: When LSM/Anaheim said something to correct others, such as their broadsides "Affirmation and Critique"
18. Eat Jesus: Crazy Jesus eaters
19. Eat Jesus: Let us EAT CHRIST
20. False Gods: "Deputy God" - The Alpha Male in Anaheim, aka "God's oracle", "today's Moses", or "Today's Paul".
21. False gods: We are baby gods.
22. Family: If you take care of the Church, God will take care of your family.
23. Fellowship: means "Don't do anything without permission."
24. Financial schemes: Daystar
25. Financial schemes: WLee's sons got caught making off with church funds.
26. Lingo: Amen! (Uses as a greeting instead of saying hi or good morning.)
27. Lingo: O Lord, Amen, Hallelujah, Praise the Lord, Jesus, Triune God!
28. LSM Gift Shop: God-man attire (It's just a suit with a tie.)
29. LSM Gift Shop: God-man socks. For real. God-man socks.
30. Ministry: Life: Let us LIVE Christ
31. Ministry: Divine romance
32. Ministry: Kill the flesh
33. Ministry: Life: We only care for life.
34. Ministry: Mingling
35. Ministry: MOTA - Minister of the Age
36. Ministry: Oneness: means "Do what you are told."
37. Ministry: Oneness: One Accord
38. Ministry: Oneness: Onenessssssss
39. Ministry: Overcome degraded CHRRRIIISSStianity.
40. Ministry: Rich ministry of Witness Lee
41. Ministry: Tripartite man
42. Name calling: ‘ones’. 'serving ones', 'new ones', or 'seeking ones'.
43. Name calling: Little bankers: WL term for children with money.
44. Name calling: Little grinders: Witness Lee term for children.
45. Name calling: Moo cows
46. Name calling: Poor, degraded, Christianity
47. Name calling: Poor, poor Christianity. Too poor.
48. Name calling: Seeker - associating with, but not joined to the LC.
49. Practice: Exercise your spirit, includes arm pump, and loud, obnoxious, mindless LC-speak chants
50. Practice: Pray Read
51. Practice: Pray Read: Arm pump while pray reading.
52. Praise the Lord: Praaaaaaaaise the Lord
53. Proper: Anything being promoted by LSM/Anaheim.
54. Rebellion: 1977 "sisters rebellion"
55. Rebellion: Anyone who mentions Witness Lee's sons.
56. Rebellion: Disagree with Lee's ministry,
57. Rebellion: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion by WLee
58. Recovery: The Lord's Recovery
59. Slogan: Don't say anything "negative".
60. Slogan: Get out of your mind. Stop talking. Stop telling the truth.
61. Slogan: Halleluuuuuuuuuuujah
62. Slogan: I consecrate myself to Christ and The Church
63. Slogan: I don't have the peace. Means: I don't want to.
64. Slogan: I just don't have the grace for that.
65. Slogan: Turn to your spirit.
66. Slogan: You're in your mind. Diminish another’s own ability to think/choose
67. Mind: Talk over members as if they "know" what is better.
68. Slogan: You're in your soul.
69. Storms: anytime the truth of Lee, LSM, Blendeds, is told
70. Testimonies: I really appreciate...message/ministry/life-study/HWFMR
71. Testimonies: I was really impressed...
72. Turmoil:

[SerenityLives]

I’m not sure if this has been addressed already but “Young people”? I felt diminished whenever they used that term.

[Bear]

Originally Posted by aron

Right - 'serving ones', or 'new ones', or 'seeking ones'. Part of it's intellectual laziness. Just use what terms others use, irrespective of whether it makes much sense, or best fits the job at hand. But another part is in-group acculturation. If you use the same words, then the implicit assumption is that you share the same meanings, values, and understandings.

It's more than simply a short-cut. Using the shared catchphrase means, "I'm in the group". Those who use different terminology, even if it's defensible, will be looked at with suspicion... are they with "Us" or with "Them"... are they "Inside" or are they "Outside"?

Someone who goes to all the meetings, reads the books and such, but uses different terms will be seen with skepticism, and held aloof. They may even be challenged by some of the bolder group members who see themselves as gatekeepers of a sort.

But a lot of it is simply laziness. Just like hippies saying, "Man" or surfers saying, "Dude" or Valley Girls saying, "Like, totally!" - it's a way to release energy without actually thinking about what you are doing. You are on autopilot.

If you meet the middle-aged LR couple and they both nod and say, "Amen, amen" it's because that's what they've been doing for the past 25 years. It's the easiest way for them to get past a moment, it's a reflex. Same with terminology, and group leaders, or - ahem - 'responsible ones' know this, and use this to keep them within the LR fences. Control the language, control their thoughts and behaviours. Those who are "In" use language to show their status.

Yes, exactly. It also showed you were up to speed on the ‘up to date speaking’ if you could spout the latest buzz words from the training. It was almost like a status thing to be able to throw those phrases out. I do definitely agree it was to form a cohesive group (the language). Sometimes even today, the first word that pops into my head is an LC word and I consciously chose a different word to say.

[aron]

Good building material: means they're pliable & potentially stable earners. We were also urged to get "typical Americans" which means college-educated whites.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I’m not sure if this has been addressed already but “Young people”? I felt diminished whenever they used that term.

The term has not been addressed previously on this topic. From Merriam-Webster: Definition of young people:
the youth usually between the ages of 12 and 24 ministered to by a Protestant Christian church or denomination especially:
* the organized youth group of a church
* the young people's meeting
* young people's service
* the young people have invited the Connecticut valley youth to be their guests

"Young people" was not a term invented by the LC, and is not generally recognizable as LC-speak. "Young people" is used in many contexts across the US to refer to people who are...young.

Nell

[Curious]

To concur with the principles exposed in recent discussion, I once referred to two close friends as 'two close friends' and was admonished immediately, they are 'sisters', and furthermore, I had a 'blockage'. The blockage was not explained except that wrong terminology had certainly prompted the comment.

Conformity to sayings, even if they are one's shared with the wider Christian or general community, are still to be expressed 'correctly' in the LC context.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

"Young people" was not a term invented by the LC, and is not generally recognizable as LC-speak. "Young people" is used in many contexts across the US to refer to people who are...young.

For reply, see below Curious' comments.

Originally Posted by Curious

Conformity to sayings, even if they are one's shared with the wider Christian or general community, are still to be expressed 'correctly' in the LC context.

Yes, and going back to Nell's post above - so "young people", even if defensible or technically not wrong as a term, is the 'proper' or approved words in LC-land. One doesn't say, for instance, "children", even though that's also technically correct.

A less defensible term is "feeding". Jesus had said that his food was to do the will of the Father, expressed through scripture. So "Thy words were found and I did eat them" in Jesus' eyes becomes obedience. Pretty straight-forward.

Then Jesus adds, "Just as I obey my Father's commands, so you must obey mine". How then does this lead to choppy incantations becoming "feeding on the word"? And yet there we were... "Amen, amen, BLAH" and "Oh Lord Jeezuss BLAH". Erroneous and unsupported concepts, proprietary lingo, zealous application, and you get the Local Church or Lord's Recovery. I'd warn all and sundry, shake off their concepts and terms like the dust from your feet.

Another linked concept/term was the idea of "enjoyment". Others may have used the word in similar, even Christian context. Yet in this case it was the dissociation from repetition, from chanting "Oh Lord Oh Lord BLAH", the dizzy thoughtlessness of singing stilted verbiage over and over again. "This section, let's all sing Stanza 3 together again!" Over and again, the word gets mouthed, broken down into sing-song-y syllables which somehow convey magical power.

It's no different from going into a rock concert and shouting when the house lights change, or a sporting event and cheering when "your" team scores points. It's a momentary euphoria of magical transfer, with the endorphin rush taking over. That was "feeding" and "enjoyment", at its best it was just as vain as any other crowd-noise event. And at its worst it was reprogramming yourself with ministry concepts... go to LSM-approved meetings and mouth LSM verbiage and thereby become "sonized". "Ohhhhh saints!!! I enjoyed feeding on Mark 3 last night!!! And I especially appreciated the footnote in 3:12 that says 'This shows that we all must be in proper.....'"

[Trapped]

I think the “young people” thing is legit because it stands starkly against what the rest of Christianity says. In other words we’ve got “young people’s meetings” versus “youth group meetings”. If you say “youth group” in the LC you are noted as an outsider.

I tripped over that phrase repeatedly after I left and started talking to other Christians. It's just another way to drive a wedge between "us" and "them".

[Nell]

OK. So does "young people" belong on the LC-speak list?
Yes.
No.
Not now.

The LC didn't coin the phrase but it uses the phrase. There are a lot of phrases that meet that standard.

If it goes on the list, some context would help. How does the LC use the phrase differently from Marian Webster? For example:
[01] "Young people" in the LC means ...

I haven't been in the LC for a very long time, so I'm neutral. A little surprised, but neutral.

Nell

[Curious]

Now I have long had this question. Why does LC-speak use the word 'triune' but not the word 'trinity' to describe God? Mostly but not exclusively, the rest of Christendom uses the word trinity to describe the 'three-in-one' nature of God.

Is it like the term 'young people' verses 'youth group', an arbitrary use of a particular word which means nothing tangeably different, yet it functions to single out those on the inside from others? (as trapped describes)

Is it the same with the employment of the
word 'saint'? To use this singularly and specifically, rather than 'christian', 'disciple' 'follower of the way', 'believer', or any other equally valid reference that would confuse with the rest of Christianity?

If so, it seems there is a layer of subtle terminology that is a little harder to convince an outsider, yet is still very defining.

[aron]

Another one is "the mantle". A reference to Elijah/Elisha... somehow Nee had "the mantle" and passed it on to Lee. That was the unofficial term. The term used in publications was "God's oracle". Same thing. In every age, one person has the sight. The rest can only see as much as they get in line with the Seer of the Divine Revelation.

The one in LC Land with the Sight has the Power. So it seems, anyway. But they're very good at not saying anything directly, so as not to be held to their un-Christian principles, or they find the few even tangentially-related, like in the OT w Elijah/Elisha, and wave them. But did Paul ever claim, or even infer, that he'd taken "the mantle" from Peter? Yet that's what we were led to believe.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Curious

Now I have long had this question. Why does LC-speak use the word 'triune' but not the word 'trinity' to describe God? Mostly but not exclusively, the rest of Christendom uses the word trinity to describe the 'three-in-one' nature of God.

————+

Is it the same with the employment of the
word 'saint’.

The Catholic Church invented the word Trinity’. I can only suppose Née/Lee invented a deviation from the word Trinity so as not to sound so Catholic.

In my time in the LC I heard the word Godhead used periodically. Growing up Catholic I heard the word Trinity. It is no secret, denominations came from the RCC.

I consulted Biblegateway which has a ton of translations.
I found 3 scriptures in the KJ using “Godhead”. I did not see the Trinity or Triune used in any translation. Other translations use “divine nature” or “deity” when referring to the Godhead.

I don’t know if the recovery version uses the word Triune.

———

I have heard a few pastors refer to their congregation as saints. It is biblical to refer to living believers in the LORD as saints. But only in the LC did l hear the congregants refer to each other as saints. I never heard them refer to believers outside the LC perimeters as saints. They were just Christians.

———
As for “young people”, in the early and mid 70s, San Diego was comprised of 80-90 young people under the age of 30. We were known as a young people’s church for that reason. Every time we had a guest “elder” come minister to us from a different locality they were always pleasantly surprised to see so many young people under 30. I think we were about 125-150 members.

Oh...and speaking of LC speak, the word localities is used in the LC, parishes in the RCC and wards in the Mormon church. I think the JWs call their buildings Kingdom Halls. I don’t know what other denominations call their ‘parishes’.

[awareness]

Hey countmeworthy, hope you're well.

I think our sister here pretty much nails it down.

[Sons to Glory!]

Wowsie - that's quite the list! It's always interesting to me that every organization I've been part of has their own language. Some went so far as to include an organizational glossary and commonly used acronyms for orientation and/or in their handbook. Maybe you'll want to send this to the Blendeds to see if they might find it useful for the same purpose!

And I like that it is numbered too - that way we can just use the number of what we're talking about when we're communicating. For instance, "If you don't think I'm a #12, then you need to #9 & 65 so you will love me more and to also #73*!" This might really streamline communication (on here and the LC)!

*I've got a really big one that was left out

Originally Posted by Nell

All--
I've added categories to the list. Does it help? Suggestions? I'm not sure some of the categories are descriptive. Help!
Nell

1. Attack: Anyone who tells the truth about Lee, LSM, is attacking.
2. Attack: Anything said to critique LSM/Anaheim, or that wasn't slavishly subservient.
3. Authority: Cover the brothers: WLee's sons got caught molesting the church secretaries
4. Authority: Drunken Noah
5. Babylon: Catholic Church
6. Babylon: WE ARE OUT OF BABYLON
7. Blend: Anonymous Blended Brothers
8. Blend: BLENDINGGGGGG
9. Call on the Lord: Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus,
10. Call on the Lord: Ooooohhhhh Looorrrrrrddddd Jeeezzzzuuuuussssssss
11. Classification: Co-workers
12. Classification: Good brother
13. Classification: Negative "Don't say anything negative."
14. Classification: Ones: Serving ones, seeking one, new ones
15. Classification: Saints: Anyone on the "proper" ground.
16. Classification: Seeker
17. Critique: When LSM/Anaheim said something to correct others, such as their broadsides "Affirmation and Critique"
18. Eat Jesus: Crazy Jesus eaters
19. Eat Jesus: Let us EAT CHRIST
20. False Gods: "Deputy God" - The Alpha Male in Anaheim, aka "God's oracle", "today's Moses", or "Today's Paul".
21. False gods: We are baby gods.
22. Family: If you take care of the Church, God will take care of your family.
23. Fellowship: means "Don't do anything without permission."
24. Financial schemes: Daystar
25. Financial schemes: WLee's sons got caught making off with church funds.
26. Lingo: Amen! (Uses as a greeting instead of saying hi or good morning.)
27. Lingo: O Lord, Amen, Hallelujah, Praise the Lord, Jesus, Triune God!
28. LSM Gift Shop: God-man attire (It's just a suit with a tie.)
29. LSM Gift Shop: God-man socks. For real. God-man socks.
30. Ministry: Life: Let us LIVE Christ
31. Ministry: Divine romance
32. Ministry: Kill the flesh
33. Ministry: Life: We only care for life.
34. Ministry: Mingling
35. Ministry: MOTA - Minister of the Age
36. Ministry: Oneness: means "Do what you are told."
37. Ministry: Oneness: One Accord
38. Ministry: Oneness: Onenessssssss
39. Ministry: Overcome degraded CHRRRIIISSStianity.
40. Ministry: Rich ministry of Witness Lee
41. Ministry: Tripartite man
42. Name calling: ‘ones’. 'serving ones', 'new ones', or 'seeking ones'.
43. Name calling: Little bankers: WL term for children with money.
44. Name calling: Little grinders: Witness Lee term for children.
45. Name calling: Moo cows
46. Name calling: Poor, degraded, Christianity
47. Name calling: Poor, poor Christianity. Too poor.
48. Name calling: Seeker - associating with, but not joined to the LC.
49. Practice: Exercise your spirit, includes arm pump, and loud, obnoxious, mindless LC-speak chants
50. Practice: Pray Read
51. Practice: Pray Read: Arm pump while pray reading.
52. Praise the Lord: Praaaaaaaaise the Lord
53. Proper: Anything being promoted by LSM/Anaheim.
54. Rebellion: 1977 "sisters rebellion"
55. Rebellion: Anyone who mentions Witness Lee's sons.
56. Rebellion: Disagree with Lee's ministry,
57. Rebellion: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion by WLee
58. Recovery: The Lord's Recovery
59. Slogan: Don't say anything "negative".
60. Slogan: Get out of your mind. Stop talking. Stop telling the truth.
61. Slogan: Halleluuuuuuuuuuujah
62. Slogan: I consecrate myself to Christ and The Church
63. Slogan: I don't have the peace. Means: I don't want to.
64. Slogan: I just don't have the grace for that.
65. Slogan: Turn to your spirit.
66. Slogan: You're in your mind. Diminish another’s own ability to think/choose
67. Mind: Talk over members as if they "know" what is better.
68. Slogan: You're in your soul.
69. Storms: anytime the truth of Lee, LSM, Blendeds, is told
70. Testimonies: I really appreciate...message/ministry/life-study/HWFMR
71. Testimonies: I was really impressed...
72. Turmoil:

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey countmeworthy, hope you're well.

I think our sister here pretty much nails it down.

Thanks for asking.. 2019 ended & 2020 started out with a “bang”. Had sepsis and surgeries..was miserable physically..should of-could of died. Man, have I felt like Job!, but 2020 is ending on the up and up for me. If you haven’t read the last few verses at the end of Job, that is how I feel 2020 is ending for me. Been blessed over and above. Glory and Praise to Jesus with a very grateful heart.

Been doing 2 1/2 hours of water therapy/exercise 3xs a week for a few months too :-)

[countmeworthy]

On Nell’s list:
Number 21—— baby gods

As an FYI, the charismatic church, says we are ‘little gods’... the likes of Kenneth Copeland and others in his circle

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Thanks for asking.. 2019 ended & 2020 started out with a “bang”. Had sepsis and surgeries..was miserable physically..should of-could of died. Man, have I felt like Job!, but 2020 is ending on the up and up for me. If you haven’t read the last few verses at the end of Job, that is how I feel 2020 is ending for me. Been blessed over and above. Glory and Praise to Jesus with a very grateful heart.

Been doing 2 1/2 hours of water therapy/exercise 3xs a week for a few months too :-)

PTL, so glad to hear good news in this crazy year, CMW. I love to hear stories of grace, thanksgivings, and appreciation for Jesus from those passing thru life's fiery trials.

[Nell]

New additions in Bold.

1. Attack: Anyone who tells the truth about Lee, LSM, is attacking.
2. Attack: Anything said to critique LSM/Anaheim, or that wasn't slavishly subservient.
3. Authority: Cover the brothers: WLee's sons got caught molesting the church secretaries
4. Authority: Drunken Noah
5. Babylon: Catholic Church
6. Babylon: WE ARE OUT OF BABYLON
7. Blend: Anonymous Blended Brothers
8. Blend: BLENDINGGGGGG
9. Call on the Lord: Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus,
10. Call on the Lord: Ooooohhhhh Looorrrrrrddddd Jeeezzzzuuuuussssssss
11. Classification: Co-workers
12. Classification: Good brother
13. Classification: Good material for the building.
14. Classification: Negative "Don't say anything negative."
15. Classification: Ones: Serving ones, seeking one, new ones
16. Classification: Saints: Anyone on the "proper" ground.
17. Classification: Seeker
18. Critique: When LSM/Anaheim said something to correct others, such as their broadsides "Affirmation and Critique"
19. Eat Jesus: Crazy Jesus eaters
20. Eat Jesus: Let us EAT CHRIST
21. False Gods: "Deputy God" - The Alpha Male in Anaheim, aka "God's oracle", "today's Moses", or "Today's Paul".
22. False gods: We are baby gods.
23. Family: If you take care of the Church, God will take care of your family.
24. Fellowship: means "Don't do anything without permission."
25. Financial schemes: Daystar
26. Financial schemes: WLee's sons got caught making off with church funds.
27. Lingo: Amen! (Uses as a greeting instead of saying hi or good morning.)
28. Lingo: O Lord, Amen, Hallelujah, Praise the Lord, Jesus, Triune God!
29. LSM Gift Shop: God-man attire (It's just a suit with a tie.)
30. LSM Gift Shop: God-man socks. For real. God-man socks.
31. Ministry: Life: Let us LIVE Christ
32. Ministry: Up to date speaking.
33. Ministry: Divine romance
34. Ministry: Kill the flesh
35. Ministry: Life: We only care for life.
    
36. Ministry: Mantle: Passed from Nee to Lee. 1 Kings 19:19 (mantle=cloak) Who's got "the mantle" now?
37. Ministry: Meeting on the proper ground
38. Ministry: Mingling
39. Ministry: MOTA - Minister of the Age
40. Ministry: Oneness: means "Do what you are told."
41. Ministry: Oneness: One Accord
42. Ministry: Oneness: Onenessssssss
43. Ministry: Overcome degraded CHRRRIIISSStianity.
44. Ministry: proper expression of the church; the genuine expression of the church
45. Ministry: Rich ministry of Witness Lee
46. Ministry: Tripartite man
    
47. Ministry: The Lord is not building His church in Christendom
    
48. Ministry: Bring the Lord back. Until there are LC's in every city, the Lord Jesus will not return.
49. Name calling: ‘ones’. 'serving ones', 'new ones', or 'seeking ones'.
50. Name calling: Little bankers: WL term for children with money.
51. Name calling: Little grinders: Witness Lee term for children.
52. Name calling: Moo cows
53. Name calling: Poor, degraded, Christianity
54. Name calling: Poor, poor Christianity. Too poor.
55. Name calling: Seeker - associating with, but not joined to the LC.
56. Practice: Exercise your spirit, includes arm pump, and loud, obnoxious, mindless LC-speak chants
57. Practice: Pray Read
58. Practice: Pray Read: Arm pump while pray reading.
59. Praise the Lord: Praaaaaaaaise the Lord
60. Proper: Anything being promoted by LSM/Anaheim.
61. Rebellion: 1977 "sisters rebellion"
62. Rebellion: Anyone who mentions Witness Lee's sons.
63. Rebellion: Disagree with Lee's ministry,
64. Rebellion: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion by WLee
65. Recovery: The Lord's Recovery
66. Slogan: Don't say anything "negative".
67. Slogan: Get out of your mind. Stop talking. Stop telling the truth.
68. Slogan: Halleluuuuuuuuuuujah
69. Slogan: I consecrate myself to Christ and The Church
70. Slogan: I don't have the peace. Means: I don't want to.
71. Slogan: I just don't have the grace for that.
72. Slogan: Turn to your spirit.
73. Slogan: You're in your mind. Diminish another’s own ability to think/choose
74. Mind: Talk over members as if they "know" what is better.
75. Slogan: You're in your soul.
76. Storms: anytime the truth of Lee, LSM, Blendeds, is told
77. Testimonies: I really appreciate...message/ministry/life-study/HWFMR
78. Testimonies: I was really impressed...
79. Turmoil:

[Sons to Glory!]

Okay, you have now sorta included the "big one" I mentioned earlier that was missing (see my post 144) in #47 on this list - regarding the building of the church. (can only happen in the LC)

[aron]

Classification: Vital Groups. Several 'serving ones' showed up, pointed around the 'meeting hall', saying "You, you, you, and you - you're all a vital group. You over there - you're a vital group. You five right there - you're a vital group." Etc. You should have seen people's faces.

Classification: the New Way. Focuseon door knocking & led to Vital Groups. If we all did as told, the Lord would return in about 18 years, give or take a few months. Lee the Divinely Authorised Accountant had it all on a chalkboard one day, showing exponential growth curves. What an exciting meeting that was! We were all buzzing. What a blessing to be in God's move on the earth today. God Himself had forsaken Christianity and was basically only paying attention to us. The Revival to End the Age would soon ensue! All we had to do was be one with the brothers.

Classification: Youth Propagation Groups, or YPGs. People laughed about it after that 'wind' had passed thru town. It was basically a "Young People's Meeting" which was aimed at luring Billy and Susie's classmates. It was like, "Guess what Uncle Witness dreamed up for the church picnic this year?"

Classification: The Central Lane of the Divine Economy. Whatever Most Blended BP was thinking of at any particular moment.

[Nell]

While the LC Speak jargon on this list don’t rise, or sink, to the level of heresy, you might find some that are on the verge.

Nell

1. Attack: Anyone who tells the truth about Lee, LSM, is attacking.
2. Attack: Anything said to critique LSM/Anaheim, or that wasn't slavishly subservient.
3. Authority: Cover the brothers: WLee's sons got caught molesting the church secretaries
4. Authority: Drunken Noah
5. Babylon: Catholic Church
6. Babylon: WE ARE OUT OF BABYLON
7. Blend: Anonymous Blended Brothers
8. Blend: BLENDINGGGGGG
9. Call on the Lord: Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus,
10. Call on the Lord: Ooooohhhhh Looorrrrrrddddd Jeeezzzzuuuuussssssss
11. Classification: Co-workers
12. Classification: Good brother
13. Classification: Good material for the building.
14. Classification: Negative "Don't say anything negative."
15. Classification: Ones: Serving ones, seeking one, new ones
16. Classification: Saints: Anyone on the "proper" ground.
17. Classification: Seeker
18. Critique: When LSM/Anaheim said something to correct others, such as their broadsides "Affirmation and Critique"
19. Eat Jesus: Crazy Jesus eaters
20. Eat Jesus: Let us EAT CHRIST
21. False Gods: "Deputy God" - The Alpha Male in Anaheim, aka "God's oracle", "today's Moses", or "Today's Paul".
22. False gods: We are baby gods.
23. Family: If you take care of the Church, God will take care of your family.
24. Fellowship: means "Don't do anything without permission."
25. Financial schemes: Daystar
26. Financial schemes: WLee's sons got caught making off with church funds.
27. Lingo: Amen! (Uses as a greeting instead of saying hi or good morning.)
28. Lingo: O Lord, Amen, Hallelujah, Praise the Lord, Jesus, Triune God!
29. LSM Gift Shop: God-man attire (It's just a suit with a tie.)
30. LSM Gift Shop: God-man socks. For real. God-man socks.
31. Ministry: Life: Let us LIVE Christ
32. Ministry: Up to date speaking.
33. Ministry: Divine romance
34. Ministry: Kill the flesh
35. Ministry: Life: We only care for life.
36. Ministry: Mantle: Passed from Nee to Lee. 1 Kings 19:19 (mantle=cloak) Who's got "the mantle" now?
37. Ministry: Meeting on the proper ground
38. Ministry: Mingling
39. Ministry: MOTA - Minister of the Age
40. Ministry: Oneness: means "Do what you are told."
41. Ministry: Oneness: One Accord
42. Ministry: Oneness: Onenessssssss
43. Ministry: Overcome degraded CHRRRIIISSStianity.
44. Ministry: proper expression of the church; the genuine expression of the church
45. Ministry: Rich ministry of Witness Lee
46. Ministry: Tripartite man
47. Ministry: The Lord is not building His church in Christendom
48. Ministry: Bring the Lord back. Until there are LC's in every city, the Lord Jesus will not return.
49. Name calling: ‘ones’. 'serving ones', 'new ones', or 'seeking ones'.
50. Name calling: Little bankers: WL term for children with money.
51. Name calling: Little grinders: Witness Lee term for children.
52. Name calling: Moo cows
53. Name calling: Poor, degraded, Christianity
54. Name calling: Poor, poor Christianity. Too poor.
55. Name calling: Seeker - associating with, but not joined to the LC.
56. Practice: Exercise your spirit, includes arm pump, and loud, obnoxious, mindless LC-speak chants
57. Practice: Pray Read
58. Practice: Pray Read: Arm pump while pray reading.
59. Praise the Lord: Praaaaaaaaise the Lord
60. Proper: Anything being promoted by LSM/Anaheim.
61. Rebellion: 1977 "sisters rebellion"
62. Rebellion: Anyone who mentions Witness Lee's sons.
63. Rebellion: Disagree with Lee's ministry,
64. Rebellion: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion by WLee
65. Recovery: The Lord's Recovery
66. Slogan: Don't say anything "negative".
67. Slogan: Get out of your mind. Stop talking. Stop telling the truth.
68. Slogan: Halleluuuuuuuuuuujah
69. Slogan: I consecrate myself to Christ and The Church
70. Slogan: I don't have the peace. Means: I don't want to.
71. Slogan: I just don't have the grace for that.
72. Slogan: Turn to your spirit.
73. Slogan: You're in your mind. Diminish another’s own ability to think/choose
74. Mind: Talk over members as if they "know" what is better.
75. Slogan: You're in your soul.
76. Storms: anytime the truth of Lee, LSM, Blendeds, is told
77. Testimonies: I really appreciate...message/ministry/life-study/HWFMR
78. Testimonies: I was really impressed...
79. Turmoil: