Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts

Cal · 01-30-2019, 07:17 PM

Hi everyone. I haven't posted in a while. The Lord has been doing a great work in my life. Though I'm free from Lee and the LC. I still own him/it some credit, and some discredit. Here goes:

Witness Lee and the LC have always been a little like Babe Ruth. They've had some home runs, for which they should get credit. But they've also had a lot more strikeouts, for which they should be accountable. Here is a summary of the things of theirs I’ve retained and rejected.

Home Runs (Good)

Enjoy the Lord/Experience God – Probably the single best thing to take from Lee overall. Many Christians know that we should experience God and be in relationship with God. But the best way to summarize this relationship is that it is by nature to be enjoyed. A Christian should never have an experience of God that is not, on some level, enjoyable. Our relationship with God should be pleasant, upbeat, positive and joyful. In a word, we should enjoy it. In general, Lee’s emphasis on the Christian life as a matter of experiencing God in reality was on target.

The Human Spirit – The truth of the human spirit is important because it makes real some very crucial ideas, (1) that God is not vaguely “in us” but in us in a specific way; so (2) there is a part of our being to which we can “go” where we find God; (3) there is a part of our inner being that corresponds perfectly with God, as opposed the other part (our soul) which does not. This gives us greater clarity in understanding our sometimes complex and conflicting inner feelings; (4) it is our spirit that makes us unique in God’s creation. “Enjoy Christ in your spirit” is still the most central truth I keep from the LC.

Calling on the Lord/Turning to the Lord – This teaching can be abused. But the idea that you only need invoke the Lord’s name to make contact with Him is a huge help, as is the idea you can turn to him at any time.

Base Hits/Fouls Balls (some good, some bad)

Triune God – Lee’s view was helpful in several ways, starting with it pushed against the idea that God is three-headed. The Trinity is not three guys. It is one perfect Being seen from the aspect of his perfect relationship with his perfect self. Lee saw the unity of the Godhead, but he did not see the roots of that unity, and so erred in saying that God is Triune for dispensing. But actually God is Triune because he is conscious of himself and has a relationship with himself. The Spirit is not for dispensing then, but rather is God’s experience of himself, and so is crucial to our experience of him as well.

Still, Lee declared a more flowing, dynamic Trinity than the awkward three-headed-but-we-have-no-idea-why model of tradition. And his identification of the economical roles of the Trinity, especially the Spirit as the realization of God, were very helpful. But Lee over-emphasized that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit. Of course, this must be true in some sense because all three are God and God is one. But to continually repeat such a mantra without any explanation of why God is three is unbalanced. However, it’s hard to argue that Lee’s model was not more helpful to a living experience of God than the traditional model.

Local Church/Unity – The model of a simple, generalized unified community of believers is a good one. But the LC abused and twisted this idea into a grotesque excuse for self-promotion and exclusivity. The idea that a group must only call itself “the church in…” to actually be the church in a city is silly. Nothing in scripture declares or even implies such a thing. All Christians in a city make up the church in that city. But that church can be manifested in many smaller churches, as the examples of house churches in the New Testament suggest. But certainly there is no ground for any subset of a church in a city saying it has a more valid status than other groups. Yet, the basic idea of unity among believers is good. It’s just the LC has no right to define for everyone else what that unity should look like. Instead of telling everyone to practice unity according to them, they should have practiced being unified with the whole church in the city with greater sincerity.

God is Accomplishing Something in Time -- One problem I have with Christian doctrine in general is that it does not clearly state that Jesus' return depends on God finishing a work in the Church age. Some seem to think God is just going to say, "Okay, I've seen enough. Let's move on." or "Okay, you guys couldn't get the job done, let me just fix things." and send Jesus back. But it's important to realize that God's work in time is not going to end in failure. God is going to get the victory and accomplish what he is after. And he intends on accomplishing something not directly, but through people.

Lee saw that God is attempting to produce something in time. His mistake was to limit it to a very small subset of the Church, that is, his movement. From the Bible we know that the Lord is trying to produce his Bride and the sons of God. Just how this is worked out specifically we don’t know for sure. But we can know that it will end in a victory for the Lord, not a defeat. This brings into question our fundamental view of how the Kingdom comes, even to reconsider pre- and post-Tribulation issues. The LC’s view is that the world and non-LC Christianity get worse and worse, while their tiny subset of the Church gets better and better, until God raptures them, the Overcomers, and everyone else is left to trudge through the Tribulation. But doesn’t this view imply a failure? What happened to the shining city on the hill? What happened to evangelizing the world? What happened to the salt of the earth? Did it only really strongly effect 144,000? Would God be happy with that? Billions strike out and only a relative handful get runs? How is that a victory?

I believe that the Church is actually meant to have a profound effect on the world, and that the Kingdom will come in a strong way and there will be much positive influence on culture. God will get the majority of the victory, but “the third part” will be unrepentant, just like a third of the angels fell. He will rapture most of humanity, but the third will be left. God will win the ballgame 2 to 1.

In general, however, the idea that God is trying to produce something is good because it gives us hope and incentive to spread his word, and not hide in fear and isolation. We are ambassadors for his Kingdom, and his kingdom is going to win.

Strikeouts (Bad)

The Lord’s Recovery – This idea really has no useful purpose other than to allow a subset of the Church to claim special status. Yes God is “recovering.” He’s been doing that since the fall. It’s called “salvation.” The idea that there was a wonderful purity and clarity in the early days of the Church which got corrupted and lost and now is being recovered is far from accurate. Early saints were unclear on many things most present Christians take for granted, and there was mixture from the beginning, starting with it being a mixture of Christianity and Judaism. There has been purity in pockets all down through history. The Church has gotten much clearer on the core truths of the Bible lately, but this has been happening all over and is largely a result of modern information technology. The idea that God is only working to build/recover his Church in the LC movement is beyond absurd.

Trainings/FTT – Nothing wrong with educating Christians. But Lee’s “training” model is typical of the LC’s over-the-top, self-glorifying approach to anything associated with it. Kids, pressured to demonstrate they are “for the Lord,” are compelled to separate from their lives and families for weeks on end. The model is only necessary if the purpose is to bamboozle people into thinking submitting oneself to an isolating indoctrination center is crucial to God’s plan for their lives, which it isn’t. It’s only crucial to furthering the LC culture and mindset by inundating impressionable young people before they are capable of defending themselves against it.

Isolationism/Exclusivity – Christians should be holy. But they should also be able to relate to other people and their culture. The LC is more concerned with their own spiritual state than being an observable testimony of anything, and so it is ironically invisible. The mindset “hide and don’t let the world corrupt us” is not Christian. Jesus lived and ministered among the people. He was out in public rubbing elbows with everyone he met. He wasn’t afraid of being corrupted by the world. Holiness is a heart matter. Truly holy people can talk to just about anybody. Only religionists turn their noses up at other people. The LC became so snobby that it turned its nose up at most of God’s own people.

Impersonal Transformation – God transforms us by our getting to know him and becoming obedient to him. He doesn’t transform us by metaphysical magic. The whole “God being worked into our being” mantra is not supportable biblically or experientially. If God is being “worked” into our being, just where is that happening? If God has been worked into a believer’s soul, what happens to that “God” when the believer indulges in sinful thoughts, feelings and decisions? Where does that “God” go when he backslides? It just makes no sense. Transformation is a result of God changing our attitudes. The more we become like God the more we are easily filled. But we don’t have “more God” in our “being.” He just more easily shines through us because our soul is more aligned with his.

Lee’s view of God as a “dispensed” commodity served this impersonal model, to the point that LCers tended to identify God more as a stuff than as a conscious Person who wanted to have relationships with us. Yes, God is our Light, Life, Breath, Food and Drink. But all those things are ways to describe how we experience him as a Person. Until we learn to obey him as our Lord, little transformation, little true change actually takes place in us. There is no side-stepping becoming broken and obedient, though enjoying grace does make that lesson easier.

Mingling/God’s nature becoming ours/Element of God being added/God painting himself into us and all the other metaphors that Lee used for this impersonal magical process are included here. Growth in eternal life is getting to know God the Person. You can’t get it without getting to know him. That means a real, conscious relationship of two individuals. There is no other way and you wouldn’t really want there to be anyway.

The fact is some long-time LCers show precious little signs of real life change. This may be because they spend too much time “eating, drinking and breathing,” and not enough time listening and obeying.

Satan in our Flesh – This doctrine only exists because Lee, being overly fond of symmetry, couldn’t resist it. God gets in our spirit, so Satan must be in our body, and man is caught in-between as a soul. How perfect! Unfortunately, it’s not Biblical. Man’s fallen nature is man’s alone. Actually, Satan in our flesh corrupting our nature was just an echo of Lee’s impersonal transformation model.

Man Becoming God — This is the worst of the worst. Lee not only struck out with this one, he threw the bat into the stands and killed a hot dog vendor. It’s based on rickety logic (“we have God’s life, so we must be God! Right?” Nope.), and again on Lee’s infatuation with symmetry (“God became man, so man must become God! Right?” Nope. ). Statements like “God in life and nature but not the Godhead” are absurd because if it’s not the Godhead it’s not God, period. This doctrine is downright heretical, and no good can come from telling imperfect fallen people they are “becoming God.”

The LC should have dumped this blatantly bogus bit of Lee-babble a long time ago, but are saddled with it because of their unwillingness to say Lee was wrong about anything—which ironically identifies them as a fringe and suspect group in more ways than one.

Conclusion

The LC has always been a perplexing blend of the very good, the so-so and the very bad. Unfortunately, there is more bad than good. The good attracts people to the group and keeps them hanging around believing it is something special. The bad meanwhile damages them and their ability to love and fellowship with other Christians, and thus prevents them from fulfilling their true destiny. People need to be aware of these facts.

Weighingin · 01-30-2019, 09:32 PM

Thank you, Igzy!
This helped me understand my conflicting feelings about the LC.

Cal · 01-31-2019, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weighingin

Thank you, Igzy!
This helped me understand my conflicting feelings about the LC.

You're welcome!

P.S. I added one more thing to the Base Hits/Foul Balls section, God is Accomplishing Something in Time

UntoHim · 01-31-2019, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LC has always been a perplexing blend of the very good, the so-so and the very bad. Unfortunately, there is more bad than good. The good attracts people to the group and keeps them hanging around believing it is something special. The bad meanwhile damages them and their ability to love and fellowship with other Christians, and thus prevents them from fulfilling their true destiny. People need to be aware of these facts.

Welcome back Igzy! Don't make yourself so scarce!

Thank you for this very succinct and concise wrap up of the dynamic in the Local Church of Witness Lee. Unfortunately, the people who are best equipped to give such a comprehensive description, and sound such an important warning, are people like us who experienced it all from the inside, and have subsequently been delivered from this very "perplexing blend of the very good, the so-so and the very bad". I say "unfortunately" because we are just broken, incomplete vessels of mercy - just like Witness Lee, just like his followers, both current and former, and just like anyone who has never heard of Witness Lee or the Local Church. But the simple fact is that we are all that the Potter has to work with

I think it's super important that you bring up this point of the Local Church being a mixed bag of sorts. I would like to personalize it by bringing forth the reason that the Local Church is a mixed bag is that Witness Lee, like all sinners saved by grace, was a mixed bag himself. This should be a surprise to no one. Yet, one of the biggest problems...maybe the biggest...is that Lee built himself up as the one apostle, the one minister for the age - a pure and complete godman who was called and authorized to bring "The Lord's Recovery" to the Body of Christ. Of course while we were around, it was not put in these exact words, but now the Blended Brothers have no such inhibitions or qualms about declaring Witness Lee as such a man and his personal ministry as such a ministry. And this brings us to the reason that LocalChurchDiscussions exists - "Open discussion of the Local Church Movement and the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee". (and by the way Igzy, our banner on top is getting old and warn out...could you please design a new one for us?)

Thanks again for your post and welcome back. Stick around my brother.
-

Ohio · 01-31-2019, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Conclusion

The LC has always been a perplexing blend of the very good, the so-so and the very bad. Unfortunately, there is more bad than good. The good attracts people to the group and keeps them hanging around believing it is something special. The bad meanwhile damages them and their ability to love and fellowship with other Christians, and thus prevents them from fulfilling their true destiny. People need to be aware of these facts.

Igzy, thanks much for this! Great fellowship here for all LC members, former and current! Once again Igzy has provided us much needed perspective on our common LC experiences.

I would only add that it is extremely unhealthy for us not to recognize the good which we found in the LC's. It is a lifelong lesson for us to learn to thank the Lord for all the good and all the bad. We have a good, good Father, who loves us to the uttermost!

Cal · 01-31-2019, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Igzy, thanks much for this! Great fellowship here for all LC members, former and current! Once again Igzy has provided us much needed perspective on our common LC experiences.

I would only add that it is extremely unhealthy for us not to recognize the good which we found in the LC's. It is a lifelong lesson for us to learn to thank the Lord for all the good and all the bad. We have a good, good Father, who loves us to the uttermost!

Hey, good to "see" you guys again, Ohio! Yes, our Father above all is good. He never sacrifices people for institutions, whether they be someone's ministry or someone's version of church. People always come first to him. That's who he died for.

OBW · 02-01-2019, 08:38 AM

On the Triune God . . .

I have come to realize that the confusing analysis provided in the Athanasian creed is almost more meaningful than the standard evangelical doctrine of the trinity. And much more on the mark than Lee's "they're just one."

I got more on board with the idea that there is a separation in their unity when I read the following in John 17:11

Quote:

Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.

If this is what we know about the "oneness" of the Father and the Son, then if they are simply the same "person," then how are we one like that? There is something in this statement that makes our ability to be one (in this world in this age) like the oneness of the Father and the Son. We know this says something about our oneness. But does it also say something (not everything) about the oneness of God?

I realize that this is just one statement of several from which we learn about the nature of God. And each is given in a context and is not revealing everything about what we call the Trinity (and therefore cannot be construed as simply the rest of the story). But this claim of a well-defined doctrine of the Trinity is more like a committee effort. Lee's was worse than the regular definition. But Athanasius got it better than either. It is Three, and it is One. Don't conflate the one or compress the three. Accept it as it is . . . something beyond our understanding. Triune is not "simply one." Nor is it simply three. It is Three and it is One — in a way that we cannot fully comprehend.

OBW · 02-01-2019, 08:41 AM

BTW.

I really like your analysis of "impersonal transformation." We must each be transformed though our active participation, spoken of in Romans 8 as "walking." Not just basking in a trickle of "dispensing."

Cal · 02-01-2019, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

BTW.

I really like your analysis of "impersonal transformation." We must each be transformed though our active participation, spoken of in Romans 8 as "walking." Not just basking in a trickle of "dispensing."

Thanks Mike! Good to hear from you again, too!

UntoHim · 02-01-2019, 09:55 AM

Many thanks to our resident Sheep Dog for preforming a much needed, long overdue forum face lift. Also a big thanks to Igzy and the other big dog, OBW for checking back in and assisting all of us in "Making sense of the Lord's Recovery Movement".
-

Cal · 02-01-2019, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Many thanks to our resident Sheep Dog for preforming a much needed, long overdue forum face lift. Also a big thanks to Igzy and the other big dog, OBW for checking back in and assisting all of us in "Making sense of the Lord's Recovery Movement".
-

You are welcome! Glad to help.

Cal · 02-01-2019, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I realize that this is just one statement of several from which we learn about the nature of God. And each is given in a context and is not revealing everything about what we call the Trinity (and therefore cannot be construed as simply the rest of the story). But this claim of a well-defined doctrine of the Trinity is more like a committee effort. Lee's was worse than the regular definition. But Athanasius got it better than either. It is Three, and it is One. Don't conflate the one or compress the three. Accept it as it is . . . something beyond our understanding. Triune is not "simply one." Nor is it simply three. It is Three and it is One — in a way that we cannot fully comprehend.

I get that. The question I ask is, if we are in the image of God, how are we triune? God is the whole God, not just one of the three. So if we are truly in his image, we must be triune, too. Lame explanations like body, soul, spirit as our three don't cut it.

Years ago, I was reading an article in Time or Newsweek about Christianity. Someone was quoted in it saying, "The Trinity shows us that reality at its most fundamental level is relational." That jumped out at me, and was the seed of my realizing that the way to "understand" the Trinity is to see it, not from the aspect of substances or hypostases, but from seeing at as the result of a singular, perfect, all-knowing Being who is self-conscious.

This Being would have had, before anything else existed, a Relationship with himself. He would have a perfect relationship with and know and love everything about his perfect self. He would have a self-image, so to speak, which in him somehow (this is the part I don't understand) became Another, the Son.

The Son is what God sees when he thinks about himself, so he is the perfect "image" of God. Where did that image first exist? In God's own thought about himself. This is why the Son is the expression of God, the God we see, because he is the God that God sees.

What about the Spirit? The Spirit is the relationship between the Father and the Son. That is, the Spirit is God's experience of himself. That is why he is our experience of God, too. The Bible says the Father loves the Son. It never says the Father loves the Spirit. Why? Because the Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son. The Spirit is the essence of God because a being's essence is summed up in how he feels about himself.

We can pick up a faint notion of this, because we have a self-image and we have a relationship with our self-image. But because we are imperfect and our knowledge of ourselves is incomplete, this experience is shadowy for us. Yet, we still can have a notion of our triune-ness. I am me. My self-image is me. And my relationship with my self-image is me.

Anyway, in the beginning there was a Relationship. Somehow, within the being of the Perfect Singular Being, the principle of Relationship with Another was born. THAT is the mystery of mysteries. And from it, God's whole purpose of creating and loving others, and his intent for us to love others, were born.

This theory may be accurate, it may not. But it is a better explanation that any I've heard. If it's not true then, as C.S. Lewis said, something better is.

Cal · 02-01-2019, 02:52 PM

Another way to consider it is this.

It's one thing to love yourself. That's what God does, in the most healthy way, and we should, too.

But things reach a whole 'nother level when your self starts loving you back. That's what happened when the Son was begotten.

This may sound a little narcissistic to our natural ears, but we cannot deny that God loves himself completely, unreservedly, yet in the most holy way. But he is so pure that his love for himself is expressed as love for Another. And from that, his love for all of us was born. That's how great our God is! We would not even be here if he was not like that!

"Love your neighbor as yourself." Or, said another way, "Love yourself as your neighbor." So when we love our neighbors purely, in the manner God does, we are in a very real sense loving ourselves, too. Self-love which conflicts with loving others is not real love. It is fallen self-obsession.

Eventually we are to have relationships with ourselves like the Father has with the Son. I think this may be, ultimately, what "finding your soul" means. Throw in billions of others experiencing the same thing and loving each other as well, and you have God's purpose, and his glory.

Cal · 02-04-2019, 01:13 PM

I wanted to add another Home Run and another Strikeout for Lee.

Home Run

Grace is Christ as our enjoyment and supply for our daily life -- This is very helpful fellowship. Grace is not just the general, abstract favor of God. Grace is something living and active that we can enjoy in an ongoing way and which can sufficiently supply us to take on whatever God is requiring of us in the present. "My grace is sufficient for you," the Lord said. This means that no matter what God has placed before us, we can go through it "gracefully" and to his standard by the supply of grace. There is never a reason to make provision for the flesh as long as grace is available. This was definitely a home run by Lee.

Strikeout

One Ministry -- The logic goes like this: Christ had one ministry. Paul's ministry was the "continuation" of that one ministry. This ministry is for the building of the church and God's eternal purpose. Lee talks more than anyone about the building of the Church and God's eternal purpose. Therefore, Lee's ministry is the one true continuation of Christ's and Paul's ministry and any "other ministry" which does not submit to and echo Lee's ministry is not the one ministry and so is invalid.

Well now, that's quite a claim. Unfortunately for Lee, the Bible directly contradicts it. First Cor 12:5 plainly says there are different ministries, but the same Lord.

Lee was famous for such superficially convincing, but ultimately wacky, excursions into freestyle logic. They spoil his teachings like weevils in cornmeal. It's really amazing how someone who could be so insightful could be so equally clueless. Had he submitted his teachings in humility to vetting by the Church-at-large, he likely would have spared himself much retrospective embarrassment.

awareness · 02-04-2019, 07:27 PM

Lee was a Gnostic. He was telling secret gnosis. He called it The Recovery. He was actually recovering Gnosticism. He was following a higher God. It made him God's authority on the earth.

But his church thing was a recovery of early 2nd century orthodoxy, and the development of a hierarchy of authority, with him on top.

I objected. Out the door I was pushed, like heretics of old, rebelling against Gods' man on earth, thereby rebelling against God Himself. So it was framed, just like at the turn of the 1st century ... nothing new under the sun.

Ohio · 02-05-2019, 11:45 AM

For me personally, one of Lee's home runs was teaching us to call on the name of the Lord. Many, many children of God already call on Him, but Lee brought out the riches from the scripture. His footnote on Acts 2.21 is a classic. Were it not for his many strikeouts, this teaching and practice could have benefited many believers outside the LC's.

Unfortunately the biblical caveats surrounding this verse have gone unheeded in the LC's. II Timothy 2.16, 22 come to mind. Matthew 7.21-22 are also pertinent.

Kevin · 02-05-2019, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

For me personally, one of Lee's home runs was teaching us to call on the name of the Lord. Many, many children of God already call on Him, but Lee brought out the riches from the scripture. His footnote on Acts 2.21 is a classic. Were it not for his many strikeouts, this teaching and practice could have benefited many believers outside the LC's.

Unfortunately the biblical caveats surrounding this verse have gone unheeded in the LC's. II Timothy 2.16, 22 come to mind. Matthew 7.21-22 are also pertinent.

Don't forget Exodus 20:7 where many of the LC abuses this practice as a mere expression like laughter, ridiculing, etc. in God's name.

OBW · 02-06-2019, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I get that. The question I ask is, if we are in the image of God, how are we triune?

I cannot say what is and what is not taking the "image of God" too far. But I would ask why we have a compelling to come to an understanding of a similarity with God in every possible way as rating something important to consider, and possibly teach and argue about.

Is reflecting God on earth about being comparable to God in every aspect? Or is it about being like and with God in our life in every meaningful way?

I am not saying that there is nothing about us that is similar to God in the way that he is Triune. Instead I question whether spending time wondering about it, trying to make scripture spell it out for us, and then treating it as an important thing to come to grasp is really a "thing" to spend our energies on.

In a broader sense, is having more and better theology important, or is obedience to the clear calling and command of Christ? Too much of the sermons, Bible studies, etc., seem to be aimed at getting a more vast (and agreed) knowledge of things about God, but too little encouragement with respect to the living that was called for from the very beginning of the biblical record all the way to its end.

And figuring out whether man is triune no longer seems important. better to understand love for the widow, orphan, poor, alien, etc., in our midst. That was commanded but appears to be ignored. Yet from the mouths of those who should live that life, we have the rhetoric of the "border wall." Not that I think that we should have no immigration policy and just let everyone in, but the angst and fire in the rhetoric from the "Christian Right" about it makes a lie out of any claim for any such love.

So I would almost bluntly say that I really don't care whether man is, like God, triune. If it is true, then it is true. If it is false, then it is false. But which ever way it is, it is what it is, and knowing about it really does not change much, if anything. Not worrying about it seems like the better choice.

Cal · 02-06-2019, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

So I would almost bluntly say that I really don't care whether man is, like God, triune. If it is true, then it is true. If it is false, then it is false. But which ever way it is, it is what it is, and knowing about it really does not change much, if anything. Not worrying about it seems like the better choice.

Well, for me it answers several things. It shows how God can be one and three. And it explains why he is three, and not two or four. It fits with Lee's claim how the Son is the Father, yet distinct from him. God's self image, since it is complete and perfect, is him. Yet, it is at the same time something distinct. Somehow, God's concept of himself is, within himself, also Another. It answers why the Bible says the Father loves the Son, but never says he or the Son love the Spirit. The Spirit is the love. And it answers why relationships are so important to God, because, in the end, he is a relationship. And in the end, so are each of us. We are each a relationship with ourselves.

So to me it's very useful and helpful.

But I get your point, too. I just have the kind of mind I have. I am an INTJ. I try to figure out how everything works and then make it better. If it helps someone, that's good. If it's too much for them, I've learned not to push it. But God gave me the kind of mind I have for a reason.

When I theorize and write about stuff that seems insightful to me, I sometimes think about how Lee must have felt. I'm pretty sure he was an INTJ, too. He was probably excited about his stuff--and felt he was onto something great and had it right, because that's what INTJs do. We feel we have to do the thinking for everyone else.

So I have some idea how someone could get so excited about his theories that he feels the world can benefit and then take the next stupid level of trying to start a movement of followers around his theories because his "revelation" is unique.

Best to just put one's stuff out there in the public arena, and let people decide for themselves if they like it, and resist campaigning for it. In the end, it is the Lord's ministry that matters, not ours; and his ministry is for the Church, and the Church knows it when it sees it.

Truthseeker · 02-06-2019, 12:16 PM

Hi, Igzy! Everything you said in here is reasonable and I am with you. But one thing I want to discuss with you is Satan in flesh. I've just discovered creepy and horrible things about this fact. Do you know Yoga and seven chakras according to ancient veda? I have just discovered that through Yoga, we, all human being, have something called Kudalini goddess in us(goddess of snake). We have some kind of so called "divine energy flow" in our body or flesh from our tailbone (maybe root chakra or something) to our forehead (something so called third eye I am not sure because I am not specialist in Yoga or Hindi Veda). But one thing we can see through this stuff is that we have some kind of snake energy flowing in our flesh. This scares me so much and I start to be convinced we maybe have Satan flowing energy like snake within our flesh. What is your opinion, Igzy?

Cal · 02-06-2019, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Hi, Igzy! Everything you said in here is reasonable and I am with you. But one thing I want to discuss with you is Satan in flesh. I've just discovered creepy and horrible things about this fact. Do you know Yoga and seven chakras according to ancient veda? I have just discovered that through Yoga, we, all human being, have something called Kudalini goddess in us(goddess of snake). We have some kind of so called "divine energy flow" in our body or flesh from our tailbone (maybe root chakra or something) to our forehead (something so called third eye I am not sure because I am not specialist in Yoga or Hindi Veda). But one thing we can see through this stuff is that we have some kind of snake energy flowing in our flesh. This scares me so much and I start to be convinced we maybe have Satan flowing energy like snake within our flesh. What is your opinion, Igzy?

Hi Truthseeker! Sounds like you are seeking!

I certainly am no expert on those subjects either. But I can say that our human being is an amazing creation and has many aspects and sensations. We are wonderfully made by God and we are intended to use all the faculties he gave us to seek and honor him. We can have all kinds of subjective experiences in our body and soul. But unless they are tied back to the truth of the Bible and the Holy Spirit then all bets are off about what they mean or what their source is. Best to avoid them and stick to the Holy Spirit like glue.

We are fallen. Our nature has been broken at the DNA level. That is why many human dysfunctions: Down's Syndrome, alcoholism, some say even homosexuality, to name a few--can be traced to DNA. But that doesn't mean those things are "natural," just that we are broken.

But Satan in our flesh? That idea again was Lee playing fast and loose with his freestyle logic.

Here is what I remember about what he said about it:

Paul in Galatians 2:20 says "It is not I, but Christ who lives in me". Then in Romans 7:17 Paul talking about his failures says, "It is not I, but sin that is living in me."

So Lee said that because Paul used the "Not I, but..." construct in both places, and because Romans says sin is "living" in me, that someone is "living" in our body like Christ lives in our spirit.

Well... this is really just extremely thin gruel. Very questionable exposition. So... I don't think there is anything then even approaching a proof text of an idea that should require a proof text.

OBW · 02-08-2019, 07:46 AM

INTP

Not that different.

And I think that we are talking about different things here. My main complaints relate to

1. Lee's kind of Trinity/Triune — that majors on the oneness to the near removal of the Threeness, and

2. The distinct separation of the "human spirit" from the soul.

On the second, when we were responding to questions about Nee's three-part man verses some years ago, I think we discovered that several of the verses that he claimed to prove the human spirit as having characteristics that are not soul or body, we found that actually most of them (maybe all) really were the same as aspects of the soul. More like an enhanced feature of the soul than some separate thing (organ?). It makes the claim that only the living and operative word can separate soul from spirit more meaningful. According to Nee, the letter of the word can do it through mere logic. Nothing "living" required.

Cal · 02-08-2019, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

INTP

Not that different.

And I think that we are talking about different things here. My main complaints relate to

1. Lee's kind of Trinity/Triune — that majors on the oneness to the near removal of the Threeness, and

2. The distinct separation of the "human spirit" from the soul.

On the second, when we were responding to questions about Nee's three-part man verses some years ago, I think we discovered that several of the verses that he claimed to prove the human spirit as having characteristics that are not soul or body, we found that actually most of them (maybe all) really were the same as aspects of the soul. More like an enhanced feature of the soul than some separate thing (organ?). It makes the claim that only the living and operative word can separate soul from spirit more meaningful. According to Nee, the letter of the word can do it through mere logic. Nothing "living" required.

Yeah, the deep thinkers....

I think Lee was correct to point out the oneness of the Trinity. He was just wrong not to push the threeness enough. This was because, I think, he did not have insight into why God was three. Well, he did have some. He said God is Triune for dispensing, which is true in a way, if by dispensing you mean having an intimate relationship. God's triune-ness came, I think, from his relationship with himself. To say God wants to dispense is to say, or should be to say, he wants to be in relationship. This started with his relationship with his Son, which is another way of saying it started with his relationship with himself.

So when Lee said the Son is the Father, he was correct, because both are God and there is only one God. But it is just as valid to say the Son is not the Father, because in some way they are distinct. That sounds absurd until you realize that each statement is talking about different things. But the distinctness is more than just titles or hats or modes. It's the fundamental, natural result of what must happen inside any self-conscious, intelligent being. Such a being cannot help but have this duality within himself, this relationship with himself, which results in this threeness. (1) the source, (2) the image, and (3) the interaction between the first two. Not two, not four or five, but three. It's built in and must happen.

Lee did not see this, so though he saw the oneness of the Trinity, he did not see the threeness as something that existed in God for a reason other than his purpose to dispense into us. He didn't see that God dispensed into himself first.

Because God wanted to share his experience, he created us and invited us to join in his fellowship with himself... which is the fellowship of the Father and the Son... which is the Spirit. Because he completely knows himself, and delights in knowing himself, he wants us to know him completely, too. Not only so, he wants us to know each other, and he even wants us to know ourselves.

In other words, the principle of knowing another is the essence of God, even if the "other" is yourself. That's why God is love.

As to the spirit being more unified with the soul than Lee taught, I don't have a problem with that. As you said, the only thing that can really tell them apart is light from God from his word. Trying to discern by ourselves results in confusion. You can only really reliably know your spirit by keeping your eyes on Jesus and his word.

Our spirit is our connection with God, but it is also our connection with ourselves. 1 Cor 2:11

UntoHim · 02-08-2019, 11:05 AM

Since I'm kind of a baseball nut, I'll continue on with the baseball metaphor, although with a different take.

Firstly, I would only consider the Scriptures themselves as a "home run". And, at the risk of being called out trying to stretch a single into a double, I would even say that only the direct words spoken by God - in the Old Testament Yahwey (Jehovah) I Am Who I Am, Elohim, Adonai (Lord), Father - in the New Testament the teachings, sayings, admonitions, warnings, declarations and prophesies of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, should all be considered as a 750ft, game winning, walk-off Grand Slam. Maybe the balance of the Scriptures, including the Gospel narration, the Acts of the apostles and the epistles of the apostles could be considered as good ole fashioned, over-the-wall home runs. (for the risk of using a metaphor to describe a metaphor, I'll just leave Revelation out of this game for now)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the teachings and commentaries of post-canonical men and women are "not even in the same ballpark" as the Holy Scriptures. And I include the writings of the earliest "Church fathers" in this category. (and you can throw in any of the post-canonical creeds, confessions and any other ecclesiastical declarations as well)

So, maybe if one wants to keep up with the baseball metaphor we can simply agree that we are talking about the same game, but a completely different league

Furthermore, any hit in this league is subject to review and being overturned by the Head Umpire up in the Booth.

-

awareness · 02-08-2019, 11:21 AM

So are you saying that Lee was a trinity ... a trinity of strikeouts?

Ohio · 02-08-2019, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

But I get your point, too. I just have the kind of mind I have. I am an INTJ. I try to figure out how everything works and then make it better. If it helps someone, that's good. If it's too much for them, I've learned not to push it. But God gave me the kind of mind I have for a reason.

Out of curiosity I took your personality test. Looks like I am a "failing" "Architect," since none of my scores exceeded 60%. Perhaps that's why I became an Engineer.

Cal · 02-08-2019, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Out of curiosity I took your personality test. Looks like I am a "failing" "Architect," since none of my scores exceeded 60%. Perhaps that's why I became an Engineer.

Well, each score is on a spectrum, so 100% is not better, it's just more extreme on that scale. For example, 100% introverted or extroverted would be extremes.

So, you were INTJ also? Seeing a pattern here...

Cal · 02-08-2019, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

So are you saying that Lee was a trinity ... a trinity of strikeouts?

Oh, he probably batted about .330, which is great for baseball, but lousy for theology.

Cal · 02-08-2019, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So, maybe if one wants to keep up with the baseball metaphor we can simply agree that we are talking about the same game, but a completely different league

Furthermore, any hit in this league is subject to review and being overturned by the Head Umpire up in the Booth.

-

I would say that's an All-Star summary.

Drake · 02-22-2019, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Another way to consider it is this.

It's one thing to love yourself. That's what God does, in the most healthy way, and we should, too.

But things reach a whole 'nother level when your self starts loving you back. That's what happened when the Son was begotten.

This may sound a little narcissistic to our natural ears, but we cannot deny that God loves himself completely, unreservedly, yet in the most holy way. But he is so pure that his love for himself is expressed as love for Another. And from that, his love for all of us was born. That's how great our God is! We would not even be here if he was not like that!

"Love your neighbor as yourself." Or, said another way, "Love yourself as your neighbor." So when we love our neighbors purely, in the manner God does, we are in a very real sense loving ourselves, too. Self-love which conflicts with loving others is not real love. It is fallen self-obsession.

Eventually we are to have relationships with ourselves like the Father has with the Son. I think this may be, ultimately, what "finding your soul" means. Throw in billions of others experiencing the same thing and loving each other as well, and you have God's purpose, and his glory.

In another thread I alluded to my concerns about lack of an accurate presentation of the truth and so in fairness I felt I should provide an example rather than just make a generalization about something the poster said. The above is an example.

Matthew 16:21-26: ^"21From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. ²²And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord!^e]">[e] This shall never happen to you.” ²³But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance^f]">[f] to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Take Up Your Cross and Follow Jesus

²⁴Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. ²⁵For whoever would save his life^g]">[g] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. ²⁶For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?"

Though loving your neighbor as yourself implies that there is already love for oneself, the way to find your soul is not to love yourself but rather as the Lord states above it is to deny the love that issues from the self. This is not only the Lord's straightforward statement but the context also demonstrates the same teaching. The Lord was reacting to Peter's objection to His going to the cross, no doubt out of his love for the Lord, and yet this love had to be denied and put under the cross because it was a thing of man. Loving oneself is also a thing of man. Though it sounds reasonable, it is something to be denied, not embraced. It is something that must be put under the cross, not nurtured in anyway. Only then will the believer find his soul.

Drake

Ohio · 02-22-2019, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Though loving your neighbor as yourself implies that there is already love for oneself, the way to find your soul is not to love yourself but rather as the Lord states above it is to deny the love that issues from the self. This is not only the Lord's straightforward statement but the context also demonstrates the same teaching. The Lord was reacting to Peter's objection to His going to the cross, no doubt out of his love for the Lord, and yet this love had to be denied and put under the cross because it was a thing of man. Loving oneself is also a thing of man. Though it sounds reasonable, it is something to be denied, not embraced. It is something that must be put under the cross, not nurtured in anyway. Only then will the believer find his soul.

Drake

I would think LSM is the last place we should go to learn about loving one another, and denying the self. These folks at LSM have taught their members to hate those men of God who expose sin in their offices, and seek to protect the church of God. They have taught their members to hate ministers like Titus Chu who dared to print his own books. Perhaps "hate" is too strong, but I do remember the vitriol from Lee and Company back in 1990 pumped thru my veins regarding Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon, etc. They were the "worst" men on earth, or so I was told. They tried to "destroy the ministry, the Recovery, and the very work of God."

Lee and LSM have long exhibited a self-deprecating pattern contrary to the cross of Christ. We were to deny ourselves by having no opinion about wrong teachings. We were to deny ourselves by criticizing other Christians outside TLR. We were to deny ourselves by placing the ministry of Lee above the leadership of local elders. We were to deny ourselves by trusting only Lee, and being suspicious of all others.

If this sort of "self-denial" were the healthy way of "bearing the cross" then the LC's would be so living. They would be full of resurrection power. They would be fruitful. There would be ineffable joy for all to see. Obviously something is wrong here. Very wrong.

Cal · 02-22-2019, 07:02 PM

Drake doesn't know what he is talking about.

Jesus could have said love your neighbor instead of yourself. But he said love your neighbor as yourself, i.e. love your neighbor in the same way you love yourself. If the love for self he was talking about was the fallen kind, that would have meant he was saying love your neighbor in a fallen way, in the same way you love yourself in a fallen way, i.e. making his every whim your top priority. Clearly this is not how Jesus wanted us to love our neighbor.

So the love he is talking about for the self, which we are supposed to use as a model for how to love our neighbor, must be pure and of God. How does God view us and want us to view ourselves? As precious and good creations of his! Once you see that he wants us to see ourselves that way, we can then go on to view others that way. In some cases, it is the reverse. Sometimes we see how much God loves others and how much he wants us to love them, and then we see we can love ourselves in the same way. This is healthy, holy self love.

God loves himself. We are in the image of God. If we are to be like God we must love ourselves too, not in the fallen selfish, me-first way of the world, but in the pure, holy way God loves himself.

Further, you cannot truly love your neighbor if you don't love yourself. Self-loathing people are crippled when it comes to loving others. A person who likes and loves himself in a holy and healthy way is gracious and giving. He knows he is rich and has much to give.

The self love the Bible condemns is the fallen, me-first kind. That is not holy self love. Holy self love sees oneself as a precious creation of God, and loves oneself the same, neither better nor worse than all the other precious creations of God.

Drake endorses the errant religious model of self-loathing that is actually a form of asceticism. Nee and Lee endorsed this model, in part because they were influenced by people clueless like Drake, but also because it is easier to control Christians who you've trained to hate themselves. People who like themselves don't let presumptuous pontiffs push them around.

Cal · 02-26-2019, 09:51 AM

Witness Lee Base hit/Foul ball - The Church

This one is tough to cover because no one would deny that the Church is a central and important point of God. And it can be argued that Christians for centuries did not appreciate the Church enough. Nee and Lee brought attention to the grand idea of the Church, and gave much insight into what it is on a high, deep and sometimes very practical spiritual level.

But in doing so they made a grave cardinal error. By placing so much value on the Church, they made the value of this institution much more important than the value of people. Thus, people became to them a means to the end of producing the Church, and thus were made expendable and discardable,

But, you might say, people are the Church. Yes, and this is the fundamental error of Lee's Church view. He saw the Church as something other that just the people. He saw it as a system, an institution, a set of principles, all of which were the value and goal we were to be dedicated to, regardless of what happened to people along the way.

Eventually Lee's movement, "the Recovery," rose to equal value to Church. To LCers, "the Recovery" and the Church are pretty much the same thing. "The Recovery" is the Church they control, and no other part of the Church is really important to them. In fact, people outside of the Church are regularly dismissed and even ridiculed by them. But within "the Recovery," the movement itself and its principles are much more important than even the people in it which defend them. This is the some of the bad fruit of their error.

This clearly demonstrates a lack of love for people. It is very interesting, that for all the talk of Nee, Lee and his movement about the Church, Jesus himself really didn't have much to say about it. He had only two isolated things to say about the Church:

He said he would build it
He said if you have a problem, take it to the Church.

Now, this is quite interesting. The only times Jesus even mentioned the Church were:

To show that he would take care of building it, rather than charging us to.
To show that one reason the Church exists is to protect the rights of people.

So the emphasis of Nee and Lee is actually quite out of sync with that of the Lord Jesus. He builds the Church, we don't. When the Bible mentions our building it says "build up each other." In other words, we are supposed to focus on the welfare of real people, not abstract institutions. If we focus on loving and caring for people, putting others first, then he will take care of the larger building work.

Second, the only other time Jesus mentioned the Church was to emphasize how it exists in part to defend justice in the lives of wronged individuals. This shows how he cares for people first. He cares about "the least of these" and "the one lost sheep." And they are what the Church exists to care for as well. If we neglect a single "little one" the Lord has commissioned us to care for, in pursuit of grander goals, such as being for a movement, then we have missed it. We are clanging brass, all sizzle no steak, and perhaps even worse. And we are bound to do grave damage along the way, as "the Recovery" has.

God loves people. Jesus died for people. Even the least of these. If we make being like him in that way our top goal, everything else--about the Church, the gospel, how we live and behave, what our emphasases are, what our priorities are--will move into place, and we can't go too far wrong.

All of "the Recovery's" abuses are the fruit of these priorities being out of sync with the Lord's.

Cal · 02-27-2019, 09:34 AM

I would just like to reiterate this little bit of light I received about the Church.

The only comment the Lord Jesus ever made about the practical Church was THAT IT EXISTS TO ENSURE JUSTICE FOR INDIVIDUALS. (Matt 18:15-17)

That was it. Jesus could have a said a lot of things about the practical Church. But that was the one thing he chose to say about it. I find that quite amazing and revealing.

The LR likes to talk about the practical church. But Jesus chose to emphasize that the practical church was a place where an individual can go to get justice for himself. This means two core values of any church should be (1) justice and (2) every individual. Any church should be highly offended when any person, however small, is denied justice.

Does that sound like the LR? Not to me. To me it sounds like the exact opposite of the LR. The LR is a place where justice for individuals is not even on their radar of roles, even to the point that the church itself can deal unjustly with individuals and discard them.

Drake · 03-11-2019, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

So the love he is talking about for the self, which we are supposed to use as a model for how to love our neighbor, must be pure and of God. How does God view us and want us to view ourselves? As precious and good creations of his! Once you see that he wants us to see ourselves that way, we can then go on to view others that way. In some cases, it is the reverse. Sometimes we see how much God loves others and how much he wants us to love them, and then we see we can love ourselves in the same way. This is healthy, holy self love.

God loves himself. We are in the image of God. If we are to be like God we must love ourselves too, not in the fallen selfish, me-first way of the world, but in the pure, holy way God loves himself.

Further, you cannot truly love your neighbor if you don't love yourself. Self-loathing people are crippled when it comes to loving others. A person who likes and loves himself in a holy and healthy way is gracious and giving. He knows he is rich and has much to give.

The self love the Bible condemns is the fallen, me-first kind. That is not holy self love. Holy self love sees oneself as a precious creation of God, and loves oneself the same, neither better nor worse than all the other precious creations of God.

There are several errors in this line of thinking. I'll address just three in this post.

First, the Bible does not teach ""Love yourself as your neighbor." The Bible teaches that we should love God, love the brothers, love our neighbor, etc. but it never teaches that we should love ourselves. What Igzy has done in this case is flip the clear teaching of the Bible to fit his private interpretation, philosophy, or opinion. On the contrary, the Bible teaches that we should not love ourselves even unto death (Rev 12:11). The Lord stated even more forcefully this way:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26

The Lord was not practicing a form of self-loathing or asceticism, rather, He was stating a fact that concerns all those of Adam. This is the second point: It is the same experience Paul observed:

"For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not." Romans 7:18

Why? Because....

"Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." v17

Igzy's teaching of our position as God's created beings as its basis fails to recognize and omits to factor in that since the fall of man, we His created beings, are absolutely fallen... to the extent that God has judged the flesh, the self, and crucified the old man (Galatians 2:20). Therefore, his teaching ""Love yourself as your neighbor." is not a biblical one and will not be found in scripture because it isn't there. It lacks the revelation of God's Word. Igzy has assessed that the way to find your soul, the way to glorify God is or begins by loving yourself. We should rather trust God's assessment of our situation. To be perfectly clear, Igzy's teaching about loving the self is a worldly teaching, something one might receive in psychology or therapy sessions. It's not what the Bible teaches.

The last point I will address in this post is about the practice or manifestation of Igzy's teaching. He says "Self-love which conflicts with loving others is not real love. It is fallen self-obsession. ". The Bible says

"We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death." I John 3:14

The reader will have to decide if Igzy's teaching has any reality to it by reading his posts, but from my point of view, one who rails against, berates, and slanders brothers in the Lord day in and day out in a public forum as he practices here in this one has not passed out of death into life in reality. His practice even falls short by his own teaching standard "...not loving others is not real love. "

Drake

Cal · 03-11-2019, 06:28 PM

Yep, that's right. Readers will have to decide whether they prefer the honest guy or the phony guy.

Trapped · 03-11-2019, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

There are several errors in this line of thinking. I'll address just three in this post.

First, the Bible does not teach ""Love yourself as your neighbor." The Bible teaches that we should love God, love the brothers, love our neighbor, etc. but it never teaches that we should love ourselves. What Igzy has done in this case is flip the clear teaching of the Bible to fit his private interpretation, philosophy, or opinion. On the contrary, the Bible teaches that we should not love ourselves even unto death (Rev 12:11). The Lord stated even more forcefully this way:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26

The Lord was not practicing a form of self-loathing or asceticism, rather, He was stating a fact that concerns all those of Adam. This is the second point: It is the same experience Paul observed:

"For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not." Romans 7:18

Why? Because....

"Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." v17

Igzy's teaching of our position as God's created beings as its basis fails to recognize and omits to factor in that since the fall of man, we His created beings, are absolutely fallen... to the extent that God has judged the flesh, the self, and crucified the old man (Galatians 2:20). Therefore, his teaching ""Love yourself as your neighbor." is not a biblical one and will not be found in scripture because it isn't there. It lacks the revelation of God's Word. Igzy has assessed that the way to find your soul, the way to glorify God is or begins by loving yourself. We should rather trust God's assessment of our situation. To be perfectly clear, Igzy's teaching about loving the self is a worldly teaching, something one might receive in psychology or therapy sessions. It's not what the Bible teaches.

The last point I will address in this post is about the practice or manifestation of Igzy's teaching. He says "Self-love which conflicts with loving others is not real love. It is fallen self-obsession. ". The Bible says

"We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death." I John 3:14

The reader will have to decide if Igzy's teaching has any reality to it by reading his posts, but from my point of view, one who rails against, berates, and slanders brothers in the Lord day in and day out in a public forum as he practices here in this one has not passed out of death into life in reality. His practice even falls short by his own teaching standard "...not loving others is not real love. "

Drake

I know you're being obtuse but I'm writing this response for myself (OH NO not my SELF!?!?! Yes...... myself), not to seriously engage you.

The commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. If we are to hate ourselves, but love our neighbor as ourself, this translates into hating your neighbor. Whoops. I guess we do need to love ourselves so that loving our neighbor as ourself translates into actual love.

If I am the neighbor that my neighbor loves, then why should I not love that which God has commanded others to love?

You called attention to the hating your own life in Luke 14:26. Obviously part and parcel of this verse is the hating of your father and mother, but..........if we are commanded to honor our father and mother, how can we hate them? Obviously there is a little more subtlety going on here, and hating yourself isn't totally literal. Whoops.

God loves me. Should I hate what God loves? I am part of the church, His Body, which He loves. Should I not love what God loves, both in part and in sum?

Romans 12:3 says not to esteem yourself more highly than you OUGHT. This means there is an "ought" to which you should esteem yourself.

As far as Revelation 12:11 teaching that we should not love ourselves even unto death......I'm glad to be corrected here but that verse is referring specifically to believers during the tribulation, is it not? It is also not a "should" verse, as Lee and minions love to twist everything into, it is a statement. It is simply stating that those believers at that time will be willing to be martyrs. I'm not saying that we shouldn't ourselves, but I don't see that that particular verse is "should-ing" us into it.

Lee touted the "highest standard of morality" while failing miserably himself. If you want to try to discount the measure of the veracity of anyone's assertions by pointing at their actions which have nothing to do with the truth behind their posts, the only one qualified to post on here is Jesus.

Thanks for your post. They always help clarify things for me.

Cal · 03-11-2019, 06:38 PM

BTW, Drake, I don't really care about your claims of me being a bad Christian.

Save your breath, because it has absolutely no registration with me. And until you start being honest about the real abuses of your favorite sect you have ZERO credibility with me.

Gnats and camels. You defend sexual abusers and other life wreckers and then try to make hay out of my admittedly STRONG approach to you. Gnats and camels. What a joke!

Anyone who can't see through that, I probably can't help anyway. So if they side with you, God help them.

Cal · 03-11-2019, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

The commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. If we are to hate ourselves, but love our neighbor as ourself, this translates into hating your neighbor. Whoops. I guess we do need to love ourselves so that loving our neighbor as ourself translates into actual love.

If God loves me. Should I hate what God loves? I am part of the church, His Body, which He loves. Should I not love what God loves, both in part and in sum?

Romans 12:3 says not to esteem yourself more highly than you OUGHT. This means there is an "ought" to which you should esteem yourself.

Yep. Yep. Yep.

As I said, Drake's teaching is designed to keep you down so that others (like him) can control you.

Proper humility? Yes! Self-loathing? A doctrine of demons!

Drake · 03-11-2019, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

BTW, Drake, I don't really care about your claims of me being a bad Christian. .

I didn't claim you were a bad christian, Igzy.

I said your teachings about loving the self were in error and not based in scripture. I said they therefore appeared as worldly teachings as one might hear in therapy or psychology. I also don't think they are uncommon among many believers but, even if every christian embraced them as you do they are nevertheless in error according to the Bible.

I also said that you omitted in your teaching a most important fact: That God has judged the flesh and crucified the old man on the cross and that sin dwells in our flesh.

I'd welcome a bible-based response on this topic but to do so you'd have to come down off the high horse you rode in on, stop engaging in personal attacks against people you disagree with, and crack open your Bible.

Tell me why my first three observations about your teachings are incorrect. Go for it!

Thanks
Drake

Drake · 03-11-2019, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

I know you're being obtuse but I'm writing this response for myself (OH NO not my SELF!?!?! Yes...... myself), not to seriously engage you....

Okay. Sure. You had some interesting points. Maybe some other time.

Thanks
Drake

Cal · 03-11-2019, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Tell me why my first three observations about your teachings are incorrect. Go for it!

Not until you post a video of yourself in a full-body duck costume hopping around and quacking "The Recovery is a hoax! Quack! The Recovery is a hoax!"

Cal · 03-11-2019, 07:55 PM

There's no point in discussing anything with you, Drake. You aren't a person of good faith. You're like the boy who cried wolf. Eventually people get tired of it.

I invited you to come back and debate. I hoped for the best. But you did exactly what I said you would do. You disappeared for a while then came back with the same obtuse attitude you've always had, like nothing had transpired. And then it starts again. Going round and round in circles, like a freaking broken record. Like Groundhog Day.

You aren't fooling anyone anymore. You're just boring everyone. Get some therapy. Seriously, dude.

Drake · 03-11-2019, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

There's no point in discussing anything with you, Drake. You aren't a person of good faith. You're like the boy who cried wolf. Eventually people get tired of it.

I invited you to come back and debate. I hoped for the best. But you did exactly what I said you would do. You disappeared for a while then came back with the same obtuse attitude you've always had, like nothing had transpired. And then it starts again. Going round and round in circles, like a freaking broken record. Like Groundhog Day.

You aren't fooling anyone anymore. You're just boring everyone. Get some therapy. Seriously, dude.

Igzy,

Sorry to disappoint you.... but....

This topic and some others are a matter of standing for the truth...orthodoxy... and standing against errors in teaching. Normally, I don't engage in discussing such errors until someone compares them with the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee as you did. That is what the stated mission on this forum is after all.

Therefore, more of your statements here and elsewhere need to be examined according to scripture. I don't disagree with everything you say, and I don't feel it necessary to address every perceived error on your part, but occasionally I feel the prompting of the Spirit to address something as I did in this thread. Therefore, whether you respond or not is not crucial because you are in a sense only the instrument or channel of the error. It's not about you... nothing personal toward you. I hope you do respond with a compelling scriptural explanation but if you don't that is okay too. You reserve that right and I respect it.

Drake

Cal · 03-11-2019, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

but occasionally I feel the prompting of the Spirit to address something as I did in this thread.

Drake, you do know that the Holy Spirit is different from a hole in your head, right?

Drake · 03-11-2019, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Drake, you do know that the Holy Spirit is different from a hole in your head, right?

Well okay... let’s go with it’s a hole in my head. And yet, if it is only a hole in my head then what does that say about your inability to put together a compelling scriptural explanation to support your teaching? Taking out my three observations refuting the errors in your teaching should be like child’s play. Instead you engage in vicious personal ad hominem attacks in a tantrum, like tossing the toys out of the pram, because the logic from a hole in the head is too difficult to explain away?

Cal · 03-11-2019, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Not until you post a video of yourself in a full-body duck costume hopping around and quacking "The Recovery is a hoax! Quack! The Recovery is a hoax!"

Drake complies!!

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lI...RTvic_tPdgyIwj

(Nice moves. Not enough quacking, though.

Try again.)

Kevin · 03-11-2019, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Drake complies!!

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lI...RTvic_tPdgyIwj

(Nice moves. Not enough quacking, though.

Try again.)

That Drake always being dishonest. Don't worry Igzy, I know LC tactic defense.

aron · 03-12-2019, 03:50 AM

In a similar vein, I realised some years after leaving the LC that the phrase, "He who loses his soul-life will gain it" implies that one initially had a soul-life to lose. But in the LC, soul-lives were strongly discouraged. One instead got a ministry-issued persona. Members were never allowed to find "the real you", but were continually kept off-balance through trainings, conferences, and various "flows" from ministry HQ.

You never got a journey. You were an extension of someone else's journey.

Ohio · 03-12-2019, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

I know you're being obtuse but I'm writing this response for myself (OH NO not my SELF!?!?! Yes...... myself), not to seriously engage you.

The commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. If we are to hate ourselves, but love our neighbor as ourself, this translates into hating your neighbor. Whoops. I guess we do need to love ourselves so that loving our neighbor as ourself translates into actual love.

If I am the neighbor that my neighbor loves, then why should I not love that which God has commanded others to love?

You called attention to the hating your own life in Luke 14:26. Obviously part and parcel of this verse is the hating of your father and mother, but..........if we are commanded to honor our father and mother, how can we hate them? Obviously there is a little more subtlety going on here, and hating yourself isn't totally literal. Whoops.

God loves me. Should I hate what God loves? I am part of the church, His Body, which He loves. Should I not love what God loves, both in part and in sum?

Romans 12:3 says not to esteem yourself more highly than you OUGHT. This means there is an "ought" to which you should esteem yourself.

As far as Revelation 12:11 teaching that we should not love ourselves even unto death......I'm glad to be corrected here but that verse is referring specifically to believers during the tribulation, is it not? It is also not a "should" verse, as Lee and minions love to twist everything into, it is a statement. It is simply stating that those believers at that time will be willing to be martyrs. I'm not saying that we shouldn't ourselves, but I don't see that that particular verse is "should-ing" us into it.

Lee touted the "highest standard of morality" while failing miserably himself. If you want to try to discount the measure of the veracity of anyone's assertions by pointing at their actions which have nothing to do with the truth behind their posts, the only one qualified to post on here is Jesus.

Thanks for your post. They always help clarify things for me.

Brother Trapped, you really need to change your name!

This is one of the clearest rebuttals I have read. If your mind is this free, then you are no longer "trapped," but the Lord's "Freedman." (I Cor. 7.22)

In regard to Luke 14.26, if LC teachers can so quickly exhort their members to "hate father and mother ...," what does that say about our relationship with some book publisher in Anaheim? What about, "If you cannot hate LSM, you cannot be My disciple?" Concerning these Blendeds, and their sycophants, never forget Paul's exhortation, "You were bought with a price, never become slaves of men." (I Cor 7.23)

Ohio · 03-12-2019, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Not until you post a video of yourself in a full-body duck costume hopping around and quacking "The Recovery is a hoax! Quack! The Recovery is a hoax!"

Perhaps we have already seen him in the AFLAC commercials?

Cal · 03-12-2019, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps we have already seen him in the AFLAC commercials?

Hmmm, yeah Anaheim is not that far from Hollywood.

"You were bought with a price, never become slaves of men." (I Cor 7.23)

Powerful!

Cal · 03-12-2019, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Well okay... let’s go with it’s a hole in my head. And yet, if it is only a hole in my head then what does that say about your inability to put together a compelling scriptural explanation to support your teaching? Taking out my three observations refuting the errors in your teaching should be like child’s play. Instead you engage in vicious personal ad hominem attacks in a tantrum, like tossing the toys out of the pram, because the logic from a hole in the head is too difficult to explain away?

Forget it, Drake. Until you change your attitude and start being honest about the abuses of your favorite movement, your words about what I've taught here carry no weight with me. Your claiming I have made a bad argument does not impress me any more than your denial of historical facts does. Both are dishonest as far as I'm concerned.

So, until you fess up, have a nice life.

Cal · 03-12-2019, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

In a similar vein, I realised some years after leaving the LC that the phrase, "He who loses his soul-life will gain it" implies that one initially had a soul-life to lose. But in the LC, soul-lives were strongly discouraged. One instead got a ministry-issued persona. Members were never allowed to find "the real you", but were continually kept off-balance through trainings, conferences, and various "flows" from ministry HQ.

You never got a journey. You were an extension of someone else's journey.

Denying the self simply means obeying the Spirit. It doesn't mean anything else. If God approves it, it is okay; if not, it isn't. We are not supposed to walk around with a hammer, looking to pound ourselves anytime we feel good about ourselves.

I've found in experience it has more to do with my attitude and approach to a thing than whether I engage in that thing or not. For example, if I'm enjoying music, usually God will allow me to do it as long as I approach it with an attitude the Lord gives me peace about. Sometimes it's hard to describe just what that approach is, but I know it is peaceful. I think the lack of peace comes from trying to make something more of the song (or the show, or the game, or my kid's success, or whatever) than I should, and that I can really only get from God himself. As long as I put him first, he gives me much to enjoy.

It's the same with the self. It's all about our attitude toward it. It isn't that it is inherently bad. Yes, we are fallen. But that doesn't mean we are to hate what we essentially are in God's eyes. It means we can make our selves our gods just like anything else.

The LR embraces an extreme model of self-denial that denies the soul simply for the sake of doing so. It's a kind of asceticism (Col 2:23). But proper denial is always about obedience to something else that is positive, which is almost always about loving God and others first, not simply denial for denial's sake. In doing so we find our true souls, the souls we can enjoy.

We are supposed to focus on following Jesus. We are not supposed to focus on denying ourselves. God is so positive. If we truly desire to follow Jesus, denying ourselves will work itself out normally. But if you put the cart before the horse, you end up with problems, like demagogues using appeals to extreme self-denial to control you.

Drake · 03-12-2019, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's the same with the self. It's all about our attitude toward it. It isn't that it is inherently bad. Yes, we are fallen. But that doesn't mean we are to hate what we essentially are in God's eyes. It means we can make our selves our gods just like anything else.

The LR embraces an extreme model of self-denial that denies the soul simply for the sake of doing so. It's a kind of asceticism (Col 2:23). ....
We are supposed to focus on following Jesus. We are not supposed to focus on denying ourselves.

The reader should take serious note. Even if one is aligned with Igzy on his critical heart toward the Lord's brothers they should not consume the above doctrine in any way shape or form. Do not fall into the trap of agreeing on one thing and therefore thinking you must agree on all things. Take these matters to the Lord and see if they resonate in your spirit.

First, our assessment of ourselves is irrelevant, We are not qualified to assess ourselves. Rather, we must accept God's assessment of ourselves.

Second, to make ourselves into gods is to take Satan's suggestion as he did to Eve.

Third, the Lord said in several places to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him.

Don't accept these doctrines... examine these matters from the Bible.

Fact is, most of these ideas from Igzy belong in alternative views.

Drake

Cal · 03-12-2019, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Second, to make ourselves into gods is to take Satan's suggestion as he did to Eve.

Hey Clueless,

I didn't mean we are allowed to make ourselves gods, or that it's a good thing to do.

I meant if we are not careful we can turn our selves into idols, but that doesn't mean we have to hate our selves. We can turn our families or anything else legitimate into idols, but that doesn't mean the only alternative is to hate our families, or whatever else it is.

I'm pretty sure everyone figured that out, but you.

Sheesh. Up too late last night dancing in your duck suit?

And, yes, it does resonate with my spirit.

Kevin · 03-12-2019, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

The reader should take serious note. Even if one is aligned with Igzy on his critical heart toward the Lord's brothers they should not consume the above doctrine in any way shape or form. Do not fall into the trap of agreeing on one thing and therefore thinking you must agree on all things. Take these matters to the Lord and see if they resonate in your spirit.
First, our assessment of ourselves is irrelevant, We are not qualified to assess ourselves. Rather, we must accept God's assessment of ourselves.
Second, to make ourselves into gods is to take Satan's suggestion as he did to Eve.
Third, the Lord said in several places to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him.
Don't accept these doctrines... examine these matters from the Bible.
Fact is, most of these ideas from Igzy belong in alternative views.

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 | NASB
For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

Drake · 03-12-2019, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hey Clueless,

I didn't mean we are allowed to make ourselves gods, or that it's a good thing to do.

I meant if we are not careful we can turn our selves into idols, but that doesn't mean we have to hate our selves. We can turn our families or anything else legitimate into idols, but that doesn't mean the only alternative is to hate our families, or whatever else it is.

I'm pretty sure everyone figured that out, but you.

Sheesh. Up too late last night dancing in your duck suit?

And, yes, it does resonate with my spirit.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

Here's the thing, Igzy.. When you juxtaposed that comment between points one and three it is perfectly congruent with that same line of thinking. For instance, you talk about the self just being what our attitude is toward it. You contradict the Lord's direct command to deny yourself. And smack dab in the middle of those two gems you make this comment about making ourselves gods. It's all man-centered doctrine no matter how you look at it.

Drake

Cal · 03-12-2019, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

Here's the thing, Igzy.. When you juxaposed that comment between points one and three it is perfectly congruent with that same line of thinking. For instance, you talk about the self just being what our attitude is toward it. You contradict the Lord's direct command to deny yourself. And smack dab in the middle of those two gems you make this comment about making ourselves gods. It's all man-centered doctrine no matter how you look at it.

Drake

Well, you might have asked for a clarification before you went off like I'm some sort of John Denver "we are gods" self-worshiper. I mean, I'd loved "Rocky Mountain High," but I'm not that high.

As for denying one's self. It does not take place in a vacuum or without context. Doing so is always in the context of obeying God. That's why I said denying the self is really just obeying the Spirit. If you make denying your self an absolute then you'd never say "yes" to "would you like a bowl of ice cream?" or anything else that would make you happy. But, of course, that's ultimately absurd because what if denying your self makes you happy? Then you couldn't deny your self because to deny your self would be pleasing to your self.

So it's relative to obedience. It's not an absolute. When Jesus said hate your life, he meant hate anything that keeps you from God. He didn't mean it in an absolute sense, just like he really didn't actually mean for anyone to cut off their hand if it offends. He meant be serious about anything that keeps you from God.

Actually, I remember Witness Lee going off on a rant in a training. He said deny "whatever makes you happy." I'm not kidding! I remember the brother sitting next to me chuckling and saying, "I had to laugh at that one!" Lee was completely clueless sometimes, which is probably where you get it. All his talk about the "self" and the "soul" and the "old man" and the "natural man" and the "self life" and all that was just him acting like he knew what he was talking about when he really didn't.

God loves himself. We are in the image of God. So at some level we should love ourselves, too. And there is no way you could love others, or really care about anything good, if you don't love yourself. Nihilists don't care if the world burns to a crisp with everyone in it including themselves. They are really "denying themselves," albeit in the most UNHEALTHY way.

Ohio · 03-12-2019, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

The reader should take serious note. Even if one is aligned with Igzy on his critical heart toward the Lord's brothers they should not consume the above doctrine in any way shape or form. Do not fall into the trap of agreeing on one thing and therefore thinking you must agree on all things. Take these matters to the Lord and see if they resonate in your spirit.

Hold on here. This is what we have been preaching to LCers for years. Did you finally get the message?

Quote:

First, our assessment of ourselves is irrelevant, We are not qualified to assess ourselves. Rather, we must accept God's assessment of ourselves.

Yes, and He loves us to the uttermost, so we should no longer despise who we are. Any idea how much depression exists in the LC's from bad thinking such as yours?

Quote:

Second, to make ourselves into gods is to take Satan's suggestion as he did to Eve.

Wait a minute. Aren't you the one who says that "we become God in life and nature?"

Quote:

Third, the Lord said in several places to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him.

Amen to that. The best way is to take up our cross is to obey Him and His word. This includes a conscience void of offense. Why is it that you and the Blendeds cannot reconcile with any brothers? Perhaps it's time to deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Him. Start with some of the Midwest brothers.

Quote:

Don't accept these doctrines... examine these matters from the Bible. Fact is, most of these ideas from Igzy belong in alternative views. -- Drake

For many years now Igzy has won the respect from the posters here for his scriptural insight, sound reason, and his kind (but tough) fellowship. You, on the other hand, have not established much credit at all. Before you try to moderate others, please be an example of what you preach.

Drake · 03-12-2019, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

As for denying one's self. It does not take place in a vacuum or without context. Doing so is always in the context of obeying God. That's why I said denying the self is really just obeying the Spirit. ......So it's relative to obedience. It's not an absolute.

Igzy, there is nuance in the above statement. For instance, on the one hand anyone who has experienced the Lord's leading knows we must obey the Spirit. Yet, on the other hand we have His commandments in the Word. Obedience to God is absolute even if the the circumstances are variable. When the self, the old man, is self-assessing, his assessment is unreliable. Only God's assessment is reliable. Therefore, concerning the old man:

"Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." Romans 6:6

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

...All his talk about the "self" and the "soul" and the "old man" and the "natural man" and the "self life" and all that was just him acting like he knew what he was talking about when he really didn't.

Forget about that! That is not a scriptural argument. What does the Bible say?

7"For anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him."

We experience God's full salvation in His death we, our self, were included in that death.

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Galatians 2:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

God loves himself. We are in the image of God. So at some level we should love ourselves, too. And there is no way you could love others, or really care about anything good, if you don't love yourself.

Yes, we were created in the image of God. All men are created in the image of God. Does that mean that all men should love themselves because they are created in the image of God? No, of course not. An unbeliever could take your teaching above and apply it to themselves. BUT...

...MAN FELL.

Once man fell death reigned from Adam to Moses. Sin and death reigned from Moses to Christ. Man became flesh (Gen 6). Man became incapable of expressing and representing God. Only the Lord Jesus expresses God according to His original purpose in His image. Therefore, only His love is qualified to love God, love others, and love the brothers. There is nothing in the Word that says we should love ourselves. The logic of your teaching...

we are in image of God + God loves Himself = we love should ourselves

....does not factor in the fall of man after man was created in the image of God. The significance of baptism is that man is only worthy to stand in the position of death. That includes the self, the old man as the scripture states above.

Drake

Cal · 03-12-2019, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy, there is nuance in the above statement. ... the position of death. That includes the self, the old man as the scripture states above.

Drake

Whatever, Drake. You have your opinion. I have mine. As I've said, be more honest about the abuses of "the Recovery," and you might have some weight with me. Until then, later...

Drake · 03-12-2019, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Whatever, Drake. You have your opinion. I have mine. As I've said, be more honest about the abuses of "the Recovery," and you might have some weight with me. Until then, later...

Igzy,

I am honest about what I know, what I think, and what I believe.

but...umm, let's see... in the above...

You are saying that if I say things that you want to hear, things you deem "honest", then and only then will you make a scriptural case for YOUR erroneous teachings.

You know, in an odd way I'm okay with that Igzy.

You see, I will make a best effort to persuade you and others against unbiblical teachings you are promoting here but if your criterion to consider my point of view and for you to make your own compelling case means I must yield my free will, dismiss my beliefs, and conform to YOURS... well then friend, I will not accept your terms, now or ever. Nevertheless, I will stand for the truth of God's Word whether you meet me on that basis or not.

Hope that helps.

Drake

Cal · 03-12-2019, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

for you to make your own compelling case means I must yield my free will, dismiss my beliefs, and conform to YOURS.

Drake,

You don't have to do anything. But if you want the respect of people here then somehow you are going to have to learn the difference between being dogmatic and being convincing.

Also you are going to have to learn to come down off Mt. Olympus and join the rest of the human race that doesn't go around saying silly things like their favorite teacher is the minister of the age and their favorite movement is God's unique move. That's wacko, dude.

And you are going to have to figure out that largely the problem is a character issue. Somewhere in the past you bet your farm that if you just back up Lee and this movement to the hilt, come hell or high water, then you are good to go. But the irony is what that has produced in you is duplicity; and what is really scary is maybe you don't even realize it. Everyone else sees your prevarication and hypocrisy. Why can't you see it? Could it be that you really think we are so much in darkness and you are so much in the rarefied light of "the Recovery" that we mistake your godliness for evil? If so, that's wacko, too. I can see the purity in Christ. I don't get the same vibe from you.

And as long as you refuse to admit to the evil your movement has done, I don't trust you as far as I can throw you. As long you are doing the Vladimir Pozner routine, you'll get about as much respect from me as he did.

Believe what you want. Make your case. But I've seen you try and I'm only impressed by your incredibly preternatural hardheadedness, but not much else. And I have the peace to feel that way.

Kevin · 03-12-2019, 10:27 PM

So much for the cover ups. Why don't simply acknowledge the mistakes in the pasts than pretending that they didn't happen.

Cal · 03-13-2019, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

So much for the cover ups. Why don't simply acknowledge the mistakes in the pasts than pretending that they didn't happen.

If they admit one thing that will lead to admitting another, and another, and to finally admitting they are just another flawed movement like all the all the rest, and that Lee was just another flawed leader like all the rest, and that "the Recovery" ain't the Recovery and "the move" ain't God's move.

And as the great song goes, they "can't go for that, can't go for that! Nooo! No can do!"

https://drive.google.com/open?id=14G...O0q6GW3vzXCK3a

Cal · 03-13-2019, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Well then friend, I will not accept your terms, now or ever. Nevertheless, I will stand for the truth of God's Word whether you meet me on that basis or not.

Well then friend, everyone who knows me knows I respect the word of God. But I am not, nor have I ever been, interested in quibbling over the minutia of scriptural disparity, especially online. I'm a common sense person. I'm not someone like ZNP or Evangelical who love to go around and around day in and day out in never-ending fashion about every detail of disagreement. That's eventually pointless to me. Typed communication online is not suited to sorting those kinds of things out, and you of all people should know that.

I'm a big picture, essence guy. That's why I love verses like Romans 13:8, "He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law." God's truth is simple. It's about loving others in Christ and building them up. And the Bible makes very clear, if you have eyes to see it, that you cannot love others unless you love yourself (Matt 22:39).

Anyone can see that on the one hand we need to love ourselves, on the other we need to deny ourselves. But that is really the "self" from two different perspectives. First, as a precious creation of God which he loves, and second as a fallen creation that tends to put itself first. Both sides are true and both are valid.

Lee, in yet another spasm of trying to be brilliant but falling flat, decided that "the self" was a bad thing, "the fallen soul." But the Bible never says that, that's his categorization. The self is simply a person in relationship to himself. That relationship can be holy and healthy, or it can be fallen and unhealthy. But wholesale disregarding of "the self" is not God's thought.

I've noticed you have a problem with relating to people in a warm, brotherly fashion. You are rather cold and distant. This is probably because of self-esteem issues, which are no doubt exacerbated by Witness Lee's flawed doctrine of self-loathing and immolation. Self-loathing and self-denial are not the same thing. In fact, I would even argue that you cannot truly deny yourself unless you truly love yourself.

The Bible says, "Love one another in brotherly AFFECTION" (Romans 12:10). You can't love anyone warmly if you don't feel good about yourself. The soul just doesn't work that way. In fact, the soul doesn't really work well in any fashion if it doesn't feel good about itself. That's just a fact.

By the way, Lee taught we should not have AFFECTION for one another, which was clearly contrary to Romans 12:10, and yet another error of his.

I think it's reasonable to make the point that loving oneself and denying oneself are two sides of the same thing. If you want to quibble to make me look bad or because you go into a panicked frenzy when someone disagrees with your idol, Witness Lee, I'm not interested. Maybe you can look up Evangelical and you and he can hunt around for some minutia you disagree on and argue about it till the cows come home. That would be okay with me as long as I don't have to witness it.

Drake · 03-14-2019, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Anyone can see that on the one hand we need to love ourselves, on the other we need to deny ourselves. But that is really the "self" from two different perspectives. First, as a precious creation of God which he loves, and second as a fallen creation that tends to put itself first. Both sides are true and both are valid.

Sure Igzy. I have no problem with that statement as is.... but then...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Lee, in yet another spasm of trying to be brilliant but falling flat, decided that "the self" was a bad thing, "the fallen soul." But the Bible never says that, that's his categorization. The self is simply a person in relationship to himself. That relationship can be holy and healthy, or it can be fallen and unhealthy. But wholesale disregarding of "the self" is not God's thought.

....and here is where we disagree. And this isn't minutia but a very important realization for the believer to serve God. Our self, our old man, everyone's self, old man, was only worthy of crucifixion. That is why our self was crucified on the cross. Sin in the flesh uses the self to carry out its wishes through the body. Therefore Paul writes:

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Romans 6:6

That is by making the old man unemployed, through crucifixion, sin no longer had an instrument through which to fulfill its wishes. Only the new life of Christ imparted into the believer can satisfy God's will and God's heart and confine the sin in the flesh and to be without a means to execute its desires. That is why the anything that issues from the self is untrustworthy.... and unworthy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I've noticed you have a problem with relating to people in a warm, brotherly fashion. You are rather cold and distant..

To be frank here Igzy, you're not exactly the poster child for warm brotherly love.

I'll yield that I am not either. To my observation, in this forum, I think the ones who come nearest that description would be ZNP and Awareness. I may disagree with them on content but not on their manner toward others in this forum. (Not that they too don't get snippy once in awhile). ;-)

Drake

Cal · 03-14-2019, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

....and here is where we disagree. And this isn't minutia but a very important realization for the believer to serve God. Our self, our old man, everyone's self, old man, was only worthy of crucifixion. That is why our self was crucified on the cross. Sin the flesh uses the self to carry out its wishes through the body. Therefore Paul writes:

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Romans 6:6

Well, "self" is not necessarily just the "old man." Self can also mean your consciousness of yourself in Christ. I already mentioned that Lee was the one who decided "self" is a bad word. But the fact is, there is an old self and an new self. I realize Lee didn't like that terminology, but that was because he was biased against the word "self." Well, that's his own little word game, and I don't have to play it.

This is where we see where Lee was actually undermining the self-worth of a child of God. By disparaging a person's "self" he was disparaging his self-image, basically disparaging him, which was unhealthy.

If you are going to say the self is our old man, then what shall we call our new man? To me it's the self, too, just in the new creation. It's not like we spend eternity without a self image! We don't become ciphers. We still have a soul, a self-consciousness and a self-image, and so a self. We are going to have some kind of relationship with our selves for eternity. So as Norman Vincent Peale said, "Since you are going to be spending so much time with yourself, you might as well enjoy the relationship!" Lee's ascetic view undermines that healthy relationship. Yeah, we are supposed to deny the bad aspects of our self and live according to the Spirit. Even people in the world understand what self denial is. Why couldn't Lee get it right? Because he was always looking for ways to set himself apart, to the point of error.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

To be frank here Igzy, you're not exactly the poster child for warm brotherly love.

Oh, I can show you many a post where I am quite warm and brotherly. I just don't tolerate prevarication and disingenuousness very well, especially the serial kind. Neither did Jesus, so I'm in good company. So don't prevaricate or be disingenuous, and I'll be really sweet to you.

Drake · 03-14-2019, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you are going to say the self is our old man, then what shall we call our new man? To me it's the self, too, just in the new creation.

Christ is the new man!

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Galatians 2:20

So... yes... we have still have a soul but the life we live is Christ's life and Christ Himself. The new man has replaced the old man, the self. There is a new sheriff in town so to speak.

And yet, we live this new life by faith. The fact is already accomplished but it becomes real in our experience by faith.

Drake

Cal · 03-14-2019, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Christ is the new man!

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Galatians 2:20

So... yes... we have still have a soul but the life we live is Christ's life and Christ Himself. The new man has replaced the old man, the self. There is a new sheriff in town so to speak.

I knew you were going to say that...

But, see that doesn't really work. Because in reality there is still a you. There is still the "nevertheless I live" part.

If you take that Christ is the new man too far then, how to account for the fact that Drake is still here, too? Is your personality just an illusion? Like I said, we don't vanish, we still exist. So "not I, but Christ" just means that Christ now is our spiritual center.

Doctrine has to hold up to experience. Just saying "Christ is the new man" doesn't account for the fact their is still an us. And that us, whatever it is, is our new self, in him. This cannot be denied. If Christ died for "us" and now the "us" is him what happened to "us?" So don't take that one verse too far! You know you are still here, and we surely know it. Your personality is as big as Harry Mudd's!

The whole "we are Christ" is somewhat metaphorical. I don't buy Lee's literal interpretation of it. It just doesn't match my experience and doesn't add up. Please bring something to the table besides Lee. He doesn't trump everything.

Are you sure your mantra is "Not I, but Christ?" It sure seems it's "Not I, but Lee." Because you act like his word trumps everything else. See, while you've accepted Lee's supremacy as a given and his teachings at face value, I've actually been studying lots of sources and considering and asking God to reveal the truth on these matters to me. And what I've gotten from God doesn't match Lee. Sorry. If you can't show that you've followed anything but Lee, then I can't think you've really put much thought into these ideas at all.

Drake · 03-14-2019, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I knew you were going to say that...

But, see that doesn't really work. Because in reality there is still a you. There is still the "nevertheless I live" part.

If you take that Christ is the new man too far then, how to account for the fact that Drake is still here, too? Is your personality just an illusion? Like I said, we don't vanish, we still exist. So "not I, but Christ" just means that Christ now is our spiritual center.

Doctrine has to hold up to experience. .

Igzy,

There are many divine facts concerning us, the believers, that would seem in contradiction to our "experience". For instance, Ephesians says:

"And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,.." Ephesians 2:6

If you or I look around as we write or read this post do you see that you are seated with Christ in the heavenly realm? Maybe you see Texas, or California, or Florida out your window but the divine fact declares that the believers are seated with Christ in the heavenly places.

Again God's Word declares this fact:

"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel." Hebrews 12

If you look around are you on Mount Zion, in the company of myriads of angels, to God the Judge and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator, etc.? No matter what you see with your physical eyes the divine fact says otherwise.

So then another fact according to God's Word is that we, the believers have been crucified with Christ... and the life we now live.. what life? His life not the old crucified life, not the self you were born with because it was crucified. Christ is the new man we live. But you ask, what of Drake or what of Igzy.... we are not illusions as you say. But the fact does not follow the experience. The fact is not dependent on experience. Experience follows the divine fact but only by faith.

"and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Galatians 2:20

Not unlike when we first believed in the Lord. We read or someone preached the gospel to us and His salvation was applied to us by faith the moment we believed. And at that very moment we passed out of death into life. Maybe we didn't know we were dead already but the Bible says we were dead in our offenses and sins. In the same way, by faith the experience of the fact of having been crucified with Christ is ours. There is the experience of Romans 7 (wretched man that I am) and then there is the experience of Romans 8 (For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.).

So, by these verses we can see that we first must stand on God's fact according to His Word, the Bible... and then by faith those facts are applied to our experience.

Drake

Cal · 03-14-2019, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

So, by these examples we can see that we first must stand on God's fact... and then by faith those facts are applied to our experience.

Okay, but that leaves a lot of leeway for interpretation. Because for the few places that seem to say we are Christ, I can show you many more, and make the argument that while that may be true in some sense, we are still us. So where shall we land this plane? Are we just going to insist that everyone agree with Lee on everything, as you do?

Actually, I'm glad the conversation turned this way because it brings to light a real issue I have with Lee and which I think leads the whole LR into their problems.

Lee had a very impersonal approach to people and God. If you take "Not I, but Christ" to the extreme, then people start to become non-entities, simply colored containers, and little more, to hold "Christ." When you have that view, then those people assuredly become less than people to you. I saw this again and again in the LR and see it to this day. I see it in your attitude sometimes. People are expendable, replaceable and of little real value as individuals. ONLY CHRIST LIVES, taken too far, means we are really not here and so we aren't important. ONLY CHRIST MATTERS, twisted, becomes people don't matter. CHRIST DIED FOR US, if we are literally "Christ," means Christ died for himself. And so forth.

So, again, I see how this view of yours and Lee's dovetails perfectly with a movement which can say THE CHURCH IS CHRIST, yet tread on members of the Church, real people like JLBW, as if they are nothing.

This is one reason I believe self-esteem and self-value are important, because without them demagogues like Lee can easily twist scripture to make you a cog in their machine.

Because of this, and other reasons, I don't buy your interpretation. I think it's unhealthy and produces bad fruit, and I don't think you've demonstrated at all that it is necessarily true, unless our main priority should be agreeing with Lee--which in your case, it is, and which explains practically everything.

Ohio · 03-14-2019, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is where we see where Lee was actually undermining the self-worth of a child of God. By disparaging a person's "self" he was disparaging his self-image, basically disparaging him, which was unhealthy.

LC leadership always had issues with self-esteem and self-worth. Here I include WL and TC together, since they were so similar. (Actually JN Darby and W. Nee were the same. All 4 blessed with enormous gifts, and all 4 infected with exaggerated views of themselves.)

This explains why they demanded that all the glory go their way, and their way alone. Both of them demanded that all failed ideas be blamed on others, and they must take credit for all successful ideas. Neither ever "played well with others." Both had to fit within an hierarchical structure. With Lee, only Nee was above him. With TC, only Lee was above him. Neither of them ever had what could be considered real "peers."

Real peers were viewed with suspicion, and targeted with public abuses. Eventually these other brothers (and this list is very long, both in Anaheim and in Cleveland) all decided that they were tired of being treated no better than canines, and decided to depart. Once they left, the general public would be informed of their failures and weaknesses.

It's a shame that Jesus on earth spent so much time training the apostles about this very matter, and those in the "recovery" never got it. That was one teaching that will never be "recovered."

Drake · 03-14-2019, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, but that leaves a lot of leeway for interpretation. Because for the few places that seem to say we are Christ, I can show you many more, and make the argument that while that may be true in some sense, we are still us. So where shall we land this plane? Are we just going to insist that everyone agree with Lee on everything, as you do?

Igzy,

It matters not if you agree with Brother Lee on anything. I'm not asking you to. I'm not asking anyone to. I have no such expectation, aspiration, or motive. It's neither here or there to me.

Here is where the plane lands: What matters is God's testimony according to the Bible. What the Bible says is all that matters. We should only care for God's facts. Our life is a life of faith. Faith substantiates God's facts into us. Like our physical eyes substantiate the shape, color, and beauty of a flower so faith substantiates all the divine realities into our being.

"But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." Hebrews 11:6

Drake

Ohio · 03-14-2019, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

So then another fact according to God's Word is that we, the believers have been crucified with Christ... and the life we now live.. what life? His life not the old crucified life, not the self you were born with because it was crucified. Christ is the new man we live. But you ask, what of Drake or what of Igzy.... we are not illusions as you say. But the fact does not follow the experience. The fact is not dependent on experience. Experience follows the divine fact but only by faith.

I have been lectured for decades about these "truths" from Lee. I aspired to Lee's interpretations of these truths because I was convinced he had something no one else had, and that he lived what he preached.

Later I found out that he defrauded us. Lee never lived what he taught. His teachings were good for us, but not for him. So we must conclude that every interpretation by Lee, outside fundamental Christian orthodoxy, is leaven at best, and must be discarded.

Ohio · 03-14-2019, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

"But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." Hebrews 11:6

Drake

Faith is intensely personal. Hebrews 11 gives stories of great sacrifice by those who knew their God personally. Lee's version of faith was a collective. Instead of "all shall know Me from the little to the great," it was morphed into a degraded "only the great one shall know Him," and all others need to follow "the man" who knows God.

Knowing the personal voice of the Great Shepherd was constantly warned against. What about "My sheep know My voice?" Instead we were taught never to trust our own heart and spirit. We must learn to "trust the body," never doing anything that "offends the body," and always endeavor to be "one with the ministry."

Saints ended up paralyzed in the faith, living like robots, waiting for orders from headquarters, and the never ending need for more "training." We were trained to believe that the greatest sins were to be ambitious or independent.

Where's that verse in the Bible, Drake?

Cal · 03-14-2019, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy,

Here is where the plane lands: What matters is God's testimony according to the Bible. What the Bible says is all that matters. We should only care for God's facts. Our life is a life of faith. Faith substantiates God's facts into us. Like our physical eyes substantiate the shape, color, and beauty of a flower so faith substantiates all the divine realities into our being.

I agree completely. But accepting only one man's word, believing he is the "minister of the age," is totally contrary to that approach. What you offered requires personal prayer, examining multiple sources, validating experiences, creative thinking and open-mindedness. God is always "outside the box." So if you are limiting yourself to some ministry's box, you are probably going to get things wrong. Yes to the bible. No to only one ministry's interpretation of the bible.

This is why no more recovery will happen in "the Recovery." The mindset is 180 degrees opposite of what it takes to see something fresh. That's quite ironic.

Trapped · 03-14-2019, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Brother Trapped, you really need to change your name!

This is one of the clearest rebuttals I have read. If your mind is this free, then you are no longer "trapped," but the Lord's "Freedman." (I Cor. 7.22)

In regard to Luke 14.26, if LC teachers can so quickly exhort their members to "hate father and mother ...," what does that say about our relationship with some book publisher in Anaheim? What about, "If you cannot hate LSM, you cannot be My disciple?" Concerning these Blendeds, and their sycophants, never forget Paul's exhortation, "You were bought with a price, never become slaves of men." (I Cor 7.23)

Hahaha.....thanks. Oftentimes Drake's posts so succinctly bring together the being-crushing lies that were passed off as truths to so many people that it is a delight to post a response to force me to get my own thoughts in order about a particular false neutron-star-heavy jet-black tar baby that has been clinging onto me for so long.

I wish I had found this forum earlier so I could have had the tools and utterance to help another adult church kid I encountered years ago. They were struggling with self-esteem issues (possibly typical human ones unrelated to the LC, possibly LC-based, I don't know) and going to LC meetings was an almost impossible demand on them since being told that the Lord can barely tolerate us because of how horrible we are made them feel 20000 times worse than they felt in just a typical day of life. To feel that God is repulsed by you left them absolutely nowhere good to go, in every way, and they used all kinds of destructive things to try to run from their torment.

Strangely enough, and maybe more tragically enough, in my own life I still operate according to the opposite belief of much of what I wrote......so "Trapped" will have to remain, in order to be truthful. In other words, I'm still newly and continually coming across things, concepts, and thoughts I didn't know I had and I didn't know were trapping me. So while I can put together a post I am happy with, there is still the time - weeks, months, maybe more - needed to wash off of the dirt of those lies that just doesn't disappear with the snap of a finger. Maybe "my chains fell off" is some people's experience, but for me it's like I've been given bolt cutters and I'm having to snip each link off one by one. But Freedman is a great idea for what I have a little hope is coming down the road at some point.

The other point I just thought of now is that in 1 Corinthians 12, talking about giving more abundant honor to the uncomely members...... Well, one thing I noticed is that there is no definition of comely or uncomely in those verses, so how do we know who is comely or not? If I'm sitting in a meeting I sure know who I think is uncomely.....but my own opinion certainly isn't the standard for determining that. This is my own interpretation, but I think it's because each of us is comely to some people and uncomely to others. And this way, all of us, being uncomely to at least someone, can be recipients of more abundant honor in the Body. While this doesn't speak to loving ourselves directly, it speaks to the value each one of us has and the care we are worth receiving. (Again, worth just according to the "ought" level.....not elevated worth).

Ohio · 03-15-2019, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

Strangely enough, and maybe more tragically enough, in my own life I still operate according to the opposite belief of much of what I wrote......so "Trapped" will have to remain, in order to be truthful. In other words, I'm still newly and continually coming across things, concepts, and thoughts I didn't know I had and I didn't know were trapping me.

"As a man thinks of himself, so he is ..." -- Proverbs 23.7

Something to think about.

Cal · 03-15-2019, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

"As a man thinks of himself, so he is ..." -- Proverbs 23.7

Something to think about.

I have to Amen that!

01-30-2019, 07:17 PM	#1
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,302	Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts Hi everyone. I haven't posted in a while. The Lord has been doing a great work in my life. Though I'm free from Lee and the LC. I still own him/it some credit, and some discredit. Here goes: Witness Lee and the LC have always been a little like Babe Ruth. They've had some home runs, for which they should get credit. But they've also had a lot more strikeouts, for which they should be accountable. Here is a summary of the things of theirs I’ve retained and rejected. Home Runs (Good) Enjoy the Lord/Experience God – Probably the single best thing to take from Lee overall. Many Christians know that we should experience God and be in relationship with God. But the best way to summarize this relationship is that it is by nature to be enjoyed. A Christian should never have an experience of God that is not, on some level, enjoyable. Our relationship with God should be pleasant, upbeat, positive and joyful. In a word, we should enjoy it. In general, Lee’s emphasis on the Christian life as a matter of experiencing God in reality was on target. The Human Spirit – The truth of the human spirit is important because it makes real some very crucial ideas, (1) that God is not vaguely “in us” but in us in a specific way; so (2) there is a part of our being to which we can “go” where we find God; (3) there is a part of our inner being that corresponds perfectly with God, as opposed the other part (our soul) which does not. This gives us greater clarity in understanding our sometimes complex and conflicting inner feelings; (4) it is our spirit that makes us unique in God’s creation. “Enjoy Christ in your spirit” is still the most central truth I keep from the LC. Calling on the Lord/Turning to the Lord – This teaching can be abused. But the idea that you only need invoke the Lord’s name to make contact with Him is a huge help, as is the idea you can turn to him at any time. Base Hits/Fouls Balls (some good, some bad) Triune God – Lee’s view was helpful in several ways, starting with it pushed against the idea that God is three-headed. The Trinity is not three guys. It is one perfect Being seen from the aspect of his perfect relationship with his perfect self. Lee saw the unity of the Godhead, but he did not see the roots of that unity, and so erred in saying that God is Triune for dispensing. But actually God is Triune because he is conscious of himself and has a relationship with himself. The Spirit is not for dispensing then, but rather is God’s experience of himself, and so is crucial to our experience of him as well. Still, Lee declared a more flowing, dynamic Trinity than the awkward three-headed-but-we-have-no-idea-why model of tradition. And his identification of the economical roles of the Trinity, especially the Spirit as the realization of God, were very helpful. But Lee over-emphasized that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit. Of course, this must be true in some sense because all three are God and God is one. But to continually repeat such a mantra without any explanation of why God is three is unbalanced. However, it’s hard to argue that Lee’s model was not more helpful to a living experience of God than the traditional model. Local Church/Unity – The model of a simple, generalized unified community of believers is a good one. But the LC abused and twisted this idea into a grotesque excuse for self-promotion and exclusivity. The idea that a group must only call itself “the church in…” to actually be the church in a city is silly. Nothing in scripture declares or even implies such a thing. All Christians in a city make up the church in that city. But that church can be manifested in many smaller churches, as the examples of house churches in the New Testament suggest. But certainly there is no ground for any subset of a church in a city saying it has a more valid status than other groups. Yet, the basic idea of unity among believers is good. It’s just the LC has no right to define for everyone else what that unity should look like. Instead of telling everyone to practice unity according to them, they should have practiced being unified with the whole church in the city with greater sincerity. God is Accomplishing Something in Time -- One problem I have with Christian doctrine in general is that it does not clearly state that Jesus' return depends on God finishing a work in the Church age. Some seem to think God is just going to say, "Okay, I've seen enough. Let's move on." or "Okay, you guys couldn't get the job done, let me just fix things." and send Jesus back. But it's important to realize that God's work in time is not going to end in failure. God is going to get the victory and accomplish what he is after. And he intends on accomplishing something not directly, but through people. Lee saw that God is attempting to produce something in time. His mistake was to limit it to a very small subset of the Church, that is, his movement. From the Bible we know that the Lord is trying to produce his Bride and the sons of God. Just how this is worked out specifically we don’t know for sure. But we can know that it will end in a victory for the Lord, not a defeat. This brings into question our fundamental view of how the Kingdom comes, even to reconsider pre- and post-Tribulation issues. The LC’s view is that the world and non-LC Christianity get worse and worse, while their tiny subset of the Church gets better and better, until God raptures them, the Overcomers, and everyone else is left to trudge through the Tribulation. But doesn’t this view imply a failure? What happened to the shining city on the hill? What happened to evangelizing the world? What happened to the salt of the earth? Did it only really strongly effect 144,000? Would God be happy with that? Billions strike out and only a relative handful get runs? How is that a victory? I believe that the Church is actually meant to have a profound effect on the world, and that the Kingdom will come in a strong way and there will be much positive influence on culture. God will get the majority of the victory, but “the third part” will be unrepentant, just like a third of the angels fell. He will rapture most of humanity, but the third will be left. God will win the ballgame 2 to 1. In general, however, the idea that God is trying to produce something is good because it gives us hope and incentive to spread his word, and not hide in fear and isolation. We are ambassadors for his Kingdom, and his kingdom is going to win. Strikeouts (Bad) The Lord’s Recovery – This idea really has no useful purpose other than to allow a subset of the Church to claim special status. Yes God is “recovering.” He’s been doing that since the fall. It’s called “salvation.” The idea that there was a wonderful purity and clarity in the early days of the Church which got corrupted and lost and now is being recovered is far from accurate. Early saints were unclear on many things most present Christians take for granted, and there was mixture from the beginning, starting with it being a mixture of Christianity and Judaism. There has been purity in pockets all down through history. The Church has gotten much clearer on the core truths of the Bible lately, but this has been happening all over and is largely a result of modern information technology. The idea that God is only working to build/recover his Church in the LC movement is beyond absurd. Trainings/FTT – Nothing wrong with educating Christians. But Lee’s “training” model is typical of the LC’s over-the-top, self-glorifying approach to anything associated with it. Kids, pressured to demonstrate they are “for the Lord,” are compelled to separate from their lives and families for weeks on end. The model is only necessary if the purpose is to bamboozle people into thinking submitting oneself to an isolating indoctrination center is crucial to God’s plan for their lives, which it isn’t. It’s only crucial to furthering the LC culture and mindset by inundating impressionable young people before they are capable of defending themselves against it. Isolationism/Exclusivity – Christians should be holy. But they should also be able to relate to other people and their culture. The LC is more concerned with their own spiritual state than being an observable testimony of anything, and so it is ironically invisible. The mindset “hide and don’t let the world corrupt us” is not Christian. Jesus lived and ministered among the people. He was out in public rubbing elbows with everyone he met. He wasn’t afraid of being corrupted by the world. Holiness is a heart matter. Truly holy people can talk to just about anybody. Only religionists turn their noses up at other people. The LC became so snobby that it turned its nose up at most of God’s own people. Impersonal Transformation – God transforms us by our getting to know him and becoming obedient to him. He doesn’t transform us by metaphysical magic. The whole “God being worked into our being” mantra is not supportable biblically or experientially. If God is being “worked” into our being, just where is that happening? If God has been worked into a believer’s soul, what happens to that “God” when the believer indulges in sinful thoughts, feelings and decisions? Where does that “God” go when he backslides? It just makes no sense. Transformation is a result of God changing our attitudes. The more we become like God the more we are easily filled. But we don’t have “more God” in our “being.” He just more easily shines through us because our soul is more aligned with his. Lee’s view of God as a “dispensed” commodity served this impersonal model, to the point that LCers tended to identify God more as a stuff than as a conscious Person who wanted to have relationships with us. Yes, God is our Light, Life, Breath, Food and Drink. But all those things are ways to describe how we experience him as a Person. Until we learn to obey him as our Lord, little transformation, little true change actually takes place in us. There is no side-stepping becoming broken and obedient, though enjoying grace does make that lesson easier. Mingling/God’s nature becoming ours/Element of God being added/God painting himself into us and all the other metaphors that Lee used for this impersonal magical process are included here. Growth in eternal life is getting to know God the Person. You can’t get it without getting to know him. That means a real, conscious relationship of two individuals. There is no other way and you wouldn’t really want there to be anyway. The fact is some long-time LCers show precious little signs of real life change. This may be because they spend too much time “eating, drinking and breathing,” and not enough time listening and obeying. Satan in our Flesh – This doctrine only exists because Lee, being overly fond of symmetry, couldn’t resist it. God gets in our spirit, so Satan must be in our body, and man is caught in-between as a soul. How perfect! Unfortunately, it’s not Biblical. Man’s fallen nature is man’s alone. Actually, Satan in our flesh corrupting our nature was just an echo of Lee’s impersonal transformation model. Man Becoming God — This is the worst of the worst. Lee not only struck out with this one, he threw the bat into the stands and killed a hot dog vendor. It’s based on rickety logic (“we have God’s life, so we must be God! Right?” Nope.), and again on Lee’s infatuation with symmetry (“God became man, so man must become God! Right?” Nope. ). Statements like “God in life and nature but not the Godhead” are absurd because if it’s not the Godhead it’s not God, period. This doctrine is downright heretical, and no good can come from telling imperfect fallen people they are “becoming God.” The LC should have dumped this blatantly bogus bit of Lee-babble a long time ago, but are saddled with it because of their unwillingness to say Lee was wrong about anything—which ironically identifies them as a fringe and suspect group in more ways than one. Conclusion The LC has always been a perplexing blend of the very good, the so-so and the very bad. Unfortunately, there is more bad than good. The good attracts people to the group and keeps them hanging around believing it is something special. The bad meanwhile damages them and their ability to love and fellowship with other Christians, and thus prevents them from fulfilling their true destiny. People need to be aware of these facts. Last edited by Cal; 01-31-2019 at 07:26 PM.

01-30-2019, 09:32 PM	#2
Weighingin Member Join Date: Aug 2018 Posts: 80	Re: Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts Thank you, Igzy! This helped me understand my conflicting feelings about the LC.

02-01-2019, 08:41 AM	#8
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,161	Re: Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts BTW. I really like your analysis of "impersonal transformation." We must each be transformed though our active participation, spoken of in Romans 8 as "walking." Not just basking in a trickle of "dispensing." __________________ Mike I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)

02-01-2019, 09:55 AM	#10
UntoHim Grateful Servant Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 2,828	Many thanks to our resident Sheep Dog! Many thanks to our resident Sheep Dog for preforming a much needed, long overdue forum face lift. Also a big thanks to Igzy and the other big dog, OBW for checking back in and assisting all of us in "Making sense of the Lord's Recovery Movement". - __________________ Now Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)

02-01-2019, 02:52 PM	#13
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,302	Re: Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts Another way to consider it is this. It's one thing to love yourself. That's what God does, in the most healthy way, and we should, too. But things reach a whole 'nother level when your self starts loving you back. That's what happened when the Son was begotten. This may sound a little narcissistic to our natural ears, but we cannot deny that God loves himself completely, unreservedly, yet in the most holy way. But he is so pure that his love for himself is expressed as love for Another. And from that, his love for all of us was born. That's how great our God is! We would not even be here if he was not like that! "Love your neighbor as yourself." Or, said another way, "Love yourself as your neighbor." So when we love our neighbors purely, in the manner God does, we are in a very real sense loving ourselves, too. Self-love which conflicts with loving others is not real love. It is fallen self-obsession. Eventually we are to have relationships with ourselves like the Father has with the Son. I think this may be, ultimately, what "finding your soul" means. Throw in billions of others experiencing the same thing and loving each other as well, and you have God's purpose, and his glory.

02-04-2019, 01:13 PM	#14
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,302	Re: Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts I wanted to add another Home Run and another Strikeout for Lee. Home Run Grace is Christ as our enjoyment and supply for our daily life -- This is very helpful fellowship. Grace is not just the general, abstract favor of God. Grace is something living and active that we can enjoy in an ongoing way and which can sufficiently supply us to take on whatever God is requiring of us in the present. "My grace is sufficient for you," the Lord said. This means that no matter what God has placed before us, we can go through it "gracefully" and to his standard by the supply of grace. There is never a reason to make provision for the flesh as long as grace is available. This was definitely a home run by Lee. Strikeout One Ministry -- The logic goes like this: Christ had one ministry. Paul's ministry was the "continuation" of that one ministry. This ministry is for the building of the church and God's eternal purpose. Lee talks more than anyone about the building of the Church and God's eternal purpose. Therefore, Lee's ministry is the one true continuation of Christ's and Paul's ministry and any "other ministry" which does not submit to and echo Lee's ministry is not the one ministry and so is invalid. Well now, that's quite a claim. Unfortunately for Lee, the Bible directly contradicts it. First Cor 12:5 plainly says there are different ministries, but the same Lord. Lee was famous for such superficially convincing, but ultimately wacky, excursions into freestyle logic. They spoil his teachings like weevils in cornmeal. It's really amazing how someone who could be so insightful could be so equally clueless. Had he submitted his teachings in humility to vetting by the Church-at-large, he likely would have spared himself much retrospective embarrassment.

02-04-2019, 07:27 PM	#15
awareness Moderator of Alternative Views Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 7,514	Re: Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts Lee was a Gnostic. He was telling secret gnosis. He called it The Recovery. He was actually recovering Gnosticism. He was following a higher God. It made him God's authority on the earth. But his church thing was a recovery of early 2nd century orthodoxy, and the development of a hierarchy of authority, with him on top. I objected. Out the door I was pushed, like heretics of old, rebelling against Gods' man on earth, thereby rebelling against God Himself. So it was framed, just like at the turn of the 1st century ... nothing new under the sun. __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to.

02-05-2019, 11:45 AM	#16
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 12,039	Re: Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts For me personally, one of Lee's home runs was teaching us to call on the name of the Lord. Many, many children of God already call on Him, but Lee brought out the riches from the scripture. His footnote on Acts 2.21 is a classic. Were it not for his many strikeouts, this teaching and practice could have benefited many believers outside the LC's. Unfortunately the biblical caveats surrounding this verse have gone unheeded in the LC's. II Timothy 2.16, 22 come to mind. Matthew 7.21-22 are also pertinent. __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

02-06-2019, 12:16 PM	#20
Truthseeker Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 79	Re: Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts Hi, Igzy! Everything you said in here is reasonable and I am with you. But one thing I want to discuss with you is Satan in flesh. I've just discovered creepy and horrible things about this fact. Do you know Yoga and seven chakras according to ancient veda? I have just discovered that through Yoga, we, all human being, have something called Kudalini goddess in us(goddess of snake). We have some kind of so called "divine energy flow" in our body or flesh from our tailbone (maybe root chakra or something) to our forehead (something so called third eye I am not sure because I am not specialist in Yoga or Hindi Veda). But one thing we can see through this stuff is that we have some kind of snake energy flowing in our flesh. This scares me so much and I start to be convinced we maybe have Satan flowing energy like snake within our flesh. What is your opinion, Igzy?

02-08-2019, 07:46 AM	#22
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,161	Re: Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts INTP Not that different. And I think that we are talking about different things here. My main complaints relate to 1. Lee's kind of Trinity/Triune — that majors on the oneness to the near removal of the Threeness, and 2. The distinct separation of the "human spirit" from the soul. On the second, when we were responding to questions about Nee's three-part man verses some years ago, I think we discovered that several of the verses that he claimed to prove the human spirit as having characteristics that are not soul or body, we found that actually most of them (maybe all) really were the same as aspects of the soul. More like an enhanced feature of the soul than some separate thing (organ?). It makes the claim that only the living and operative word can separate soul from spirit more meaningful. According to Nee, the letter of the word can do it through mere logic. Nothing "living" required. __________________ Mike I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)

02-08-2019, 11:05 AM	#24
UntoHim Grateful Servant Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 2,828	Re: Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts Since I'm kind of a baseball nut, I'll continue on with the baseball metaphor, although with a different take. Firstly, I would only consider the Scriptures themselves as a "home run". And, at the risk of being called out trying to stretch a single into a double, I would even say that only the direct words spoken by God - in the Old Testament Yahwey (Jehovah) I Am Who I Am, Elohim, Adonai (Lord), Father - in the New Testament the teachings, sayings, admonitions, warnings, declarations and prophesies of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, should all be considered as a 750ft, game winning, walk-off Grand Slam. Maybe the balance of the Scriptures, including the Gospel narration, the Acts of the apostles and the epistles of the apostles could be considered as good ole fashioned, over-the-wall home runs. (for the risk of using a metaphor to describe a metaphor, I'll just leave Revelation out of this game for now) I guess what I'm trying to say is that the teachings and commentaries of post-canonical men and women are "not even in the same ballpark" as the Holy Scriptures. And I include the writings of the earliest "Church fathers" in this category. (and you can throw in any of the post-canonical creeds, confessions and any other ecclesiastical declarations as well) So, maybe if one wants to keep up with the baseball metaphor we can simply agree that we are talking about the same game, but a completely different league Furthermore, any hit in this league is subject to review and being overturned by the Head Umpire up in the Booth. - __________________ Now Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)

02-08-2019, 11:21 AM	#25
awareness Moderator of Alternative Views Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 7,514	Re: Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts So are you saying that Lee was a trinity ... a trinity of strikeouts? __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to.

02-22-2019, 07:02 PM	#32
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,302	Re: Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts Drake doesn't know what he is talking about. Jesus could have said love your neighbor instead of yourself. But he said love your neighbor as yourself, i.e. love your neighbor in the same way you love yourself. If the love for self he was talking about was the fallen kind, that would have meant he was saying love your neighbor in a fallen way, in the same way you love yourself in a fallen way, i.e. making his every whim your top priority. Clearly this is not how Jesus wanted us to love our neighbor. So the love he is talking about for the self, which we are supposed to use as a model for how to love our neighbor, must be pure and of God. How does God view us and want us to view ourselves? As precious and good creations of his! Once you see that he wants us to see ourselves that way, we can then go on to view others that way. In some cases, it is the reverse. Sometimes we see how much God loves others and how much he wants us to love them, and then we see we can love ourselves in the same way. This is healthy, holy self love. God loves himself. We are in the image of God. If we are to be like God we must love ourselves too, not in the fallen selfish, me-first way of the world, but in the pure, holy way God loves himself. Further, you cannot truly love your neighbor if you don't love yourself. Self-loathing people are crippled when it comes to loving others. A person who likes and loves himself in a holy and healthy way is gracious and giving. He knows he is rich and has much to give. The self love the Bible condemns is the fallen, me-first kind. That is not holy self love. Holy self love sees oneself as a precious creation of God, and loves oneself the same, neither better nor worse than all the other precious creations of God. Drake endorses the errant religious model of self-loathing that is actually a form of asceticism. Nee and Lee endorsed this model, in part because they were influenced by people clueless like Drake, but also because it is easier to control Christians who you've trained to hate themselves. People who like themselves don't let presumptuous pontiffs push them around.

02-26-2019, 09:51 AM	#33
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,302	Re: Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts Witness Lee Base hit/Foul ball - The Church This one is tough to cover because no one would deny that the Church is a central and important point of God. And it can be argued that Christians for centuries did not appreciate the Church enough. Nee and Lee brought attention to the grand idea of the Church, and gave much insight into what it is on a high, deep and sometimes very practical spiritual level. But in doing so they made a grave cardinal error. By placing so much value on the Church, they made the value of this institution much more important than the value of people. Thus, people became to them a means to the end of producing the Church, and thus were made expendable and discardable, But, you might say, people are the Church. Yes, and this is the fundamental error of Lee's Church view. He saw the Church as something other that just the people. He saw it as a system, an institution, a set of principles, all of which were the value and goal we were to be dedicated to, regardless of what happened to people along the way. Eventually Lee's movement, "the Recovery," rose to equal value to Church. To LCers, "the Recovery" and the Church are pretty much the same thing. "The Recovery" is the Church they control, and no other part of the Church is really important to them. In fact, people outside of the Church are regularly dismissed and even ridiculed by them. But within "the Recovery," the movement itself and its principles are much more important than even the people in it which defend them. This is the some of the bad fruit of their error. This clearly demonstrates a lack of love for people. It is very interesting, that for all the talk of Nee, Lee and his movement about the Church, Jesus himself really didn't have much to say about it. He had only two isolated things to say about the Church: He said he would build it He said if you have a problem, take it to the Church. Now, this is quite interesting. The only times Jesus even mentioned the Church were: To show that he would take care of building it, rather than charging us to. To show that one reason the Church exists is to protect the rights of people. So the emphasis of Nee and Lee is actually quite out of sync with that of the Lord Jesus. He builds the Church, we don't. When the Bible mentions our building it says "build up each other." In other words, we are supposed to focus on the welfare of real people, not abstract institutions. If we focus on loving and caring for people, putting others first, then he will take care of the larger building work. Second, the only other time Jesus mentioned the Church was to emphasize how it exists in part to defend justice in the lives of wronged individuals. This shows how he cares for people first. He cares about "the least of these" and "the one lost sheep." And they are what the Church exists to care for as well. If we neglect a single "little one" the Lord has commissioned us to care for, in pursuit of grander goals, such as being for a movement, then we have missed it. We are clanging brass, all sizzle no steak, and perhaps even worse. And we are bound to do grave damage along the way, as "the Recovery" has. God loves people. Jesus died for people. Even the least of these. If we make being like him in that way our top goal, everything else--about the Church, the gospel, how we live and behave, what our emphasases are, what our priorities are--will move into place, and we can't go too far wrong. All of "the Recovery's" abuses are the fruit of these priorities being out of sync with the Lord's.

02-27-2019, 09:34 AM	#34
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,302	Re: Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts I would just like to reiterate this little bit of light I received about the Church. The only comment the Lord Jesus ever made about the practical Church was THAT IT EXISTS TO ENSURE JUSTICE FOR INDIVIDUALS. (Matt 18:15-17) That was it. Jesus could have a said a lot of things about the practical Church. But that was the one thing he chose to say about it. I find that quite amazing and revealing. The LR likes to talk about the practical church. But Jesus chose to emphasize that the practical church was a place where an individual can go to get justice for himself. This means two core values of any church should be (1) justice and (2) every individual. Any church should be highly offended when any person, however small, is denied justice. Does that sound like the LR? Not to me. To me it sounds like the exact opposite of the LR. The LR is a place where justice for individuals is not even on their radar of roles, even to the point that the church itself can deal unjustly with individuals and discard them.

03-11-2019, 06:28 PM	#36
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,302	Re: Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts Yep, that's right. Readers will have to decide whether they prefer the honest guy or the phony guy.

03-11-2019, 06:38 PM	#38
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,302	Re: Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts BTW, Drake, I don't really care about your claims of me being a bad Christian. Save your breath, because it has absolutely no registration with me. And until you start being honest about the real abuses of your favorite sect you have ZERO credibility with me. Gnats and camels. You defend sexual abusers and other life wreckers and then try to make hay out of my admittedly STRONG approach to you. Gnats and camels. What a joke! Anyone who can't see through that, I probably can't help anyway. So if they side with you, God help them.

03-11-2019, 07:55 PM	#43
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,302	Re: Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts There's no point in discussing anything with you, Drake. You aren't a person of good faith. You're like the boy who cried wolf. Eventually people get tired of it. I invited you to come back and debate. I hoped for the best. But you did exactly what I said you would do. You disappeared for a while then came back with the same obtuse attitude you've always had, like nothing had transpired. And then it starts again. Going round and round in circles, like a freaking broken record. Like Groundhog Day. You aren't fooling anyone anymore. You're just boring everyone. Get some therapy. Seriously, dude.

03-12-2019, 03:50 AM	#49
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,063	Re: Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts In a similar vein, I realised some years after leaving the LC that the phrase, "He who loses his soul-life will gain it" implies that one initially had a soul-life to lose. But in the LC, soul-lives were strongly discouraged. One instead got a ministry-issued persona. Members were never allowed to find "the real you", but were continually kept off-balance through trainings, conferences, and various "flows" from ministry HQ. You never got a journey. You were an extension of someone else's journey. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

03-12-2019, 10:27 PM	#65
Kevin Member Join Date: Jun 2017 Posts: 190	Re: Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts So much for the cover ups. Why don't simply acknowledge the mistakes in the pasts than pretending that they didn't happen. __________________ If there is anything that the people of our day need to realize, it is these very words of Jonah, simple yet neglected: “Salvation is of the LORD.”

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode