Poor, poor Christianity...

[Drake]

Brother Lee is criticized in this forum because he assessed that the situation in Christianity was lacking and fell short in their practices and teachings according to the Bible... what he often termed “poor, poor Christianity”. The problem is that his critics fail to acknowledge that many Christian teachers and the doctrine and practices they teach in Christianity are poor, often pitifully poor. Christianity casts a wide net and embraces the orthodox and the heretical, the fundamental and the bizarre, the lovers of Christ and and nominal Christians. For Christianity to be assessed as poor does not mean it needs to be poor 100%. The country I live in is considered to be a mess not only by outsiders but by many of its own citizens. Yet, not every one is a mess, some are trying to fix the mess. However, there is enough of a mess that it is accurate to say it is a mess. In the same manner Christianity is poor because there is enough critical mass to assess it so.

This thread is to discuss poor poor Christianity and to allow forum members to discuss whether Brother Lee’s characterization is accurate in specific instances instead of the broad brush generalizations used to criticize him for saying it.

Drake

[Drake]

This is the first and a current example of poor poor Christianity. I do not think anyone who holds orthodox views could disagree.

http://www.wnd.com/2018/04/pastor-de...-beyonce-mass/

I would call this pitifully poor. No one can defend it. Yet observe the adoring crowd!

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Lee is criticized in this forum because he assessed that the situation in Christianity was lacking and fell short in their practices and teachings according to the Bible... what he often termed “poor, poor Christianity”. The problem is that his critics fail to acknowledge that many Christian teachers and the doctrine and practices they teach in Christianity are poor, often pitifully poor.

This forum was developed to assess the situation, past and present, in the Local Church Movement (LCM) because it has fallen so short of the practices and teachings of the Bible. While many have characterized the system, especially at LSM, as a cult, I would not do that and rather describe the system as an aberrant sect full of extra-biblical teachings and practices in the form of "leaven hidden in the lump." This forum is filled with the descriptions of these errors.

What the critics of Witness Lee, the Blendeds, and the LCM do recognize is that there does remain many precious children of God there. Unfortunately they remain in a poor, often pitifully poor, system exalting the person and writings of a man, Witness Lee. They are really "Leeites" but would rather condemn the entire body of Christ than see their own degraded condition. Their condition, complete with a long history of self-preserving lawsuits, is no different than that at Corinth.

[leastofthese]

How many verses in Scripture speak to not judging your neighbor? Yet the LSM has built this as a foundation and, as such, this mentality is deeply imbedded in the LSM culture. On the contrary, how many verses speak to loving your neighbor? Hopefully leaders of these ministry “churches” can focus more on the latter, their world would so much more joyful, free, and peaceful.

The further away you get from the LSM churches and the closer you get to Christ and His Church, the more clearly you feel saddened for the spirit of confusion and chains of the LSM. I wonder if the Pharisees also talked to Jesus about “Poor, poor Christianity”?

Where is the churchofbeyoncediscussions.org? Maybe you can take this thread there.

[Ohio]

Witness Lee had a regular practice, especially in huge trainings broadcast across the world, of comparing the worst of all Christianity with the best of the LCM. Lee often did this after some young brother or sister gave a refreshing testimony. The comparison is completely bogus and self-serving.

Point one finger at others and three more are aimed in return.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

This is the first and a current example of poor poor Christianity. I do not think anyone who holds orthodox views could disagree.

http://www.wnd.com/2018/04/pastor-de...-beyonce-mass/

I would call this pitifully poor. No one can defend it. Yet observe the adoring crowd!

Drake

No one is defending this idolatry. This occurred in San Francisco, not exactly a city rich in Christian heritage. Some have likened it to Sodom and Gomorrah. I have been there and I can understand why.

But I think you are being completely disingenuous by connecting this pathetic scene to Christianity. This is right out of the WL playbook -- identifying the entire body of Christ (outside the LCM) with the most despicable of things. It's called mudslinging, and it's pathetic, and I lived with it for 30 years in the LCM.

If you want to establish a little credibility on this forum, you might want to "consider your ways."

[countmeworthy]

It is known that when a person or people put other people down, they are puffing themselves up.

Lee and Nee may have exposed the dead works of the Christian religion and denominations but Lee especially boasted they were not in poor, poor, Christianity. He loved putting Christianity down. I get it. I know the denominations all came out of the RCC..and it was never God's plan we meet in 'church buildings'. Jesus as a Jew did preach to the Jews in the synagogue but most of the time He preached and taught by the wayside, in people's homes, by the mountainside, in the streets, by the seashore. The saints in Acts gathered in the upper room once or twice but most of the time they were meeting in homes, in the streets etc.

We are instructed to build up the body of Christ, that includes those true believers not in the LSM. But Lee built up his denomination, his 'kingdom'.

Remember what happened to Ephesus.. The angel said:

I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, you have left your first love.

The crusades supposedly believed the RCC was the 'one true church'.. and thus they began criticizing, then persecuting and then murdering Jews and Gentile who would not convert to their 'church'.

The Love for Jesus, for the Body of Christ has been replaced with the love for Lee's teachings. Anyone following a different ministry aside from Lee, is looked down upon. Shoots, an LSMr is not allowed to get revelation from the Holy Spirit. They have to go to the footnotes and Lee's books for understanding. And guess what? Lee did not have everything right! So when a person is shown a revelation of what the scriptures say through the Holy Spirit, that is not in alignment with Lee's views, it is not received.

(For the record, not every 'revelation' is from God, the Holy Spirit. So I am careful to say that a person sometimes thinks they are getting insight and revelation from God in the scriptures when they are not always. They read the scriptures to fit their thinking, their desires.)

One reason I left the LC is because it was no longer 'CHRIST and the church'.. It became Lee and the church, Lee and the LSM..

The Presence of God, the Anointing of the Holy Spirit left my locality around 1977.

That said, many, many true believers have been leaving the man made 'church'. Much of the 'church' at large has become apostate. There is no meat, no anointing, no Life, no LOVE, no real fellowship. The Blood of Jesus is just a dead doctrine.

So people are leaving in droves. They are meeting in homes, fellowshipping on the phone, through email and wherever the Holy Spirit leads them. (of course, many are so discouraged and disillusioned by the dead works in the 'church' they are going back into the world, forsaking their faith in Christ..if they had it to begin with. Maybe they were simply church goers but never were filled with the Word of God, Jesus and His Holy Spirit.)

But many are studying the Word of God on their own through the insight and revelation of the Holy Spirit. The letter kills but the Spirit gives Life.

not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; 6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the Spirit: for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. Corinthians 3:-6

Btw, as a reminder.. the NT really begins with the death of Jesus.

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Hebrews 9:16-17

Thus we are only able ministers of the NT because of the shed Blood of Jesus in our lives. His Precious Blood purges our consciences from dead works to serve the Living God.

Peace to all in Christ Jesus

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

How many verses in Scripture speak to not judging your neighbor? Yet the LSM has built this as a foundation and, as such, this mentality is deeply imbedded in the LSM culture. On the contrary, how many verses speak to loving your neighbor? Hopefully leaders of these ministry “churches” can focus more on the latter, their world would so much more joyful, free, and peaceful.

The further away you get from the LSM churches and the closer you get to Christ and His Church, the more clearly you feel saddened for the spirit of confusion and chains of the LSM. I wonder if the Pharisees also talked to Jesus about “Poor, poor Christianity”?

Where is the churchofbeyoncediscussions.org? Maybe you can take this thread there.

LofT,

Not sure where you land on this one. It is clearly idolatry.

The Episcopal church has been on a slide for awhile. Two years ago the Anglican church suspended association for similar reasons.

https://goodnewsmag.org/2016/01/angl...ch-in-the-u-s/

Is this a case of poor poor Christianity? I believe so.

Drake

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

LofT,

Not sure where you land on this one. It is clearly idolatry.

The Episcopal church has been on a slide for awhile. Two years ago the Anglican church suspended association for similar reasons.

https://goodnewsmag.org/2016/01/angl...ch-in-the-u-s/

Is this a case of poor poor Christianity? I believe so.

Drake

Hey man, if you’re called to go out to the ends of the earth proclaiming examples of poor, poor, Christianity - I’m not going to stop you. But I won’t be a part of it. I’m sure we could spend all year coming up with new links.

Originally Posted by Drake

This is the first and a current example of poor poor Christianity. I do not think anyone who holds orthodox views could disagree.

http://www.wnd.com/2018/04/pastor-de...-beyonce-mass/

I would call this pitifully poor. No one can defend it. Yet observe the adoring crowd!

Drake

First I think you would have trouble calling this idolatry because Beyonce is only compared to another woman, and the pastor directly said they weren't worshipping her. It was a sermon about gender in the Bible and they used contemporary music, I don't think you can substantiate that as terrible.

Also the comments are the opposite of adoring.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Hey man, if you’re called to go out to the ends of the earth proclaiming examples of poor, poor, Christianity - I’m not going to stop you. But I won’t be a part of it. I’m sure we could spend all year coming up with new links.

LofT,

Ends of the earth? No brother, just here in this forum where Brother Lee is criticized for saying it.

Are Christians to be indifferent about these matters? I don’t believe so. Is the Lord Himself indifferent?

Drake

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drake

LofT,

Ends of the earth? No brother, just here in this forum where Brother Lee is criticized for saying it.

Are Christians to be indifferent about these matters? I don’t believe so. Is the Lord Himself indifferent?

Drake

Poor, poor Witness Lee and his cohorts for they think they are rich and lack of nothing.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Poor, poor Witness Lee and his cohorts for they think they are rich and lack of nothing.

I don t think that.... at all.

Would not even bring these up except Brother Lee is criticized for it.

What do you think about that Beyoncé worship?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

I don t think that.... at all.

Would not even bring these up except Brother Lee is criticized for it.

What do you think about that Beyoncé worship?

Drake

Understanding you and the nature of this forum, there are two reasons why you would bring up this ridiculous Beyonce worship:

1. You secretly admire Beyonce, and desire to bring the rest of the forum members into your lust for her Jezebel idolatry
2. You desire to distract our attention from your life long exaltation of Witness Lee, his life, and his teachings

Now which is it? We need to know! You know what to do. Tell us right now.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Understanding you and the nature of this forum, there are two reasons why you would bring up this ridiculous Beyonce worship:

1. You secretly admire Beyonce, and desire to bring the rest of the forum members into your lust for her Jezebel idolatry
2. You desire to distract our attention from your life long exaltation of Witness Lee, his life, and his teachings

Now which is it? We need to know! You know what to do. Tell us right now.

There it is again.... button pushing.....

.....toxic.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Drake

Christianity casts a wide net and embraces the orthodox and the heretical, the fundamental and the bizarre, the lovers of Christ and and nominal Christians.

It is not fair to say that Christianity embraces the heretical. That's a contradiction in terms. A religion cannot embrace heretical doctrine. It might be possible for "Christianity" in the popular sense, which is perhaps the sense in which he meant it, but this is not the case in the theological sense. It would be like Trinitarians embracing modalism, or squares embracing triangles.

The problem is not so much a case of imperfection. I don't think anyone today or going back to the disciples will claim that the Church is perfect or that Christians are perfect. Paul saying "Wretched man that I am" comes to mind here.

The problem comes when one person claims to have THE PERFECT answer, and tries to distinguish himself from "Christianity". That is dangerous and borderline cultic.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

There it is again.... button pushing.....

.....toxic.

No it's you who are TOXIC. You started this contemptuous thread.

You used one idolatrous and obnoxious event in SanFran to characterize all of Christianity -- the entire body of Christ -- as "Poor, Poor, Christianity."

Talk about a snobby, self-righteous -- priggish -- know-it-all characterization of Christians! Take a look in the mirror friend.

Who are you to categorically condemn the entire body of Christ, all professing Christians, aka the body of Christ, the house of God, the temple of the Holy Spirit?

But you take license from W. Lee. He did it regularly, in fact he built his ministry -- a ministry of condemnation -- on his regular diatribes of "poor, poor Christianity."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

This is the first and a current example of poor poor Christianity. I do not think anyone who holds orthodox views could disagree.

http://www.wnd.com/2018/04/pastor-de...-beyonce-mass/

I would call this pitifully poor. No one can defend it. Yet observe the adoring crowd!

Drake

That's right, preach it. Even though some are obviously blinded to the mass degradation, those of us who came out of her see clearer.

Even though including Beyonce is sacrilegious, it gets worse, in my opinion and touches on spiritual matters beyond the outward signs of degradation such as gay marriage and female ordination.

There is also multi-faith meetings, meditation sessions, clergy members who also function as psychics, and free masonry is rife. Basically it is spiritualism and deism not Christianity.

[Evangelical]

A number of things jump out of this interesting article about Beyonce in worship.

The article mentions that the service was about the social philosophy of the pop star:

More than 900 people came to the celebration of the “traditional” service using the music and social philosophy of the pop star

After digging around on Google I found that the social philosophy of Beyonce is to "do whatever she wants to do".

This is validated by the Priest's statement:

"“I believe in Beyoncé because she reminds us you have to do things your way.”

That's right Priest, do what you want to do, maybe next time a bit of "I did it my way" Sinatra.


“I know there are people who will say using Beyoncé is just a cheap way of trying to get people in the church,”

Sure seems like it:

"More than 900 people came to the celebration of the “traditional” service using the music and social philosophy of the pop star. Normal evening services draw about 50."


"“When we talk about womanist biblical interpretation, Beyoncé felt like a natural fit" - there's that old feminist agenda again, interpreting the bible based on what's between one's legs.


“I’ve been asked time and time again, ‘Why Beyoncé?'” Norton told parishioners, “I believe in Beyoncé because she reminds us you have to do things your way.” - so not God's way? interesting.


“Our goal is to have a worship experience that honors the fact that we’re all created in the image of God.”

"worship experience" - entertain the masses, give em something they won't forget, get them coming back for more (900 - 50 = 850 new church members to retain)

"that honors the fact that we’re all created in the image of God." - so Beyonce is the image of God?

Here she is, looking a lot like the goddess of the sun, or is it Oh Mother Mary, is that you? In Asia, if someone dresses like that and stands on a mountain, 100,000 Catholics and buddhists will come to worship.

[Ohio]

It's shameful even to think about how obsessed you and Drake are with Beyonce worship. You brothers should rise up out of the gutter and do something useful.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

LofT,

Ends of the earth? No brother, just here in this forum where Brother Lee is criticized for saying it.

Are Christians to be indifferent about these matters? I don’t believe so. Is the Lord Himself indifferent?

Drake

I think we are coming from two very different places Drake, based on your questions we're not on the same page or you're intentionally trying to manipulate the conversation. I'll assume the prior.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's shameful even to think about how obsessed you and Drake are with Beyonce worship. You brothers should rise up out of the gutter and do something useful.

This is serious. Adele called her Jesus Christ and worships her:

“How is it even possible that she only ever gets better? How is that possible? She is Jesus **** Christ,” Adele said.

Matt 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/a...monade-163497/

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No it's you who are TOXIC. You started this contemptuous thread.

You used one idolatrous and obnoxious event in SanFran to characterize all of Christianity -- the entire body of Christ -- as "Poor, Poor, Christianity."

Talk about a snobby, self-righteous -- priggish -- know-it-all characterization of Christians! Take a look in the mirror friend.

Who are you to categorically condemn the entire body of Christ, all professing Christians, aka the body of Christ, the house of God, the temple of the Holy Spirit?

But you take license from W. Lee. He did it regularly, in fact he built his ministry -- a ministry of condemnation -- on his regular diatribes of "poor, poor Christianity."

Toxic. Button pushing.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's right, preach it. Even though some are obviously blinded to the mass degradation, those of us who came out of her see clearer.

Even though including Beyonce is sacrilegious, it gets worse, in my opinion and touches on spiritual matters beyond the outward signs of degradation such as gay marriage and female ordination.

There is also multi-faith meetings, meditation sessions, clergy members who also function as psychics, and free masonry is rife. Basically it is spiritualism and deism not Christianity.

It is really sad.

The hatred for Brother Lee is evident by the responses to this thread. Rather than acknowledge the awful setting up of Beyoncé in the worship, something that is only reserved for the Lord, detractors are making excuses for it! Instead attacking Brother Lee for rightly calling such stuff poor poor Christianity.

Even the Anglican Church refused to tolerate it any longer.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is serious. Adele called her Jesus Christ and worships her:

“How is it even possible that she only ever gets better? How is that possible? She is Jesus **** Christ,” Adele said.

Matt 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/a...monade-163497/

It is so clear. No Christian should make excuses for this.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

It is not fair to say that Christianity embraces the heretical. That's a contradiction in terms. A religion cannot embrace heretical doctrine. It might be possible for "Christianity" in the popular sense, which is perhaps the sense in which he meant it, but this is not the case in the theological sense. It would be like Trinitarians embracing modalism, or squares embracing triangles.

The problem is not so much a case of imperfection. I don't think anyone today or going back to the disciples will claim that the Church is perfect or that Christians are perfect. Paul saying "Wretched man that I am" comes to mind here.

The problem comes when one person claims to have THE PERFECT answer, and tries to distinguish himself from "Christianity". That is dangerous and borderline cultic.

DistantStar,

I believe that it is generally accepted that Christianity encompasses a broad set of Christian groups. But I’ll go along with your train of thought as pertains to this thread because when Brother Lee characterized poor poor Christianity I do not think he really had heretical groups in mind. However, I never considered the Episcopalians being heretical. Did you?

Drake

[Trapped]

Hi Drake,

I think this is a worthy thread topic.

However, the article you provided as a talking point was clearly only written to begin with because it reports on an extreme, abnormal, and repulsive event that is not representative of Christianity. If this kind of situation were at all prevalent in Christianity, it would not be considered “newsworthy” and there would be no article to begin with.

Internet comment sections underneath news articles these days are generally a collection of anti-God sentiments, but even the comments in this article are those of disgust, revile, and sadness. Those in Christianity (poor and otherwise) want nothing to do with this type of gathering, except the severely misguided particular group of attendants (whose number does not even equal 1% of Christians in the U.S. – I am not speaking of Episcopalians in sum, just those attending the event described in the article) who are from, as Ohio pointed out, San Francisco……

Do you have another example you could provide that is more representative of mainstream Christianity?

Trapped

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Hi Drake,

I think this is a worthy thread topic.

However, the article you provided as a talking point was clearly only written to begin with because it reports on an extreme, abnormal, and repulsive event that is not representative of Christianity. If this kind of situation were at all prevalent in Christianity, it would not be considered “newsworthy” and there would be no article to begin with.

Internet comment sections underneath news articles these days are generally a collection of anti-God sentiments, but even the comments in this article are those of disgust, revile, and sadness. Those in Christianity (poor and otherwise) want nothing to do with this type of gathering, except the severely misguided particular group of attendants (whose number does not even equal 1% of Christians in the U.S. – I am not speaking of Episcopalians in sum, just those attending the event described in the article) who are from, as Ohio pointed out, San Francisco……

Do you have another example you could provide that is more representative of mainstream Christianity?

Trapped

Hi Trapped,

The second link (Anglican) is another example not related directly to the first (Beyoncé )article.

Thanks
Drake

[UntoHim]

So Drake, Do you hate Anglicans or Episcopalians?
-

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So Drake, Do you hate Anglicans or Episcopalians?
-

UntoHim,

No.

But if I did hate someone I would probably rail against them openly. You would definitely know it because I would use derogatory terms like “snobby, priggish, “etc. I would reacte to them with personal insults. Hate is a powerful emotion that drives people to do and say things that leaves civility behind.

Stuff like that.

I can’t imagine hate driving me to the extent that I would accuse the object of my hate of saying things he didn’t. But apparently some people cast off all restraint and express hate even to that extent. I’ve seen this and then they justify that hatred by wrapping it in scripture. It is incompatible with being a Christian so something has to be done to cover it up.

Why do you ask?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

UntoHim,

No.

But if I did hate someone I would probably rail against them openly.

You would definitely know it because I would use derogatory terms like “snobby, priggish, “etc. I would reacte to them with personal insults. Hate is a powerful emotion that drives people to do and say things that leaves civility behind.

Stuff like that.

I can’t imagine hate driving me to the extent that I would accuse the object of my hate of saying things he didn’t. But apparently some people cast off all restraint and express hate even to that extent. I’ve seen this and then they justify that hatred by wrapping it in scripture. It is incompatible with being a Christian so something has to be done to cover it up.

Why do you ask?

Drake

You and LSM have been railing openly against all Christianity for decades.

Why limit your hatred to just the Episcopalians?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You and LSM have been railing openly against all Christianity for decades.

Why limit your hatred to just the Episcopalians?

UntoHim,

There is what I mean.

Good example of accusing someone of saying something that they didn’t.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

UntoHim,

There is what I mean.

Good example of accusing someone of saying something that they didn’t.

Drake

Did you not start this thread lambasting all of Christianity using some pathetic event in SanFran to characterize the entire body of Christ? Then Evangelical chimed in unison. Did you not bear false witness against all of your brothers when you opened this post?

Or am I mistaken? Are there two ducks in the house?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi Trapped,

The second link (Anglican) is another example not related directly to the first (Beyoncé) article.

Thanks
Drake

Hi Drake,

Thanks for pointing that second link out; I missed it the first time around.

It is so interesting to me how different people can read the same thing and come to completely different conclusions. Upon reading it my immediate response was that that article is a great example of Christianity not being poor. I'm not saying that Christianity is 100% healthy without any problems. All I mean here is this seems to be a positive example of Christianity.

Even a healthy human body produces cancer cells. What determines whether the body remains healthy or degrades into a poor condition is whether or not it takes steps to eliminate those cancer cells and keep them from spreading. This article is an example of Christianity having a healthy immune system (or "having a Biblical backbone" as one of the comments said) and recognizing some cancerous non-Biblical actions within itself and taking the steps to help ensure that the cancer cells do not spread. It seems to me that is a healthy thing.

Could you explain what about you felt about the article that supports a poor Christianity viewpoint? Is it that Christianity had to suspend some from within? That happens in the recovery too. Is it that it led to a rift or a division? That also happens in the local churches. At the end of the article the author even states (of the aberrant group) that " It is also likely to become a more isolated and much smaller denomination as well", indicating that this is not representative of Christianity as a whole.

Do you have another example you could provide for discussion?

Trapped

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Drake

I believe that it is generally accepted that Christianity encompasses a broad set of Christian groups. But I’ll go along with your train of thought as pertains to this thread because when Brother Lee characterized poor poor Christianity I do not think he really had heretical groups in mind. However, I never considered the Episcopalians being heretical. Did you?

Perhaps he didn't, but the quote I quoted said that Christianity embraces heresy. That's just nonsensical. Embracing a number of denominations is not the same as embracing heresy. To know what is heresy, you first have to know what is core doctrine. None of the denominations explicitly deny any of these. And as I said, if they do then they are not "Christian denominations" but heretical groups. This is not a "true scotsman" thing. It is simply not Christian, despite what they claim.

But whether Lee had heretical groups in mind, I'll leave you with this:

It is not a matter of the doctrine of the Trinity or of the teaching concerning the local church. It is absolutely a matter of Babylon. To call a pastor “reverend”—that is Babylonian. To set up a Christmas tree and to honor Santa Claus— that is Babylonian. To call yourself by a denominational name, such as Lutheran, Methodist, or Episcopalian—that is Babylonian. All denominational names are Babylonian factors of division and confusion. When Christians see the destruction of the great prostitute at the hands of Antichrist, they will be convinced about the church. Then they will see what the church is and where the church is. They will realize that the church has nothing to do with anything Babylonian. Any group that still practices Babylonian things or holds them is not the pure church.

Isn't he basically saying that all of Christianity (all except the LC of course) is not the "pure Church" and Babylonian. Actually he proves my point. He said "the church has nothing to do with anything Babylonian". He, too, understood that the Church simply cannot contain the heretical and (in his view) the denominations, being Babylon, simply isn't the Church. The problem is with him considering the denominations not part of the true church and thus heretical.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Poor, poor Witness Lee and his cohorts for they think they are rich and lack of nothing.

Originally Posted by Drake

I don't think that .... at all. Would not even bring these up except Brother Lee is criticized for it.

What do you think about that Beyoncé worship? -- Drake

Here we get to the heart of the problem -- Witness Lee did it, so Drake is fully justified in his own mind to do the same.

My contention is that those with LSM who have been trained by WL over the years have a damaged conscience regarding other Christians. It is very similar to a parent teaching his children that racism is right, hence young children grow up believing that Blacks, Jews, or in my case Pollocks, etc. are inferior people.

Drake has no problem condemning and denigrating all of Christianity, the entire body of Christ outside the LCM, for the sole reason that WL taught him too. We see the same attitudes in Evangelical and all other LSM supporters who grace this forum. And let me be painfully honest here -- I, Ohio, once held these same attitudes towards Christianity -- until I left the system and got to know other Christians. It was part of my detox program as a recovering judgaholic.

Let me make this real plain: Witness Lee trained us wrongly. Witness Lee was a bad pattern to the church. Witness Lee's attitudes towards other Christians was pathetic, and needs to be exposed. He taught us that he was better, that he was the best, that no other minister could compare to him. He taught us that all others were worse, were degraded, pitiful, hopeless, "poor poor Christianity."

Just like Drake did when he titled this thread.

Witness Lee would find the most salacious of stories to characterize the rest of the body of Christ. He would constantly compare his best to their worst. (But don't say a word about his sons Philip and Timothy and what he did to other men of God who spoke up against their sins.)

Just like how Drake picked up on this Beyonce story to once again condemn "poor, poor ..."

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So Drake, Do you hate Anglicans or Episcopalians?
-

Originally Posted by Drake

No.
But if I did hate someone I would probably rail against them openly. You would definitely know it because I would use derogatory terms like “snobby, priggish, “etc. I would reacte to them with personal insults. Hate is a powerful emotion that drives people to do and say things that leaves civility behind.

Just a "No" would have sufficed. Frankly, the rest of your answer sounds more like O.J. Simpson's "If I Did It" than a simple, honest answer. Of course my inquiring was not totally innocent. I had a suspicion it would prick your conscience, and force you to play defense on your on your own "attack Christianity" thread. Easy pickins...shootin fish in a barrel.

Your original thesis in the OP is so faulty and full of holes that it's hard to know where to begin. In fact, you actually found a way to debunk your own claim while making the claim itself! I mean, who painted with a broader brush than Witness Lee? Whose critiques were any more misinformed and decidedly ignorant than Brother LǐChángshòu? And the red letter example of his sheer lack of awareness and stark unenlightenment is his infamous declaration "poor, poor Christianity". And to be sure, Lee NEVER, EVER made the kind of distinctions that our friend Drake is trying to make us swallow here. The context of Witness's claims were always thrown out with the widest net one could possible imagine. Any claim to the contrary is just self-serving revisionist history.
-

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Lee is criticized in this forum because he assessed that the situation in Christianity was lacking and fell short in their practices and teachings according to the Bible... what he often termed “poor, poor Christianity”.

I see two related issues. First, address the assertion "Christianity is lacking", and second, if Christianity is "too poor", as I remember WL putting it, is his ministry somehow exempt? Or is it also too poor? Maybe even the worst?

1. We can always find a Westboro Baptist Church or Church of Beyonce to castigate, but are these representative of the greater mass, or not? How to objectively assess Christanity?

My own way has been to go back in time. In the 4th century with the so-called 'robber council' at Chalcedon I see a Christianity that had wholly and completely lost it's way, and in no wise collectively represented the gospel message of Peter, James, Paul, and John.

Bitter in-fighting over meanings of Greek words that today, if you ask the particulars (EOC and OOC), they just collectively shrug and say, its complicated.

And it got worse. In some ways there has been a struggle to revive the gospel, but overall it is a mess. To put it simply, yes it is lacking.

2. Is there really a "rich ministry of Witness Lee" (yes that's the term they use) or is it also impoverished? I would say, impoverished. The local churches affiliated with the LSM are a spiritual gulag archipelago, a string of impoverished assemblies where believers are afraid to think or listen for the Shepherd's voice. If Witness Lee didn't say it, it doesn't exist. And if he did, that's supposedly God's oracle.

It is a wasteland, barely Christian.

Somehow Watchman Nee was able to read 3,000 Christian classics, so-called, but today they as Nee's heirs advise to only read one publication? What a farce. What if some elders in an LSM-affiliated local church decided to preach on Sunday morning from some other ministry? Or - gasp - just from the Bible? How long do you think it would take for Anaheim to hear? Two hours? Four?

And I'm not addressing the practices, merely the teachings - One Publication Policy shows how thoroughly Babylonian in thinking this group is. The practices are exponentially worse. Not even "barely Christian", but rather "the way of the nations". Matt 20:25, Lording over one another. Shameful.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did you not start this thread lambasting all of Christianity using some pathetic event in SanFran to characterize the entire body of Christ? Then Evangelical chimed in unison. Did you not bear false witness against all of your brothers when you opened this post?

Or am I mistaken? Are there two ducks in the house?

"hate the sin, love the sinner"

In the OP Drake already clarified that he did not mean the whole of Christianity is poor. So he is not "characterizing the entire body of Christ" and not speaking about "all of your brothers". For example, I don't believe Drake had anyone on this forum in mind, probably there are no Bey worshippers here.

But are you a secret Bey worshipper Ohio? Is that why you feel Drake is condemning you when he condemns Beyonce worship? Are you humming the tune of Halo "I can feel your halo (halo) halo .. "when you read the Bible?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"hate the sin, love the sinner"

Physician heal thyself.

This is merely an empty, feel good saying in the LCM.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Hi Drake,

Thanks for pointing that second link out; I missed it the first time around.

It is so interesting to me how different people can read the same thing and come to completely different conclusions. Upon reading it my immediate response was that that article is a great example of Christianity not being poor. I'm not saying that Christianity is 100% healthy without any problems. All I mean here is this seems to be a positive example of Christianity.

Even a healthy human body produces cancer cells. What determines whether the body remains healthy or degrades into a poor condition is whether or not it takes steps to eliminate those cancer cells and keep them from spreading. This article is an example of Christianity having a healthy immune system (or "having a Biblical backbone" as one of the comments said) and recognizing some cancerous non-Biblical actions within itself and taking the steps to help ensure that the cancer cells do not spread. It seems to me that is a healthy thing.

Could you explain what about you felt about the article that supports a poor Christianity viewpoint? Is it that Christianity had to suspend some from within? That happens in the recovery too. Is it that it led to a rift or a division? That also happens in the local churches. At the end of the article the author even states (of the aberrant group) that " It is also likely to become a more isolated and much smaller denomination as well", indicating that this is not representative of Christianity as a whole.

Do you have another example you could provide for discussion?

Trapped

Hi Trapped,

I wasn’t criticizing the Anglican Church for taking action. I was pointing out that for different reasons even they could not tolerate the Episcopal Church beliefs and practices (not related to the Beyoncé worship issue)

Drake

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drake

I don t think that.... at all.

Even you don't think that it is, but it is what many saints thought here! You and Evangelical are not on the same thinking from the rest of the majority. I have witnessed here such gross attitude.

[byHismercy]

Rom 3:10
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one...

But we expect to look around us at the whole lot of believers....and find collective righteousness? No. He calls us to speak of the good. The hope. Our hope is only and entirely in Christ Jesus. I must be the first to admit that I was saved by grace alone, let there be no doubt, it was not on my merit, but Jesus'.

The Holy Spirit is searching the hearts of man....and we have our advocate Jesus before the Father....And He will be the One to testify of our faith in Him to our Father...and He loves us and died so that we might be forgiven our foolish, selfish, sinfulness...and I know any person who touches Jesus will touch the light, and when confessing, touch real grace. Let us let them.

[aron]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Our hope is only and entirely in Christ Jesus. .

Amen to that. The gospel is about Jesus Christ. Paul said, "We do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus". . .contrast that to those who speak of the church, the ground, the ministry, the vision of the age &c.

I can prove that LC is brain-dead because when they sing hymns from poor, poor Christianity suddenly it is their "goodly heritage".

I can prove that WL teaching is crude and amateurish by pointing to RecV footnotes on Psalms. The best a WL advocate on this forum can do is reply, perhaps it is so. To which I say, perhaps it is not so, and note that in captive LSM assemblies no one ever is allowed to say that perhaps it is not as WL taught.

I can prove that LSM is blatantly self-serving by noting that the One Publication Policy came from a publishing house. Church leaders are employees of the publishing house, which sells ministry materials to church members! Conflict of interest, much?

The LC is a poster child for poor, poor Christianity.

[leastofthese]

Aron- during your time in the LSM churches, you heard many denigrate Christianity. Did you ever hear anyone state a single thing WL said or did that was in error? If so, what was it?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Even you don't think that it is, but it is what many saints thought here! You and Evangelical are not on the same thinking from the rest of the majority. I have witnessed here such gross attitude.

Ok, but what do you think of the Beyonce worship?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Amen to that. The gospel is about Jesus Christ. Paul said, "We do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus". . .contrast that to those who speak of the church, the ground, the ministry, the vision of the age &c.

I can prove that LC is brain-dead because when they sing hymns from poor, poor Christianity suddenly it is their "goodly heritage".

I can prove that WL teaching is crude and amateurish by pointing to RecV footnotes on Psalms. The best a WL advocate on this forum can do is reply, perhaps it is so. To which I say, perhaps it is not so, and note that in captive LSM assemblies no one ever is allowed to say that perhaps it is not as WL taught.

I can prove that LSM is blatantly self-serving by noting that the One Publication Policy came from a publishing house. Church leaders are employees of the publishing house, which sells ministry materials to church members! Conflict of interest, much?

The LC is a poster child for poor, poor Christianity.

Like my mother would say, "this stinks to high heaven!"

And we have numerous witnesses over the years who have spoken of the immoral abuses and filthy-lucre money-grabs which have regularly occurred behind closed doors in the upper echelons of LSM.

But what caused LSM to lose all credibility was Witness Lee's own criminal actions to destroy the reputations of John Ingalls et.al. for the simple "crime" of coming to the aid of hurting victims.

Poor, poor LSM.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Lee is criticized in this forum because he assessed that the situation in Christianity was lacking and fell short in their practices and teachings according to the Bible... what he often termed “poor, poor Christianity”. The problem is that his critics fail to acknowledge that many Christian teachers and the doctrine and practices they teach in Christianity are poor, often pitifully poor. Christianity casts a wide net and embraces the orthodox and the heretical, the fundamental and the bizarre, the lovers of Christ and and nominal Christians. For Christianity to be assessed as poor does not mean it needs to be poor 100%. The country I live in is considered to be a mess not only by outsiders but by many of its own citizens. Yet, not every one is a mess, some are trying to fix the mess. However, there is enough of a mess that it is accurate to say it is a mess. In the same manner Christianity is poor because there is enough critical mass to assess it so.

This thread is to discuss poor poor Christianity and to allow forum members to discuss whether Brother Lee’s characterization is accurate in specific instances instead of the broad brush generalizations used to criticize him for saying it.

Drake

1. I wanted to respond quicker but I was reluctant knowing the meekness and gentleness of Christ.

2. It appears the question is “are they walking in the flesh”? But it seems to me that if you aren’t warring according to the flesh you wouldn’t be comparing yourself with those that walk in the flesh and commending yourself and measuring yourself with them.

3. I don’t want to glory beyond my measure. What I am in the Lord I am and the fact that others may walk according to the flesh does not in any way change what God has apportioned to me.

4. I don’t even understand the premise, we glory in the Lord. It seems the whole premise of this thread is “thank God I am not like those Christians”.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"hate the sin, love the sinner"

In the OP Drake already clarified that he did not mean the whole of Christianity is poor. So he is not "characterizing the entire body of Christ" and not speaking about "all of your brothers". For example, I don't believe Drake had anyone on this forum in mind, probably there are no Bey worshippers here.

Thankfully no one thus far is proposing Bey worship! Most of the entries in this thread are reasoned and offering differing views without misunderstanding or purposefully misrepresenting the OP. Such are examples of civil discourse where people with different perspectives can disagree agreeably ....even vigorously. Those are generally accepted conditions for participating in discussions face to face or online.

That is how it should be.

It becomes toxic when vigor leads to misrepresentation of others views with whom you disagree as in the case of the post you cited above. The OP expressed my belief but the poster restates my belief to match one he wants to debate. Rather than disagree with the OP on its merits he prefers to create a version of it that he is comfortable debating against and hopes he can thereby win the argument if only in his own mind. That is a proverbial straw man argument.

“A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.” Wikipedia

Drake

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok, but what do you think of the Beyonce worship?

Does it represent true Christianity?

One more thing, that Lee has created more strawman.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

4. I don’t even understand the premise, we glory in the Lord. It seems the whole premise of this thread is “thank God I am not like those Christians”.

A fair question and post ZNP.

I’ll clarify. The premise of this thread is to address the objections that people in this forum have toward the phrase Brother Lee made “poor poor Christianity “. I contend he had grounds for it.

We do glory in the Lord and put our trust in Him. Yet, when people lambast Brother Lee, his co-workers, and that little flock day after day in this forum is that their glorying in the Lord?

DistantStar said we should not include heretical groups under the banner of Christianity. Although, it is generally accepted that Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, and other heretical Christian groups are included in Christianity I agree to set aside those groups as part of the poor poor Christianity debate. I believe we would all agree that if those heretical groups were included almost all or perhaps all would agree in principle that at least those groups characterize poor poor Christianity. Therefore, the links I provided are not about a heretical group but about a group that is historically accepted under the banner of Christianity. That is Episcopalian. Since they are a bonafide member of Christianity then the first proof point for poor poor Christianity is established but I will also concede that in reality we have only proven thus far poor poor Episcopalianism.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Does it represent true Christianity?.

The Episcopal Church is a member of Christianity. So yes, but it obviously does not represent every other group in Christianity. None of them do.

No, if by true Christianity you mean according to the Bible.

See my note to ZNP in front of this one.

Drake

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drake

The Episcopal Church is a member of Christianity. So yes, but it obviously does not represent every other group in Christianity. None of them do.

No, if by true Christianity you mean according to the Bible.

See my note to ZNP in front of this one.

Drake

Nothing new under the sun.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Rom 3:10
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one...

But we expect to look around us at the whole lot of believers....and find collective righteousness? No. He calls us to speak of the good. The hope. Our hope is only and entirely in Christ Jesus. I must be the first to admit that I was saved by grace alone, let there be no doubt, it was not on my merit, but Jesus'.

The Holy Spirit is searching the hearts of man....and we have our advocate Jesus before the Father....And He will be the One to testify of our faith in Him to our Father...and He loves us and died so that we might be forgiven our foolish, selfish, sinfulness...and I know any person who touches Jesus will touch the light, and when confessing, touch real grace. Let us let them.

InHismercy,

I agree.

Yet, there is more. Here is what I mean.

In Revelation 2 & 3 we see the Lord judging churches.... a collective judgment. He is judging, assessing, condemning, and in a few cases he is commending. He is assessing their teachings, their works, and their love for Him, and their sacrifice. He commends those who hate what He hates.

“But this you have, that you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate”. Rev 2:3

That is the collective part. However, you are spot on about the individual aspect and our taking care of that first and foremost. Again, in Revelation 2 & 3 the Lord calls individuals, overcomers, to overcome the degradation in the collective part. I would characterize what you described as a heart to overcome. Said differently, the Lord will reward each individual according to their overcoming the degradation of the context, the collective, they are part of.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

A fair question and post ZNP.

I’ll clarify. The premise of this thread is to address the objections that people in this forum have toward the phrase Brother Lee made “poor poor Christianity “. I contend he had grounds for it.

We do glory in the Lord and put our trust in Him. Yet, when people lambast Brother Lee, his co-workers, and that little flock day after day in this forum is that their glorying in the Lord?

DistantStar said we should not include heretical groups under the banner of Christianity. Although, it is generally accepted that Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, and other heretical Christian groups are included in Christianity I agree to set aside those groups as part of the poor poor Christianity debate. I believe we would all agree that if those heretical groups were included almost all or perhaps all would agree in principle that at least those groups characterize poor poor Christianity. Therefore, the links I provided are not about a heretical group but about a group that is historically accepted under the banner of Christianity. That is Episcopalian. Since they are a bonafide member of Christianity then the first proof point for poor poor Christianity is established but I will also concede that in reality we have only proven thus far poor poor Episcopalianism.

Drake

Bro Drake, perhaps all of Christendom, including the JWs and Mormons, would glory in the Lord accept for :

Rom_7:23* But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

We're all human. And that's Christendom's failure ... including the sect of Nee and Lee.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It seems the whole premise of this thread is “thank God I am not like those Christians”.

Reminds me of that prayer in the temple by that Pharisee. (Luke 18.10-14)

But I must be honest and say, "thank the Lord" that these Pharisees at LSM are still praying.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

In Revelation 2 & 3 we see the Lord judging churches.... a collective judgment. He is judging, assessing, condemning, and in a few cases he is commending. He is assessing their teachings, their works, and their love for Him, and their sacrifice. He commends those who hate what He hates.

“But this you have, that you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate”. Rev 2:3

Hi Drake, let's rethink this whole "Nicolaitans" matter in the light of scriptures, not according to Nee's and Lee's self-serving teachings. The Nicolaitans have nothing to do with Evangelists, Pastors, and Ministers in so-called "poor, poor Christianity," since all of these functions and gifts have been established by the Apostles.

Instead this matter should apply to what the Lord really hates -- church leaders lusting to have preeminence in the church, lording it over the church of God, and ruling the church as the Gentiles do. (I Peter 5.3; Matt 20.25; Luke 22.25-26; 3 John 9)

In this regard, LSM bears much guilt, and is in no position to condemn others. Should we post those horror stories at LSM by Philip Lee again? Should we discuss those lawsuits and quarantines LSM has become infamous over. Getting past the curtains of Lee-based esoteric doctrines, these are LSM's "true colors," and the proof is in the decades long trail of victims.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Drake, perhaps all of Christendom, including the JWs and Mormons, would glory in the Lord accept for :

Rom_7:23* But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

We're all human. And that's Christendom's failure ... including the sect of Nee and Lee.

Bro awareness,

We are all human and the flesh of sin we will always have with us. Yet the Lord would not have issued a call to overcome were it not possible to overcome. For the believer there is the capability to overcome through the indwelling Spirit of life.

Still, whereas sin is inside of us, there are also the forces outside of us. The rulers, principalities, and powers (archon) spoken of Ephesians rule and influence matters outside of us. The Beyoncé worship is one example and the reasons the Anglican Church gave for disassociating the Episcopalian Church from their group are other examples.

Thanks
Drake

[JJ]

Drake Beyonce worship is simply disgusting. Tar and feather "Christianity" with that all you want. But, I don't know a single Christian who is buying into such stuff. Does anyone else here know a Beyonce worshipper in their church?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by JJ

Drake Beyonce worship is simply disgusting. Tar and feather "Christianity" with that all you want. But, I don't know a single Christian who is buying into such stuff. Does anyone else here know a Beyonce worshipper in their church?

JJ,

Glad someone here finds it disgusting and willing to emphatically say it. Hope there are no Beyonce worshippers anywhere else except right there in that video.

However, are you saying that all those Beyoncé adoring people were not Christians? How would you know that?

Are Episcopalians not Christians?

Drake

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

JJ,

Glad someone here finds it disgusting and willing to emphatically say it. Hope there are no Beyonce worshippers anywhere else except right there in that video.

Drake,

No one here is (or has been) a part of the Beyonce worship (although Evangelical seems to know her songs and the lingo).

So your concern is that a group of people who don't really know anything abut the Beyonce worship or the people who were there aren't emphatically judging and castigating these people? You realize this forum is to discuss the Local Church movement (meaning LSM) and the teaching of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, right? Are you trying to reach out to those who attended this event? What are you trying to get at here? Proving that Christianity isn't perfect? The question is not is Christianity perfect, the question is, how does the LSM follow a leader such as Witness Lee?

Students, parents of students, and those following Witness Lee need to be warned man, that's the sad truth.


P.S.
I don't condone the worship of Beyonce, it would be idolatry and an abomination before the Lord.

May the name of Jesus be proclaimed above all others.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

You realize this forum is to discuss the Local Church movement (meaning LSM) and the teaching of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, right?

LofT,

Of course. Read the OP.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

Drake Beyonce worship is simply disgusting. Tar and feather "Christianity" with that all you want. But, I don't know a single Christian who is buying into such stuff. Does anyone else here know a Beyonce worshipper in their church?

Drake is merely using Beyonce to troll us on the forum.

[Drake]

Judging from the responses, it appears that most posters here find the worship of Beyonce disgusting and are willing to say it publicly. Other teachings and practices of the Episcopalian Church has led to disassociation by its closest ally the Anglican Church. These two citations are one proof point of poor poor Christianity. However, at this time we have only proven poor poor Episcopalianism.

The Anglican Church is the third largest Christian communion in the world following Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Not a small player. The 39 Articles of Religion were the foundation for framing the beliefs of the Anglican Church. However, one only need to read the first 10 Articles to realize this is but another example of poor poor Christianity.

Here they and deviations from the scriptural teaching and practices will be apparent.

10 Articles

1. The binding authority of the Bible, the three ecumenical creeds and the first four ecumenical councils
2. The necessity of baptism for salvation, even in the case of infants (Art. II. says that "infants ought to be baptised" and that, dying in infancy, they "shall undoubtedly be saved thereby, and else not"; that the opinions of Anabaptists and Pelagians are "detestable heresies, and utterly to be condemned".)
3. The sacrament of penance, with confession and absolution, which are declared "expedient and necessary"
4. The substantial, real, corporal presence of Christ's body and blood under the form of bread and wine in the Eucharist
5. Justification by faith, joined with charity and obedience
6. The use of images in churches
7. The honouring of saints and the Virgin Mary
8. The invocation of saints
9. The observance of various rites and ceremonies as good and laudable, such as clerical vestments, sprinkling of holy water, bearing of candles on Candlemas-day, giving of ashes on Ash Wednesday
10. The doctrine of purgatory, and prayers for the dead in purgatory (made purgatory a non-essential doctrine)

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Here they and deviations from the scriptural teaching and practices will be apparent.

10 Articles

1. The binding authority of the Bible, the three ecumenical creeds and the first four ecumenical councils
2. The necessity of baptism for salvation, even in the case of infants (Art. II. says that "infants ought to be baptised" and that, dying in infancy, they "shall undoubtedly be saved thereby, and else not"; that the opinions of Anabaptists and Pelagians are "detestable heresies, and utterly to be condemned".)
3. The sacrament of penance, with confession and absolution, which are declared "expedient and necessary"
4. The substantial, real, corporal presence of Christ's body and blood under the form of bread and wine in the Eucharist
5. Justification by faith, joined with charity and obedience
6. The use of images in churches
7. The honouring of saints and the Virgin Mary
8. The invocation of saints
9. The observance of various rites and ceremonies as good and laudable, such as clerical vestments, sprinkling of holy water, bearing of candles on Candlemas-day, giving of ashes on Ash Wednesday
10. The doctrine of purgatory, and prayers for the dead in purgatory (made purgatory a non-essential doctrine)

Three words: one publication policy.

Who is impoverished here?

Did Paul quarantine Apollos?

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake is merely using Beyonce to troll us on the forum.

Is the trolling willful blindness, outright division, spirit of confusion (very common in the LSM churches), or manipulation...? I guess there could be other more sinister foundations, but I'll leave those out.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Judging from the responses, it appears that most posters here find the worship of Beyonce disgusting and are willing to say it publicly. Other teachings and practices of the Episcopalian Church has led to disassociation by its closest ally the Anglican Church. These two citations are one proof point of poor poor Christianity. However, at this time we have only proven poor poor Episcopalianism.

Hold on a minute. This proves that???

If one stupid gathering in SanFran proves the entire Episcopal church is "poor," then we have way more than enough evidence to prove LSM and the entire LCM is also poor.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Is the trolling willful blindness, outright division, spirit of confusion (very common in the LSM churches), or manipulation...? I guess there could be other more sinister foundations, but I'll leave those out.

As long as Drake is not being ambitious, then he can be forgiven.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Bro awareness,

We are all human and the flesh of sin we will always have with us. Yet the Lord would not have issued a call to overcome were it not possible to overcome. For the believer there is the capability to overcome through the indwelling Spirit of life.

Still, whereas sin is inside of us, there are also the forces outside of us. The rulers, principalities, and powers (archon) spoken of Ephesians rule and influence matters outside of us. The Beyoncé worship is one example and the reasons the Anglican Church gave for disassociating the Episcopalian Church from their group are other examples.

Thanks
Drake

Bro Drake, thanks for the reply.

I think what I'm trying to say is that the reason Christianity is poor, poor, poor, is because it's made up of people. And that's true for all of Christianity, even the local churches.

It's really not poor, poor, poor, Christianity, it's poor, poor, poor, people, and we can't get around that ; we can't get around the human condition.

So it's not realistic to point at Christianity and call it poor, poor, poor, Christianity ; without admitting that we too are just as poor, poor, poor.

And also, I don't think an overcomer would do that, or act that way. I think an overcomer would produce the fruits of the Spirit, and the lessons provide by Jesus, on sermon on the mount.

Blessings brother ....
Harold

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Three words: one publication policy.

Who is impoverished here?

Did Paul quarantine Apollos?

Aron,

So, one publication excuses the Anglican 10 articles?

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Drake, thanks for the reply.

I think what I'm trying to say is that the reason Christianity is poor, poor, poor, is because it's made up of people. And that's true for all of Christianity, even the local churches.

It's really not poor, poor, poor, Christianity, it's poor, poor, poor, people, and we can't get around that ; we can't get around the human condition.

So it's not realistic to point at Christianity and call it poor, poor, poor, Christianity ; without admitting that we too are just as poor, poor, poor.

And also, I don't think an overcomer would do that, or act that way. I think an overcomer would produce the fruits of the Spirit, and the lessons provide by Jesus, on sermon on the mount.

Blessings brother ....
Harold

Thanks Harold for your reasoned reply. There are few here who are able to do that anymore.

I understand your argument and as pertains to every man it is a valid point to make.

Yet, we cannot ignore institutions and their teachings and practices. The Lords call to overcomers is to overcome not only personal matters but institutional ones as well.... teachings, works, practices according to His valuation of them. Those are the calls of Revelation 2 & 3.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hold on a minute. This proves that???

If one stupid gathering in SanFran proves the entire Episcopal church is "poor," then we have way more than enough evidence to prove LSM and the entire LCM is also poor.

I see what’s happening now. You are not reading the posts and just shooting at anything that rustles.

Read both links and if you disagree then explain why.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yet, we cannot ignore institutions and their teachings and practices. The Lords call to overcomers is to overcome not only personal matters but institutional ones as well.... teachings, works, practices according to His valuation of them. Those are the calls of Revelation 2 & 3.

Drake

Drake you still miss the point man - you need to remove the beam from your own eye before you can address the specks of others. You boldly ignore the institution, teachings, and practices of the churches who follow the LSM and Witness Lee.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Drake you still miss the point man - you need to remove the beam from your own eye before you can address the specks of others. You boldly ignore the institution, teachings, and practices of the churches who follow the LSM and Witness Lee.

LofT,

Ummmm.

First LofT. You are not my Lord, not my God, not the Spirit , not my elder, not my wife, not my mom or dad, nor an authority in scripture to demand that I not follow the Lords speaking to me from the Bible and according to His leading.

I’ll accept your point of view as a peer, a brother in the Lord, providing you are actually willing to give it.

Now, to the second part of your post you have ignored the question on the table. Are not most of the 10 Articles an example of poor poor Christianity? We are discussing a teaching of Brother Lee. Please show us why that is not a perfect example of said teaching. You argument is false, it is a type of moral equivalency.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

So, one publication excuses the Anglican 10 articles?

Drake

Drake,

Absolutely not. I already wrote that that there are two related questions here: first, is "Christianity" as "poor" as Lee said it was, and second, is Lee's group somehow exempt?

You present the Anglican 10 Articles as proof of the first, and I respond with LSM's OPP as proof of the same spiritual lack found in Lee et al.

Aron

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Drake,

Absolutely not. I already wrote that that there are two related questions here: first, is "Christianity" as "poor" as Lee said, and second, is Lee's group somehow exempt?

You push the Anglican 10 Articles as proof of the first, and I respond with LSM's OPP as proof of the same spiritual lack.

I see. Then as regards the first we are in agreement that The Anglican Church 10 Articles are an example of what Brother Lee referred to as poor poor Christianity. As would be expected you argue that the local churches are not exempt. Got it.

Drake

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Drake

JJ,

Glad someone here finds it disgusting and willing to emphatically say it. Hope there are no Beyonce worshippers anywhere else except right there in that video.

However, are you saying that all those Beyoncé adoring people were not Christians? How would you know that?

Are Episcopalians not Christians?

Drake

Sorry, I don't know anything about Episcopalians or Anglicans. And, I'm not on this forum to trash or defend them. You pointed out some serious problems that I agree with. Still doesn't render everyone in Christianity that isn't in an LSM local church poor.

It seems to me that anyone worshipping Beyonce would not be a Christian.

What do you think about the statement I heard in the last "blending conference" I attended: "The interpreted Word of God from Living Stream Ministry is what we need to be spending our time reading to get ready for the Lord's return (as opposed to the Bible)?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

I see. Then as regards the first we are in agreement that The Anglican Church 10 Articles are an example of what Brother Lee referred to as poor poor Christianity. As would be expected you argue that the local churches are not exempt. Got it.

Drake

I am glad you got it. I thought I was pretty clear the first time around.

Here is Lee's plea for exemption:

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

"Suppose you invite me to your home for a meal. If I see that everything in your kitchen is neat and orderly, I may be disappointed, for I shall realize that there may not be much to eat. But if I see that your kitchen is messy because of all the preparations for the meal, I shall know a feast is being prepared. When no one is cooking, the kitchen may be neat. But when a good meal is being prepared, the kitchen will not be so orderly. If everything in the church is neat and orderly, this may indicate that no one is doing any cooking. This means that there is a shortage in the process of sanctification. I can testify that the kitchen of the church in Anaheim is messy. This proves that in Anaheim we are in the process of sanctification."

Lee wanted to peer in everyone's messy kitchen, but for you to forgive his. I think the above was spoken shortly after his "unspiritual chef" was caught for the second time, molesting the help.

The other thing Lee did to argue for exemption was to say that "God sees no iniquity in Isarael"; in contrast to "Christianity" which of course was under condemnation.

Like I said, shadows and turnings. You probably couldn't give this stuff away, but if you print it, bind it and sell it, you can make some money.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Thanks Harold for your reasoned reply. There are few here who are able to do that anymore.

I understand your argument and as pertains to every man it is a valid point to make.

Yet, we cannot ignore institutions and their teachings and practices. The Lords call to overcomers is to overcome not only personal matters but institutional ones as well.... teachings, works, practices according to His valuation of them. Those are the calls of Revelation 2 & 3.

Drake

I know brother. I've attended many of the churches in this area. And gotten involved. And I'm astounded at the ignorance I encounter.

Because I bring up matters in the Bible I've stirred up much trouble, and been accused of feeding meat to milk drinkers ; that are gray-hairs with grown children, but still drinking milk.

It's pathetic, I tell ya. So I say, poor, poor, poor Christianity, but not to put them down, or consider them lower then me. I may know a lot, but I'm no walk in the park either.

But maybe you are, I don't know. Are you better because you are in the local church? are you better because you consider that you are an overcomer? I'm not saying. I don't know.

But wouldn't an overcomer have arms open to them? Wouldn't they not condemn them, but love them?

I don't agree with poor, poor, poor, local churcher's, but I love them, or try to.

For instance, I don't see any reason to not love you. You're in an institution, one that's way more controlling than most other Christian sects ... sort of like the JWs and Mormons ... but I don't see that as a reason not to love you.

Do you love them, the JWs and Mormons? I do. Go on the Trinity thread on AltVs, and see my story of calling my JW friend, to discuss his views on the trinity. I love the guy, and his family.

As Christians, specailly if an overcomer, isn't that what we should be doing?

But for sure we shouldn't be wagging our fingers at them, and condemning them for not being in our "superior" church.

So Lee saying poor, poor, poor, Christianity is not Christian, and doesn't indicate anything close to overcoming.

Do you agree or not? Not that you're obligated to say. Just wondering ... to perchance see if you are indeed an overcomer. I'm hoping you are. I do see evidence out here that you very well may be ... or on your way at least.

Maybe then, you could help me. I'm trying to overcome it all too. It ain't easy, brother.

". . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by JJ

Sorry, I don't know anything about Episcopalians or Anglicans. And, I'm not on this forum to trash or defend them. You pointed out some serious problems that I agree with. Still doesn't render everyone in Christianity that isn't in an LSM local church poor.

It seems to me that anyone worshipping Beyonce would not be a Christian.

What do you think about the statement I heard in the last "blending conference" I attended: "The interpreted Word of God from Living Stream Ministry is what we need to be spending our time reading to get ready for the Lord's return (as opposed to the Bible)?

JJ,

Right. Thus far we have only covered two.

On the last statement it is a good topic. Open a new thread and I will join you there.

Drake

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Drake

JJ,

Right. Thus far we have only covered two.

On the last statement it is a good topic. Open a new thread and I will join you there.

Drake

At some point I'll open a thread on that, Drake. But, if you don't mind I'll punt on that for now and see where you want to go with this thread. I'm working on the Myth Busters thread today.

Blessings in Jesus' name.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

I know brother. I've attended many of the churches in this area. And gotten involved. And I'm astounded at the ignorance I encounter.

Because I bring up matters in the Bible I've stirred up much trouble, and been accused of feeding meat to milk drinkers ; that are gray-hairs with grown children, but still drinking milk.

It's pathetic, I tell ya. So I say, poor, poor, poor Christianity, but not to put them down, or consider them lower then me. I may know a lot, but I'm no walk in the park either.

But maybe you are, I don't know. Are you better because you are in the local church? are you better because you consider that you are an overcomer? I'm not saying. I don't know.

But wouldn't an overcomer have arms open to them? Wouldn't they not condemn them, but love them?

I don't agree with poor, poor, poor, local churcher's, but I love them, or try to.

For instance, I don't see any reason to not love you. You're in an institution, one that's way more controlling than most other Christian sects ... sort of like the JWs and Mormons ... but I don't see that as a reason not to love you.

Do you love them, the JWs and Mormons? I do. Go on the Trinity thread on AltVs, and see my story of calling my JW friend, to discuss his views on the trinity. I love the guy, and his family.

As Christians, specailly if an overcomer, isn't that what we should be doing?

But for sure we shouldn't be wagging our fingers at them, and condemning them for not being in our "superior" church.

So Lee saying poor, poor, poor, Christianity is not Christian, and doesn't indicate anything close to overcoming.

Do you agree or not? Not that you're obligated to say. Just wondering ... to perchance see if you are indeed an overcomer. I'm hoping you are. I do see evidence out here that you very well may be ... or on your way at least.

Maybe then, you could help me. I'm trying to overcome it all too. It ain't easy, brother.

". . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

Hi awareness,

Thanks for your post.

I’m glad you shared your thoughts on overcoming. First, I really don’t know who the overcomers might be because that is in the Lords hands entirely. I often think those who gave their lives for the Lord over the past 2000 years would be instant overcomers. I met some throughout the years in various places that I thought very well might be overcomers in and outside the Lords recovery. Since the Lord called overcomers in every one of the seven churches in Revelation then I believe every church represented in Revelation 2 & 3 must have overcomers including some in the churches that will still be represented at the Lords return... Roman Catholic Church (Thyatira), Protestantism (Sardis), Philadelphia, and even Laodicea. There are many groups that are flying under the radar that could very well have overcomers. The simple yet committed believers suffering in China could have millions. A few years ago I met a messianic Jewish believer and her knowledge of the Bible was astounding. She indicated she returned to the land of Israel to live, evangelize the nation of Israel, and to bring the Lord back. Such consecration slew me. So, we just don’t know. Brother Lee shared on this matter that just because we are in the Lords recovery does not mean we will be an overcomer. Knowing that the Lord is calling overcomers causes us to aspire to it and that can increase our chances to attain it but still there is no guarantee. If we are not aware of the Lords call to overcomers then we might miss it but a seeker will look into it and pursue it. If I become introspective I assess that I am very far from it. However, when I am enjoying the Lord , caught up in His presence, then I realize that my responsibility is to pursue Christ and hope and pray that one day I will be counted worthy to obtain a crown or a white stone with a special name or some other reward. All symbolically significant.

As far as poor poor Christianity... that is calling a spade a spade in my view. It could include any group. I think the benefit of the phrase is that causes us to assess our condition according to the scripture. Brother Lee spent more time critiquing the Lords recovery than he did Christianity. Nothing wrong with that, rather that was a good thing. He really cared giving us lessons, laboring over them, and putting them into practice.

Thanks again Harold. Great insight and points you made.

Drake

[Kevin]

Do not say that the church is low or dead. The more you say this, the more you put yourself under a curse. However, if you praise the Lord for the church life and speak well concerning it, you will put yourself under God’s blessing.

(Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 7, Section 3)

We do not say Christianity is....oh wait! We are told not to criticize the situation within the local church of Witness Lee, but only speak the degradation of Christianity...oh wait!

When we say "Poor Christianity!" we refer to the abnormal Christianity, with no intention of belittling or despising any real Christian.

(Elders' Training, Book 10: The Eldership and the God-Ordained Way (2), Chapter 6, Section 9)

But in reality, I have witnessed that this is not the case. They do not make any distinctions between a system and a people. Therefore, for many years I have endured bearing such a gross attitude from church meetings after church meetings. I have had enough of it! When the time I got caught for extending my fellowship with other Christians from various groups, QUARANTINE was the option! And I thank God for setting me free from an elite and exclusive group.

Didn't Lee make a public confession?

Because of our negligence in this matter in the past, we have offended the Body of Christ and many brothers and sisters in the Lord. For this reason, I had a deep repentance before the Lord.

(The Experience of God's Organic Salvation Equaling Reigning in Christ's Life, p. 69)

There has nothing change at all after his death.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drake

Roman Catholic Church (Thyatira), Protestantism (Sardis), Philadelphia, and even Laodicea.

Yeah, Lord's Recovery (Philadelphia)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drake

Lords Recovery than he did Christianity

It looks like the group's name is Lord's Recovery Church.

Are we in the Lord's Recovery, or are we in the Lord's recovery? The case of the letter r in the word "recovery" makes a big difference. It is a difference that is conveyed by our words and attitude when speaking with others. The Lord's Recovery (upper case R) implies a special exclusive group. It becomes a title, and it is a first step toward denominating ourselves. If the Lord delays His coming, we do NOT want to become known as the Lord's Recovery Church. The Lord's recovery (lower case r) is the long line of recovery that has been God's work throughout the ages. By His grace, we are included in that work today. We can boldly stand beside Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and all the others who have gone before. —Titus Chu

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Lee shared on this matter that just because we are in the Lords Recovery does not mean we will be an overcomer.

Well at least he talked the talk.

Originally Posted by Drake

If we are not aware of the Lords call to overcomers then we might miss it . . .

I don't know. The little old lady sitting on the back pew, that knows nothing about overcomers, may be an overcomer. I think it may have more to do with our hearts, than what we know or do.

Originally Posted by Drake

If I become introspective I assess that I am very far from it.

Well you seem to qualify in the humility department. It might even get you closer if you be like Paul, and brag about that ...

Originally Posted by Drake

However, when I am enjoying the Lord , caught up in His presence, then I realize that my responsibility is to pursue Christ and hope and pray that one day I will be counted worthy to obtain a crown or a white stone with a special name or some other reward. All symbolically significant.

When I'm caught up in the presence then I don't need to pursue anything. Why get distracted? As long as we're seeking we're not finding. The end of all our fruitless seeking is found in the presence. That culminates all our finding. Don't you agree? {rhetorical}

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Lee spent more time critiquing the Lords Recovery than he did Christianity. Nothing wrong with that, rather that was a good thing. He really cared giving us lessons, laboring over them, and putting them into practice.

When I was there the most disturbing thing was discovering that Lee's practice wasn't living up to his teachings. At first I shelved every instance I came across, but it added up along the way.

But now that Lee is gone that no longer matters. Unless Lee has become the touchstone in the local churches.

I can't say. I'm not there. You would know better than me ... at least how it is in your locality.

And thanks to you for sharing some deep thoughts on the matter of overcoming. May the Lord bless us with it. But I want him to bless everyone with it ... even the babes in Christ. It's my only hope.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It looks like the group's name is Lord's Recovery Church.

Good catch.

Changed to little “r” as it should be in body of text. Big “R” acceptable in book and article titles, headers, chapter, paragraph breaks etc.

Thanks
Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by JJ

At some point I'll open a thread on that, Drake. But, if you don't mind I'll punt on that for now and see where you want to go with this thread. I'm working on the Myth Busters thread today.

Blessings in Jesus' name.

Sure. Np JJ. No rush.

[Evangelical]

Unfortunately the phenomena of pop music influencing the church is not limited to the Episcopalian church or to Beyonce.

Here is a NJ church singing Adele:

https://www.christianpost.com/news/n...worship-69378/


Here is a Christian article suggesting that the church should listen to Lady Gaga:

http://www.ministrymatters.com/all/e...n-to-lady-gaga

If Paul stood on Mars Hill and used the altar to the Unknown God to lead people to Christ, can we not use Lady Gaga to do the same?


Adele's "hello" song is apparently prophetic (who knew, Adele is one of God's prophets?):

http://www.ministrymatters.com/worsh...rophetic-hello

https://www.christiantoday.com/artic...s-25/71855.htm


Based on these results, it does not seem that adoration or worship of pop idols is limited to the Episcopalian church.

These churches and individual Christians who publish webpages encouraging the church to accept or learn from worldly pop idols need to be reminded of the words of Alice Cooper, a devout Christian-

" the world doesn’t belong to us, it belongs to Satan.”

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yeah, Lord's Recovery (Philadelphia)

Hey ... I looked, and searched the whole New Testament, and found no such word "recovery" anywhere -- upper or lowercase -- in relation to anything, even the church in Philadelphia. It's an extra-Biblical word ... an addon ... not even found in any of the Greek manuscripts, early or later ones. It's a Lee invention ... prolly originated with the scalawag Nee.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

LofT,

Ummmm.

First LofT. You are not my Lord, not my God, not the Spirit , not my elder, not my wife, not my mom or dad, nor an authority in scripture to demand that I not follow the Lords speaking to me from the Bible and according to His leading.

I’ll accept your point of view as a peer, a brother in the Lord, providing you are actually willing to give it.

Now, to the second part of your post you have ignored the question on the table. Are not most of the 10 Articles an example of poor poor Christianity? We are discussing a teaching of Brother Lee. Please show us why that is not a perfect example of said teaching. You argument is false, it is a type of moral equivalency.

Drake

I'm not sure what you mean Drake, of coarse I'm none of those things.

My point is simple Drake - you're attempting to describe poor poor Christianity but refuse to look at the state of your own church. I've been all over the world and visited countless churches. Your church, created by witness lee and continued through the LSM is one of the most flawed I've ever seen. Yet, you continue to point to these other churches and all their problems (on a forum specifically created to discuss your church). I guess you're unable to see the irony in that.

I feel for you, and I think about you often. I picture you as an older man with dark hair, going about your day as any normal man with dark hair would. When I think of poor Christianity I think of the brothers and sisters trapped in the LSM, I think about you Drake. I don't say this as someone who was hurt by the church, actually quite the opposite. I was close with people who you probably know of and look up to (at least many in Anaheim do). I was good building material and was treated so much better than some of the other members - who were maybe not as young, fun, smart, good looking, educated, connected, whatever. These dear brothers and sisters - left as second class citizens in the hierarchy created by the Living Stream.

I'm probably a good 20-30 years younger than you, but don't look down on me because of my youth. I don't have everything figured out, I've never claimed that. But I know God and He loves me. He works through me and works for me. My life is a living testimony to these facts. He has proven himself true not only through His word, but by speaking to me, and loving me as his precious son.

How dangerous are the teachings of Witness Lee and his ministry? I have no idea. But they are built on a weak foundation and continue to function through that. Those visiting this forum come to learn more, defend, ask questions, share testimony about the LSM churches - not hear about how bad the Beyonce church is, nor how XYZ denomination is crumbling towards the things of this world.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey ... I looked, and searched the whole New Testament, and found no such word "recovery" anywhere -- upper or lowercase -- in relation to anything, even the church in Philadelphia. It's an extra-Biblical word ... an addon ... not even found in any of the Greek manuscripts, early or later ones. It's a Lee invention ... prolly originated with the scalawag Nee.

Awareness,

There is recover, recovered, and recovering in the Bible. That should be acceptable but if not you should be aware that there is not a single instance of the word “awareness” in the Bible. Prolly your invention.

Drake

[Drake]

LofT,

My hair color, assuming I have hair, is irrelevant. I’ll allow my age is relevant in the context we are discussing.

Do you include the local churches as branch of Christianity? If so, then based on your assessment but for different reasons you agree that there is basis for “poor poor Christianity “.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

Awareness,

There is recover, recovered, and recovering in the Bible. That should be acceptable but if not you should be aware that there is not a single instance of the word “awareness” in the Bible. Prolly your invention.

Drake

The word denomination is not in the bible. Oh dear.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey ... I looked, and searched the whole New Testament, and found no such word "recovery" anywhere -- upper or lowercase -- in relation to anything, even the church in Philadelphia. It's an extra-Biblical word ... an addon ... not even found in any of the Greek manuscripts, early or later ones. It's a Lee invention ... prolly originated with the scalawag Nee.

Why is it in the bible dictionary then?
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/recover/

Lee used it as if it was taken straight out of the bible dictionary. Can't argue with that.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Unfortunately the phenomena of pop music influencing the church is not limited to the Episcopalian church or to Beyonce.

Here is a NJ church singing Adele:

You're on a roll of righteous self-indignation; why stop when you get to the LC? Why the special treatment, why the respecting of persons? God is not a respecter of persons; why are you?

Witness Lee is worshipped as a God in China. Not by 900 but by 900,000. How is it that a Bible expositor comes to be worshiped as God? What happened there? Perhaps that his ministry was a cesspool of self promotion, self aggrandizement and self exaltation? And that the Bible got dumbed down to a series of slogans that were questionable at best, the incessant shouting of which drove his acolytes batty? What really happened to the baby gods in the PRC?

"With what measure you measure, will you also be measured". Ever heard that one? A guy named Jesus said it. The Local Church of Witness Lee is a poster child for poor, poor Christianity. Too poor.

How does one go from "poor" to "rich" to "degraded" anyway? Maybe it was just a poor ministry, all along. So poor it didn't know it was poor, and said it was rich. "You say you are rich, but you don't know that you are poor" also comes to mind.

If you google "rich ministry lsm" you'll be surprised how many web sites they have pushing these concepts. They're rich like the RCC in owning real estate, and the bodies and souls of men. "Truly I say to you, they have their reward."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

You're on a roll of righteous self-indignation; why stop when you get to the LC? Why the special treatment? Why the respecting of persons? God is not a respecter of persons; why are you?

Witness Lee is worshipped as a God in China. Not by 900 but by 900,000. How is it that a Bible expositor comes to be worshiped as God? What happened there? Could it be that his ministry was a cesspool of self-aggrandizement and self-exaltation?

"With what measure you measure, will you also be measured". Ever heard that one? A guy named Jesus said it. The Church of Witness Lee is a poster child for poor, poor Christianity. Too poor.

How does one go from "poor" to "rich" to "degraded" anyway? Maybe it was a poor ministry, all along. So poor it didn't know it was poor, and said it was rich. "You say you are rich, but you are poor" also comes to mind.

Aron,

You seem to making an argument against the Lords assessing, judging, and charge to His own to overcome the degradation in the churches. You teaching us that “a guy named Jesus” really meant a kind of live and let live philosophy in Revelation 2 & 3?

And yet, I am puzzled. If you believe that then why doesn’t every word in your post apply to you too? Do you meet the standard of your own posts or are you exempt?

Thanks
Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

You seem to making an argument against the Lords assessing, judging, and charge to His own to overcome the degradation in the churches. You teaching us that “a guy named Jesus” really meant a kind of live and let live philosophy in Revelation 2 & 3?

And yet, I am puzzled. If you believe that then why doesn’t every word in your post apply to you too? Do you meet the standard of your own posts or are you exempt?

Thanks
Drake

Only Jesus has passed the veil. I get along pretty well with most of the posters on this forum; it is the self- righteous that I'm calling out here. Why judge poor Christianity but not Lee? Why the live and let live with the sins of Lee, especially when you're so eager to expose them elsewhere?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The word denomination is not in the bible. Oh dear.

I don’t recall catholic big “C” or little “c” in the Bible.

Neither “Lutheran” or “Episcopalian “ or Mennonite.

Thankfully language is dynamic and evolves.

Can you imagine being restricted to just using only words in the Bible to express our thoughts?

“I’ll send you a text from my my mobile to let you know when I will pick you up on my motorcycle and take you to Starbucks for a coffee where i will order a venti Frappuccino with whipped cream, and you a Latte, and I’ll pay with my credit card”.

How would one express that idea only using words available in the Bible?

Just sayin.

The things we get hung up on.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Only Jesus has passed the veil. I get along pretty well with most of the posters on this forum; it is the self- righteous that I'm calling out here. Why judge poor Christianity but not Lee? Why the live and let live with the sins of Lee, especially when you're so eager to expose them elsewhere?

Aron,

Sorry. What does “only Jesus passed the veil” mean in this context? Please explain.

Drake

[Ohio]

When we say "Poor Christianity!" we refer to the abnormal Christianity, with no intention of belittling or despising any real Christian.

(Elders' Training, Book 10: The Eldership and the God-Ordained Way (2), Chapter 6, Section 9)

Originally Posted by Kevin

But in reality, I have witnessed that this is not the case. They do not make any distinctions between a system and a people. Therefore, for many years I have endured bearing such a gross attitude from church meetings after church meetings. I have had enough of it! When the time I got caught for extending my fellowship with other Christians from various groups, QUARANTINE was the option! And I thank God for setting me free from an elite and exclusive group.

Kevin, you are exactly right. Their saying to "love the Christian hate the system," is merely a ruse.

I've used this example before. It's kind of like me telling my dear wife:

"Honey, I love you, but I hate the way you talk, I hate the way you walk, I hate the way you cook, I hate the way you sing, I hate the way you dress, and btw I hate your family too.

But, honey, I do love you."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yeah, Lord's Recovery (Philadelphia)

It was John Darby and the Exclusives (after he excommunicated George Muller and all the others) who developed this prophetical view of the 7 churches in Revelation. (Codified in Miller's Church History) And, of course, Philadelphia referred to only them!

W. Nee then bashed the Brethren for excommunicating him, and he decided his movement was now "Philadelphia."

When W. Lee came to the USA, he did the same -- historical revisionism to suit his purpose.

Take a walk down the streets of Philadelphia, PA one summer evening and you can see the value of a good "name."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Only Jesus has passed the veil. I get along pretty well with most of the posters on this forum; it is the self- righteous that I'm calling out here. Why judge poor Christianity but not Lee? Why the live and let live with the sins of Lee, especially when you're so eager to expose them elsewhere?

Uh oh!

Drake gets a little cranky when you mention the sons of Lee ... I mean the sins of Lee.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

I don’t recall catholic big “C” or little “c” in the Bible.

Neither “Lutheran” or “Episcopalian “ or Mennonite.

Thankfully language is dynamic and evolves.

Can you imagine being restricted to just using only words in the Bible to express our thoughts?

“I’ll send you a text from my my mobile to let you know when I will pick you up on my motorcycle and take you to Starbucks for a coffee where i will order a venti Frappuccino with whipped cream, and you a Latte, and I’ll pay with my credit card”.

How would one express that idea only using words available in the Bible?

Just sayin.

The things we get hung up on.

Drake

But you guys at LSM are just fine because you have your own legal defense team ready and willing to file lawsuits against any naysayers ... all legitimized by words from the Bible such as the Defense and Confirmation of the Gospel.

I see how this works. Let's just rename your Beyonce worship to "High Peak Praise and Worship in the Local Church in San Francisco." I got all those words from the Bible. So all is well, eh?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

I don’t recall catholic big “C” or little “c” in the Bible.

Neither “Lutheran” or “Episcopalian “ or Mennonite.

Thankfully language is dynamic and evolves.

Can you imagine being restricted to just using only words in the Bible to express our thoughts?

“I’ll send you a text from my my mobile to let you know when I will pick you up on my motorcycle and take you to Starbucks for a coffee where i will order a venti Frappuccino with whipped cream, and you a Latte, and I’ll pay with my credit card”.

How would one express that idea only using words available in the Bible?

Just sayin.

The things we get hung up on.

Drake

This is a brilliant observation bro Drake. Likewise, can you imagine "recovering" back to those Bible days?

Isn't that as ludicrous as using only Bible words today? Can you imagine all the saints in the local churches only speaking Aramaic, or Koine Greek?

Now wouldn't that distinguish one church one city?

And the world look and say, 'look at those poor, poor, poor, Christians.'

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

This is a brilliant observation bro Drake. Likewise, can you imagine "recovering" back to those Bible days?

Isn't that as ludicrous as using only Bible words today? Can you imagine all the saints in the local churches only speaking Aramaic, or Koine Greek?

Now wouldn't that distinguish one church one city?

And the world look and say, 'look at those poor, poor, poor, Christians.'

Brilliant? Why I.... oh you...shush now... you’re just saying that... trying to make me blush...



But, language evolves. Biblical truth is not progressive. Beyoncé worshippers probably use that progressive logic to justify their practice as do those groups listed by Evangelical. The Anglican Church ostracized the Episcopalian Church for newer aberrant beliefs and practices. Rightly so. Yet, the 39 Articles embraced by the Anglican Church were a progression themselves not coming straight from the Bible. I think all those make a case for getting back to the beginning. If all Christians believed and practiced their church life according to the Bible it wouldn’t be so poor, would it?

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Kevin, you are exactly right. Their saying to "love the Christian hate the system," is merely a ruse.

I've used this example before. It's kind of like me telling my dear wife:

"Honey, I love you, but I hate the way you talk, I hate the way you walk, I hate the way you cook, I hate the way you sing, I hate the way you dress, and btw I hate your family too.

But, honey, I do love you."

Now there’s an example of a man who lives dangerously.

But your analogy is not similar enough to really apply. In your analogy, you and your dear wife are living in the same house, under the same roof, sharing everything, having the same goals, caring for the same children or spoiling the same grandchildren. That would be more similar to a local church where you know what to say and how to say it because you know the people.

A domestic analogy that is more representative would be a Home Owners Association (HMO). As neighbors you would not hate the people but you would point out non-compliance to the HMO. You might try to help them by showing them where they have gone awry. By doing so they might think you hate them but you don’t.

No analogy is ever perfect.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

You seem to making an argument against the Lords assessing, judging, and charge to His own to overcome the degradation in the churches. You teaching us that “a guy named Jesus” really meant a kind of live and let live philosophy in Revelation 2 & 3?

And yet, I am puzzled. If you believe that then why doesn’t every word in your post apply to you too? Do you meet the standard of your own posts or are you exempt?

Thanks
Drake

And that I think is the point. How does one look at the Lord's word in Matthew to "judge not lest you be judged" with the judgements of the 7 churches in Revelation?

To me, the verses in Matthew do not apply to judging yourself. "do not judge yourself lest you be judged" is kind of a non warning.

All of those words in Revelation 2 and 3 refer to a normal experience of a Christian pilgrim.

This is why I have become far more focused on Jezebel and Balaam than in the past, I realize that it is part of the typical Christian experience to bump into these deceits, temptations, pitfalls. We should not be surprised if we see them in the locality we are in.

For example, everyone wants to claim they are in Philadelphia, but Philadelphia is composed of saints who have all, 100%, left previous churches, and not due to backsliding. The Lord says He will make them a pillar in the house of God and "they will not go out anymore". It is a prerequisite to becoming a pillar in the house of God to be kicked out by Balaam, Jezebel, to be locked out of Laodicea, etc.

Once again, this thread is defending the practice of Witness Lee by doing the same. It is akin to the religious man praying "thank God I am not like one of those wretched Beyonce fans".

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drake

Brilliant? Why I.... oh you...shush now... you’re just saying that... trying to make me blush...



But, language evolves. Biblical truth is not progressive. Beyoncé worshippers probably use that progressive logic to justify their practice as do those groups listed by Evangelical. The Anglican Church ostracized the Episcopalian Church for newer aberrant beliefs and practices. Rightly so. Yet, the 39 Articles embraced by the Anglican Church were a progression themselves not coming straight from the Bible. I think all those make a case for getting back to the beginning. If all Christians believed and practiced their church life according to the Bible it wouldn’t be so poor, would it?

Drake

Drake,

Why are you ignoring our testimonies when the evidences are true? Why can't simply the LC admit they were wrong? Mine is more recent a year ago.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Now there’s an example of a man who lives dangerously.

But your analogy is not similar enough to really apply. In your analogy, you and your dear wife are living in the same house, under the same roof, sharing everything, having the same goals, caring for the same children or spoiling the same grandchildren. That would be more similar to a local church where you know what to say and how to say it because you know the people.

No analogy is ever perfect.

Drake

But are not all of us Christians part of the same family, with the same Father, with the same brothers and sisters, with the same life and nature, with the same Lord, part of the same bride of the Lamb, with the same Bible which tells us there is "one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father."

No analogy is perfect, but mine is sure better than yours.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

This thread is to discuss poor poor Christianity and to allow forum members to discuss whether Brother Lee’s characterization is accurate in specific instances instead of the broad brush generalizations used to criticize him for saying it.

Hi Drake, I think this thread is based on wrong premise. No body would deny there are many issues in Christianity. WL may be right for some of his accusations to poor poor Chirstianity. But I believe most members here are criticizing WL's intention and how he dealt with such issues rather than the claims themselves.

Paul taught us:

Rom 15:1 But we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those who are weak and not to please ourselves.

1 Cor 12:23 And those members of the body which we consider to be less honorable, these we clothe with more abundant honor; and our uncomely members come to have more abundant comeliness,

But what is WL's solution to poor poor Christianity? "Come out of it" and "widen the gap between Christianity and The Lord's Recovery"! Tell me, where is the brotherly love?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And that I think is the point. How does one look at the Lord's word in Matthew to "judge not lest you be judged" with the judgements of the 7 churches in Revelation?

To me, the verses in Matthew do not apply to judging yourself. "do not judge yourself lest you be judged" is kind of a non warning.

All of those words in Revelation 2 and 3 refer to a normal experience of a Christian pilgrim.

This is why I have become far more focused on Jezebel and Balaam than in the past, I realize that it is part of the typical Christian experience to bump into these deceits, temptations, pitfalls. We should not be surprised if we see them in the locality we are in.

For example, everyone wants to claim they are in Philadelphia, but Philadelphia is composed of saints who have all, 100%, left previous churches, and not due to backsliding. The Lord says He will make them a pillar in the house of God and "they will not go out anymore". It is a prerequisite to becoming a pillar in the house of God to be kicked out by Balaam, Jezebel, to be locked out of Laodicea, etc.

Once again, this thread is defending the practice of Witness Lee by doing the same. It is akin to the religious man praying "thank God I am not like one of those wretched Beyonce fans".

Thanks ZNP for your thoughtful post. Based on a collection of responses I have some new considerations. Here is one.

When the Lord was on the earth He said and did many things living out the divine attributes through the human virtues. By His every word and act we can see a perfect man expressing the Godhead. Yet, during His earthly sojourn He only mentioned the Church universal once ("upon this rock I will build my Church") and the local church ("tell it to the church") once. We could derive very little about Gods desire and plan for the Church universal nor the arrangement, government, beliefs, practices, or establishing of local churches from just those two verses. Those definitions He would reveal to us through His apostles but primarily through the Apostle Paul. Yet, the Lord confirmed the work of the apostles as His own by His address to the 7 churches in Revelation. In those letters to the seven churches much more is revealed about the Lord Himself. and His judgement of the works, teachings, mission, etc. of the local churches.

Probably you will not disagree with most or all of that preamble.

Now here is what I have noticed. As concerns the local churches and His assessments, judgements, commendation, condemnation, and call to individuals to overcome the shortcomings in those local churches many posters here appeal, as a counter to the Lords clear demands in the letters in Revelation, to the sayings of, as aron sums up, "a guy named Jesus" in the gospels. So "judge not lest you be judged" in the gospels is not a direct match to ""But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate." revealed in Revelation. That is because the Jesus revealed in the gospels is not complete. It is part of the story. It is only when we come to Revelation that we see our High Priest, Jesus, caring for the churches in His glorified position in the heavenly tabernacle. There we see not a lowly man on Earth. Instead we see:

Revelation 1
"12) I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,d dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.17When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades."

That Jesus, the one in Revelation, is judging, condemning, and hates some things and commends His followers who hate the same things. He condemns things in the churches. Is His condemning and hatred incompatible with love one another? incompatible with judge not? No, it is not. Does He intimate any concept close to "live and let live"? No, He does not. Does He condemn the worship of Beyonce under the banner of Christian worship? I'm certain He does. Appealing to the Jesus in the gospels while evaluating the matters He judges as the High Priest, matters that He explicitly states we are to heed, is missing the whole point of Revelation 2 & 3.

Thanks for sharing.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Drake,

Why are you ignoring our testimonies when the evidences are true? Why can't simply the LC admit they were wrong? Mine is more recent a year ago.

Kevin,

Your position is very close if not identical to LofTs. It is a group discussion. 90% of the post content from posters on your side of the issue are the same arguments. Could be Xerox copies. If I see something different or unique(like your "R" vs "r") or something well thought out (like ZNPs or awareness recent posts) that I hadn't considered then I will address it.

Read my response to LofTs post and feel free to pick it up from there because I think yours and his are the same argument.

thanks
Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But are not all of us Christians part of the same family, with the same Father, with the same brothers and sisters, with the same life and nature, with the same Lord, part of the same bride of the Lamb, with the same Bible which tells us there is "one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father."

No analogy is perfect, but mine is sure better than yours.

I still like mine better.

Yet, if the worshipers of Beyonce or those listed by Evangelical were living by the same life and nature then they wouldn't be worshiping Beyonce... would they?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

I still like mine better.

Yet, if the worshipers of Beyonce or those listed by Evangelical were living by the same life and nature then they wouldn't be worshiping Beyonce... would they?

Drake

Nor Witness Lee either!

Christ, only Christ!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

That Jesus, the one in Revelation, is judging, condemning, and hates some things and commends His followers who hate the same things. He condemns things in the churches. Is His condemning and hatred incompatible with love one another? incompatible with judge not? No, it is not. Does He intimate any concept close to "live and let live"? No, He does not. Does He condemn the worship of Beyonce under the banner of Christian worship? I'm certain He does. Appealing to the Jesus in the gospels while evaluating the matters He judges as the High Priest, matters that He explicitly states we are to heed, is missing the whole point of Revelation 2 & 3.

Thanks for sharing.

Drake

These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, he that walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks: 2 I know thy works, and thy toil and patience, and that thou canst not bear evil men, and didst try them that call themselves apostles, and they are not, and didst find them false;

I suppose this whole Beyonce thing could conceivably fall under “try them that call themselves apostles, and they are not and didst find them false”. Perhaps it is akin to the picture kindergarten books we use to teach kids to read, the simplest level of a false apostle used to train baby Christians.

But I fear the “leaving your first love” refers to leaving the Jesus of the gospels who came not to condemn but to give life. This is the narrow way that leads to life, we are very strict with ourselves, but lenient towards others. How do you identify the false apostles without leaving the example set by the Lord Jesus? Are you ascribing all glory, honor and power to Jesus? Or are you trying to keep the ark of the covenant from falling like Uzzah?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, he that walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks: 2 I know thy works, and thy toil and patience, and that thou canst not bear evil men, and didst try them that call themselves apostles, and they are not, and didst find them false;

I suppose this whole Beyonce thing could conceivably fall under “try them that call themselves apostles, and they are not and didst find them false”. Perhaps it is akin to the picture kindergarten books we use to teach kids to read, the simplest level of a false apostle used to train baby Christians.

But I fear the “leaving your first love” refers to leaving the Jesus of the gospels who came not to condemn but to give life. This is the narrow way that leads to life, we are very strict with ourselves, but lenient towards others. How do you identify the false apostles without leaving the example set by the Lord Jesus? Are you ascribing all glory, honor and power to Jesus? Or are you trying to keep the ark of the covenant from falling like Uzzah?

ZNP,

I am much more simpleminded than you give me credit for.

I believe we must incorporate the whole revelation to understand and apply any part of it properly and effectively. For instance, I wouldn't preach the gospel by telling lost and wounded sinners the Lord is the One with the sharp two-edged sword coming out of His mouth. Neither would I tell Episcopalian clergy that set up this evil Beyonce worship that I "judge not lest I be judged" as a guy named Jesus taught. Wrong message for the wrong crowd. The wounded sinner should be presented with the Savior who gave His life as a ransom for many.... and the clergy that set up this evil Beyonce worship should be presented with the One whose eyes are a flame of fire, whose feet are burnished brass and the one with a two-edged sword proceeding out of His mouth. So my simple mind believes that the Lord conveys what He is, what He thinks, and what He wants us to do based on the context in which He said it to meet a particular situation. He is so wise!

Appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks
Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

I am much more simpleminded than you give me credit for.

I believe we must incorporate the whole revelation to understand and apply any part of it properly and effectively. For instance, I wouldn't preach the gospel by telling lost and wounded sinners the Lord is the One with the sharp two-edged sword coming out of His mouth. Neither would I tell Episcopalian clergy that set up this evil Beyonce worship that I "judge not lest I be judged" as a guy named Jesus taught. Wrong message for the wrong crowd. The wounded sinner should be presented with the Savior who gave His life as a ransom for many.... and the clergy that set up this evil Beyonce worship should be presented with the One whose eyes are a flame of fire, whose feet are burnished brass and the one with a two-edged sword proceeding out of His mouth. So my simple mind believes that the Lord conveys what He is, what He thinks, and what He wants us to do based on the context in which He said it to meet a particular situation. He is so wise!

Appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks
Drake

This may be true. But I would ask how did you respond when you read many of those on this forum examining Witness Lee, who claimed he was an apostle, and judging that he wasn't? I agree with Revelation that this examination is commendable, however, I think it is very easy while doing this examination to be carried away into setting yourself up as judge, which is not our place. To his own lord each servant will stand.

While in college I had an experience where I saw first hand that "vengeance is mine, I will repay". Since that day I defer to the Lord's judgement because I know that if it is called for I would never be as strict as the Lord.

Instead I see our role as a witness. Perhaps my testimony is a key witness for the defense or prosecution. But to my knowledge you are not an eyewitness to this whole Beyonce thing.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

You're on a roll of righteous self-indignation; why stop when you get to the LC? Why the special treatment, why the respecting of persons? God is not a respecter of persons; why are you?

Witness Lee is worshipped as a God in China. Not by 900 but by 900,000. How is it that a Bible expositor comes to be worshiped as God? What happened there? Perhaps that his ministry was a cesspool of self promotion, self aggrandizement and self exaltation? And that the Bible got dumbed down to a series of slogans that were questionable at best, the incessant shouting of which drove his acolytes batty? What really happened to the baby gods in the PRC?

"With what measure you measure, will you also be measured". Ever heard that one? A guy named Jesus said it. The Local Church of Witness Lee is a poster child for poor, poor Christianity. Too poor.

How does one go from "poor" to "rich" to "degraded" anyway? Maybe it was just a poor ministry, all along. So poor it didn't know it was poor, and said it was rich. "You say you are rich, but you don't know that you are poor" also comes to mind.

If you google "rich ministry lsm" you'll be surprised how many web sites they have pushing these concepts. They're rich like the RCC in owning real estate, and the bodies and souls of men. "Truly I say to you, they have their reward."

I stop at the LC because this forum seems to have covered it pretty well.

Regardless of the condition of the LC and Lee we can assess his statement "Christianity is poor" based on the facts of specific instances alone, as Drake and I have presented.

All we need is a hypothesis and evidence. I consider this to be a rational approach not influenced by subjective opinions of whether he or she was right or wrong.

For example, if Lee was a sinner then his sin does not negate the facts that the Anglican church allowed gay marriage in its ranks. Jesus will not conduct a relative test of merit and compare everyone to Lee, but rather an absolute test against His standard.

I believe that Drake and I or anyone can accumulate enough specific evidence that supports the hypothesis that Christianity is poor and confirm Lee's opinion.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Regardless of the condition of the LC and Lee we can assess his statement "Christianity is poor" based on the facts of specific instances alone, as Drake and I have presented.

I believe that Drake and I or anyone can accumulate enough specific evidence that supports the hypothesis that Christianity is poor and confirm Lee's opinion.

Could anything be presented that would detract from, contradict, or challenge the thinking of the great Witness Lee?

I ask this in a lighthearted, tongue in cheek way, but that aside. Is there anything associated with Lee that you'd admit to being flawed? I've shared this before in the forum, but a Full Timer and I were chatting one day (eh-hem, fellowshipping) in the "bookroom" of our fellowship hall (only Lee/Nee sold there). The sister stocking books walked into the room and I asked the full timer what he thought the sister would do if I questioned Witness Lee's teachings - right then and there. He laughed (knowingly) and said she'd probably freak out, she wouldn't be able to handle it.

Can you imagine that? I've never seen anything like that in all my days. May the name of Jesus be proclaimed above all others!

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This may be true. But I would ask how did you respond when you read many of those on this forum examining Witness Lee, who claimed he was an apostle, and judging that he wasn't?

ZNP

How I respond? Every poster in this forum is entitled to hold whatever belief he or she wants.

Drake

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I stop at the LC because this forum seems to have covered it pretty well.

Regardless of the condition of the LC and Lee we can assess his statement "Christianity is poor" based on the facts of specific instances alone, as Drake and I have presented.

All we need is a hypothesis and evidence. I consider this to be a rational approach not influenced by subjective opinions of whether he or she was right or wrong.

For example, if Lee was a sinner then his sin does not negate the facts that the Anglican church allowed gay marriage in its ranks. Jesus will not conduct a relative test of merit and compare everyone to Lee, but rather an absolute test against His standard.

I believe that Drake and I or anyone can accumulate enough specific evidence that supports the hypothesis that Christianity is poor and confirm Lee's opinion.

I understand what you are saying that Lee's own condition or the local churches own condition does not have a bearing on the condition of Christianity. And if you put blinders on and restrict the parameters of the test of poorness to only that of Christianity (generally defined as non-LC gatherings of believers), I would also agree that Lee’s opinion can be confirmed.

The problem is that in the testing of Lee's opinion, it is impossible to put those blinders on in the context of Lee's speaking of his opinion. When Lee speaks of poor Christianity, the inextricable implication is that Lee’s speaking is rich and Christianity’s is not. Lee rarely puts such blinders on and states the poorness of the condition of Christianity as a standalone (or absolute) statement; it is most always in comparison to and in contrast with HIS speaking/ministry/gatherings (i.e. a relative test of merit and comparison as you described above). In pointing out poor Christianity, he is simultaneously pointing out how rich his is. Therefore, we cannot ask nor answer if half of a complete thought is correct, only if the whole thought is correct.

This is why we point to the LC when you point to Lee’s assessment of Christianity, because Lee’s opinion itself so often includes finger-pointing to both.

Example:
“While ministering in a certain place, a young man studying at a seminary came to speak to me. He asked if I believed in the Triune God. I told him that I believed more than he. Then he asked if I believed in the rapture. I asked what kind of rapture he was talking about. There is the pretribulation, posttribulation, and midtribulation rapture. Poor Christianity! There is no ministry of Christ as the rich gold. They only have the dead teachings and doctrines.” (Lee, The Wonderful Christ in the Canon of the New Testament)

Another example:
“Poor Christianity never could understand the book of Revelation, but it is so clear in the Lord's recovery.” (Lee, The Wonderful Christ in the Canon of the New Testament)

In addition, agreeing with you that there is truth to the poor Christianity statement does not automatically imply agreement with the REST of the sweeping assertions that Lee couched those statements in. To say Christianity “only [has] the dead teachings and doctrines” is absurd. If we admit there are genuine, born again believers in Christianity, how can that be so if all they hear are dead teachings? Christ must be there for someone to be saved.

It is possible to condemn one thing without lifting up another, but Lee does not do that. Therefore, it is difficult to be able to say without a qualifier that Lee was correct, when his correct statements were usually decorated with peripheral statements that were NOT correct.

[Drake]

I expected to address this aspect of mainstream Christianity sometime later but since this popped up today I will add it to our conversation now.

http://www.bnd.com/news/nation-world...210538069.html

Now, just to be clear. I am not harkening back to days past when all the troubles broke with this man and his wife. I felt sorry for them then and it was my real hope they could turn it around. I am calling attention to a current event that is but another clear installment of evidence for poor poor Christianity.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Could anything be presented that would detract from, contradict, or challenge the thinking of the great Witness Lee?

I ask this in a lighthearted, tongue in cheek way, but that aside. Is there anything associated with Lee that you'd admit to being flawed? I've shared this before in the forum, but a Full Timer and I were chatting one day (eh-hem, fellowshipping) in the "bookroom" of our fellowship hall (only Lee/Nee sold there). The sister stocking books walked into the room and I asked the full timer what he thought the sister would do if I questioned Witness Lee's teachings - right then and there. He laughed (knowingly) and said she'd probably freak out, she wouldn't be able to handle it.

Can you imagine that? I've never seen anything like that in all my days. May the name of Jesus be proclaimed above all others!

Some will criticize Lee's teachings, others won't, not caring if he is right or wrong. I have criticized Lee's teachings a number of times on this forum, and in person in the meeting, and other times I won't care if he is right or wrong. But I won't agree when Lee's teachings are mis-characterized, misinterpreted or slandered.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I understand what you are saying that Lee's own condition or the local churches own condition does not have a bearing on the condition of Christianity. And if you put blinders on and restrict the parameters of the test of poorness to only that of Christianity (generally defined as non-LC gatherings of believers), I would also agree that Lee’s opinion can be confirmed.

In that book Lee also states how poor Christianity just follows the Jews.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

My point is simple Drake - you're attempting to describe poor poor Christianity but refuse to look at the state of your own church. I've been all over the world and visited countless churches.

How dangerous are the teachings of Witness Lee and his ministry? I have no idea. But they are built on a weak foundation and continue to function through that. Those visiting this forum come to learn more, defend, ask questions, share testimony about the LSM churches - not hear about how bad the Beyonce church is, nor how XYZ denomination is crumbling towards the things of this world.

Poor poor Christianity. Those of us who were raised in the local churches may very well regard as nothing more than a catch phrase. When the local church is your only church experience, there's nothing to measure it against. However for one to say poor poor Christianity, which churches have been visited?

How dangerous are the teachings of Witness Lee? When there's no culture to question and examine the teachings of Witness Lee, there lies a great danger.

"The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." Acts 17:10-11

[Kevin]

An elder caught me reading a different version before the meeting started.

Elder: Do not read other versions except the Recovery version. We have a rich footnotes than those poor, poor Christianity's bibles.

Me: *thinking of Revelation 3:17

He almost called me to the elder's room just to stop me using ESV. Sounds like KJV only.

I do not feel burdened to charge the saints to go home and study beyond what is in the truth lessons, but all the elders should promote the reading of the Recovery Version, the gold bar, in the homes plus all the Life-studies and other publications by the Living Stream Ministry. These will be their library books. Besides attending the meetings to learn the truth, they should read these spiritual publications every day. (Elders' Training, Book 08: The Life-Pulse of the Lord's Present Move, Chapter 5, Section 5)

My burden is that we must take good care of the young ones among us. Do not bring them into peril so that they would be occupied with the wrong things. We have a pure system of publications which comprise all the main things of the divine, spiritual, and heavenly things. These publications are very adequate for all the young saints among us to have a good foundation laid and a strong standing established. Then they could go on, not to learn more things from the old books, but to check the old books and to get themselves confirmed.

For us to bring the young ones into the old books without consideration is a peril and a risk. It is not safe. What you young ones can use as reference books, however, are the dictionaries, lexicons, and concordances. Nearly all the dictionaries have some good points. No dictionary, however, is complete and all differ from one another. Never be satisfied with one. You must use more than one. When you investigate a word, do not be satisfied with one dictionary’s definition. You must look into others. These are the only things which I would recommend for you young ones to use—the lexicons, the dictionaries of languages, and the concordances of the Bible. You should use these references in the way of comparison. This will help you. (Elders' Training, Book 04: Other Crucial Matters Concerning the Practice of the Lord's Recovery, Chapter 1, by Witness Lee)

How can the elders check the old books? They haven't read a single old book, not even a booklet. They would never waste their time spending other books. And what about 21st century books?

I tried brought a book with me by John Piper to see what their reactions are. But oh boy

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In that book Lee also states how poor Christianity just follows the Jews.

Why can't you tell the blendeds' that it is time to make a public apology and remove Lee's aberrant statements. Or why not recover/reform the Recovery according to Scriptures.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

I expected to address this aspect of mainstream Christianity sometime later but since this popped up today I will add it to our conversation now.

http://www.bnd.com/news/nation-world...210538069.html

Now, just to be clear. I am not harkening back to days past when all the troubles broke with this man and his wife. I felt sorry for them then and it was my real hope they could turn it around. I am calling attention to a current event that is but another clear installment of evidence for poor poor Christianity.

Drake

Jim Bakker? Really! That's your example of poor poor Christianity. Bakker is a convicted criminal. Pick another one. Bakker is a cheap shot. He's a con man, using the second coming to make profit.

If anything, the poor poor part are those buying apocalyptic survival kits from him.

But ain't the Recovery doing the same thing? Maybe not selling the same kind of 'kits,' but selling bride preparation merchandise nonetheless ... same same ... and also poor poor.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

I expected to address this aspect of mainstream Christianity sometime later but since this popped up today I will add it to our conversation now.

Now, just to be clear. I am not harkening back to days past when all the troubles broke with this man and his wife. I felt sorry for them then and it was my real hope they could turn it around. I am calling attention to a current event that is but another clear installment of evidence for poor poor Christianity.

Drake

Drake, Drake, Drake. Stop it please!

You have no idea what you are doing. Your mind has been so pickled by W. Lee, that you are totally blind to what you are doing.

How in the world can you characterize every Christian in Christianity by one person, unless that Person is Jesus Himself? Why instead won't you characterize the whole of Christianity by the selfless service of one brother or sister? Why do you pick one of the worst instead of one of the best? It was Lee who taught you this horrible habit.

You call this a "clear installment of evidence?" Evidence of what? Even our criminal justice system does not condemn an entire race of people due to the behavior of one man.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Kevin

An elder caught me reading a different version before the meeting started.

Elder: Do not read other versions except the Recovery version. We have a rich footnotes than those poor, poor Christianity's bibles.

Me: *thinking of Revelation 3:17

He almost called me to the elder's room just to stop me using ESV. Sounds like KJV only.

I tried brought a book with me by John Piper to see what their reactions are.

Kevin, true story: An old LC friend of mine gave a testimony in the meeting using just a Bible. Some of the saints told him how refreshing and encouraging his testimony was. One sister even referred to him in her sharing.

The elders called him into the office and told him not to come back!

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Some will criticize Lee's teachings, others won't, not caring if he is right or wrong. I have criticized Lee's teachings a number of times on this forum, and in person in the meeting, and other times I won't care if he is right or wrong. But I won't agree when Lee's teachings are mis-characterized, misinterpreted or slandered.

I must have missed it, what is an example of one of your past criticisms?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Some will criticize Lee's teachings, others won't, not caring if he is right or wrong. I have criticized Lee's teachings a number of times on this forum, and in person in the meeting, and other times I won't care if he is right or wrong. But I won't agree when Lee's teachings are mis-characterized, misinterpreted or slandered.

Hey Evangelical, will you also defend other Christian ministers with the same valor when they are "mis-characterized, misinterpreted or slandered?"

How about Titus Chu or Nigel Tomes? I never saw you defend their teachings.

I hope you have not become a man-pleaser, being a "respecter of persons."

.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP

How I respond? Every poster in this forum is entitled to hold whatever belief he or she wants.

Drake

That is how it was during the Judges, "everyone doing what is right in their own eyes". According to WL that is the basis of fallen Christianity and is contrary to the NT ministry.

4(for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the casting down of strongholds); 5casting down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ;

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake, Drake, Drake. Stop it please!

You have no idea what you are doing. Your mind has been so pickled by W. Lee, that you are totally blind to what you are doing.

How in the world can you characterize every Christian in Christianity by one person, unless that Person is Jesus Himself? Why instead won't you characterize the whole of Christianity by the selfless service of one brother or sister? Why do you pick one of the worst instead of one of the best? It was Lee who taught you this horrible habit.

You call this a "clear installment of evidence?" Evidence of what? Even our criminal justice system does not condemn an entire race of people due to the behavior of one man.

The church is supposed to be a hospital and convalescent home for sinners. Apparently, according to some on this thread our ministry is to judge that a hospital is "poor" if there are sick people there. It seems that WL's claim that they alone had the riches and were in need of nothing was seeing that there are still sinners in the world, which of course they had nothing to do with.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Jim Bakker? Really! That's your example of poor poor Christianity. Bakker is a convicted criminal. Pick another one. Bakker is a cheap shot. He's a con man, using the second coming to make profit.

If anything, the poor poor part are those buying apocalyptic survival kits from him.

But ain't the Recovery doing the same thing? Maybe not selling the same kind of 'kits,' but selling bride preparation merchandise nonetheless ... same same ... and also poor poor.

I know. The timing was just right. Popped up yesterday.

Judging by the response everyone thinks he was too easy of a target.

However, we cannot have a conversation about the poor condition of Christianity without the contribution from televangelists. Bakker is a part of Christianity, can not deny that.

Another one you say? Sure... moment.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake,How in the world can you characterize every Christian in Christianity by one person, unless that Person is Jesus Himself? .

I don’t. Each one Is evaluated on their own merits. Read the OP to understand the purpose of this thread.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The church is supposed to be a hospital and convalescent home for sinners.

ZNP,

Is the church a hospital and convalescent home that permits the worship of Beyoncé? A care center that teaches the 10 Articles of the Anglican Church? A shelter for aberrant activity such as those that Evangelical listed? Is a convalescent home where televangelists can sell their “Extreme Survival Warfare” water bottles?

If you can justify any of that, take your pick, from scripture then please make your case. Else, instead of fleeing the controversy why don’t you just acknowledge that they are examples of poor poor Christianity?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

I don’t. Each one Is evaluated on their own merits. Read the OP to understand the purpose of this thread.

Drake

Not true!

Except for Lee followers in the LCM, Christians consider themselves as part of Christianity. They use expressions like "my Christianity" to refer to their Christian walk with Jesus, their Lord and Savior.

By you condemning "poor, poor Christianity," you are now condemning (via guilt by association) on this thread every Christian outside of the LCM.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

Is the church a hospital and convalescent home that permits the worship of Beyoncé? A care center that teaches the 10 Articles of the Anglican Church? A shelter for aberrant activity such as those that Evangelical listed? Is a convalescent home where televangelists can sell their “Extreme Survival Warfare” water bottles?

If you can justify any of that, take your pick, from scripture then please make your case. Else, instead of fleeing the controversy why don’t you just acknowledge that they are examples of poor poor Christianity?

Drake

Beyonce worship is bad, real bad, but is it worse than the manager at a Christian publisher molesting the female volunteer staff?

Is it worse than Phillip Lee recklessly abusing church leaders around the globe?

Is it worse than Witness Lee smearing the reputation of those who spoke their conscience and came to the aid of the victims?

Is it worse than the Blendeds coming to the Midwest, dividing every LC over Lee, filing lawsuits, and laying waste the churches of God?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

Is the church a hospital and convalescent home that permits the worship of Beyoncé? A care center that teaches the 10 Articles of the Anglican Church? A shelter for aberrant activity such as those that Evangelical listed? Is a convalescent home where televangelists can sell their “Extreme Survival Warfare” water bottles?

If you can justify any of that, take your pick, from scripture then please make your case. Else, instead of fleeing the controversy why don’t you just acknowledge that they are examples of poor poor Christianity?

Drake

I don't justify any of that. My concern is that you are not "speaking the truth in love". My point is that a church that does not have idol worshippers as some of its gospel contacts is not acting in accordance with the Lord's commission.

Do you understand what it means when the OT says that God desires mercy and not sacrifice?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not true!

Except for Lee followers in the LCM, Christians consider themselves as part of Christianity. They use expressions like "my Christianity" to refer to their Christian walk with Jesus, their Lord and Savior.

By you condemning "poor, poor Christianity," you are now condemning (via guilt by association) on this thread every Christian outside of the LCM.

If that is what you believe then you are entitled to it. However, you don’t get to define my beliefs for me. Mine are in the OP.

Thanks
Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Do you understand what it means when the OT says that God desires mercy and not sacrifice?

Sure. He desires mercy ...to people. He judges churches and beliefs, teachings , works, etc. fiercely. We should hate what He hates. Love as He loves.

Drake

[UntoHim]

Jim Bakker is a laughing stock, and deserves to be. No serious Christians have EVER taken him seriously. He shamed himself, his "followers" and the Lord's name with gross financial maleficence. He taught strange and heretical teachings.

.....now wait minute....this reminds me of another red letter example of poor, poor Christianity...and one we're all too familiar with. Mr Witness Lee. Lots of similarities between Bakker and Lee. No serious Christians outside of his little sect have EVER taken Witness Lee seriously. And I hate to admit it, but if more people actually knew anything about him, or the absurd and outrageous things he and his followers have claimed for him, well...lets just say that there would be quite a bit of humorous jabbing directed at The One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age.

"Gross financial maleficence"? Forcing the sale of a church owned property/meeting halls to repay personal debts? Attempting to sneak bars of gold through customs? International money laundering schemes employed under the guise of overpriced motorhomes, tennis rackets and cheap chairs? Funneling the hard earned "donations" of church members to his son's when he knew very well they would use the money on alcohol, prostitutes and $10,000 Rolex watches?

Now that I think of it...Lee and Company don't really deserve to be categorized with poor, poor Christianity after all - A more accurate label would be "rich, rich Christianity"!!

As for strange and heretical teachings....well, don't get me started on that.
-

[ZNPaaneah]

Hold it a second. Are you judging Witness Lee with the same judgement with which he judged Christianity?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

Is the church a hospital and convalescent home that permits the worship of Beyoncé? A care center that teaches the 10 Articles of the Anglican Church? A shelter for aberrant activity such as those that Evangelical listed? Is a convalescent home where televangelists can sell their “Extreme Survival Warfare” water bottles?

If you can justify any of that, take your pick, from scripture then please make your case. Else, instead of fleeing the controversy why don’t you just acknowledge that they are examples of poor poor Christianity?

Drake

Some have characterized my calling out Beyonce worship and televangelist Bakker as unfair examples of poor poor Christianity. However, no one defended the first 10 Articles of the Anglican Church a clear legitimate bonafide member of Christianity. And no one criticized the Anglican Church for disassociating themselves from the Episcopalian Church due to the latters embrace of ungodly teachings. Nevertheless, lets wade into the heart of modern Christianity and assess whether the beliefs and practices provide any validation of the description “poor poor Christianity”.

The Word Faith movement is a fast growing arm of Christianity and in our times the mega Lakewood Church of the Osteens is the quintessential example of that movement. Neither size, popularity, or polished marketing should give Lakewood a pass for including them in the descriptor of poor.

Other than misapplied judge not arguments or false equivalency arguments will anybody here defend this showmanship?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vKo9zhAWKXk

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not true! Except for Lee followers in the LCM, Christians consider themselves as part of Christianity. They use expressions like "my Christianity" to refer to their Christian walk with Jesus, their Lord and Savior.

By you condemning "poor, poor Christianity," you are now condemning (via guilt by association) on this thread every Christian outside of the LCM.

Originally Posted by Drake

If that is what you believe then you are entitled to it. However, you don’t get to define my beliefs for me. Mine are in the OP.

Your belief system includes the condemnation of all of Christianity. So did Lee's.

I thought perhaps you were better than that. Apparently I was wrong.

[UntoHim]

First of all Drake, you apparently are a member of a group that has desperately sought to be considered "a clear legitimate bonafide member of Christianity" for a number of years now. (Thankfully without much success)

Why should anyone here on this forum be asked to defend "the first 10 Articles of the Anglican Church" or the articles of any other Christians denomination or ministry that we do not personally attend, subscribe to, contribute to or even agree with? Maybe there are some Anglicans out here on the forum. I don't know. If there are, then it MIGHT BE relevant for them to address that particular issue.

You are reaching for straws...or should I say straw men.

"Wade into the heart of modern Christianity" you say? Nah, this forum wasn't started to wade into the heart of modern Christianity, it was started to wade into the heart of the Local Church of Witness Lee. Go start your own forum and you can wade into the heart of anything your little heart desires.

In the meantime, you have built up enough street cred to be able to continue on with this thread if you want. Carry on.
-

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your belief system includes the condemnation of all of Christianity. So did Lee's.

I thought perhaps you were better than that. Apparently I was wrong.

Ohio,

I came out of Christianity. I was saved there, I have family members who are ordained ministers, I have friends there, I have many wonderful life changing experiences there. Don't pretend you know what I believe beyond what I have written.

Now, is that your defense of the Dance ministry at Lakewood? What Drake believes excuses that worldly showmanship? I thought you were smarter than that. Apparently, I was wrong.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

I came out of Christianity. I was saved there, I have family members who are ordained ministers, I have many wonderful life changing experiences there. Don't pretend you know what I believe beyond what I have written.

Now, is there your defense of the Dance ministry at Lakewood? What Drake believes excuses that worldly showmanship? I thought you were smarter than that. Apparently, I was wrong.

Drake

I'm just going by your posts in this thread.

Paul told Timothy, "In a great house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also wooden and earthen, and some unto honor and some unto dishonor. If therefore anyone cleanses himself from these, he will be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work." (2 Tim 2.20-21)

God allows these ones in His "great house" so that the honorable vessels will cleanse themselves to be useful to Him and prepared for all good works.

You obviously missed these verses due to your judgmental attitude, and instead of cleansing yourself from those at LSM, (read UntoHim's post #148) you have decided to bribe your conscience by using every dishonorable vessel you can find to condemn the whole House of God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

I came out of Christianity. I was saved there, I have family members who are ordained ministers, I have many wonderful life changing experiences there.

Brother Drake, you were saved in the Father's love by the Lord Jesus into the body of Christ to drink of one Spirit through a faithful member who prayed and shared the Gospel with you. We all were. (I Cor 12)

It is a shame that you would condemn that place as "poor, poor, Christianity," and then think somehow you have left the body of Christ for a better place.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

I know. The timing was just right. Popped up yesterday.

Judging by the response everyone thinks he was too easy of a target.

However, we cannot have a conversation about the poor condition of Christianity without the contribution from televangelists. Bakker is a part of Christianity, can not deny that.

Another one you say? Sure... moment.

Drake

Forget Bakker. Bad example. But as far as I can see, Evangelical Christianity is in such a mess that it's in need of at least a few thousand revivals.

I know Untohim doesn't allow politics on this forum, but it needs to be asked. I'm not there so I don't know, but has the Recovery gotten as involved into politics as today's evangelicals? Maybe we need to drag this down to AltVs. Except, everyone here should hear your answer.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

First of all Drake, you apparently are a member of a group that has desperately sought to be considered "a clear legitimate bonafide member of Christianity" for a number of years now. (Thankfully without much success)...

UntoHim,

I brought the topic up to discuss Brother Lee's belief and characterization "poor poor Christianity" because it has been mentioned as a point of criticism in this forum. Yet, from the first time I heard Brother Lee make that statement I could easily scroll through the rolodex of my christian experience and think of many examples of exactly what he meant. As I said in the base note, not every Christian group fits the characterization but enough do to validate the statement he made. It does not need to be true 100% of the time to be a true statement. I expected that many in this forum would argue for moral equivalency and they did but, I had not considered how deeply ingrained this teaching of "judge not" dismisses the clear condemnation of works, teachings, and practices identified by our Lord in Revelation 2 & 3. And it is ironic that those who hold that belief of "judge not" in practice judge a lot.. a whole bunch actually.

So, that's the discussion, it is not a straw man and even if I were so inclined there is no need for one. Instead, we will systematically review the various scenarios of Christianity using the public record and make our own conclusions.

Thanks
Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm just going by your posts in this thread.

Paul told Timothy, "In a great house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also wooden and earthen, and some unto honor and some unto dishonor. If therefore anyone cleanses himself from these, he will be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work." (2 Tim 2.20-21)

God allows these ones in His "great house" so that the honorable vessels will cleanse themselves to be useful to Him and prepared for all good works.

You obviously missed these verses due to your judgmental attitude, and instead of cleansing yourself from those at LSM, (read UntoHim's post #148) you have decided to bribe your conscience by using every dishonorable vessel you can find to condemn the whole House of God.

Ohio,

That is a good verse. However, the process of that verse is clear "If therefore anyone cleanses himself from these, he will be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work".

Wouldn't you agree that we should cleanse ourselves from Beyonce worship, Bakker waterbottles, unscriptural teachings of Anglicanism, and the Dance shows of Osteen's church?

We don't need to condemn the whole house... just these aspects.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

has the Recovery gotten as involved into politics as today's evangelicals? Maybe we need to drag this down to AltVs. Except, everyone here should hear your answer.

awareness,

recovery. little "r". Kevin caught that error.

Not that I am aware of. Best as I can tell most of the saints lean in a certain direction though I have met some pretty vocal on both sides. Very little from the podium, can't really recall anything specific.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Brother Drake, you were saved in the Father's love by the Lord Jesus into the body of Christ to drink of one Spirit through a faithful member who prayed and shared the Gospel with you. We all were. (I Cor 12)

It is a shame that you would condemn that place as "poor, poor, Christianity," and then think somehow you have left the body of Christ for a better place.

Ok. We are getting somewhere.

I do not think "Christianity" is what the Lord had in mind. You keep defending it like it is. I think Christianity is a big tent that includes things in it that are not the Lord's desire or doing. Therefore, I point out the things in it that do not represent the Lord or His interests.....

...and why shouldn't we? Don't we have such an obligation?

Drake

[Jo S]

Drake, I understand the frustrations with seeing what's happening within the churches today. I think it's safe to assume all of us here see these things and are saddened by them.

Christianity just means a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. Rather than disassociating yourself from Christianity, why not spread the Lord's love and testimony to places and to people that are struggling to understand the gospel?

Just because I see what other people around me are doing and strongly disappove doesn't mean I'm going to go around pretending that I'm a space alien now.

I learned the hard way where this train of thought leads. It usually starts off with something like, "I'm removing myself from Christianity" then it snowballs into "I'm removing myself from religion altogether" and then before you know it you're embracing a spirituality that is not in line with the truth.

And I'll throw this out there. Criticism can of course be justified but in my own experience when I get caught up in a critical spirit it's just me projecting and avoiding a reality check. I'll let you decide if the same applies here or not.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok. We are getting somewhere.

I do not think "Christianity" is what the Lord had in mind. You keep defending it like it is. I think Christianity is a big tent that includes things in it that are not the Lord's desire or doing. Therefore, I point out the things in it that do not represent the Lord or His interests.....

...and why shouldn't we? Don't we have such an obligation?

Drake

Drake, how is what you are doing on this thread helping anything? Has anyone been encouraged towards Christ or away from sinful religious practices? Has anyone learned anything new?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

UntoHim,

I brought the topic up to discuss Brother Lee's belief and characterization "poor poor Christianity" because it has been mentioned as a point of criticism in this forum. Yet, from the first time I heard Brother Lee make that statement I could easily scroll through the rolodex of my christian experience and think of many examples of exactly what he meant. As I said in the base note, not every Christian group fits the characterization but enough do to validate the statement he made. It does not need to be true 100% of the time to be a true statement.

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

That is a good verse. However, the process of that verse is clear "If therefore anyone cleanses himself from these, he will be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work".

Wouldn't you agree that we should cleanse ourselves from Beyonce worship, Bakker waterbottles, unscriptural teachings of Anglicanism, and the Dance shows of Osteen's church?

We don't need to condemn the whole house... just these aspects.

Drake

Now you are changing the definition of "Christianity."

It is abundantly clear, listening to Lee and the Blendeds for 30+ years, that Christianity was every thing Christian apart from the LCM. Christianity included all genuine Christians in all Christian denominations. Christianity included all evangelicals.

Christianity as such did not include errant and heretical sects like the JW, Mormons, the RCC, ets. Lee considered all of these to be part of a greater set called "Christendom."

Would you not also agree that some of the officers at LSM are also vessels unto dishonor, that we need to cleanse ourselves from? And that we must condemn these aspects at LSM?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

awareness,

recovery. little "r". Kevin caught that error.

Not that I am aware of. Best as I can tell most of the saints lean in a certain direction though I have met some pretty vocal on both sides. Very little from the podium, can't really recall anything specific.

Drake

When I was in the LC we voted, but there wasn't in pressure to vote one way or another.

If the LC is the same today then, they are evangelicals that didn't jump whole hog into politics, like many other evangelicals today.

As I see it, churches have failed spiritually, so they are trying to do it thru politics.

Maybe the LC is better in that regard, at least.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok. We are getting somewhere.

I do not think "Christianity" is what the Lord had in mind. You keep defending it like it is. I think Christianity is a big tent that includes things in it that are not the Lord's desire or doing. Therefore, I point out the things in it that do not represent the Lord or His interests.....

...and why shouldn't we? Don't we have such an obligation?

Drake

Yes we do. But it's a massive job, that involves lots of money. Methinks we'll just be nipping at its ankles.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Now you are changing the definition of "Christianity."

It is abundantly clear, listening to Lee and the Blendeds for 30+ years, that Christianity was every thing Christian apart from the LCM. Christianity included all genuine Christians in all Christian denominations. Christianity included all evangelicals.

Christianity as such did not include errant and heretical sects like the JW, Mormons, the RCC, ets. Lee considered all of these to be part of a greater set called "Christendom."

Would you not also agree that some of the officers at LSM are also vessels unto dishonor, that we need to cleanse ourselves from? And that we must condemn these aspects at LSM?

I agree with that definition of Christianity and Christendom. No change. Let's stick to those.

No, I do not agree with your accusation that those serving brothers are vessels of dishonor. And if you are willing to judge them, or consider them as another branch of Christianity, then you should have no problem judging all Christianity with a level hand. I have provided my assessment of the failures and people involved and see no need to discuss them ad nauseam in every thread.

But you don't use a level hand. Now why is that? In one hand you judge the local churches with an axe..... then while crying out "judge not" you coddle aberrant teachings and practices in Christianity with a free pass as if that monstrosity of an organization is something of God's own making.

That, is what is abundantly clear.

Now, you can plead your case but I won't be badgered into submission or to conform to your beliefs.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Drake, how is what you are doing on this thread helping anything? Has anyone been encouraged towards Christ or away from sinful religious practices? Has anyone learned anything new?

LofT,

that is a very good question. I wonder if you have given it serious thought.

So, after thousands of posts that berate the local churches and their members, what exactly is new in this forum? How many times do you need to hear about the same things over and over until you get it?

As to this thread, I've learned some new things. I've gained some insight. If you don't find anything worthwhile, then the price of admission will be refunded to you. though you are welcome to stay and contribute, I certainly would not try to force you to stay.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Drake, I understand the frustrations with seeing what's happening within the churches today. I think it's safe to assume all of us here see these things and are saddened by them.

Christianity just means a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. Rather than disassociating yourself from Christianity, why not spread the Lord's love and testimony to places and to people that are struggling to understand the gospel?

Just because I see what other people around me are doing and strongly disappove doesn't mean I'm going to go around pretending that I'm a space alien now.

I learned the hard way where this train of thought leads. It usually starts off with something like, "I'm removing myself from Christianity" then it snowballs into "I'm removing myself from religion altogether" and then before you know it you're embracing a spirituality that is not in line with the truth.

And I'll throw this out there. Criticism can of course be justified but in my own experience when I get caught up in a critical spirit it's just me projecting and avoiding a reality check. I'll let you decide if the same applies here or not.

Jo S,

thanks for your heart felt response.

I'll share this personal viewpoint.. I do not believe that the organizational thing we call Christianity is God's doing. I have come to believe it is in reality a construct of God's enemy designed to ensnare believers into accepting "good enough". Good enough being anything within that encourages a believer to get set and settled and not pursue the Lord to the fullest extent He wants and expects. So, for instance, those sad situations we have mentioned are not a few in number, they are rampant as will soon discover in this thread. Does God wink at them because there are under the umbrella called "Christianity"? I think not so nor will I. Revelation 2 & 3 reveals a Jesus who both commends and condemns. He commends the believers for hating the very things He hates. Should my evaluation differ from His? On what basis? Who am I to rewrite His letters to the seven churches? I dare not. Are His own to be found in Christianity? Most certainly. I've already shared in response to awareness my view of the overcomers mentioned.

I started this journey over forty years ago and while my love for the Lord has grown sweeter and His purpose ever clearer so has my distaste for the religion that deprives believers of all that He has planned for them.

thanks,
Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

I agree with that definition of Christianity and Christendom. No change. Let's stick to those...

The problem is, Christianity, including the LC, is made up of sinners, from top to bottom, head to toe ; it's full of fallen flawed human beings.

Speaking of elders in the LC being vessels of dishonor, of course not all are. But some are.

For instance. I was in a situation, between a couple of brothers. I knew for a fact which brother was telling the truth. The elders listened to each of us and then prayed. I sat while the elders prayed, and then after their prayer, they decided in favor for the lying cheating brother, I guess because he gave burning testimonies in the meetings, but the prayer made it because the Lord said so.

The elders were clearly vessels of dishonor. I couldn't trust them any more, to be leading by the Lord's guidance. They obviously weren't in touch with the Lord.

I also know of an elder in Spokane, who was the first gay lover of a brother I knew in the c. in Ft. Lauderdale, who came out as gay. He was in touch with his former lover. The elder shared with him that he was going out and hooking up with boys ; another vessel of dishonor ... of elders in the R(r)covery.

Sinners I tell ya. Christianity is made up of fallen flawed human beings. Just read Lily Hsu's book to find out how fallen Watchman Nee was. He was worse than Philip and Timothy Lee - and Lee covered for all of them.

How can we ever hope to fix that? It's been going on since the beginning of Christianity. Look at all the problems Paul was dealing with. We're still dealing with those kinds of problems today. Bemoan it all you want, but, nothing has changed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

But you don't use a level hand. Now why is that? In one hand you judge the local churches with an axe.....

Where did I judge the local churches? You twist my words.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Where did I judge the local churches? You twist my words.

It is how I interpret your posts.

Please clarify your POV.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

The problem is, Christianity, including the LC, is made up of sinners, from top to bottom, head to toe ; it's full of fallen flawed human beings.

Speaking of elders in the LC being vessels of dishonor, of course not all are. But some are.

For instance. I was in a situation, between a couple of brothers. I knew for a fact which brother was telling the truth. The elders listened to each of us and then prayed. I sat while the elders prayed, and then after their prayer, they decided in favor for the lying cheating brother, I guess because he gave burning testimonies in the meetings, but the prayer made it because the Lord said so.

The elders were clearly vessels of dishonor. I couldn't trust them any more, to be leading by the Lord's guidance. They obviously weren't in touch with the Lord.

I also know of an elder in Spokane, who was the first gay lover of a brother I knew in the c. in Ft. Lauderdale, who came out as gay. He was in touch with his former lover. The elder shared with him that he was going out and hooking up with boys ; another vessel of dishonor ... of elders in the R(r)covery.

Sinners I tell ya. Christianity is made up of fallen flawed human beings. Just read Lily Hsu's book to find out how fallen Watchman Nee was. He was worse than Philip and Timothy Lee - and Lee covered for all of them.

How can we ever hope to fix that? It's been going on since the beginning of Christianity. Look at all the problems Paul was dealing with. We're still dealing with those kinds of problems today. Bemoan it all you want, but, nothing has changed.

Awareness,

You are addressing a very big matter: The flesh we always have with us.

However, it is possible to overcome, for if not then His life would be inadequate and we know that it is not. He is the Firstborn among many brothers. He overcame and by His life we, as His many brothers, are enabled to overcome. To what extent we will not know until the Day of the Lord when all judgment is meted out by Him. Our starting point is different for we were born sinners. He, of course, was not. But we have His life and He is a righteous Judge.

But, I think it is important to understand that overcomers in each of the seven churches are overcoming their circumstances and they are held accountable for that. In the same way I believe that the Lord will judge us accordingly. We are not responsible for overcoming the circumstances of others. We have our own to overcome. I am reminded often when considering this about one of the final dialogues between the Lord and Peter before He ascended. Peter was just informed by the Lord that he (Peter) would die a martyrs death. Peter then inquired about John.

John 21

"Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”
20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”
22Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

thanks
Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

But, I think it is important to understand that overcomers in each of the seven churches are overcoming their circumstances and they are held accountable for that.

We don't know anything about the seven churches in Asia, and if they overcame. They may not have. They're not even there/here today. Something must have prevented them from surviving, or from overcoming.

We can read anything into them ... as Lee liberally did ... and we/you do.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

We don't know anything about the seven churches in Asia, and if they overcame. They may not have. They're not even there/here today. Something must have prevented them from surviving, or from overcoming.

We can read anything into them ... as Lee liberally did ... and we/you do.

Awareness,

The call to overcome is to individuals in those churches. Only He knows who.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Awareness,

The call to overcome is to individuals in those churches. Only He knows who.

Drake

Agreed. But we're still gonna have poor Christianity ... even in the local churches. Some may overcome, but not many ... we don't know. Only the Lord knows.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

LofT,

that is a very good question. I wonder if you have given it serious thought.

So, after thousands of posts that berate the local churches and their members, what exactly is new in this forum? How many times do you need to hear about the same things over and over until you get it?

As to this thread, I've learned some new things. I've gained some insight. If you don't find anything worthwhile, then the price of admission will be refunded to you. though you are welcome to stay and contribute, I certainly would not try to force you to stay.

Drake

Thanks for the response Drake.

What new things have you learned? Or what insights could you share that you've received from this thread?

Refund? Nah, you can keep your price of admission.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Agreed. But we're still gonna have poor Christianity ... even in the local churches. Some may overcome, but not many ... we don't know. Only the Lord knows.

Exactly.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Thanks for the response Drake.

What new things have you learned? Or what insights could you share that you've received from this thread?

Refund? Nah, you can keep your price of admission.

Well, I explained the one about "judge not" a few posts back.

The other major one is that even in the 20 years since Brother Lee 's passing Christianity has in many ways become even poorer.

Drake

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Drake

Jo S,
I started this journey over forty years ago and while my love for the Lord has grown sweeter and His purpose ever clearer so has my distaste for the religion that deprives believers of all that He has planned for them.

thanks,
Drake

Fair enough and I understand.

Drake, you have love for the Lord but by what have you measured his love for you in those 40 years?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Fair enough and I understand.

Drake, you have love for the Lord but by what have you measured his love for you in those 40 years?

In so many ways in so many areas. If I had to pick top of mind it would be love for others and grace to overcome.

Drake

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

Well, I explained the one about "judge not" a few posts back.

The other major one is that even in the 20 years since Brother Lee 's passing Christianity has in many ways become even poorer.

Drake

I re-read the "judge not" posts. So you learned that people on this forum judge the local churches and that Christianity is even worse off than you thought? Is that what you mean?

I'm sorry if those are incorrect assumptions, but I'm not sure I'm tracking with you on this. Does what I said above accurately reflect what you've learned?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Well, I explained the one about "judge not" a few posts back.

The other major one is that even in the 20 years since Brother Lee 's passing Christianity has in many ways become even poorer.

Drake

Some say it's the apostasy spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Drake

In so many ways in so many areas. If I had to pick top of mind it would be love for others and grace to overcome.

Drake

Has your 40 year walk all been with the Local Churches? Or did you have some experience with denominations before coming to the LC?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I re-read the "judge not" posts. So you learned that people on this forum judge the local churches and that Christianity is even worse off than you thought? Is that what you mean?

I'm sorry if those are incorrect assumptions, but I'm not sure I'm tracking with you on this. Does what I said above accurately reflect what you've learned?

No. posts #112 and #117. They were only posted yesterday but they are way back so no wonder you could not find them.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Has your 40 year walk all been with the Local Churches? Or did you have some experience with denominations before coming to the LC?

Before I came into the local church I was in the denominations (Baptist, Free Group for a short span, and Pentecostal). Served in most offices in the Pentecostal denomination except lead pastor.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Some say it's the apostasy spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

Yep. That is plausible. Prolly gets much worse before it gets better.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Drake

Before I came into the local church I was in the denominations (Baptist and Pentecostal). Served in most offices in the Pentecostal denomination except lead pastor.

Drake

What made you leave the Pentecostal church?

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

No. posts #112 and #117. They were only posted yesterday but they are way back so no wonder you could not find them.

Drake

I just read those posts. Glad you got something out of it.

I’m not sure I understand those post in context of the OP and my questions. But I’m moving along.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Jo S

What made you leave the Pentecostal church?

I had many wonderful experiences of the Lord in the Pentecostal denomination mainly pertaining to the gifts of the Spirit. Yet, there was still something missing and I did not know what it was exactly. I was serving the Lord, very busy with that, ran the music service, lead an outreach program, served as a board member, was a Bible teacher for various groups, and was very involved in young peoples work. Still, there was some empty spot.

Then one day I read the book "The Glorious Church". As i read that book the Lord spoke to me and I saw the Bible in a richer and deeper way than I had experienced up to that time.. I was an avid reader of christian authors but reading that book caused fireworks to go off. Mainly, I saw that though I was satisfied with my experience of the Christian life, yet God also has a desire from eternity past.. His desire was a bride for Himself.. the Church. I may have expressed to Him audibly or in prayer that if He wanted me to be a part of that I would yield to His wishes. I did not know what that meant exactly for I had not yet even heard of the local church or anything related. I did not realize at that time that He would set forth a series of events that would facilitate my exit from the Pentecostal group a little later, in spite of my arguing with Him about how He was going about it, and my entrance into the local church. I have shared my testimony elsewhere that would fill in some of the blanks but sorry i do not know where it is or how to locate it in the forum.

Thanks for asking.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

It is how I interpret your posts.

Please clarify your POV.

Drake

I only address actions by leaders, and do not categorize the whole of the LC's under some broad brush judgment, as the scripture instructs us.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yep. That is plausible. Prolly gets much worse before it gets better.

I don't know. Wasn't the great apostasy when the RCC became the state religion? Has there ever been such an apostasy on such a grand scale, and for such a long long time? Isn't it still with us? And isn't it the largest Christian sect in the world?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know. Wasn't the great apostasy when the RCC became the state religion? Has there ever been such an apostasy on such a grand scale, and for such a long long time? Isn't it still with us? And isn't it the largest Christian sect in the world?

Can’t disagree but there is a disturbing trend happening with the popularity of groups like Osteen’s Lakewood Church .... that dance routine I posted for instance and I don’t know whether Lakewood originated it or borrowed it. Fast forward to minute 5:30 and note the imagery conveyed in this clip.

https://youtu.be/iFAMw7Sd924

What’s that all about? Different church so some kind of trend in various Christian groups.

Clearly another current example of poor poor Christianity. No better description.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I only address actions by leaders, and do not categorize the whole of the LC's under some broad brush judgment, as the scripture instructs us.

You use both the acronyms LSM and LCM. My observation is that you use LSM to refer to leaders and LCM (Local Church Movement) when you are referring to the whole including local churches, elders, and it’s members. So when you deride LCM you are deriding local churches under that.

If that is not how you have used it please clarify so there is no misunderstanding going forward.

Thanks
Drake

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drake

Can’t disagree but there is a disturbing trend happening with the popularity of groups like Osteen’s Lakewood Church .... that dance routine I posted for instance and I don’t know whether Lakewood originated it or borrowed it. Fast forward to minute 5:30 and note the imagery conveyed in this clip.

https://youtu.be/iFAMw7Sd924

What’s that all about? Different church so some kind of trend in various Christian groups.

Clearly another current example of poor poor Christianity. No better description.

Drake

I'm really upset with your poor, poor Christianity thing. No one denies that and besides those false churches do not constitute true Christianity. I do not buy Lee's definition of Christianity. He denigrated the term Christianity than Watchman Nee's usage in a positive way in his book, What is Christianity?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'm really upset with your poor, poor Christianity thing. No one denies that and besides those false churches do not constitute true Christianity. I do not buy Lee's definition of Christianity. He denigrated the term Christianity than Watchman Nee's usage in a positive way in his book, What is Christianity?

Kevin. If the Anglican Church is not Christianity. If the Episcopalian Church is not Christianity. If Joel Osteens Lakewood Church is not Christianity or that other one in the dance video. If televangelists are not Christianity.... then please tell us who qualifies as Christianity?

Yet, I believe that any subset you might define will be narrower than the generally accepted definition of Christianity. If you don’t like what you see and hear don’t shoot the messenger!

If you don’t think these should be included in Christianity then define it. Post an excerpt from the book. Make your case.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

Can’t disagree but there is a disturbing trend happening with the popularity of groups like Osteen’s Lakewood Church .... that dance routine I posted for instance and I don’t know whether Lakewood originated it or borrowed it. Fast forward to minute 5:30 and note the imagery conveyed in this clip.

https://youtu.be/iFAMw7Sd924

What’s that all about? Different church so some kind of trend in various Christian groups.

Clearly another current example of poor poor Christianity. No better description.

Drake

Seems like something they built for their own amusement and entertainment. A golden calf, if you will.

Exod 32:6 “The people sat down to eat and to drink, and they rose up to play.”

Exod 32:19 "When Moses approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing...

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

Can’t disagree but there is a disturbing trend happening with the popularity of groups like Osteen’s Lakewood Church .... that dance routine I posted for instance and I don’t know whether Lakewood originated it or borrowed it. Fast forward to minute 5:30 and note the imagery conveyed in this clip.

https://youtu.be/iFAMw7Sd924

What’s that all about? Different church so some kind of trend in various Christian groups.

Clearly another current example of poor poor Christianity. No better description.

Drake

That looks like a secular performance group, they do different entertainment routines. Was this in the Lakewood Church building or something? Or does this group claim to be Christian? I don’t see anything about that on their website. I honestly don’t know much about Osteen, he doesn’t impact my life in anyway. So feel free to bash away if that is how you are called by the Lord’s Spirit. I don’t think many here follow Osteen either. So your warnings and condemnation again fall on knowing ears or those (like myself) that have no connection to Osteen and his church.

Here is an example of poor Christianity. After serving with and alongside a church in Nigeria, not only was I exposed to the false gospel of the Prosperity Gospel movement, but I was brought into the lead pastor’s office and he attempted to threaten me in order to receive a bribe. I don’t know how my sharing of this story helps anyone, but at least they know that Christians across the globe are imperfect, and so are their gatherings. Is this what you’re looking for Drake?

When I think of poor Christianity, I think of the brothers and sisters trapped in the LSM churches, I think of you Drake. Your words and those of Evangelical are saved here on this forum, displaying and reflecting poor, poor Christianity. You are currently blind to see it, but know, that it does not go unnoticed.

But this too can be overcome by the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. There is still time. God is gracious and merciful to those who seek Him. He is a mighty and awesome deliverer of His children.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

So feel free to bash away if that is how you are called by the Lord’s Spirit.

I don't think anyone is called of the Lord to "bash away". The NT is clear "who are you to judge another man's servant?" We are not called to beat or bash the Lord's servants.

You are permitted to report wrong doing to the master, we see several places where the Lord rebukes a servant saying "what is this I hear about you". So being a witness is acceptable. Also, in Matthew 18 you are in a position to protect the offended saints from the abusive ones. There is a rigorous protocol that must be followed. However, in that same chapter you are warned very seriously about not treating your brothers and sisters with mercy.

Also, this is what I think the Lord was referring to when he told the church in Ephesus that they had left their first love. It is acceptable to examine a so called apostle and determine if they are or not, it is not acceptable to judge another man's servant. It is a fine line between judging the MOTA doctrine and judging WL.

It is one thing to say that we don't condemn other believers with blanket statements like "poor, poor Christianity", it is not acceptable to pull up a youtube video of someone's worship and condemn that person.

45 Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath set over his household, to give them their food in due season? 46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. 47 Verily I say unto you, that he will set him over all that he hath. 48 But if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord tarrieth; 49 and shall begin to beat his fellow-servants, and shall eat and drink with the drunken; 50 the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he expecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth not, 51 and shall cut him asunder, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Can’t disagree but there is a disturbing trend happening with the popularity of groups like Osteen’s Lakewood Church .... that dance routine I posted for instance and I don’t know whether Lakewood originated it or borrowed it. Fast forward to minute 5:30 and note the imagery conveyed in this clip.

https://youtu.be/iFAMw7Sd924

What’s that all about? Different church so some kind of trend in various Christian groups.

Clearly another current example of poor poor Christianity. No better description.

Haha ... methinks you've got a bit of a sense of humor there.

But to be fair, I think I've seen that girl before, at Cirque du Soleil. Brother Drake, how did you watch that for over 5 minutes? It was very pornographic (not that I dislike pretty graceful women - and working on computers since before the WWW I've seen plenty of porn. But not with my morning tea).

Her movements were beautiful, but I'm afraid if you're trying to give us examples of poor, poor, Christianity, you should at least pick something Christian.

If you go to Liquidsky on the web it says :

"LiquidSky brings together a highly trained troupe of diverse artists who create expressive performances with a mesmerizing display of grace, athleticism and the beauty of cirque entertainment. Our high-quality aerial acts and unique performances will elevate your private party, nightclub, fundraising gala, or corporate event to a higher level of excellence."http://www.liquidskyent.com/

In other words, dear brother, it's not Christian at all.

Please brother, give us better examples of poor, poor, Christianity. There are churches here, even in hillbilly backwater churches, that put on quite the entertainment ; with several big screen TVs, a full rockin' band, and angelic singers. I've been there. It's very moving.

And it's a Southern Baptist church. So after preaching about donating money, there was an altar call.

Brother Drake, not only do words change down thru the ages, so does culture. This is the Multimedia Age. It was before my time, but I heard that even the local churches were embracing multimedia, to show Witness Lee speaking on a big screen. You can even find local church meetings on YouTube. So if you want to show examples of poor, poor, Christianity, show one of them. Not Cirque du Soleil.

It's all poor, poor, poor, Christianity out there. And you are right. It is like a Circus act. When I was in the LC, a couple of visitors to the meeting turned to each other and said, "These people are half a bubble off level."

And they were right. I was.

Keep trying brother. What about the present Met Gala : "Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination."?

[Drake]

-1

Awareness,

I think that was a church meeting based on the audience and the songs being sung (hosanna). The title also says “Church”. The stage appeared like a fixed stage where someone would speak from a podium as opposed to the Cirque stage. The stage has steps such as you might find in a church meeting where the preacher can come down and interact with the crowd and the audience can kneel at for prayer. The Cirque stage will be higher acting as a barrier to prevent fans from rushing the stage. A shot of the ceiling also appears like that you find in a mega church.That church may have very well hired the Cirque dancers... however, it was by all accounts a church. My wife and I viewed it together and she agrees. She felt like you that it was inappropriate.

But, the issue is the trend more so than a single instance. Osteens Lakewood Church has a dance program not just performances, but training young people in dance. That is a valid proof point of poor poor Christianity in the context of this thread.

I do not think any Christian group can be criticized for “Met Gala”. It was a mockery.

Drake

[Drake]

Before we leave Osteens Lakewood Church I think it is important that we understand why this group is included in the scope of Christianity. Their statement of belief is fundamental articulating the basics of the faith.

https://www.lakewoodchurch.com/Pages...e-Believe.aspx

But a review of their practices shows a worldliness that is condemned by the Lord. A clear example of that church genre well described as poor poor Christianity.

Let’s focus on the largest segment of Christianity. The Catholic Church

There is probably no greater example of poor poor Christianity than the Roman Catholic Church. Filled with idols and worship of Mary, superstitious in their practices, a clear marriage to the world, and a hierarchical government that is an affront to both the headship of Christ and the universal priesthood of believers. Add to that the murder of countless believers in the Lord. With the Catholic Churchb you have a demonic organization.

I doubt any, except a Catholic, would give these heresies a pass. Also, it is generally accepted that the Catholic Church with the largest membership, is part of Christianity.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Awareness,

I think that was a church meeting based on the audience and the songs being sung (hosanna).

If only we could find out what church hired Liquidsky for the show? I looked for signs of Osteen, but didn't catch any.

Still brother, what are Christians to do? This generation grew up on multimedia. If the gospel ever hopes to reach them it's gonna have to embrace it.

Didn't you share that LSM allowed electric guitars? The same pressure to embrace multimedia that's on the Christian masses out there, is also on the LSM local churches. In other words, go with multimedia or die ... and the gospel - and the Lord - loses out.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Kevin. If the Anglican Church is not Christianity. If the Episcopalian Church is not Christianity. If Joel Osteens Lakewood Church is not Christianity or that other one in the dance video. If televangelists are not Christianity.... then please tell us who qualifies as Christianity?

Yet, I believe that any subset you might define will be narrower than the generally accepted definition of Christianity. If you don’t like what you see and hear don’t shoot the messenger!

If you don’t think these should be included in Christianity then define it. Post an excerpt from the book. Make your case.

Drake

There are segments of every denomination, including your own, which are shameful. Think back to every one of your "storms."

[UntoHim]

Sorry Mr. Drake, we're not getting into the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church.
Let's stick to Protestantism. Unless of course you want to have the Local Church "take the heat" for Eastern Lightning.
I don't think you really want to get into that hornet's nest here on this thread, do you?
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

If only we could find out what church hired Liquidsky for the show? I looked for signs of Osteen, but didn't catch any.

Still brother, what are Christians to do? This generation grew up on multimedia. If the gospel ever hopes to reach them it's gonna have to embrace it.

Didn't you share that LSM allowed electric guitars? The same pressure to embrace multimedia that's on the Christian masses out there, is also on the LSM local churches. In other words, go with multimedia or die ... and the gospel - and the Lord - loses out.

Isn't it ironic that the classic Protestant hymns espoused by LSM's Hymnal includes musical arrangements which were deemed too worldly for its time.

So ... in the eyes of certain legalistic bureaucrats within the church, the only difference between "spiritual" and "worldly" music is perhaps a generation.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sorry Mr. Drake, we're not getting into the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church.
Let's stick to Protestantism. Unless of course you want to have the Local Church "take the heat" for Eastern Lightning.
I don't think you really want to get into that hornet's nest here on this thread, do you?
-

Correct UntoHim,

No plan to get into the Catholic teachings. I don’t think anybody here disagrees but since it is the largest branch of Christianity , it and all its baggage easily qualify as poor poor Christianity.

Thanks
Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

I doubt any, except a Catholic, would give these heresies a pass. Also, it is generally accepted that the Catholic Church with the largest membership, is part of Christianity.

Drake

That's not what you said before. You agreed that RCC was Christendom.

And not all would accept this statement.

Most would say that the gospel must be preached in order to be part of Christianity.

But one thing is true -- no one obsesses more over "Christianity" than those who read LSM's teachings.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sorry Mr. Drake, we're not getting into the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church.
Let's stick to Protestantism. Unless of course you want to have the Local Church "take the heat" for Eastern Lightning.
I don't think you really want to get into that hornet's nest here on this thread, do you?
-

This brings up another point -- the only valid reason for this thread is an attempt by a few LSMers to say, "we are not as bad as them."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This brings up another point -- the only valid reason for this thread is an attempt by a few LSMers to say, "we are not as bad as them."

If that's the case bro Ohio, then they are being tribalistic, like so many other groups ... a we/them thing. It's completely a thing of the flesh ... a carry over from our primitive tribalistic days. I think it's hardwired in human nature ... and therefore is of the flesh.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

Correct UntoHim,

No plan to get into the Catholic teachings. I don’t think anybody here disagrees but since it is the largest branch of Christianity , it and all its baggage easily qualify as poor poor Christianity.

Thanks
Drake

This thread is based on a false dichotomy that views Witness Lee's little group and Christianity as mutually exclusive, when in fact they are indistinguishable. Witness Lee's group is part of Christianity. The fact that Leeites, like yourself claim to be different just makes you like the other Christian sects that claim to be the only ones who are doing it right. So if you want to see how Christianity is poor poor, just look in the mirror.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

If that's the case bro Ohio, then they are being tribalistic, like so many other groups ... a we/them thing. It's completely a thing of the flesh ... a carry over from our primitive tribalistic days. I think it's hardwired in human nature ... and therefore is of the flesh.

The OP explains the purpose. Go with that.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by zeek

This thread is based on a false dichotomy that views Witness Lee's little group and Christianity as mutually exclusive, when in fact they are indistinguishable. Witness Lee's group is part of Christianity. The fact that Leeites, like yourself claim to be different just makes you like the other Christian sects that claim to be the only ones who are doing it right. So if you want to see how Christianity is poor poor, just look in the mirror.

Several have said the same thing.

Thanks
Drake

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

Several have said the same thing.

Thanks
Drake

When are you going to get message? Churches consist of human beings. There are no perfect human beings and there are no perfect churches. Jesus taught us to deal with our own flaws not to point fingers or cast stones at other people. Who's teaching are you going to follow, Jesus' or Witness Lee's?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by zeek

When are you going to get message? Churches consist of human beings. There are no perfect human beings and there are no perfect churches. Jesus taught us to deal with our own flaws not to point fingers or cast stones at other people. Who's teaching are you going to follow, Jesus' or Witness Lee's

Zeek,

This isn’t a vote.

How do you reconcile your view with Revelation 2 & 3?

Please explain.

Drake

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

Zeek,

This isn’t a vote.

How do you reconcile your view with Revelation 2 & 3?

Please explain.

Drake

I don't see a problem.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't see a problem.

Good. Please explain how your view matches the Lord Jesus in Revelation 2 & 3.

Concerning churches and their teachings, practices, works, and condition He judges, He condemns, He hates, and He commends those who hate what He hates. Everyone thus far seems to want to overlook that. Maybe you will clear it up.

I have explained my view of this in #112 and #117.

Thanks
Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

The OP explains the purpose. Go with that.

Drake

Tribalism is at the bottom as one of the reasons Christianity is so poor. That it characterizes Lee's local church movement means the local churches are just as poor as all the rest.

Look, I was a big fan of one church one city because ideally it included all Christians in a city. However, it didn't work out that way. It turned into, 'you're not in our tribe/church, so you aren't the church.' It went from inclusiveness to exclusiveness. And it's still that way, and is poor for it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't see a problem.

Ephesus: thou canst not bear evil men, and didst try them that call themselves apostles, and they are not, and didst find them false…But I have this against thee, that thou didst leave thy first love.

The first portion clearly commends the saints for investigating the claim to apostleship and finding it false. That might support a thread referring to "poor, poor Christianity". However this needs to be tempered with "leaving their first love". I understand that to refer to the Christ we received when we heard the gospel. To go from that salvation story to now judging every group out there is akin to leaving your first love.

Smyrna: the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. 10*Fear not the things which thou art about to suffer: behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days. Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life.

My concern about those in Ephesus judging others seems to have become worse with Smyrna, they are hypocrites, blasphemous, and abusive to the believers. All of this is under the cloak of religion. the warning to me is who am I? Am I the suffering church or the synagogue that has become the adversary to the Lord.

Pergamum: in the days of Antipas my witness, my faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwelleth. 14*But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there some that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication. 15*So hast thou also some that hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans in like manner.

I would say the religious persecution we see in Smyrna has grown worse here. Antipas is killed, martyred, as a faithful witness of the Lord. Balaam is a key teacher, he teaches leaders how to stumble the weaker believers. If Drake is claiming that this is what he is focused on in the statement "poor, poor Christianity" it is best supported with this church. You have idol sacrifice, fornication, false prophets, and martyrdom.

Thyatira: 20*But I have this against thee, that thou sufferest the woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess; and she teacheth and seduceth my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. 21*And I gave her time that she should repent; and she willeth not to repent of her fornication. 22*Behold, I cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of her works. 23*And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he that searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto each one of you according to your works. 24*But to you I say, to the rest that are in Thyatira, as many as have not this teaching, who know not the deep things of Satan, as they are wont to say; I cast upon you none other burden.

Rebuking the saints for "tolerating" Jezebel is also a strong support to this thread. If the claim is that "poor, poor Christianity" is poor because they tolerate Jezebel, idol worship and fornication, then it is valid to say "I am with Antipas", not going to tolerate this.

Sardis: for I have found no works of thine perfected before my God.

However, each church is very focused on you. Instead of pointing fingers at others, "are your works perfected before God?"

Laodicea: I will spew thee out of my mouth. 17*Because thou sayest, I am rich, and have gotten riches, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art the wretched one and miserable and poor and blind and naked:

It seems to me that most of the judgement given by the Lord to these churches is based on their speaking. Arrogance, boasting, hypocrisy, blasphemy, and persecuting and martyring those who won't go along with you. You have false prophets teaching leaders how to stumble those who are not aligned with them. You have apostles claiming to be apostles when they aren't. You have Jezebel claiming to be a prophetess when she isn't.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Tribalism is at the bottom as one of the reasons Christianity is so poor. That it characterizes Lee's local church movement means the local churches are just as poor as all the rest.

Look, I was a big fan of one church one city because ideally it included all Christians in a city. However, it didn't work out that way. It turned into, 'you're not in our tribe/church, so you aren't the church.' It went from inclusiveness to exclusiveness. And it's still that way, and is poor for it.

No. I understood what you meant.

I was redirecting you to the base note to understand my purpose. You used Ohio's mis-characterization to springboard into your tribal view op-ed. You said "If that's the case bro Ohio, then..."

Well, its not the case.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

No. I understood what you meant.

I was redirecting you to the base note to understand my purpose. You used Ohio's mis-characterization to springboard into your tribal view op-ed. You said "If that's the case bro Ohio, then..."

Well, its not the case.

Wow! That's great. That means the local church would accept me even if I don't use the Recovery Version, care for Lee's Life Studies, don't hold that Lee was the apostle, oracle, and God's authority on the earth, and don't care about either Nee and/or Lee.

Is that what you are saying?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

Thanks ZNP for your thoughtful post. Based on a collection of responses I have some new considerations. Here is one.

When the Lord was on the earth He said and did many things living out the divine attributes through the human virtues. By His every word and act we can see a perfect man expressing the Godhead. Yet, during His earthly sojourn He only mentioned the Church universal once ("upon this rock I will build my Church") and the local church ("tell it to the church") once. We could derive very little about Gods desire and plan for the Church universal nor the arrangement, government, beliefs, practices, or establishing of local churches from just those two verses. Those definitions He would reveal to us through His apostles but primarily through the Apostle Paul. Yet, the Lord confirmed the work of the apostles as His own by His address to the 7 churches in Revelation. In those letters to the seven churches much more is revealed about the Lord Himself. and His judgement of the works, teachings, mission, etc. of the local churches.

Probably you will not disagree with most or all of that preamble.

Now here is what I have noticed. As concerns the local churches and His assessments, judgements, commendation, condemnation, and call to individuals to overcome the shortcomings in those local churches many posters here appeal, as a counter to the Lords clear demands in the letters in Revelation, to the sayings of, as aron sums up, "a guy named Jesus" in the gospels. So "judge not lest you be judged" in the gospels is not a direct match to ""But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate." revealed in Revelation. That is because the Jesus revealed in the gospels is not complete. It is part of the story. It is only when we come to Revelation that we see our High Priest, Jesus, caring for the churches in His glorified position in the heavenly tabernacle. There we see not a lowly man on Earth. Instead we see:

Revelation 1
"12) I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,d dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.17When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades."

That Jesus, the one in Revelation, is judging, condemning, and hates some things and commends His followers who hate the same things. He condemns things in the churches. Is His condemning and hatred incompatible with love one another? incompatible with judge not? No, it is not. Does He intimate any concept close to "live and let live"? No, He does not. Does He condemn the worship of Beyonce under the banner of Christian worship? I'm certain He does. Appealing to the Jesus in the gospels while evaluating the matters He judges as the High Priest, matters that He explicitly states we are to heed, is missing the whole point of Revelation 2 & 3.

Thanks for sharing.

Drake

Rev. 2 & 3 were written to the angels of seven churches. Which one of those angels do you suppose you are? Really?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Wow! That's great. That means the local church would accept me even if I don't use the Recovery Version, care for Lee's Life Studies, don't hold that Lee was the apostle, oracle, and God's authority on the earth, and don't care about either Nee and/or Lee.

Is that what you are saying?

Apparently, we are as two knights passing on a ship.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by zeek

Rev. 2 & 3 were written to the angels of seven churches. Which one of those angels do you suppose you are? Really?

You’ll find out.

But you understand that the Lord Jesus described there does not fit the one you used in your argument.

Drake

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

You’ll find out.

I think those "epistles" were written to the angels of the seven churches not to you or me. Am I wrong?

But you understand that the Lord Jesus described there does not fit the one you used in your argument.

Drake

So now you have two Lord Jesuses?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think those "epistles" were written to the angels of the seven churches not to you or me. Am I wrong?

So now you have two Lord Jesuses?

You are saying that the Lord was describing the actions of angels? His call to overcome was to angels? Interesting doctrine. I never heard it before. Please show how it applies. Take the first one .. Rev 2:1-7

There is one Lord Jesus. You are only recognizing half a Jesus.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

I was redirecting you to the base note to understand my purpose. You used Ohio's mis-characterization to springboard into your tribal view op-ed. You said "If that's the case bro Ohio, then..."

Originally Posted by awareness

Wow! That's great. That means the local church would accept me even if I don't use the Recovery Version, care for Lee's Life Studies, don't hold that Lee was the apostle, oracle, and God's authority on the earth, and don't care about either Nee and/or Lee.

Is that what you are saying?

You have to reject Ohio too. Don't forget!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sir Drake

Apparently, we are as two knights passing on a ship.

Is that why you couldn't answer me?

[leastofthese]

“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

You’ll find out.

But you understand that the Lord Jesus described there does not fit the one you used in your argument.

Drake

The Jesus in Revelation matches the Jesus in the gospels, I do not have any conflict.

1. The church in Ephesus came in contact with those claiming falsely to be apostles. They were able to determine that but in the process they left their first love. The Lord doesn't call us to judge and throw stones at anyone, but rather to return to our first love.

2. Then in Smyrna we now see a dichotomy in the church, those suffering persecution for the Lord and the phony ones who claim they are Jews and are not, the "synagogue of Satan". They are adversaries to the church and are necessary for the growth, maturity, and overcoming. We are called to overcome these teachings.

3. In Pergamum we see the distinction between these two come into better focus. False prophets, stumbling of the weaker saints, those with a strong testimony are being martyred, and the distinction is described as those that are Nicolaitans and those that hate the teaching of the Nicolaitans. In this church there are those who have done some truly evil things, the Lord doesn't call us to judge them or to cast stones at them, but rather to hold onto what we have and keep the Lord's works to the end. We will know that it is Jesus who searches the reins and hearts. Not you sir. Not Uzza.

4. In Sardis there are only a few saints left who have not "defiled their garments", those are the ones who will walk in white.

5. In Philadelphia we learn where all the saints went, they were forced to "go out" from these other locales. This is a key step in the forming of the pillars of the house of God.

6. In Laodicea the Lord has also left, just as he warned the church in Ephesus that this would be the result, the lamp stand is gone, and He is calling for the last remnants to leave. He does call for us to open the door and go out unto Him, but never once does He call us to judge and throw stones.

Never once does He call us to judge them, we are called to return to our first love, to stand in faith like Antipas, to hold onto what we have, to keep the Lord's works of salvation to the end, to not defile our garments.

He is the same in the gospels as He is in Revelation. We were always told that "vengeance is mine, I will repay". That is not a surprise. We are not the one with the sharp two edged sword, instead this is an opportunity for the Lord to reveal Himself.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Wow! That's great. That means the local church would accept me even if I don't use the Recovery Version, care for Lee's Life Studies, don't hold that Lee was the apostle, oracle, and God's authority on the earth, and don't care about either Nee and/or Lee.

Is that what you are saying?

There are plenty of people in the recovery who are as you describe. I was one until I learnt to appreciate the richness of the ministry. I use the Recovery version by choice because I found it is better than most bible versions and study bibles. I have a number of other versions which I can use any time.

Independent review of the Recovery Version have found it to be an excellent version:

https://conversantfaith.com/2017/06/...-bible-review/

The Recovery Version is an excellent, literal translation (slightly more so than the ESV) suited for serious study.

[Evangelical]

Large churches are filled with many unconverted carnal people because pastors use carnal means (as Drake has shown) to attract people and have dumbed down the gospel, not preaching the true gospel. As we saw in Drake's example, a church swelling from 50 to 900 people is not genuine growth, but such rapid growth is possible through the use of gimmicks or worldliness. Anyone involved in evangelism knows that genuine growth does not happen so fast.

If carnal methods are used to attract people this will attract carnal men. For them the church becomes a place to find purpose and meaning in their life which most people seek, and they may be given some role or responsibility by the pastor to give them a sense of contribution to the group and keep them interested. But there is a small group of converted people in every large church, all they want is Christ, but the pastor caters to the larger group of unconverted people through worldly entertainment and lets the sheep starve to death.

Personally I distinguish between the larger gatherings of unconverted ones and the pastor who leads them and the genuine believers in the church. Anything shown e.g. Beyonce happening in the church is clearly from or catered to the unconverted ones.

If we do not speak out against it for fear of offending or hurting the small group of converted ones in the church (the "broad brush" as it is called) I am afraid that we are being just like the pastor catering to the majority unconverted. The Bible itself is not afraid of the "broad brush" in calling Babylon for what it is, even though a number of believers reside in her. To them, the Bible says to "come out", not try and fix things from within. A number of believers continue to fellowship in Babylon and perhaps with some ego think they are somehow improving or helping the situation by being there, when in reality they are only harming themselves and furthering the cause of Babylon.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As we saw in Drake's example, a church swelling from 50 to 900 people is not genuine growth, but such rapid growth is possible through the use of gimmicks or worldliness. Anyone involved in evangelism knows that genuine growth does not happen so fast.

Evangelical, I'd be curious to hear your views on the rapid growths of movements such as the Azusa street revival. Do you believe this was a genuine move of God or was it successful because of gimmicks would you say?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Yes, that’s true LofT.

However, If Beyonce worship was introduced in your church is that how you would respond? Would you not speak out? Criticize and condemn?

Shouldn’t we join with the mind of the Lord in those matters just as much as holding an attitude of humility and kindness toward others?

Our Lord Jesus is both the Godman in the gospels and the High Priest in Revelation 2&3.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

There is one Lord Jesus. You are only recognizing half a Jesus.

And I like zeek's half. Zeek's half is the Jesus in the gospels ; the 'one' Lord Jesus.

Drake's half, if I may, is the Revelation Jesus, not the gospels Jesus. The Revelation Jesus wants nothing to do with loving neighbors and enemies ; not the loving Jesus found in the gospels.

The Revelation Jesus is "another Jesus." So I'll take zeek's half.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Is that why you couldn't answer me?

Yes. Our exchange diverged and was growing farther apart with each post.

I’ll try to get us back on the same page.

Ohio, as is his practice, ascribed evil motives to a fellow poster, me, that the purpose of the thread was to show “we are not as bad as them”. He is asking us to dismiss the stated purpose of the thread in the opening post. He knows better or is pretending to be a mind reader of some sort.

You chased his mischaracterizing with “if that’s the case bro Ohio, then...”

I then pointed you back to the opening point because what he said was not the case. Our conversation diverged from there.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

And I like zeek's half. Zeek's half is the Jesus in the gospels ; the 'one' Lord Jesus.

Drake's half, if I may, is the Revelation Jesus, not the gospels Jesus. The Revelation Jesus wants nothing to do with loving neighbors and enemies ; not the loving Jesus found in the gospels.

The Revelation Jesus is "another Jesus." So I'll take zeek's half.

And awareness, you have just demonstrated why taking half of anything in the Bible is a bad idea. There is one Jesus and He is both the lioving Godman in the gospels and the shepherding High Priest in Revelation 2&3. That is why He is so wonderful and we can trust everything about Him.

Thanks
Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Wow! That's great. That means the local church would accept me even if I don't use the Recovery Version, care for Lee's Life Studies, don't hold that Lee was the apostle, oracle, and God's authority on the earth, and don't care about either Nee and/or Lee.

Is that what you are saying?

Like Evangelical, I know many like this in the Lords Recovery. Those would not be conditions for meeting.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Evangelical, I'd be curious to hear your views on the rapid growths of movements such as the Azusa street revival. Do you believe this was a genuine move of God or was it successful because of gimmicks would you say?

The revival itself I think not of God but of man because it was based on the preaching that tongues is evidence of the Holy Spirit which is unbiblical. We could say that speaking in tongues was the gimmick, in this case. It all started when some people spoke in tongues, this attracted others who also wanted to speak in tongues, and you get this snowball effect. Similar mass herding or flocking phenomena occurs whenever Apple releases a new iPhone. If this revival started from the preaching of the gospel as it did in the Bible then I would find it more believable. At the same time, genuine moves of God on a personal level and genuine salvations would have been occurring because of the increased rate of gospel preaching, but not because of some special revival or the preaching about tongues but simply because more people were getting out and preaching.

I think all revivals are manufactured by men, because they all start and end because of men and front and center is some sort of gimmick and fast growth is not sustainable and it is not genuine growth.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes, that’s true LofT.

However, If Beyonce worship was introduced in your church is that how you would respond? Would you not speak out? Criticize and condemn?Drake

I have not met with the LRC for 20 years, I did not realize that they had started to worship Beyonce. No, of course you should speak out.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes, that’s true LofT.

However, If Beyonce worship was introduced in your church is that how you would respond? Would you not speak out? Criticize and condemn?

Shouldn’t we join with the mind of the Lord in those matters just as much as holding an attitude of humility and kindness toward others?

Our Lord Jesus is both the Godman in the gospels and the High Priest in Revelation 2&3.

Drake

If Beyonce worship started in my church I would take immediate action, but that would not include writing about it on this forum. I'm not sure how that applies here. Surely you're not suggesting that this was your motivation for starting the thread.

Last week my church gathered with all other churches in town to serve the community in various projects around the city. I never saw the local churches serve anyone but themselves (Although I was only there for a year). Maybe you can take that back to your locality - we're called to love and serve those around us.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

If Beyonce worship started in my church I would take immediate action, but that would not include writing about it on this forum. I'm not sure how that applies here. Surely you're not suggesting that this was your motivation for starting the thread..

Ok. Perhaps this will clarify the purpose of this thread since you keep bringing it up.

If your pastor, prominent leader of “the LofT Church” (I don’t know the real name and don’t care to know it), believed strongly in community activities with other churches and held strong vocal convictions against Beyonce worship, soulish dance performances under the guise of worship, the 10 Articles of Anglicanism, and the teachings and practices of the Episcopalian Church that got them ostracized by the Anglican Church.... and a forum like this were opened with exmembers criticizing his teachings and convictions and lambasting his coworkers and mocked his practices of meeting with other churches for community projects and his stand against Beyonce worship and those other ungodly things...wouldn’t you be inclined to step up and offer a defense? Or would that be too much of a Pharisee for your taste?

If you can imagine that scenario then you will understand the purpose of this thread in this forum. Yet, I thought the base note was clear needing no further explanation as to purpose. We are now examining a particular belief of “my pastor”, to put it in terms more familiar to you, and I am arguing that he was on solid ground to characterize the situation in the Church as poor poor Christianity.

Hope that clarifies.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok. Perhaps this will clarify the purpose of this thread since you keep bringing it up.

If your pastor, prominent leader of “the LofT Church” (I don’t know the real name and don’t care to know it), believed strongly in community activities with other churches and held strong vocal convictions against Beyonce worship, soulish dance performances under the guise of worship, the 10 Articles of Anglicanism, and the teachings and practices of the Episcopalian Church that got them ostracized by the Anglican Church.... and a forum like this were opened with exmembers criticizing his teachings and convictions and lambasting his coworkers and mocked his practices of meeting with other churches for community projects and his stand against Beyonce worship and those other ungodly things...wouldn’t you be inclined to step up and offer a defense? Or would that be too much of a Pharisee for your taste?

If you can imagine that scenario then you will understand the purpose of this thread in this forum. Yet, I thought the bast note was clear.

Drake

So then this thread is a defense of Witness Lee's claim regarding "poor, poor Christianity".

1. Part of this claim is that there are not any other worthy ministries. Other than a few history books and Strong's concordance I was taught in the LRC not to read any other ministry other than Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Also the Watchman Nee ministry came with the caveat that you had to be concerned about who published it. So far this thread has completely neglected this aspect.

2. If you are going to use Revelation 2-3 for a defense of Witness Lee that seems to open up a very big can of worms.

3. This supports what many of us have been saying on this thread -- your defense of WL is that "hey, at least he isn't like those over there talking about Beyonce, or dancing to Hossana"

Your logic is that if there is any behavior done under the name of Christianity that you disprove of then that is proof of Witness Lee's claim to "poor, poor Christianity". Using that logic if there is any ministry that is of the Lord other than Witness Lee's it proves that his claim there isn't is wrong.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have not met with the LRC for 20 years, I did not realize that they had started to worship Beyonce. No, of course you should speak out.

After learning about decades of malfeasance covered up by top officials at LSM, nothing surprises me any more.

They must learn from other fruitful ministers (Acts 23.1-2) that having a conscience void of offense is critical. They love to talk about "exercising their spirit" which really means just shouting (hence called "shouters" in Asia), but the real exercise of our spirit is to exercise our faith and our conscience. (I Tim 1.18-19)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

And awareness, you have just demonstrated why taking half of anything in the Bible is a bad idea. There is one Jesus and He is both the lioving Godman in the gospels and the shepherding High Priest in Revelation 2&3. That is why He is so wonderful and we can trust everything about Him.

Thanks

And thanks back atchya. I say, so you say. But it's not depicted that way. Combining both the beginning of the NT, and the end, it could be said that Jesus is saying, "Do as I say, not as I do."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then this thread is a defense of Witness Lee's claim regarding "poor, poor Christianity".

1. Part of this claim is that there are not any other worthy ministries. Other than a few history books and Strong's concordance I was taught in the LRC not to read any other ministry other than Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Also the Watchman Nee ministry came with the caveat that you had to be concerned about who published it. So far this thread has completely neglected this aspect.

2. If you are going to use Revelation 2-3 for a defense of Witness Lee that seems to open up a very big can of worms.

3. This supports what many of us have been saying on this thread -- your defense of WL is that "hey, at least he isn't like those over there talking about Beyonce, or dancing to Hossana"

Your logic is that if there is any behavior done under the name of Christianity that you disprove of then that is proof of Witness Lee's claim to "poor, poor Christianity". Using that logic if there is any ministry that is of the Lord other than Witness Lee's it proves that his claim there isn't is wrong.

On 1. I was never restricted in anyway as you describe. I am still not.

On 2. Sure. To this forum it is a big can of worms, to me it is examining specifics instead of a generalization. Let the worms fall where they may.

3. No. I anticipated, with the exception of Evangelical, you and everyone else would devote your energy to show how Witness Lee, his coworkers, and the local churches, elders and the so called “LCM” including its members were nothing more than another proof point of poor poor Christianity. I do not need to devote energy making moral equivalency arguments , you all are doing fine at that. Rather we will substantiate one way or the other whether the title statement is valid.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think all revivals are manufactured by men, because they all start and end because of men and front and center is some sort of gimmick and fast growth is not sustainable and it is not genuine growth.

Amen EvanG. Both the Little Flock (Nee) and the USA local church were started by men.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

And thanks back atchya. I say, so you say. But it's not depicted that way. Combining both the beginning of the NT, and the end, it could be said that Jesus is saying, "Do as I say, not as I do."

Ever the provocateur awareness, however your contribution is helpful nonetheless. You articulated a problem exhibited here in this thread several times already. There are arguments that only understand or appreciate the Lord Jesus in the gospels and do not include the Jesus revealed in Revelation. To his credit, only ZNP attempted to reconcile the two.

Thanks
Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

you all are doing fine at that.

Drake

Thanks bro Drake. Except for a couple of flubs -- Bakker, and swinging sexy lady -- you're doing a fine job too.

But if Bible knowledge is the criteria, I can show you thousands, maybe millions, of examples of poor, poor, Christianity. Just visit your local churches, not the Lee kind, but those near you, and talk to the members about the Bible.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, knowledge of the Bible is not the Lord's criteria. Being generated by the Spirit doesn't require it.

And only the Lord knows. So be careful bro Drake. Not to avoid silly booboos, but pointing your finger and saying poor, poor, Christianity. You might just be pointing at those the Lord doesn't consider poor.

And that also applies to me -- our -- pointing the finger at Local Churchers.

I'd say that it's likely most local churchers have no idea about the poor parts of Nee, Lee, and LSM. They'er simple. They just have a heart for the Lord. Just like so many Lee -- and you doing your darnedest -- called poor, poor.

It just takes a little humility to admit that we're no better than others. The problems with Nee and Lee is that neither had even that much.

Nee kinda had a good reason. He was opposing the invasion into China, of those poor, poor, Western Missionaries. Even tho without them, neither He nor Lee, would be Christians. Proving, even poor, poor, Christianity can produce -- according to you & LSMs bank account -- good results.

Turns out that those you and Lee call poor are very busy spreading Christianity around the world. I agree, after discovering that western missionaries are actually spreading Western culture, that it might be poor, but still, Christianity of all sorts is spreading.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The revival itself I think not of God but of man because it was based on the preaching that tongues is evidence of the Holy Spirit which is unbiblical. We could say that speaking in tongues was the gimmick, in this case. It all started when some people spoke in tongues, this attracted others who also wanted to speak in tongues, and you get this snowball effect. Similar mass herding or flocking phenomena occurs whenever Apple releases a new iPhone. If this revival started from the preaching of the gospel as it did in the Bible then I would find it more believable. At the same time, genuine moves of God on a personal level and genuine salvations would have been occurring because of the increased rate of gospel preaching, but not because of some special revival or the preaching about tongues but simply because more people were getting out and preaching.

I think all revivals are manufactured by men, because they all start and end because of men and front and center is some sort of gimmick and fast growth is not sustainable and it is not genuine growth.

In post #185 I described my positive though incomplete experience in Pentecostalism. Here I will provide what I consider the poor poor Christianity aspects of Pentecostslism. One is a basic teaching and the other are practices.

First, a fundamental flaw in most Pentecostal churches is the Arminian belief of conditional salvation.

“The conditional preservation of the saints, or commonly conditional security, is the Arminian belief that believers are kept safe by God in their saving relationship with Him upon the condition of a persevering faith in Christ.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cond..._of_the_saints

This plays out as an elevator salvation... one minute you are up , next you are down. It is applied something like this... you are in a meeting speaking in tongues, only real evidence that you have been baptized in the Holy Spirit, then next day you go out with buddies, have a few drinks, hit the road with one too many under your belt, run into a telephone pole, die and... you find yourself in hell. You start to become introspective about everything in your life because your eternal status is dependent on it. You start to ask, what if I die right now? That is a frequent message from the pulpit. Conversely, if you leave a meeting on good terms with the Lord and die on the way home, you end up in heaven.

Next post on practices.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

On 1. I was never restricted in anyway as you describe. I am still not.

I did not say you were "restricted" I said you have neglected this. It is the crucial point, since WL put "poor poor Christianity" in juxtaposition with his "rich, rich ministry".

Originally Posted by Drake

On 2. Sure. To this forum it is a big can of worms, to me it is examining specifics instead of a generalization. Let the worms fall where they may.

OK, I will begin to sprinkle them out.

Originally Posted by Drake

3. No. I anticipated, with the exception of Evangelical, you and everyone else would devote your energy to show how Witness Lee, his coworkers, and the local churches, elders and the so called “LCM” including its members were nothing more than another proof point of poor poor Christianity. I do not need to devote energy making moral equivalency arguments , you all are doing fine at that. Rather we will substantiate one way or the other whether the title statement is valid.

Drake

You just said that this thread is a defense of WL's ministry. As I understand it "compared to idol worshippers, fornicators and Jim Baker his ministry looks pretty good". Is that correct?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I did not say you were "restricted" I said you have neglected this. It is the crucial point, since WL put "poor poor Christianity" in juxtaposition with his "rich, rich ministry".

You just said that this thread is a defense of WL's ministry. As I understand it "compared to idol worshippers, fornicators and Jim Baker his ministry looks pretty good". Is that correct?

I have not juxtaposed anything but i understand why you automatically go there.

What Brother Lee described as “poor poor Christianity “ stands or falls on its own merits. That is the purpose of this thread. You may offer your own examples of poor poor Christianity wherever you think they exist.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Drake

In post #185 I described my positive though incomplete experience in Pentecostalism. Here I will provide what I consider the poor poor Christianity aspects of Pentecostslism. One is a basic teaching and the other are practices.

First, a fundamental flaw in most Pentecostal churches is the Arminian belief of conditional salvation.

“The conditional preservation of the saints, or commonly conditional security, is the Arminian belief that believers are kept safe by God in their saving relationship with Him upon the condition of a persevering faith in Christ.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cond..._of_the_saints

This plays out as an elevator salvation... one minute you are up , next you are down. It is applied something like this... you are in a meeting speaking in tongues, only real evidence that you have been baptized in the Holy Spirit, then next day you go out with buddies, have a few drinks, hit the road with one too many under your belt, run into a telephone pole, die and... you find yourself in hell. You start to become introspective about everything in your life because your eternal status is dependent on it. You start to ask, what if I die right now? That is a frequent message from the pulpit. Conversely, if you leave a meeting on good terms with the Lord and die on the way home, you end up in heaven.

Next post on practices.

Drake

I cannot nor will I deny the positive life changing experiences I had in a Pentecostal Church. However, the environment lends itself to superstition and manufactured exhibitions. I will recount two that I consider to be firmly in the poor poor category.

First, because glossia is so important to the group as evidence of the Holy Spirit it was often manufactured... by that I mean speaking in tongues was brought by repeating “coca-cola ten times real fast”. One dear older sister used to reach out and kinda yank the lower lip of someone trying to break through as if to jump start the glossia.

Second, during revivals there was frequent supernatural manifestations. “I was praying here today and Jesus appeared standing right there at the end of this altar. And He told me,..”.

I should add that a popular interpretation of tongues started with “ If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves...l “ etc. I was pretty sure He had more to say but it was just part of that culture as it were.

These are examples but they reflect what is poor about Pentecostalism in my experience.

Drake

[UntoHim]

Come on Mr. Drake, you're smarter than that. (at least I thought you were)

"Poor, poor Christianity" is a comparative statement. Poor, poor COMPARED TO WHAT? The simple fact is that Witness Lee was comparing the Local Church(es) to other Christian churches, denominations and ministries. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So compare away my friend....but everything comes right back to the source of your comparison - The teachings and practices established by Witness Lee and the history (good, bad and in between) of the Local Church movement.
-

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

You are saying that the Lord was describing the actions of angels? His call to overcome was to angels? Interesting doctrine. I never heard it before. Please show how it applies. Take the first one .. Rev 2:1-7

You "never heard it before"? Perhaps you don't have "ears to hear" [v.7]. The "epistle" is addressed, not unto men but "Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus." That's not my interpretation, that's my quotation, as Witness Lee liked to say.

Maybe you missed that because your MOTA translated the Greek word αγγελος as messenger which he interprets to be a "spiritual one" in order to make it fit into his interpretive system.


But the word αγγελος is translated as angel throughout the rest of the Book of Revelation. Thus, it seems that the "Recovery Version" obscured the plain word of the text.

Perhaps LSM should rename Witness Lee's book the Covering Version, since Witness Lee's peculiar use of the English language and copious footnotes cover up more meaning than they reveal.

There is one Lord Jesus. You are only recognizing half a Jesus.

What are you basing that accusation on? Presumption?


I wouldn't have such a problem with Lee, his ministry or his book if he didn't claim to be the MOTA and set himself above everyone else. And you seem to be continuing that trend with this "poor poor Christianity" thread.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

In post #185 I described my positive though incomplete experience in Pentecostalism. Here I will provide what I consider the poor poor Christianity aspects of Pentecostslism. One is a basic teaching and the other are practices.

Brother Drake, God is a loving God. So much so that He provides churches for bipolar believers. And that's the Pentecostal and the Apostolic churches ; where bipolar's can go in and out of salvation.

I've seen it. I've had friends that are bipolar, and for awhile they're on fire for Jesus, and the Bible, then something happens, like lust for a woman, and their on fire for sex and partying. Then, after awhile of that, they run back to Jesus ... and are on fire for Jesus again. Only to repeat it again and again ; falling in and out of salvation. They can't help it. They're bipolar.

So God needs churches for these bipolar's. Don't knock it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

I cannot nor will I deny the positive life changing experiences I had in a Pentecostal Church. However, the environment lends itself to superstition and manufactured exhibitions. I will recount two that I consider to be firmly in the poor poor category.

First, because glossia is so important to the group as evidence of the Holy Spirit it was often manufactured... by that I mean speaking in tongues was brought by repeating “coca-cola ten times real fast”. One dear older sister used to reach out and kinda yank the lower lip of someone trying to break through as if to jump start the glossia.

Second, during revivals there was frequent supernatural manifestations. “I was praying here today and Jesus appeared standing right there at the end of this altar. And He told me,..”.

I should add that a popular interpretation of tongues started with “ If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves...l “ etc. I was pretty sure He had more to say but it was just part of that culture as it were.

These are examples but they reflect what is poor about Pentecostalism in my experience.

Drake

There's no one here to defend your attacks on nameless people, but obviously there is a boomerang effect here to expose your beloved and indefensible LSM.

Tongues can be manufactured, but so can your shouting episodes. Never in history has a sect been tagged "Shouters," as your Chinese branch has been labeled. Does any one really think God is honored when the whole room full of bored and sleepy stiffs stand and yell "OhhhhLoooooorGeeeeeeshuuuuush" 5 times. That's an abomination. I watched that in LSM's Kangaroo Court at the Whistler Resort and Ski Lodge.

What a sham. Excommunicate and slander another minister for supposedly wanting clean sheets in Thailand and damnable "heresies" like writing his own books? Seriously? And then you pay off Hank Hankygraft to write a favorable story to give you some much needed PR, and all your people jump up and down.

Looking at your people in action, speaking in tongues looks pretty spiritual and honorable.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

I have not juxtaposed anything but i understand why you automatically go there.

What Brother Lee described as “poor poor Christianity “ stands or falls on its own merits. That is the purpose of this thread. You may offer your own examples of poor poor Christianity wherever you think they exist.

Drake

Then the "rich, rich ministry" also stands or falls on its own merits. You judge a tree by its fruit. All you have proved so far is that there are childish, immature and fleshly Christians.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Then the "rich, rich ministry" also stands or falls on its own merits. You judge a tree by its fruit. All you have proved so far is that there are childish, immature and fleshly Christians.

To what height does LSM's level of hypocrisy rise to when WL appoints his childish, immature and fleshly son Phillip to run his empire in the USA while he moved to Taiwan?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

To what height does LSM's level of hypocrisy rise to when WL appoints his childish, immature and fleshly son Phillip to run his empire in the USA while he moved to Taiwan?

Hey, with what judgement you judge you shall be judged.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Drake

I cannot nor will I deny the positive life changing experiences I had in a Pentecostal Church. However, the environment lends itself to superstition and manufactured exhibitions. I will recount two that I consider to be firmly in the poor poor category.

I'd say that out of all the mainline protestant demoninations, Pentecostalism gets the most flack. Did you find that to be the case when you were involved?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Hey, with what judgement you judge you shall be judged.

And it also true for the judger of the judgers.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok. Perhaps this will clarify the purpose of this thread since you keep bringing it up.

If your pastor, prominent leader of “the LofT Church” (I don’t know the real name and don’t care to know it), believed strongly in community activities with other churches and held strong vocal convictions against Beyonce worship, soulish dance performances under the guise of worship, the 10 Articles of Anglicanism, and the teachings and practices of the Episcopalian Church that got them ostracized by the Anglican Church.... and a forum like this were opened with exmembers criticizing his teachings and convictions and lambasting his coworkers and mocked his practices of meeting with other churches for community projects and his stand against Beyonce worship and those other ungodly things...wouldn’t you be inclined to step up and offer a defense? Or would that be too much of a Pharisee for your taste?

If you can imagine that scenario then you will understand the purpose of this thread in this forum. Yet, I thought the base note was clear needing no further explanation as to purpose. We are now examining a particular belief of “my pastor”, to put it in terms more familiar to you, and I am arguing that he was on solid ground to characterize the situation in the Church as poor poor Christianity.

Hope that clarifies.

Drake

Lots of "ifs" there Drake - none of which are reality. As the Lord knows, I've been known to be a Pharisee time and again.

You are arguing "that he was on solid ground to characterize the situation in the Church as poor poor Christianity". But you still miss the entire point, it is so very simple. I'm moving along Drake.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

And it also true for the judger of the judgers.

Yes, and that is probably the point that Drake wants to make. But I dare not speak for him.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I'd say that out of all the mainline protestant demoninations, Pentecostalism gets the most flack. Did you find that to be the case when you were involved?

I did. Probably toughened me up for later in life.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by zeek

You "never heard it before"? Perhaps you don't have "ears to hear" [v.7]. The "epistle" is addressed, not unto men but "Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus." That's not my interpretation, that's my quotation, as Witness Lee liked to say.

hey zeek,

Give it another go. Please explain the whole letter to the church in Ephesus if it was only addressed to an angel.

Thanks,
Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Then the "rich, rich ministry" also stands or falls on its own merits. You judge a tree by its fruit. All you have proved so far is that there are childish, immature and fleshly Christians.

To be accurate ZNP. I have not proved that because I do not know what everyone in the audience might be thinking. Maybe they are sitting there wanting to leave. Or after the Youtube they stood up and condemned the practice. I don't know, none of us do.

What I have proven is that these identified works, beliefs, and practices are idolatrous, sensual, not according to the Bible, and ... poor. Well, poor poor really.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Lots of "ifs" there Drake - none of which are reality. As the Lord knows, I've been known to be a Pharisee time and again.

You are arguing "that he was on solid ground to characterize the situation in the Church as poor poor Christianity". But you still miss the entire point, it is so very simple. I'm moving along Drake.

Ok. Thanks for stopping by.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, and that is probably the point that Drake wants to make. But I dare not speak for him.

Not really, ZNP. I've stated that concern in the past in other threads but it is thoroughly ironic that those who protest against critiquing works, practices, beliefs as we have done in this thread are often the most vigorous at doing the very same thing and sometimes stepping well over that line into attacking people. Yet, I know the Lord will judge all things.... me, you, every forum member and all their posts, every motive, every thought and intent... and all these groups we mentioned and their practices, good and bad, including everything and everybody related to the local churches.

That is why I try to write as if the Lord were reading each post outloud at His Bema because I think He very well might. Yet, I am at peace before the Lord. I really care about people in general and particularly in this forum. Must be because I am not inclined to seek out such beatings on a daily basis.

thanks,
Drake

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Drake

I did. Probably toughened me up for later in life.

I believe you.

What kind of accusations did you personally encounder while there?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I believe you.

What kind of accusations did you personally encounder while there?

My family was "dyed-in-the-wool" Baptist. Ordained ministers in the family. So going Pentecostal caused quite a stir. Different world.

Drake

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Drake

My family was "dyed-in-the-wool" Baptist. Ordained ministers in the family. So going Pentecostal caused quite a stir. Different world.

Drake

Oh, so you faced family persecution more than anything else?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Oh, so you faced family persecution more than anything else?

Mostly yes. Some family members told to steer clear.

Drake

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Drake

Mostly yes. Some family members told to steer clear.

Drake

I'm curious to what their reasoning was. Do you mind sharing?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Not really, ZNP. I've stated that concern in the past in other threads but it is thoroughly ironic that those who protest against critiquing works, practices, beliefs as we have done in this thread are often the most vigorous at doing the very same thing and sometimes stepping well over that line into attacking people. Yet, I know the Lord will judge all things.... me, you, every forum member and all their posts, every motive, every thought and intent... and all these groups we mentioned and their practices, good and bad, including everything and everybody related to the local churches.

That is why I try to write as if the Lord were reading each post outloud at His Bema because I think He very well might. Yet, I am at peace before the Lord. I really care about people in general and particularly in this forum. Must be because I am not inclined to seek out such beatings on a daily basis.

thanks,
Drake

This was covered years ago by 77150 -- two verses in Proverbs about this.

See the thread “Does Proverbs 26:4 contradict verse 5?"

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I'm curious to what their reasoning was. Do you mind sharing?

Oh, the typical fears and concerns.... speaking gibberish, falling on the ground moaning and twitching, leg lengthening, rolling on the floor... my experience was fairly mild (Assembly of God) compared to what some branches of Pentecostalism grew into after I left.

https://youtu.be/_P5B5Brz_lc

Not sure if that was a passing phase or still an active version. Anyway, my experience was a milder version of that. Still, it spooked some of my family.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

I really care about people in general and particularly in this forum. Must be because I am not inclined to seek out such beatings on a daily basis.

thanks,
Drake

You're a sweet brother Drake. And you sure can take a beating with smiles. If you represent the local church you make them look good.

But you still didn't answer my question about if I can be in the local church without liking Nee and Lee.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

You're a sweet brother Drake. And you sure can take a beating with smiles. If you represent the local church you make them look good.

But you still didn't answer my question about if I can be in the local church without liking Nee and Lee.

Hi awareness,

I replied in #233.

Thanks
Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi awareness,

I replied in #233.

Thanks
Drake

I'm sorry, I did catch that. That means the local church has changed, since the days that I got the boot for not accepting that Lee was the MOTA.

I wonder if I tried to meet in Anaheim, while denying Lee was the MOTA, and not going along with the "MOTA killing doctrine" of the Blended Brothers.

Can you and Evangelical speak for Anaheim?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Drake

Oh, the typical fears and concerns.... speaking gibberish, falling on the ground moaning and twitching, leg lengthening, rolling on the floor... my experience was fairly mild (Assembly of God) compared to what some branches of Pentecostalism grew into after I left.

https://youtu.be/_P5B5Brz_lc

Not sure if that was a passing phase or still an active version. Anyway, my experience was a milder version of that. Still, it spooked some of my family.

Drake

Have you had any spiritual experiences yourself in the Pentecostal church?

Having been a part of that church, would you say those things in that video are real or acted out?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm sorry, I did catch that. That means the local church has changed, since the days that I got the boot for not accepting that Lee was the MOTA.

I wonder if I tried to meet in Anaheim, while denying Lee was the MOTA, and not going along with the "MOTA killing doctrine" of the Blended Brothers.

Can you and Evangelical speak for Anaheim?

Hi awareness,

I can’t speak for Anaheim.

In my experience there has been no change for forty years on this matter. The difference between you and I are the places we each lived. I believe you said a brother recognized your situation and hoped to facilitate your move out of there. As for me, I was never pressured to accept Brother Lee or Nee. I was already sold on Nee before I ever met with a local church for the first time. After I met with the local church I had not heard of Brother Lee for the better part of a year. That is why I say there was no pressure.

I have said it before, and say it here again, had I been in your shoes under those circumstances I do not know how it would have turned out for me.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Have you had any spiritual experiences yourself in the Pentecostal church?

Having been a part of that church, would you say those things in that video are real or acted out?

Jo S,

As to my experience, yes. See #185 and #248.

I’d like to believe they were acting out in that video but the truth is more disturbing. That is, i think it was real but not of God. However, I’m not a mind reader, they may be good actors. They look pretty taken up with it though. In either case, it is a clear example of poor poor Christianity. Well maybe poor poor pathetic!

Drake

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Drake

Jo S,

As to my experience, yes. See #185 and #248.

I’d like to believe they were acting out in that video but the truth is more disturbing. That is, i think it was real but not of God. However, I’m not a mind reader, they may be good actors. They look pretty taken up with it though. In either case, it is a clear example of poor poor Christianity. Well maybe poor poor pathetic!

Drake

I did catch those posts however I was actually asking about any specific spiritual experiences you may have had (for instance glossia) and not just a general overall experience. That is if you feel comfortable sharing.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I did catch those posts however I was actually asking about any specific spiritual experiences you may have had (for instance glossia) and not just a general overall experience. That is if you feel comfortable sharing.

Yes, I did experience an outward pouring of the Spirit with glossia.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes, I did experience an outward pouring of the Spirit with glossia.

Interesting, I've only ever spoke to one other person that speaks in tongues so I'm alway curious to hear about other's experiences.

Did you speak in another known language?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Interesting, I've only ever spoke to one other person that speaks in tongues so I'm alway curious to hear about other's experiences.

Did you speak in another known language?

No. Not that I know. But I did not speak glossia on a daily basis.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

I believe you said a brother recognized your situation and hoped to facilitate your move out of there.

That brother was Ron Kangas. He felt so strongly about it that he cried on the phone.

I recently saw a video of him speaking and noticed that he's picked up some Lee affectations. So I doubt very much if he'd accept me if I disliked Nee and Lee.

Back to you brother. I was wondering about the locality you're in. That makes a difference. Some localities are poor, poor, and some not.

I came in in the Santa Cruz Cal. locality. That was a wonderful locality. Then Kangas and the other elders talked me into coming to the c. in Detroit, where bro zeek came in. Except for Kangas, that turned out to be a nightmare. I really liked Ron.

Then Lee ordered a migration of 5 localities to Ft. Lauderdale, Florida (to get the Spring Breakers, that was the hot spot back then) and it was down hill from there.

Actually, in the end, it was the best thing ever, as it ended with me no longer being in the LC. Thanks Mel Porter. You done me a solid. I had no choice. I wasn't ever going to be able to take your personality as my own.

The c. in Ft. Lauderdale was an example of poor, poor, Christianity. And so was the c. in Detroit -- now's there 2 of them, one an LSM c. in Detroit, and the other is the leftover of the Kangas locality. Which one is poor? As usual, LSM decides.

And the c. in Santa Cruz? Like the c. in Ft. Lauderdale, it's no longer there. It was started by a brother that was at odds with Lee, so it had to be poor, poor, too ... as is all localities not loyal to Lee and Co.

Thanks bro Drake ...
Harold

[Ohio]

Thanks awareness.

All of our testimonies confirm the blatant hypocrisy constantly flowing out of LSM for decades. Too bad it never hit Drake in the head. One would think that LSM's own checkered history would humble them a little. At least enough to stop with the wholesale categorical prejudice aimed at all of poor, poor Christianity.

P.S. I don't blame Drake. Back in 2003 I got hit by my elder in the head badly, and I still stayed on. Later on he accused me of starving little children, and I still stayed on. A bunch of stiff-necked hardheads Drake and I are. Be thankful that you got the message years ago after Porter got in your face about taking his personality.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

hey zeek,

Give it another go. Please explain the whole letter to the church in Ephesus if it was only addressed to an angel.

Thanks,
Drake

I don't know what you think needs an explanation. It's interesting that Ephesus, the first church to whom the one like the son of man speaks, was only about 70 miles from the island of Patmos where John says he received his vision.

It's interesting too that while it is the one like the son of man that speaking beginning in chapter 1:11, in chapter 2:7 it says that the spirit is speaking. While the son of man/spirit commends the church in many regards, he criticizes them for leaving their first love.

In Matthew 22, Mark 12 and Luke 10 Jesus teaches that the first commandment, the greatest commandment, was " Hear O Israel the Lord Our God the Lord is one and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." Since Jesus considered that the first commandment, to fall from it would be a serious fall for those who claim to be followers of Jesus.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

I recently saw a video of him speaking and noticed that he's picked up some Lee affectations. So I doubt very much if he'd accept me if I disliked Nee and Lee.

Minoru Chen also has that affectation!!

[UntoHim]

Well at least Minoru is Chinese so one could expect that....it's when it's coming out of an American white dude that it gets just plain weird
-

[Drake]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't know what you think needs an explanation. It's interesting that Ephesus, the first church to whom the one like the son of man speaks, was only about 70 miles from the island of Patmos where John says he received his vision.

It's interesting too that while it is the one like the son of man that speaking beginning in chapter 1:11, in chapter 2:7 it says that the spirit is speaking. While the son of man/spirit commends the church in many regards, he criticizes them for leaving their first love.

In Matthew 22, Mark 12 and Luke 10 Jesus teaches that the first commandment, the greatest commandment, was " Hear O Israel the Lord Our God the Lord is one and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." Since Jesus considered that the first commandment, to fall from it would be a serious fall for those who claim to be followers of Jesus.

Zeek,

When you first brought up angels as the recipient of the letter you seemed to be suggesting that the entire letter was FOR the angel. So, for instance, the condemnation and the commendation and the call to overcome ...you made it appear as if the letter was written to the angel and not the church or to the overcomers. With this understandings I said it was a new teaching. Therefore, I asked you to explain the first letter (Ephesians) in that context.

If you did not mean that the entire letter was ONLY applicable in every aspect to the angel, then I do not know why you brought it up.

What did you mean by bringing up the angel?

Drake

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

Zeek,

When you first brought up angels as the recipient of the letter you seemed to be suggesting that the entire letter was FOR the angel. So, for instance, the condemnation and the commendation and the call to overcome ...you made it appear as if the letter was written to the angel and not the church or to the overcomers. With this understandings I said it was a new teaching. Therefore, I asked you to explain the first letter (Ephesians) in that context.

If you did not mean that the entire letter was ONLY applicable in every aspect to the angel, then I do not know why you brought it up.

What did you mean by bringing up the angel?

Drake

I was pointing out that those messages were given by the one like unto the son of man to the angels for seven specific churches in first century Asia Minor. They were not addressed to you or me.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by zeek

I was pointing out that those messages were given by the one like unto the son of man to the angels for seven specific churches in first century Asia Minor. They were not addressed to you or me.

Ah okay. So then Paul wrote to the church in Corinth, the church in Thessaloniki, the saints scattered throughout the province of Galatia, the church in Ephesus, etc etc.

By that logic they are not for us either.

Drake

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ah okay. So then Paul wrote to the church in Corinth, the church in Thessaloniki, the saints scattered throughout the province of Galatia, the church in Ephesus, etc etc.

By that logic they are not for us either.

Drake

They were most certainly not written to us.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by zeek

They were most certainly not written to us.

Zeek,

Do you believe that the letters whether from a Paul or Jesus to the churches in Revelation are applicable to us today?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ah okay. So then Paul wrote to the church in Corinth, the church in Thessaloniki, the saints scattered throughout the province of Galatia, the church in Ephesus, etc etc.

By that logic they are not for us either.

Drake

I have heard this "logic" from Jewish Christians who say, "Why are you reading someone else's mail?"

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

Zeek,

Do you believe that the letters whether from a Paul or Jesus to the churches in Revelation are applicable to us today?

Drake

We need a spirit of wisdom to discern what is applicable and what isn't. Look at the passage in question. Just because the church in Ephesus had tried the false apostles and found them to be liars doesn't mean that you have. Nor does the fact that they left their first love doesn't mean that you did. We must let the spirit of truth guide us into all truth. The letter kills but the spirit gives life.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by zeek

We need a spirit of wisdom to discern what is applicable and what isn't. Look at the passage in question. Just because the church in Ephesus had tried the false apostles and found them to be liars doesn't mean that you have. Nor does the fact that they left their first love doesn't mean that you did. We must let the spirit of truth guide us into all truth. The letter kills but the spirit gives life.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

The stuff you select is following the spirit of truth. Following the whole revelation in the Bible is following the letter.

Got it.

Drake

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Well at least Minoru is Chinese so one could expect that....it's when it's coming out of an American white dude that it gets just plain weird
-

True! Although one part of it is the stretching out of a word accompanied by a shake of the voice that comes with old age that marked Lee's later speaking. Minoru is still way too young to have that shake! And in regular conversation it disappears!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

The stuff you select is following the spirit of truth. Following the whole revelation in the Bible is following the letter.

Got it.

Drake

Ha ha. No I don't think you did "get it", bro. Love the sarcasm though.

[awareness]

Bro's Drake and zeek. NO disrespect, but y'all are so silly.

The whole book of Revelation wasn't intended for us, 2000 yrs up the road. Just read the very first verse. "Shortly come to pass," meant back then, not 2018.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro's Drake and zeek. NO disrespect, but y'all are so silly.

The whole book of Revelation wasn't intended for us, 2000 yrs up the road. Just read the very first verse. "Shortly come to pass," meant back then, not 2018.

"Shortly" is a relative term. If the universe is 13.8 billion years old as astronomers tell us, 2000 years is indeed a short period of time.

Call me silly, but I think Drake is trying to use the the Book of Revelation to negate the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels much as Witness Lee did. I think that's an egregious mistake.

But, I think it's a mistake to reject the Book of Revelation too. Yes, there are strange images in it that are difficult to understand. Yes, there have been many wild and even harmful interpretations of the book. But, the Spirit of Truth still speaks to me through the book as I showed in the passage from chapter 2. So I'm arguing for it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Shortly" is a relative term. If the universe is 13.8 billion years old as astronomers tell us, 2000 years is indeed a short period of time.

Call me silly, but I think Drake is trying to use the the Book of Revelation to negate the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels much as Witness Lee did. I think that's an egregious mistake.

But, I think it's a mistake to reject the Book of Revelation too. Yes, there are strange images in it that are difficult to understand. Yes, there have been many wild and even harmful interpretations of the book. But, the Spirit of Truth still speaks to me through the book as I showed in the passage from chapter 2. So I'm arguing for it.

What teaching does it negate? Jesus tells us "judge not lest you be judged" therefore He said we would be judged. Jesus talks about wise and foolish servants. Talks about casting certain ones out into outer darkness. Talks about how it is better to have a millstone around your neck and be cast into the middle of the sea than to commit certain sins. I think you are being willfully ignorant of what the Jesus in the gospels taught.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What teaching does it negate? Jesus tells us "judge not lest you be judged" therefore He said we would be judged. Jesus talks about wise and foolish servants. Talks about casting certain ones out into outer darkness. Talks about how it is better to have a millstone around your neck and be cast into the middle of the sea than to commit certain sins. I think you are being willfully ignorant of what the Jesus in the gospels taught.

I didn't say the Book of Revelation negates Jesus teaching in the gospels. I said that Drake seems to want to use it for that purpose. What am I being willfully ignorant of?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I didn't say the Book of Revelation negates Jesus teaching in the gospels. I said that Drake seems to want to use it for that purpose. What am I being willfully ignorant of?

Maybe I am the ignorant one. Can you point me to the post from Drake that gave you this clue?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Maybe I am the ignorant one. Can you point me to the post from Drake that gave you this clue?

I can't find Drake's original post. Maybe UntoHim deleted it. But I quoted it and responded to it in post number 217.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

That Jesus, the one in Revelation, is judging, condemning, and hates some things and commends His followers who hate the same things. He condemns things in the churches. Is His condemning and hatred incompatible with love one another? incompatible with judge not? No, it is not. Does He intimate any concept close to "live and let live"? No, He does not. Does He condemn the worship of Beyonce under the banner of Christian worship? I'm certain He does. Appealing to the Jesus in the gospels while evaluating the matters He judges as the High Priest, matters that He explicitly states we are to heed, is missing the whole point of Revelation 2 & 3.

With Drake's permission, I'd like to steer us back to address what is quoted above. Witness Lee's "Poor, poor Christianity" was a lamentation of sorts on the general condition of the Christian protestant church, at least as he saw it during his life and ministry. I think it's safe to say he was specifically, or even especially, referring to Christianity in America. Of course Lee's modern day followers would have to be referring to the current state of affairs in contemporary Christianity.

While I do agree that the passages in Rev 3 are applicable to the matter at hand, I would vehemently disagree that Witness Lee was in any way qualified to make these same kind of judgments and condemnations of Christianity.
-

[zeek]

The problem I have with Witness Lee is not that he criticized Christianity but that he placed himself outside of it and above it.
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The problem I have with Witness Lee is not that he criticized Christianity but that he placed himself outside of it and above it.

Yes, I'm poor, and a member of poor, poor, Christianity. And was a member of poor, poor, poor, Witness Lee's Christian movement.

Made up of poor poor members, Christianity can't help being poor.

But Lee managed to left his Christian movement above all the rest ; with the sleight of mind trick -- perchance like the Jedi mind trick -- of saying his movement was a new creation. And his poor, poor, followers easily fell for it.

Brother Drake, and most everyone else out here, love to base current Christianity on Revelation (interpolated, of course).

But methinks they fail to see it also applies to Lee's LSM churches :

Rev_3:17* Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I can't find Drake's original post. Maybe UntoHim deleted it. But I quoted it and responded to it in post number 217.

Drake: Now here is what I have noticed. As concerns the local churches and His assessments, judgements, commendation, condemnation, and call to individuals to overcome the shortcomings in those local churches many posters here appeal, as a counter to the Lords clear demands in the letters in Revelation, to the sayings of, as aron sums up, "a guy named Jesus" in the gospels. So "judge not lest you be judged" in the gospels is not a direct match to ""But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate." revealed in Revelation. That is because the Jesus revealed in the gospels is not complete. It is part of the story. It is only when we come to Revelation that we see our High Priest, Jesus, caring for the churches in His glorified position in the heavenly tabernacle. There we see not a lowly man on Earth.

I saw this post and I don't think Drake has negated the Jesus we see in the gospels, only the interpretation "judge not lest you be judged" is somehow a condemnation of judging things like the practices of the Nicolaitans.

Even if you look at the portion of the gospels where Jesus says "judge not lest you be judged" he also says "give not that which is holy to the dogs" and "cast not your pearls before swine". Now you can interpret that literally which doesn't make any sense, otherwise you have to interpret that he is telling us to make certain judgements about "dogs" and "pigs".

Therefore I have always concluded that Jesus does not tell us not to judge, that is a very clear misunderstanding. He only tells us not to judge others. Instead He charges us to judge ourselves repeatedly, not only in the gospels but also in Revelation.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Drake: Now here is what I have noticed. As concerns the local churches and His assessments, judgements, commendation, condemnation, and call to individuals to overcome the shortcomings in those local churches many posters here appeal, as a counter to the Lords clear demands in the letters in Revelation, to the sayings of, as aron sums up, "a guy named Jesus" in the gospels. So "judge not lest you be judged" in the gospels is not a direct match to ""But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate." revealed in Revelation. That is because the Jesus revealed in the gospels is not complete. It is part of the story. It is only when we come to Revelation that we see our High Priest, Jesus, caring for the churches in His glorified position in the heavenly tabernacle. There we see not a lowly man on Earth.

I saw this post and I don't think Drake has negated the Jesus we see in the gospels, only the interpretation "judge not lest you be judged" is somehow a condemnation of judging things like the practices of the Nicolaitans.

Even if you look at the portion of the gospels where Jesus says "judge not lest you be judged" he also says "give not that which is holy to the dogs" and "cast not your pearls before swine". Now you can interpret that literally which doesn't make any sense, otherwise you have to interpret that he is telling us to make certain judgements about "dogs" and "pigs".

Therefore I have always concluded that Jesus does not tell us not to judge, that is a very clear misunderstanding. He only tells us not to judge others. Instead He charges us to judge ourselves repeatedly, not only in the gospels but also in Revelation.

Many people do not understand what Jesus was teaching because they have combined the Bible with worldly culture which is afraid to offend and afraid to be offended. Particularly, Jesus was speaking about hypocritical and self-righteous judgement as seen in Luke 6:42.

Jesus said:

How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye?

and then said

You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Many people misinterpret these verses to mean:

"Do not judge your brother because you have a plank in your eye if you judge your brother who has a speck".

It does not say that at all. It says that after addressing the hypocrisy, once you can "see clearly", then you can proceed to remove the speck from your brother's eye. This would be considered righteous judgement.

The state of society as a whole would be worse if no body could judge anybody. No parent could correct their child, no government could charge a criminal, and no one would be answerable to anybody except themselves.

Based on the Bible it seems that church should be the place where people are judged the most. It describes the church bringing people into judgement:

1 Cor 14:24 But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all,

1 Cor 14:25 as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!"

Paul also said:

1 Cor 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more the things that pertain to this life?

We simply cannot reconcile a view of not judging others with these verses.

[Kevin]

What does the Bible mean that we are not to judge others?

Jesus’ command not to judge others could be the most widely quoted of His sayings, even though it is almost invariably quoted in complete disregard of its context. Here is Jesus’ statement: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” (Matthew 7:1). Many people use this verse in an attempt to silence their critics, interpreting Jesus’ meaning as “You don’t have the right to tell me I’m wrong.” Taken in isolation, Jesus’ command “Do not judge” does indeed seem to preclude all negative assessments. However, there is much more to the passage than those three words.

The Bible’s command that we not judge others does not mean we cannot show discernment. Immediately after Jesus says, “Do not judge,” He says, “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs” (Matthew 7:6). A little later in the same sermon, He says, “Watch out for false prophets. . . . By their fruit you will recognize them” (verses 15–16). How are we to discern who are the “dogs” and “pigs” and “false prophets” unless we have the ability to make a judgment call on doctrines and deeds? Jesus is giving us permission to tell right from wrong.

Also, the Bible’s command that we not judge others does not mean all actions are equally moral or that truth is relative. The Bible clearly teaches that truth is objective, eternal, and inseparable from God’s character. Anything that contradicts the truth is a lie—but, of course, to call something a “lie” is to pass judgment. To call adultery or murder a sin is likewise to pass judgment—but it’s also to agree with God. When Jesus said not to judge others, He did not mean that no one can identify sin for what it is, based on God’s definition of sin.

And the Bible’s command that we not judge others does not mean there should be no mechanism for dealing with sin. The Bible has a whole book entitled Judges. The judges in the Old Testament were raised up by God Himself (Judges 2:18). The modern judicial system, including its judges, is a necessary part of society. In saying, “Do not judge,” Jesus was not saying, “Anything goes.”

Elsewhere, Jesus gives a direct command to judge: “Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly” (John 7:24). Here we have a clue as to the right type of judgment versus the wrong type. Taking this verse and some others, we can put together a description of the sinful type of judgment:

Superficial judgment is wrong. Passing judgment on someone based solely on appearances is sinful (John 7:24). It is foolish to jump to conclusions before investigating the facts (Proverbs 18:13). Simon the Pharisee passed judgment on a woman based on her appearance and reputation, but he could not see that the woman had been forgiven; Simon thus drew Jesus’ rebuke for his unrighteous judgment (Luke 7:36–50).

Hypocritical judgment is wrong. Jesus’ command not to judge others in Matthew 7:1 is preceded by comparisons to hypocrites (Matthew 6:2, 5, 16) and followed by a warning against hypocrisy (Matthew 7:3–5). When we point out the sin of others while we ourselves commit the same sin, we condemn ourselves (Romans 2:1).

Harsh, unforgiving judgment is wrong. We are “always to be gentle toward everyone” (Titus 3:2). It is the merciful who will be shown mercy (Matthew 5:7), and, as Jesus warned, “In the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (Matthew 7:2).

Self-righteous judgment is wrong. We are called to humility, and “God opposes the proud” (James 4:6). The Pharisee in Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector was confident in his own righteousness and from that proud position judged the publican; however, God sees the heart and refused to forgive the Pharisee’s sin (Luke 18:9–14).

Untrue judgment is wrong. The Bible clearly forbids bearing false witness (Proverbs 19:5). “Slander no one” (Titus 3:2).

Christians are often accused of “judging” or intolerance when they speak out against sin. But opposing sin is not wrong. Holding aloft the standard of righteousness naturally defines unrighteousness and draws the slings and arrows of those who choose sin over godliness. John the Baptist incurred the ire of Herodias when he spoke out against her adultery with Herod (Mark 6:18–19). She eventually silenced John, but she could not silence the truth (Isaiah 40:8).

Believers are warned against judging others unfairly or unrighteously, but Jesus commends “right judgment” (John 7:24, ESV). We are to be discerning (Colossians 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). We are to preach the whole counsel of God, including the Bible’s teaching on sin (Acts 20:27; 2 Timothy 4:2). We are to gently confront erring brothers or sisters in Christ (Galatians 6:1). We are to practice church discipline (Matthew 18:15–17). We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).

Source:https://www.gotquestions.org/do-not-judge.html

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

The problem I have with Witness Lee is not that he criticized Christianity but that he placed himself outside of it and above it.
-

Tada! This really hits the nail on the head. Thanks zeek!
-

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Tada! This really hits the nail on the head. Thanks zeek!
-

Agreed, very succinct zeek! Lee tried to point out specks in eyes,while denying the lumber in his.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The problem I have with Witness Lee is not that he criticized Christianity but that he placed himself outside of it and above it.
-

This is a major contradiction with Revelation 2-3 where Jesus is the one walking in the midst of the Lampstands.

Jesus was one with the churches He rebuked. As He told the Laodiceans:

19 As many as I love, I reprove and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is a major contradiction with Revelation 2-3

19 As many as I love, I reprove and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Except for that pesky repent thing.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Except for that pesky repent thing.

Witness Lee criticizing Christianity was contrary to the Book of revelation 2-3 which Drake is using to justify the condemnation. Why? Did Witness Lee walk in the midst of Christianity or did he claim that it was Babylon and he had left it?

Did Witness Lee love the churches he was castigating as "poor, poor, Christianity". No doubt there are quotes where he says "he loves the saints but hates the system" but the reality is the Lord didn't say any of that in Rev 2-3.

This is what I meant that WL's condemnation was direct contradiction to Rev 2-3

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Witness Lee criticizing Christianity was contrary to the Book of revelation 2-3 which Drake is using to justify the condemnation. Why? Did Witness Lee walk in the midst of Christianity or did he claim that it was Babylon and he had left it?

Did Witness Lee love the churches he was castigating as "poor, poor, Christianity". No doubt there are quotes where he says "he loves the saints but hates the system" but the reality is the Lord didn't say any of that in Rev 2-3.

This is what I meant that WL's condemnation was direct contradiction to Rev 2-3

Got it. Misread it. Thanks for explaining ...

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Witness Lee criticizing Christianity was contrary to the Book of revelation 2-3 which Drake is using to justify the condemnation. Why? Did Witness Lee walk in the midst of Christianity or did he claim that it was Babylon and he had left it?

Did Witness Lee love the churches he was castigating as "poor, poor, Christianity". No doubt there are quotes where he says "he loves the saints but hates the system" but the reality is the Lord didn't say any of that in Rev 2-3.

This is what I meant that WL's condemnation was direct contradiction to Rev 2-3

Witness Lee identified Christianity with the religious aspect of the great Babylon in Revelation 14 - 18.

Based on God's attitude, we should have two attitudes toward Christianity. First, if we receive mercy from the Lord, we should not participate in the confused, deformed situation in Christianity. Although God does not eliminate or forbid such an improper condition, He does say, “Come out of her, My people” (Rev. 18:4). Simply stated, one who lives before God, cares for God's heart's desire, has inner light, and is willing to pay the price cannot remain in organized Christianity. I am not exhorting people to leave the denominations; this is not a matter of whether a person is in a denomination. Rather, it is a matter of avoiding mixture with the world.

Second, we are foolish if we think that we can alter the condition of today's Christianity. Such thinking assumes that we are greater and more capable than God. Some people say, “The churches are divided; let us make them one.” Twenty-five years ago I also felt this way; however, I now feel that to say such a thing would indicate that I do not know myself and that to try to do such a thing would be to try to do what God Himself will not do. To hope to correct Christianity and eliminate its mistakes is to be foolish and proud. Who can reform Christianity? We cannot do it because God is not doing it. Of course, if God wanted to do it, He would have a way. However, God's Word shows that He is not reforming Christianity. Since He is not doing it, why should we try? (Three Aspects of the Church: Book 2, The Course of the Church, Chapter 19, Section 1)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Witness Lee identified Christianity with the religious aspect of the great Babylon in Revelation 14 - 18.

And the call to come out of her my people also corresponds with Rev 2-3.

1. In Laodicea Jesus is outside knocking calling on those who are in to come out and He will sup with them.
2. In Philadelphia Jesus tells the overcomers that they will "go out no more" indicating that they had gone out previously. This cannot be negative (backsliding) since they are all overcomers and it appears to be a prerequisite to being in Philadelphia.
3. This split appears in Ephesus -- some have left their first love and the consequence of not repenting for this will be that you will lose your lamp stand. Once Jesus leaves the building (Laodicea) then you have lost your lamp stand since He is the light.
4. Every church after that indicates this split becoming deeper and wider. Balaam, Jezebel, martyrs, and most of those in Sardis are not walking white.

We can see this with the Catholic church. In the Catholic church we have individual monks living in remote regions of the world in a way that expresses Jesus Christ (movie "The Mission" comes to mind). At the same time there are those Bishops conflicted by the political aspect of the Catholic church trying to please various worldly powers like Portugal, Spain, etc (again portrayed in "The Mission") and then of course you have the Vatican city which by all accounts had become a very corrupt idolatrous place.

It is possible to portray the Catholic Church as Pergamum, Thyatira, or Sardis depending on what you are looking at. You cannot describe it as Philadelphia since the idea that "they have a little strength" is absurd, nor could you characterize them as being composed of those who "have gone out" from one of the other churches. But after the rapture of the first fruits in Rev 14 it is clear that all of them will become Laodicea.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Witness Lee identified Christianity with the religious aspect of the great Babylon in Revelation 14 - 18.

Using symbolism in Revelation to support religious bigotry is repugnant ... and is poor, poor, poor.

In Revelation we don't believe what we see, we see what we believe.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Witness Lee identified Christianity with the religious aspect of the great Babylon in Revelation 14 - 18.

That was mostly for the RCC and the denominations -- supposedly the "daughters" of the harlot.

For all the rest of the Christians out there, whether in free groups, home meetings, workplace bible studies, any old "2 or 3 gathered in My name," they were all categorically slammed as the incestuous children of a drunken Lot, born in caves near Sodom and Gomorrah.

How can any Bible-believing, Evangelical Christian with a sound mind even listen to Lee???

Did Hank Hankygraft of CRI ever read Lee's teaching on Lot and unaffiliated Christians before he flip-flopped?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And the call to come out of her my people also corresponds with Rev 2-3.

1. In Laodicea Jesus is outside knocking calling on those who are in to come out and He will sup with them.

That's wrong. The "one like the son of man/spirit" doesn't tell the Laodiceans to come out. He tells them to "open the door" and he "will enter".

2. In Philadelphia Jesus tells the overcomers that they will "go out no more" indicating that they had gone out previously. This cannot be negative (backsliding) since they are all overcomers and it appears to be a prerequisite to being in Philadelphia.

In context "go out no more" refers to the temple of God in which the overcomer is said to be "a pillar." There's no reference to a previous "coming out".

You said "Witness Lee criticizing Christianity was contrary to the Book of revelation 2-3" Now you seem to be saying that he Rev 2-3 support his teaching about coming out of Christianity. And your argument is not supported by the text.

3. This split appears in Ephesus -- some have left their first love and the consequence of not repenting for this will be that you will lose your lamp stand. Once Jesus leaves the building (Laodicea) then you have lost your lamp stand since He is the light.

4. Every church after that indicates this split becoming deeper and wider. Balaam, Jezebel, martyrs, and most of those in Sardis are not walking white.

We can see this with the Catholic church. In the Catholic church we have individual monks living in remote regions of the world in a way that expresses Jesus Christ (movie "The Mission" comes to mind). At the same time there are those Bishops conflicted by the political aspect of the Catholic church trying to please various worldly powers like Portugal, Spain, etc (again portrayed in "The Mission") and then of course you have the Vatican city which by all accounts had become a very corrupt idolatrous place.

It is possible to portray the Catholic Church as Pergamum, Thyatira, or Sardis depending on what you are looking at. You cannot describe it as Philadelphia since the idea that "they have a little strength" is absurd, nor could you characterize them as being composed of those who "have gone out" from one of the other churches. But after the rapture of the first fruits in Rev 14 it is clear that all of them will become Laodicea.

Nevertheless, the one like the son of man/spirit doesn't call any of those in the seven churches to "come out." Your claim that "the call to come out of her my people also corresponds with Rev 2-3" is unsupported.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's wrong. The "one like the son of man/spirit doesn't tell the Laodiceans to come out. He tells them to "open the door" and he "will enter".

"If any man" does not refer to the church in Laodicea. It refers to any individual in the church. It is fair to say that it is my interpretation of these verses, but it is not fair to say flatly that "it is wrong".

If you want you can claim that Jesus standing at the door and knocking is not referring to being outside of the church in Laodicea. But when we get to the Great Babylon the call is clearly "to come out of her my people". So if you don't think it refers to Christendom then why are the Lord's people there and why is He making the call for them to come out? You can also interpret that all 7, including Laodicea are lamp stands and it is not until chapter 14 that they have lost their lamp stand.

I really don't care where you draw the line, however, I think that Rev 2-3 provides a progression of the church becoming more and more corrupt and then more and more dead.

Originally Posted by zeek

In context "go out no more" refers to the temple of God in which the overcomer is said to be "a pillar." There's no reference to a previous "coming out".

That interpretation creates more questions than it answers. Everyone in Philadelphia has gone out of the temple of God before but will not need to any longer. What does that mean? How are they still overcomers if they left the temple of God? Ephesians makes it clear that the church is the Temple of God, so why is the church the temple of God but this reference is not referring to the church?

Originally Posted by zeek

You said "Witness Lee criticizing Christianity was contrary to the Book of revelation 2-3" Now you seem to be saying that he Rev 2-3 support his teaching about coming out of Christianity. And your argument is not supported by the text.

Witness Lee is not walking in the midst of the lamp stands, instead he claims to be outside of them. That is contrary to the Lord who walks in the midst. Witness Lee may have spoken the truth, but it wasn't in love. Jesus makes it clear that those He loves he rebukes. These are the two ways I pointed to indicate that he is acting contrary to Rev 2-3 and should not use these chapters to support his condemnation of Christianity.

On the other hand I agree with the interpretation that Rev 2-3 depicts a battle over the church between evil worldly forces depicted by Balaam and Jezebel. We see a progression that begins with leaving your first love and ends up with Jesus outside knocking for someone to open the door.

As for your point that my interpretation is not supported by the text, I respectfully disagree. I think that your interpretation is muddled, confused, and ignores many other relevant verses, nor do I think anything you have said annuls any part of my interpretation.

Originally Posted by zeek

Nevertheless, the one like the son of man/spirit doesn't call any of those in the seven churches to "come out." Your claim that "the call to come out of her my people also corresponds with Rev 2-3" is unsupported.

That is an extremely narrow interpretation that obviously ignores Hebrews. I believe my interpretation is far better aligned with the entire NT revelation and I think it is extremely poor practice to base an interpretation on one verse which is what you appear to do. Peter said no verse is of its own interpretation. How much worse to do that in Revelation which is a book of figures which can be interpreted in a variety of ways and needs to be tied down with the black and white word of the NT.

[zeek]

The word church is a translation of the Greek word εκκλησια which according to Strong's Concordance is formed from the word ek, "out from and to" and kaléō, "to call" – "properly, people called out from the world and to God." Thus, the churches already consist of those who have been called out. You seem to be suggesting that the Bible teaches that God calls people out of the "called out". That would mean that God calls people out of the church or at least a church or some churches. I haven't seen that. Do you have any evidence for that claim other than what you cited below because, like I said, that seemed to be mistaken.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The word church is a translation of the Greek word εκκλησια which according to Strong's Concordance is formed from the word ek, "out from and to" and kaléō, "to call" – "properly, people called out from the world and to God." Thus, the churches already consist of those who have been called out. You seem to be suggesting that the Bible teaches that God calls people out of the "called out". That would mean that God calls people out of the church or at least a church or some churches. I haven't seen that. Do you have any evidence for that claim other than what you cited below because, like I said, that seemed to be mistaken.

By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out unto a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

The path of faith is to be called out. We should not assume that it is a one stop. Every single one of us in the church has been "called out". Perhaps you were born into the LRC, but I was not. I had no problem believing I had been called out of the Episcopalian church to meet with the saints. Now that I have left the LRC why is it hard to believe I got called out of that situation as well. Being called out is who we are. If you are following the Lord then He called you out, that is my testimony. If you are not following the Lord that is a different issue.

For God called us not for uncleanness, but in sanctification.

It would be nice if we could "overcome" the uncleanness in the LRC. We couldn't. That may be our failure or it might be God's plan. But I was called out, not for uncleanness, but in sanctification". Therefore I have no issue with realizing I had been called out of the Episcopalian church and also out of the LRC.

13Let us therefore go forth unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

Not my interpretation, the black and white word. No doubt at the time of Peter meeting with the early Christians involved going forth without the camp. But today it is clear that established Christianity is the camp.

But now they desire a better country

This is the characteristic of all who are men of faith. No reason to deny it or be ashamed of it.

to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion

to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion

Our Jewish brothers were called out, after having been in "God's move on Earth". Why do we think that does not apply to us?

And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church which was in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

OK, of course it does apply to us.

Both the crossing the Red Sea and Noah’s ark are types of baptism. In both cases we were called out.

It applies to everyone baptized into Christ. But when we get to the church in Philadelphia we will "go out no more"

However, if you do not understand this verse in Philadelphia this way then you have to explain what it means for overcomers to have 'gone out of the temple of God', you haven't. If it is referring to the spiritual church then why aren't they backsliders, not overcomers? Everyone seeking a better country, being called out and not knowing where they are going, the ones crossing the red sea or riding in Noah's ark, they were not backsliders but to arrive at that better city they had to go out.

[Evangelical]

I can understand this interpretation, but it means little without a solid definition of the church.

A genuine church is a local church (church in Ephesus, church in Corinth etc). Geography is the only thing that should separate believers.
Each genuine local church in Revelation symbolizes a particular condition of the genuine church. So one church in one city may be Sardis, and another may be Ephesus, it depends on their condition.
Jesus never told anyone to come out of these churches, but to overcome - "to him who overcomes". If we stand as a local church, then our job is to overcome the degradation in our church. It is not possible to leave a local church unless we change our geographical location.
But if we stand as a denomination, then the call is to come out of her. The old Reformers saw the Roman Catholic church as Babylon. Later, these reformed churches became Babylon when they became worldly and denominationalized. Babylon is the false church, or worldly church system.

Simply, it reduces to this:
If we are in a local church (a local church is one which has the locality as its identity), we overcome.
If we are in Babylon (a church which does not have locality as its identity), we leave.

Notice that I have defined Babylon not by its condition but by its identity. That is, suppose the Episcopalian church did not incorporate Beyonce into the church services, suppose they were 100% biblical to the letter. They are still Babylon because they are defined by Episcoplainism or the English Monarchy (historically), which is a worldly mixture.

In the time when Revelation was written, maybe there was a sect in Sardis for example which was more perfect than the church in Sardis. This sect called itself "Sardiscopalian", and their head was the Roman Emperor because the Roman Emperor thought he was the God-appointed head of the church in his country (just as the English monarchs thought the same and established the Church of England).
But they are not a genuine church because they are not local and do not have a lampstand. So they are Babylon.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A genuine church is a local church (church in Ephesus, church in Corinth etc). Geography is the only thing that should separate believers.

Brother EvanG I guess it's safe to say that you a one church one city kinda guy.

But surely you have to admit that it's not a dogma developed anywhere in the New Testament.

I guess there's no harm in zealotry for it, but it is a zealotry not found anywhere in the scriptures, or it would have been expounded clearly and precisely.

Nee and Lee made more of it than scripture does. They turned it into an extra-Biblical dogma. It's a way of saying, "We're the true church, and every other is not." It's not unifying, as I first envisioned it, but is divisive.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jesus never told anyone to come out of these churches, but to overcome - "to him who overcomes".

I never said that Jesus did tell them to come out of these churches, that was Zeek. What I said was that the verse in Philadelphia indicates that everyone in that church has had to come out previously and that this coming out did not hinder their status as overcomers.

Here is what Rev 2-3 actually does say:

Ephesus:
5Remember therefore whence thou art fallen, and repent and do the first works; or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place,

So what happens if the lamp stand is removed? You just stay there? Or do you come out?

Pergamum
even in the days of Antipas my witness, my faithful one, who was killed among you

So what happens if like John Ingalls you are forced to leave?

Thyatira
except they repent of her works

Granted there are those in Thyatira that do not know the deep things of Satan. But what do you do once you do know? You are required to "repent of her works". You seriously think that this means you stay in Thyatira?

Sardis
If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come as a thief

And what exactly is He stealing? WL's exposition of the Bible, the entire bound set? Come on, He is taking the precious saints. So where do they go once they have been taken?

Laodicea
Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Jesus is standing at the door of Laodicea knocking, asking for someone to open the door to Him. That tells me He is outside of the church. Just like Hebrews says, "Let us therefore go forth outside the camp unto Him".

He told them "thou art the wretched one and miserable and poor and blind and naked" they are blind -- He says "behold", if they weren't blind they would see that Jesus is no longer in the church but outside. They think they are rich but Jesus Christ is our riches and He is no longer there, they have been robbed and are poor. They were warned that they would lose their lamp stand and it has been fulfilled, they have lost their light.

You seem clueless to how many questions remained unanswered with your simplistic view.

Like Abraham we have been called to go out to a place where we are to receive our inheritance. If it isn't Ephesus then we keep going. If it isn't Thyatira we keep going. If it isn't Sardis we keep going. We keep going until we get to Philadelphia, only then do we hear the words that we no longer need to go out anymore.

[UntoHim]

Ok ZNP, you've taken the "called out" deal as far as it can be taken...and then some. Your last number of posts have started to stray from the general theme of the thread I believe. (so have zeek's but you egged him on, and Mr. z, God bless him, is never going to back down from a good argument) So as much as I love all this esoteric rhetoric....we have a rare opportunity here. A thread actually started by our friend Drake! Accordingly, I really want him to take the lead on this thread, even if he doesn't want to.

Originally Posted by Drake

That Jesus, the one in Revelation, is judging, condemning, and hates some things and commends His followers who hate the same things. He condemns things in the churches. Is His condemning and hatred incompatible with love one another? incompatible with judge not? No, it is not. Does He intimate any concept close to "live and let live"? No, He does not. Does He condemn the worship of Beyonce under the banner of Christian worship? I'm certain He does. Appealing to the Jesus in the gospels while evaluating the matters He judges as the High Priest, matters that He explicitly states we are to heed, is missing the whole point of Revelation 2 & 3.

I still think this quote by Drake strikes at the heart of the matter. Also, I still would say Witness Lee was not qualified in position or person to be the judge of the entire of Christianity (whatever that term "Christianity" may mean to whomever). That being said I strongly feel that God can and does raise up faithful ones who would speak forth a strong and sharp work of correction for his people. He did it through Moses and Aaron, he did it through Joshua, he did it though so many of the major and minor prophets. Of course he certainly did it through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ the Righteous. But this same Lord and Savior clearly passed along this baton to the original apostles and disciples - and now the baton has been passed to us - his latter day disciples.

And among the ragtag band of his latter day disciples, somebody has to stand up and speak forth the true condition of God's people. The problem is that it takes a true man of God who is without offence towards God or man. A man with clean hands in respect to God and man. One who can draw the line in the sand and not be worried about who may or may not step over it. Tall order, I understand.
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother EvanG I guess it's safe to say that you a one church one city kinda guy.
But surely you have to admit that it's not a dogma developed anywhere in the New Testament.
I guess there's no harm in zealotry for it, but it is a zealotry not found anywhere in the scriptures, or it would have been expounded clearly and precisely.
Nee and Lee made more of it than scripture does. They turned it into an extra-Biblical dogma. It's a way of saying, "We're the true church, and every other is not." It's not unifying, as I first envisioned it, but is divisive.

You are confusing dividing with leaving. For example, if I get out of my car, I am leaving my car, I am not dividing from my car. And after getting out of my car, if I see another car, me leaving my car did not cause the other car to appear nor was another car created. I did not cause "another car" just because I left my car and am now looking at it. Similarly, once you leave division you are no longer in division or divisive, you have left. And you have not caused "another division" by leaving a division.

Denominations are divisions because the word denominate has the same root word as denominator in fractions which means to divide.

This is very simple to understand I don't know why so many struggle with it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I never said that Jesus did tell them to come out of these churches, that was Zeek. What I said was that the verse in Philadelphia indicates that everyone in that church has had to come out previously and that this coming out did not hinder their status as overcomers.
.

Following your ideas, the overcomers must be the ones watching TV church on a Sunday from their lounge room .
"I don't like this denomination over here, so I'll go to this other, I am such an overcomer". Especially if you think a church is a gathering of two or three, it's so much easier to leave one small group and join another small gathering of two or three.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are confusing dividing with leaving. For example, if I get out of my car, I am leaving my car, I am not dividing from my car. And after getting out of my car, if I see another car, me leaving my car did not cause the other car to appear nor was another car created. I did not cause "another car" just because I left my car and am now looking at it. Similarly, once you leave division you are no longer in division or divisive, you have left. And you have not caused "another division" by leaving a division.

Denominations are divisions because the word denominate has the same root word as denominator in fractions which means to divide.

This is very simple to understand I don't know why so many struggle with it.

Evangelical....you pretend the sordid practice of dividing from christians is not the modus operandi of the Lee church. I was divided from the saints in my locality by them. I would never have voluntarily shunned, cold-shouldered, or divided from them of my own accord...they were friends and I loved them. We belong together in the fellowship of Christ...this division was against my ill and choosing for the body of Christ, of Whom we were all members. The sisters I loved followed the Witness Lee program and will not see me, nor speak to me, nor my children, who loved these ones also. Th LC is the one maintaining their belief in and adherance to this practice by perpetrating division on unsuspecting believers. They actively carry this division out....the local church denominated my family...if you like that term. You cannot deny they are dividing the body of our Lord...in a purposeful and destructive way. The Lord knows all they are doing....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Evangelical....you pretend the sordid practice of dividing from christians is not the modus operandi of the Lee church. I was divided from the saints in my locality by them. I would never have voluntarily shunned, cold-shouldered, or divided from them of my own accord...they were friends and I loved them. We belong together in the fellowship of Christ...this division was against my ill and choosing for the body of Christ, of Whom we were all members. The sisters I loved followed the Witness Lee program and will not see me, nor speak to me, nor my children, who loved these ones also. Th LC is the one maintaining their belief in and adherance to this practice by perpetrating division on unsuspecting believers. They actively carry this division out....the local church denominated my family...if you like that term. You cannot deny they are dividing the body of our Lord...in a purposeful and destructive way. The Lord knows all they are doing....

Using Evangelical's "car" analogy, these LC sisters drove you and your children to a lonely deserted country road, and then kicked you and your children out of the car. Then they quickly sped away all excited about meeting together in the name of Witness Lee.

In their twisted minds, they were not "dividing" from you, rather there was just not room for you in their car, because they had a "vision" for where this "car" should be going.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Following your ideas, the overcomers must be the ones watching TV church on a Sunday from their lounge room .
"I don't like this denomination over here, so I'll go to this other, I am such an overcomer". Especially if you think a church is a gathering of two or three, it's so much easier to leave one small group and join another small gathering of two or three.

So the overcomers in the LRC were called out of Christianity, but if you are called to come out from the midst of the LRC then you are in a lounge chair watching church on TV?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So the overcomers in the LRC were called out of Christianity, but if you are called to come out from the midst of the LRC then you are in a lounge chair watching church on TV?

Where's bro Drake. Untohim charged him with this thread.

Someone tell him that I said that I'd take poor, poor, Christianity, and even the lounge chair TV church, over Lee's cult, and all the machinations that support it.

And bro EvanG, what's wrong with 2 or 3 gathering together, if the Lord is there?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So the overcomers in the LRC were called out of Christianity, but if you are called to come out from the midst of the LRC then you are in a lounge chair watching church on TV?

If you think overcoming means leaving the group then aren't those watching church TV the overcomers in the city?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Where's bro Drake. Untohim charged him with this thread.

Someone tell him that I said that I'd take poor, poor, Christianity, and even the lounge chair TV church, over Lee's cult, and all the machinations that support it.

And bro EvanG, what's wrong with 2 or 3 gathering together, if the Lord is there?

I didnt realize overcoming was so easy. If you dont like a church of 2 or 3 over there you can just leave and find another church of 2 or 3. Or you can even stay at home and overcome by doing that and join the TV church which is full of overcomers. And if there is 3000 Christians in a city I guess that means 1000 churches of 3 to choose from so overcoming must be easy.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you think overcoming means leaving the group then aren't those watching church TV the overcomers in the city?

I think overcoming is being a faithful brother, like Antipas.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I didnt realize overcoming was so easy. If you dont like a church of 2 or 3 over there you can just leave and find another church of 2 or 3. Or you can even stay at home and overcome by doing that and join the TV church which is full of overcomers. And if there is 3000 Christians in a city I guess that means 1000 churches of 3 to choose from so overcoming must be easy.

What are you talking about, it is taught all the time in the LRC. "Come out of her my people" Babylon refers to Christianity. You sing songs about how sad you were in Babylon and how happy you are now that you have come out from there.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What are you talking about, it is taught all the time in the LRC. "Come out of her my people" Babylon refers to Christianity. You sing songs about how sad you were in Babylon and how happy you are now that you have come out from there.

So we are the overcomers then I guess. Or is it the people watching TV from home? Where are the overcomers?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I didnt realize overcoming was so easy. If you dont like a church of 2 or 3 over there you can just leave and find another church of 2 or 3. Or you can even stay at home and overcome by doing that and join the TV church which is full of overcomers. And if there is 3000 Christians in a city I guess that means 1000 churches of 3 to choose from so overcoming must be easy.

I'm just happy the Lord is there. What? You want more?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Babylon refers to Christianity.

Where does scripture say that?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Where are the overcomers?

Only the Lord knows.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Where does scripture say that?

It is a type that begins with Babel, a tower built up to God with an idol on every brick.

Later, God's people are taken captive into Babylon.

The description in Revelation describes a religious aspect and a material aspect.

It is a very important type and is certainly open to interpretation, but it is not open to being ignored.

[ZNPaaneah]

"The Lord had been traded for the lawyer." (John Meyer, A Future and a Hope) -- Isn't that equivalent to "you have left your first love"?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So we are the overcomers then I guess. Or is it the people watching TV from home? Where are the overcomers?

I don't understand your confusion. While in the LRC I sang songs, hymns and psalms about wandering in Babylon and then how happy I was to get the call to come out. I heard many testimonies from saints in the LRC about leaving Babylon and "come out of her my people". So why would you have an issue with overcomers "coming out" and being led by the Lord. Or do you have a double standard that this only applies to everyone else and not to us?

With what judgement you judge you shall be judged.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is a very important type and is certainly open to interpretation,

But not to hyper-interpretation. Rev. 18 does not liken it to a religion, it calls it a mighty city.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"The Lord had been traded for the lawyer." (John Meyer, A Future and a Hope) -- Isn't that equivalent to "you have left your first love"?

Still??????? You're like a bull dog. We're not stupid. We get it. Come out, come out, come out! Harp, harp, harp. Just quote Rev. 18:4 and be done with.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"The Lord had been traded for the lawyer." (John Meyer, A Future and a Hope) -- Isn't that equivalent to "you have left your first love"?

Or have become shipwrecked regarding the faith for not holding faith and a good conscience.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Still??????? You're like a bull dog. We're not stupid. We get it. Come out, come out, come out! Harp, harp, harp. Just quote Rev. 18:4 and be done with.

Let me quote John Meyer first.

What will God do for people whose lives have become an exercise of tolerating one new low after another—when they are wedged in neutral, knowing the flock has become a rank religious camp, yet never finding the motivation to leave it?

…Yes, in an effort to control, slander, and conceal, they meant evil, but in an effort to lead us out of a ministry fold, “God meant it for good."

…When it was time to get out, He showed you the door. (John Meyer, A Future and a Hope)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Let me quote John Meyer first.

What will God do for people whose lives have become an exercise of tolerating one new low after another—when they are wedged in neutral, knowing the flock has become a rank religious camp, yet never finding the motivation to leave it?

…Yes, in an effort to control, slander, and conceal, they meant evil, but in an effort to lead us out of a ministry fold, “God meant it for good."

…When it was time to get out, He showed you the door. (John Meyer, A Future and a Hope)

I rest my case. Now quote Rev. 18:4.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I rest my case. Now quote Rev. 18:4.

I can't do it, the post would be too long. Why don't you ask Drake?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Where's bro Drake. Untohim charged him with this thread.

Medical.


To UntoHims last post #326, I did not originally anticipate the matter of judging, judgment would be a part of this conversation but I’m glad it came up for I believe it exposes an erroneous concept about the Lord and a root cause issue. Kevin’s post #308, on judgement, I thought, was pretty compelling. Paul did say something to the effect of our needing to judge matters in this life else how can we judge in the age to come.

I believe Brother Lee’s term “poor, poor Christianity “ was an example of judgement on degradation that should be pointed out.

I believe Evangelical says it rightly that we are to overcome the degradation not come out of the local churches.

Nevertheless, I appreciate all the sober and thoughtful responses.

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

I believe Brother Lee’s term “poor, poor Christianity “ was an example of judgement on degradation that should be pointed out.

I believe Evangelical says it rightly that we are to overcome the degradation not come out of the local churches.
Drake

Drake, do you believe then,

• Some, if not all, of the posts in this forum are examples of judgement on degradation in the LC/LSM that should be pointed out
• We are to overcome the degradation not come out of Christianity

?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Drake, do you believe then,

• Some, if not all, of the posts in this forum are examples of judgement on degradation in the LC/LSM that should be pointed out
• We are to overcome the degradation not come out of Christianity

?

Some, not all.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Some, not all.

Praise the Lord!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Still??????? You're like a bull dog. We're not stupid. We get it. Come out, come out, come out! Harp, harp, harp. Just quote Rev. 18:4 and be done with.

9 I wrote somewhat unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 10 Therefore, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he doeth, prating against us with wicked words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and them that would he forbiddeth and casteth them out of the church.

My point is not that you should come out, but in many instances you may be cast out, and that was of the Lord. I think it is clear that those in Philadelphia had been very grieved at having to go out previously, hence the promise that they wouldn't have to again.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

9 I wrote somewhat unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 10 Therefore, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he doeth, prating against us with wicked words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and them that would he forbiddeth and casteth them out of the church.

My point is not that you should come out, but in many instances you may be cast out, and that was of the Lord. I think it is clear that those in Philadelphia had been very grieved at having to go out previously, hence the promise that they wouldn't have to again.

ZNP,

Please elaborate on the bold sentence above.

Thanks
Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

Please elaborate on the bold sentence above.

Thanks
Drake

12 He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more:

I read this as saying that they have gone out previously and this promise suggests that not going out again is comforting, hence my conclusion that the previous experience of going out was grievous.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Medical.

Sorry for your medical problems. Prayers that you are okay.

Originally Posted by Drake

I believe Brother Lee’s term “poor, poor Christianity “ was an example of judgement on degradation that should be pointed out.

As I've stated, in so many words, if humans are involved expect "degradation." Still, I understand. Christianity today earns it.

But don't you agree that Lee painted with such a wide brush that he was very, very, likely, condemning true members of the body of Christ? Not all Christianity is degraded. And that's true for Lee's, and Nee's, local church movement too.

Maybe, brother, you're not boned up on LC history, including the hidden history. Then you'd see the degradation that's been in their movement.

Shouldn't that be pointed out too? Believe me Lee knew -- and was prolly projecting -- about the degradation in his movement. Some of it he branded as "rebellions." Some of it he quarantined. And some of it he covered up. So he had no high road to be judging Christianity from. Judge not comes to mind. No one is perfect. Paul advised love.

Hope you're recovering well ... blessings brother. Thanks for responding. We/I missed you.

Harold

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

9 I wrote somewhat unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 10 Therefore, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he doeth, prating against us with wicked words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and them that would he forbiddeth and casteth them out of the church.

My point is not that you should come out, but in many instances you may be cast out, and that was of the Lord. I think it is clear that those in Philadelphia had been very grieved at having to go out previously, hence the promise that they wouldn't have to again.

I thought you were trying to revive the 'come-outer' movement :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come-outer

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I thought you were trying to revive the 'come-outer' movement :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come-outer

Well, I guess I have developed a strange doctrine that Philadelphia is composed of the "cast outers".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well, I guess I have developed a strange doctrine that Philadelphia is composed of the "cast outers".

I'll say it's strange. There's no mention of casting out in the text to the church in Philadelphia.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well, I guess I have developed a strange doctrine that Philadelphia is composed of the "cast outers".

If the prophetical-historical view of the 7 churches is truly valid, then we should never consider Philadelphia to represent the Plymouth Brethren. Their checkered history of frivolous excommunications definitely disqualifies them.

Far more representative of Philadelohia would be the Moravians under Zinzendorf. They came from all over the continent as real "cast outers" fleeing untold persecutions. Once together, they definitely and actively sought to eliminate all minor points of difference that the love of God could abound in their midst. They began a 100 year prayer meeting thru which the Lord abundantly blessed with evangelists, spreading the good news over the earth.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If the prophetical-historical view of the 7 churches is truly valid, then we should never consider Philadelphia to represent the Plymouth Brethren. Their checkered history of frivolous excommunications definitely disqualifies them.

Far more representative of Philadelohia would be the Moravians under Zinzendorf. They came from all over the continent as real "cast outers" fleeing untold persecutions. Once together, they definitely and actively sought to eliminate all minor points of difference that the love of God could abound in their midst. They began a 100 year prayer meeting thru which the Lord abundantly blessed with evangelists, spreading the good news over the earth.

The Moravian brethren certainly fit the description of Philadelphia yet in some ways and at some point in time so do the Brethren churches. God opened up the scriptures through them to the benefit of all Christians. So perhaps the church is Philadelphia is a genre rather than only one or the other. Just thinking out loud.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Interesting, so you would agree that both Laodicea and Philadelphia can be seen in the Brethren churches. Would you place the LRC as part of the Brethren movement?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'll say it's strange. There's no mention of casting out in the text to the church in Philadelphia.

Awareness,

True, it is an inference. But, in the context of the whole letter ZNPs cast-outers thought has merit. For it is in Philadelphia that the Lord says it is possible to be built in as a pillar in the temple. The idea of a pillar also expresses the same idea of being built in to such an extent that leaving is no longer possible as it would cause structural damage to God’s building. The benefit of a pillar is to both God and man.

It does not mean that Philadelphia is composed of only those who have been cast out. But I think there is sufficient imagery to give hope to those who had been cast out that they have found a home in God where they can be permanently established.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

The Moravian brethren certainly fit the description of Philadelphia yet in some ways and at some point in time so do the Brethren churches. God opened up the scriptures through them to the benefit of all Christians. So perhaps the church is Philadelphia is a genre rather than only one or the other. Just thinking out loud.

Drake

Y'all are ignoring the Quakers.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Drake

To UntoHims last post #326, I did not originally anticipate the matter of judging, judgment would be a part of this conversation but I’m glad it came up for I believe it exposes an erroneous concept about the Lord and a root cause issue. Kevin’s post #308, on judgement, I thought, was pretty compelling. Paul did say something to the effect of our needing to judge matters in this life else how can we judge in the age to come.

I believe Brother Lee’s term “poor, poor Christianity “ was an example of judgement on degradation that should be pointed out.

I believe Evangelical says it rightly that we are to overcome the degradation not come out of the local churches.

Nevertheless, I appreciate all the sober and thoughtful responses.

Drake

Judging requires discerning and examining. In Revelation, the Lord Jesus has eyes as flames of fire. His feet are polished brass indicating judging. As the High Priest He trims the wicks of the lamps to keep them brightly shining. He examines and He trims. No one and no church escapes His discerning judgement and His trimming.

And for those who prefer Jesus as presented in the gospels He is also the One who overturned the tables of the money changers to cleanse His Fathers house. So He is consistent both on earth and in heaven.

I have provided examples of “poor poor Christianity” that validates the term. Some have said that Brother Lee excluded the local churches from that characterization. I believe he did it in apposition but not strictly between poor poor Christianity and the local churches but between poor poor Christianity and the aspiration to be a Philadelphia, to avoid the mistakes of Protestantism division, the mistakes of the Brethren, that the local churches would aspire be all that pleases the Lord, His commendations, and avoid all His condemnations. In short, to cooperate to make ready to bring a Him back or if you prefer to be ready at His appearing.

Therefore, the greater part of Brother Lees ministry was directed inward. It would be inaccurate to give the impression that his focus was on poor poor Christianity. His ministry focus was on the local churches, to establish them and build them up. Even at that his ministry was mostly “life-studies” focused on the experience of the life of Christ but there was a fair amount of critique toward our own shortcomings, warnings, and sometimes action. This is not say that Brother Lee or his ministry did not have mistakes, shortcomings, and issues of their own. He and it did. However, I would not toss out the baby with the bath water.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Y'all are ignoring the Quakers.

Had some this morning for breakfast with raisins, cinnamon, and brown sugar. Yummy.

I don’t know enough about them but if Philadelphia is a genre, a model, then maybe. Don’t know.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Had some this morning for breakfast with raisins, cinnamon, and brown sugar. Yummy.

I don’t know enough about them but if Philadelphia is a genre, a model, then maybe. Don’t know.

My experience with the Quakers (Meetinghouse, not Steeple-house) is that they are by far and away the most loving Christians I've ever known.

They're opposite from the Shouters. They meet in silence - seeking The Teacher Within - Christ. Judge a tree by its fruits - it works.

That's why I relate them to the c. in Philadelphia.

Glad to see you're up to getting back at it brother.

Harold

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Glad to see you're up to getting back at it brother.

Harold

Thank you, Harold.

I have a greater appreciation of the relief Lazarus must have felt to be back from his adventure. Though I was nowhere near death ... It felt like I was well on the way.

Drake

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

Therefore, the greater part of Brother Lees ministry was directed inward. It would be inaccurate to give the impression that his focus was on poor poor Christianity. His ministry focus was on the local churches, to establish them and build them up. Even at that his ministry was mostly “life-studies” focused on the experience of the life of Christ but there was a fair amount of critique toward our own shortcomings, warnings, and sometimes action. This is not say that Brother Lee or his ministry did not have mistakes, shortcomings, and issues of their own. He and it did. However, I would not toss out the baby with the bath water.

Glad you're better Drake.

To anyone worried about a family member in the LSM churches or anyone seeking information because their college student has been meeting with a group that is more about Lee than Jesus. My two cents:

This would appear to be a very rational, thought out, and appropriate comment (if I'm reading as someone who hadn't been deeply involved with the LSM churches). The problem is that this doesn't match the reality of Lee's ministry. Dozens and dozens of people on this forum, both regulars and those who stop by for a visit, have brought forth testimony that would reject the statement quoted above. As a Christ follower I desire nothing more than for others to know His Truth, experience His Grace, be filled with His Spirit, and live their life glorifying their Lord and Savior. Personally, I would do anything (move, quit my job, turn over my assets, etc.) to keep my children away from the LSM and their churches. I won't fully understand the deception and deadness of the LSM churches until I'm with the Lord, but the appropriate response is exactly the opposite of what Drake thinks - DO "throw the baby out with the bath water".

The Lord is greater than the teachings of Witness Lee - His Spirit, His Word, and His Truth does not need Witness Lee's flawed ministry.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

The Moravian brethren certainly fit the description of Philadelphia yet in some ways and at some point in time so do the Brethren churches. God opened up the scriptures through them to the benefit of all Christians. So perhaps the church is Philadelphia is a genre rather than only one or the other. Just thinking out loud.

Drake

Perhaps. For an adherent of Lee and Nee, however, your comment would not be accepted in certain LC circles.

Secondly, the key feature of Philadelphia was not a preponderance of teachings, but brotherly love and open doors.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Therefore, the greater part of Brother Lees ministry was directed inward. It would be inaccurate to give the impression that his focus was on poor poor Christianity. His ministry focus was on the local churches, to establish them and build them up. Even at that his ministry was mostly “life-studies” focused on the experience of the life of Christ but there was a fair amount of critique toward our own shortcomings, warnings, and sometimes action. This is not say that Brother Lee or his ministry did not have mistakes, shortcomings, and issues of their own. He and it did. However, I would not toss out the baby with the bath water.

Drake

Your longsuffering and forbearance towards W. Lee and LSM is commendable. Paul says it should be made known to all.

Unfortunately none of that exists towards any Christians outside of the LCM. Even if all of Christianity was your enemy, as Lee often made it seem that way, the Lord instructs us to love these "enemies." The Blendeds took Lee's bad habits even further, (which is always the case) by making Titus Chu and the Midwest brothers your enemies.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Awareness,

True, it is an inference. But, in the context of the whole letter ZNPs cast-outers thought has merit. For it is in Philadelphia that the Lord says it is possible to be built in as a pillar in the temple. The idea of a pillar also expresses the same idea of being built in to such an extent that leaving is no longer possible as it would cause structural damage to God’s building. The benefit of a pillar is to both God and man.

It does not mean that Philadelphia is composed of only those who have been cast out. But I think there is sufficient imagery to give hope to those who had been cast out that they have found a home in God where they can be permanently established.

Drake

Cool imagery. Plus, I'm a casted-outer.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Thank you, Harold.

I have a greater appreciation of the relief Lazarus must have felt to be back from his adventure. Though I was nowhere near death ... It felt like I was well on the way.

Drake

Amen!!! Lazarus is back!!!

Harold

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

My experience with the Quakers (Meetinghouse, not Steeple-house) is that they are by far and away the most loving Christians I've ever known.

They're opposite from the Shouters. They meet in silence - seeking The Teacher Within - Christ. Judge a tree by its fruits - it works.

That's why I relate them to the c. in Philadelphia.

Glad to see you're up to getting back at it brother.

Harold

Perhaps Richard Nixon is the most famous Quaker.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your longsuffering anf forbearamce towards W. Lee and LSM is commendable. Paul says it should be made known to all.

Unfortunately none of that exists towards any Christians outside of the LCM. Even if all of Christianity was your enemy, as Lee often made it seem that way, the Lord instructs us to love these "enemies." The Blendeds took Lee's bad habits even further, (which is always the case) by making Titus Chu and the Midwest brothers your enemies.

Reading John Meyers book brings home the truth that the Ohio churches were treated outrageously bad by LSM.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Glad you're better Drake.

To anyone worried about a family member in the LSM churches or anyone seeking information because their college student has been meeting with a group that is more about Lee than Jesus. My two cents:

This would appear to be a very rational, thought out, and appropriate comment (if I'm reading as someone who hadn't been deeply involved with the LSM churches). The problem is that this doesn't match the reality of Lee's ministry. Dozens and dozens of people on this forum, both regulars and those who stop by for a visit, have brought forth testimony that would reject the statement quoted above. As a Christ follower I desire nothing more than for others to know His Truth, experience His Grace, be filled with His Spirit, and live their life glorifying their Lord and Savior. Personally, I would do anything (move, quit my job, turn over my assets, etc.) to keep my children away from the LSM and their churches. I won't fully understand the deception and deadness of the LSM churches until I'm with the Lord, but the appropriate response is exactly the opposite of what Drake thinks - DO "throw the baby out with the bath water".

The Lord is greater than the teachings of Witness Lee - His Spirit, His Word, and His Truth does not need Witness Lee's flawed ministry.

Thanks for the well wishes LofT.

Here is the problem with the rest of your post.

There is no substance. It just a “he’s wrong, listen to me because I’m right and the majority in this forum agree with me”.

I’d like to hear your reasoned argument if you have one.

Thanks
Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your longsuffering and forbearance towards W. Lee and LSM is commendable. Paul says it should be made known to all.

Unfortunately none of that exists towards any Christians outside of the LCM. Even if all of Christianity was your enemy, as Lee often made it seem that way, the Lord instructs us to love these "enemies." The Blendeds took Lee's bad habits even further, (which is always the case) by making Titus Chu and the Midwest brothers your enemies.

Christianity, and all its branches, including the many evil things we have seen already, like Beyoncé worship, mainstream sensual dance ministries like Osteen’s church promotes, 10 Articles of the Anglican Church and the Episcopalian practices that got them ostracized by the former, tele- evangelists schemes. Etc. qualifies as a legitimate enemy. Christianity is not the Church though the genuine regenerated believers in it are. Christians are not the enemy but the religion called Christianity is.

The Lord does not instruct us to love those enemies. No sir. Not one itsy little bit. There is no scriptural basis for those things and no call to love them.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Christianity, and all its branches, including the many evil things we have seen already, like Beyoncé worship, mainstream sensual dance ministries like Osteen’s church promotes, 10 Articles of the Anglican Church and the Episcopalian practices that got them ostracized by the former, tele- evangelists schemes. Etc. qualifies as a legitimate enemy. Christianity is not the Church though the genuine regenerated believers in it are. Christians are not the enemy but the religion called Christianity is.

The Lord does not instruct us to love those enemies. No sir. Not one itsy little bit. There is no scriptural basis for those things and no call to love them.

Drake

What you have written is not Christ, not Christian, and not scriptural.

And btw most of us feel the same way about your LCM. Your corrupt system led by LSM is an enemy.

But the Lord has instructed us to still love you.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What you have written is not Christ, not Christian, and not scriptural.

And btw most of us feel the same way about your LCM. Your corrupt system led by LSM is an enemy.

But the Lord has instructed us to still love you.

Well Ohio,

You have just demonstrated your version of hating a thing (“Local Church Movement or Living Stream Ministry”) and loving a Christian (Drake).

Although, because of the way you said it I would still bring a food tester if invited to a barbecue at your place.

But seriously , You nor anyone else cannot defend those things or the organization that allows those things to flourish. Has nothing to do with God or Christ except in name only.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Perhaps Richard Nixon is the most famous Quaker.

And believe me, the Quakers were shamed ; the ones I know. He must have been a Steeple-house Quaker ... if a true one at all.

But point taken. Even Quakers are primates.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

There is no substance. It just a “he’s wrong, listen to me because I’m right and the majority in this forum agree with me”.

Take out the word 'forum,' and replace it with 'local church' and that's exactly what I saw while in the local church ; except add "agree with Lee with pumping fists."

Lee would have been nothing without devoted followers. We made Lee. You bro Drake prove Lee. Without you, and we, and there would be no Lee. He would have just been another man from China, selling goods.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Christianity, and all its branches, including the many evil things we have seen already, like Beyoncé worship, mainstream sensual dance ministries like Osteen’s church promotes, 10 Articles of the Anglican Church and the Episcopalian practices that got them ostracized by the former, tele- evangelists schemes. Etc. qualifies as a legitimate enemy. Christianity is not the Church though the genuine regenerated believers in it are. Christians are not the enemy but the religion called Christianity is.

The Lord does not instruct us to love those enemies. No sir. Not one itsy little bit. There is no scriptural basis for those things and no call to love them.

Drake

Goodness bro Drake. You must not be feeling very good right now. Those were harsh words.

But I agree with you about the Lord, and not loving enemies. But then we have to take the Lord in the book of Revelation, not the one in the gospels.

I think the odds are better on the one in the gospels. Revelation is to obscure to trust that it represents the Lord ; specially since it contradicts the Lord in the gospels.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

specially since it contradicts the Lord in the gospels.

My good friend awareness has a nasty habit of thinking that if he repeats a demonstrable falsehood enough, he can turn a lie into the truth. To say that the Lord Jesus in Revelation contradicts the Lord Jesus in the Gospels shows gross ignorance at best, and at worst is having one foot on a banana peal and the other on the edge of blasphemy. Simply stated, awareness is confusing the age of grace with the judgement that is to come. Grace came through the Lord Jesus, and judgement shall be meted out by the Lord Jesus. The Word is very clear on this, and it is also clear that this is all done under the administration and good pleasure of God the Father, in accordance with his will and in his chosen timing.

Here's some applicable examples of the Lord Jesus in the Gospels:
Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels"...Then he will answer them, saying, "Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Matthew 25:41,45-46

The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.
John 12:48

Not much time for me this morning to give some of the other myriad of Gospel passages, but trust me there are many more.

I'll leave you with this:
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
Hebrews 13:8
-

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Goodness bro Drake. You must not be feeling very good right now. Those were harsh words.

But I agree with you about the Lord, and not loving enemies. But then we have to take the Lord in the book of Revelation, not the one in the gospels.

I think the odds are better on the one in the gospels. Revelation is to obscure to trust that it represents the Lord ; specially since it contradicts the Lord in the gospels.

Bro awareness,

I feel terrific. Feeling my Quaker Oats. Thanks.

Harsh words? No, because ...

The Lord presents the Church to Himself glorious, not Christianity. Those are not synonymous though some here frame their argument as if they were. It’s the “ity” that is the enemy. I provided some examples of the insulting things that Christianity teaches and practices... “poor poor Christianity” is an accurate description for those things. They are a distraction to the work that the Lord is doing to present the Church to Himself without blemish.

It is the same Lord Jesus in both the gospels and the Revelation. His purpose is the same and He will accomplish what He has begun.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

The Lord presents the Church to Himself glorious, not Christianity. Those are not synonymous though some here frame their argument as if they were. It’s the “ity” that is the enemy.

Amen!

But it goes both ways my friend ...

No more LSMity, Leeity, DCPity, MOTAity, FTTity, Blendedity, etc. and all their lies, unrighteousness, lawsuits, and slanders. Your “ity” is the enemy.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Well Ohio,

You have just demonstrated your version of hating a thing (“Local Church Movement or Living Stream Ministry”) and loving a Christian (Drake).

Although, because of the way you said it I would still bring a food tester if invited to a barbecue at your place.

But seriously , You nor anyone else cannot defend those things or the organization that allows those things to flourish. Has nothing to do with God or Christ except in name only.

Drake

True. There's lots of CINO's out there. But just because you go around shouting "Oh Lord Jesus" or "Jesus is Lord" does not mean you are not one.

And Beyoncé worship is no worse than Lee worship. We shouldn't worship any human primate, male or female, or inbetween, or both in one.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

True. There's lots of CINO's out there. But just because you go around shouting "Oh Lord Jesus" or "Jesus is Lord" does not mean you are not one.

And Beyoncé worship is no worse than Lee worship. We shouldn't worship any human primate, male or female, or inbetween, or both in one.

When Apostle Paul was faced with the Corinthians lining up behind various ministers, including himself, he clearly concluded that "No flesh should boast before God," and if anyone must boast, "Let him boast in the Lord." (I Corinthians 1.29, 31)

Those in the LCM never got this message from Paul. Firstly, when it came to Christian ministers, W. Lee was one of the greatest boasters of all time. Secondly, his blended followers learned from his bad habits and have been boasting in W. Lee for decades, both before, during, and after his death.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

his blended followers learned from his bad habits and have been boasting in W. Lee for decades, both before, during, and after his death.

Isn't that the qualifications to be a blended brother?

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by awareness

Take out the word 'forum,' and replace it with 'local church' and that's exactly what I saw while in the local church ; except add "agree with Lee with pumping fists."

Lee would have been nothing without devoted followers. We made Lee. You bro Drake prove Lee. Without you, and we, and there would be no Lee. He would have just been another man from China, selling goods.

But I’m not a guy trying to start “the” church, so change the entire context too.

I’m just a regular dude. I’m not here to reason or change Drake’s mind - we’ve all seen where that ends. Witness Lee > Everything else. It’s a sad reality, in light of the truth offered by the grace of Jesus, a tragic reality. People need to know.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

But I’m not a guy trying to start “the” church, so change the entire context too.

I’m just a regular dude. I’m not here to reason or change Drake’s mind - we’ve all seen where that ends. Witness Lee > Everything else. It’s a sad reality, in light of the truth offered by the grace of Jesus, a tragic reality. People need to know.

LofT,

Please provide evidence of your unfounded assertion above as pertains to me. Else, don’t make those false assertions.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

LofT,

Please provide evidence of your unfounded assertion above as pertains to me. Else, don’t make those false assertions.

Drake

Drake, what was his false assertion? That he couldn't change your mind?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake, what was his false assertion? That he couldn't change your mind?

That I (inbold) elevate Witness Lee greater than everything else.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

That I (inbold) elevate Witness Lee greater than everything else.

Well it's apparent that you read other material other than just Lee and Nee.

You might be like me, or like I was. Maybe you get chided for reading other material. That got brothers making a cross with their fingers at me.

Cuz the other material - books - weren't in the current flow coming down from Lee.

I've been out much longer, so I don't know, but Lee has been dead for over 20 years ... so I guess there are no more new flows.

Is the only flow now just Lee, Lee, Lee? But considering your reading habits, not for you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

That I (inbold) elevate Witness Lee greater than everything else.

Are you claiming to be different than the stated policies of your church?

Then you should be quarantined with the rest of us.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are you claiming to be different than the stated policies of your church?

Then you should be quarantined with the rest of us.

LofT accused Drake.

He can substantiate it. Else he can cease from making false allegations.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are you claiming to be different than the stated policies of your church?

Then you should be quarantined with the rest of us.

I am not aware of any stated policies since I left in 1998, but prior to that I was not required to elevate "Witness Lee above everything else" and I knew many saints, myself included, that refused to pray read his books because they saw that as a way to put him on par with the Bible. We were never quarantined.

I think it is safe to say that in the LRC you are expected to show respect to Witness Lee as a servant of God. More than that was never required of me, though I suppose you could say it was required of the elders who signed the loyalty pledge.

I get it that in Ohio LSM acted brutishly, and perhaps in Orange county Ca, but that should not be assumed to be the same as the rest of the LRC.

I was also aware of saints who had extensive libraries of Christian books that were not "ministry books". They were discreet about it, but when you helped them move it was impossible to hide.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am not aware of any stated policies since I left in 1998, but prior to that I was not required to elevate "Witness Lee above everything else" and I knew many saints, myself included, that refused to pray read his books because they saw that as a way to put him on par with the Bible. We were never quarantined.

I think it is safe to say that in the LRC you are expected to show respect to Witness Lee as a servant of God. More than that was never required of me, though I suppose you could say it was required of the elders who signed the loyalty pledge.

I get it that in Ohio LSM acted brutishly, and perhaps in Orange county Ca, but that should not be assumed to be the same as the rest of the LRC.

I was also aware of saints who had extensive libraries of Christian books that were not "ministry books". They were discreet about it, but when you helped them move it was impossible to hide.

Well said.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well it's apparent that you read other material other than just Lee and Nee.

You might be like me, or like I was. Maybe you get chided for reading other material. That got brothers making a cross with their fingers at me.

Cuz the other material - books - weren't in the current flow coming down from Lee.

I've been out much longer, so I don't know, but Lee has been dead for over 20 years ... so I guess there are no more new flows.

Is the only flow now just Lee, Lee, Lee? But considering your reading habits, not for you.

If we do not read other material how would we fulfill this exhortation?

"You must learn Brethren theology, you must learn the inner life teachings, and you must know where Calvinism and Reformed theology stand. Likewise, you must know where the school of Arminianism stands. Between Calvinism and Arminianism there is the kingdom teaching concerning the reward to the faithful ones and the punishment or discipline for the unfaithful ones. After you pick up these five things, you will become qualified and very much equipped to understand the Bible. I assure you that you could never go astray. This vision will govern your interpretation of every verse of the Bible. All the notes I wrote on the twenty-seven books of the New Testament were written under the governing of these five things. Although my teachings could be wrong in some small points, they are quite safe." Elders' Training, Book 05: Fellowship Concerning the Lord's Up-to-Date Move. Witness Lee

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am not aware of any stated policies since I left in 1998, but prior to that I was not required to elevate "Witness Lee above everything else" and I knew many saints, myself included, that refused to pray read his books because they saw that as a way to put him on par with the Bible. We were never quarantined.

I think it is safe to say that in the LRC you are expected to show respect to Witness Lee as a servant of God. More than that was never required of me, though I suppose you could say it was required of the elders who signed the loyalty pledge.

I get it that in Ohio LSM acted brutishly, and perhaps in Orange county Ca, but that should not be assumed to be the same as the rest of the LRC.

I was also aware of saints who had extensive libraries of Christian books that were not "ministry books". They were discreet about it, but when you helped them move it was impossible to hide.

LSM determines stated policy for the LCM, regardless of individual saints or LC's.

Individuals can have personal libraries with any books they want, but they are only permitted to promote Lee's books.

I remember one time your friend Ed Marks publicly condemned from the podium (at late 90's post-Lee Training in Anaheim) all so-called Christian "self-help" books such as from Focus on the Family as being "Chicken Soup for the Soul."

Strong message from LSM!

Quick sisters, hide your Joyce Meyer's books!!!

[Drake]

-1

Ohio,

All this talk of policy and permissions. Overstated.

Where may I read for myself this “stated policy”?

#399 is good material for a policy and it is even stated and referenced. How about that one?

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

If we do not read other material how would we fulfill this exhortation?

"You must learn Brethren theology, you must learn the inner life teachings, and you must know where Calvinism and Reformed theology stand. Likewise, you must know where the school of Arminianism stands. Between Calvinism and Arminianism there is the kingdom teaching concerning the reward to the faithful ones and the punishment or discipline for the unfaithful ones. After you pick up these five things, you will become qualified and very much equipped to understand the Bible. I assure you that you could never go astray. This vision will govern your interpretation of every verse of the Bible. All the notes I wrote on the twenty-seven books of the New Testament were written under the governing of these five things. Although my teachings could be wrong in some small points, they are quite safe." Elders' Training, Book 05: Fellowship Concerning the Lord's Up-to-Date Move. Witness Lee

Drake

So even in your reading habits you follow Lee? Doesn't that prove leastofthese right? Geez, I was defending you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Ohio,

All this talk of policy and permissions. Overstated.

Where may I read for myself this “stated policy”?

#399 is good material for a policy and it is even stated with references. How about that one?

Drake

Did you miss that message by Ed Marks on Chicken Soup for the Soul?

Why don't we start there?

I've read some Brethren History, they have as many excommunications as you do -- fruit of all that excellent theology that Lee was promoting.

Read about what their Park Avenue "Blendeds" did to old beloved Doctor Cronin while Darby was on his death bed. It was almost as bad as what Lee did to John Ingalls.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did you miss that message by Ed Marks on Chicken Soup for the Soul?

Why don't we start there?

I've read some Brethren History, they have as many excommunications as you do -- fruit of all that excellent theology that Lee was promoting.

Read about what their Park Avenue "Blendeds" did to old beloved Doctor Cronin while Darby was on his death bed. It was almost as bad as what Lee did to John Ingalls.

Brother Ed probably said it more than once. So what?

Brother Lee exhorted us to study Brethren theology. Not what happened on Darby deathbed.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Ed probably said it more than once. So what?

Brother Lee exhorted us to study Brethren theology. Not what happened on Darby deathbed.

Drake

Apparently you have become quite naive as to how the rank and file members perceive Ed Marks' public directives. Either they secretly read beneficial outside books or they obey and suffer loss. Kind of like certain errant sects refuse to see doctors.

Should we not also know the fruit of Brethren theology? What good are high peak teachings which cause us to judge all our brothers over petty nothings?

Have you read what the Park Avenue "Blendeds" did to old beloved Doctor Cronin while Darby was on his death bed? Pretty pathetic application of your foundational teaching on The Ground of Oneness.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drake

If we do not read other material how would we fulfill this exhortation?

"You must learn Brethren theology, you must learn the inner life teachings, and you must know where Calvinism and Reformed theology stand. Likewise, you must know where the school of Arminianism stands. Between Calvinism and Arminianism there is the kingdom teaching concerning the reward to the faithful ones and the punishment or discipline for the unfaithful ones. After you pick up these five things, you will become qualified and very much equipped to understand the Bible. I assure you that you could never go astray. This vision will govern your interpretation of every verse of the Bible. All the notes I wrote on the twenty-seven books of the New Testament were written under the governing of these five things. Although my teachings could be wrong in some small points, they are quite safe." Elders' Training, Book 05: Fellowship Concerning the Lord's Up-to-Date Move. Witness Lee

Drake

Calvinism and Reformed theology huh? I have debated with LCers on their misrepresentations and misconceptions on Calvinism, especially good works and rewards.

Everytime they want to catch my attention on Facebook about Calvinism.

Me: Do you wanna build a strawman?🎼🎵🎶🎤

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Calvinism and Reformed theology huh? I have debated with LCers on their misrepresentations and misconceptions on Calvinism, especially good works and rewards.

Everytime they want to catch my attention on Facebook about Calvinism.

Me: Do you wanna build a strawman?��������

I think it is very difficult to have a theology that accurately conveys all the various verses that apply to man's fall and God's plan of redemption. I agree with you that the common response of most Christians, not simply in the LRC is an oversimplification and/or misrepresentation of all the various doctrines including their own.

For example: "all have sinned" does that equate to "total depravity", if so then you have the problem of evil. Also, what happens when an infant dies?

Also, how do you speak to an unbeliever that does not believe in talking snakes? According to Paul you are to "become all things to all people" -- how would you do that?

Once saved always saved or can you lose your salvation? Why is it that before the Great White Throne judgement where men are sent to the Lake of Fire there are already two men in the Lake of Fire? What does it mean in Revelation that the Lord "will not blot your name out from the book of Life"? If it is possible to blot your name out then doesn't that mean you can lose your salvation?

So the LRC doctrine is certainly acceptable in the spectrum of Calvinism and Weslayanism, but in my opinion is still inadequate.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Apparently you have become quite naive as to how the rank and file members perceive Ed Marks' public directives. Either they secretly read beneficial outside books or they obey and suffer loss. Kind of like certain errant sects refuse to see doctors.

Should we not also know the fruit of Brethren theology? What good are high peak teachings which cause us to judge all our brothers over petty nothings?

Have you read what the Park Avenue "Blendeds" did to old beloved Doctor Cronin while Darby was on his death bed? Pretty pathetic application of your foundational teaching on The Ground of Oneness.

I am “rank and file” as you call it and apparently you have no grasp what we actually think or believe.

If you find nourishment in the feathers and the bones then chow down and munch away. I prefer the fine succulent meat.

Now, just to keep this near to topic.... Brother Lee exhorted us to read other writings, I would fellowship with brothers about those discoveries, and no one had a “policy” to shun or discourage me or others from doing that. However, he did not to advise us to read just anything and he would have been irresponsible not to advise us to steer clear of certain things, teachings, practices as would Brother Ed. That is not the same as a read mandate as you seem to be suggesting.

Drake

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

Where may I read for myself this “stated policy”?

The Official, published stated policy of the Official leaders of the Local Church of Witness Lee.
http://www.lsm.org/onepublication/

#399 is good material for a policy and it is even stated and referenced. How about that one?

Since when do you, or any other rank and file member of the Local Church decide what is or what is not good material for a policy? You are not allowed to make any such decision for yourself or for others. The Blended Brothers have made this perfectly clear. LEE. LEE. LEE. (some of Nee where it confirms LEE) Witness Lee made all sorts of bogus declarations throughout his life and ministry. What you have quoted is just one of many. This quote does not begin to mitigate what the man taught and practiced on a day-in and day-out basis - That HE, and HE ALONE was the only person ON EARTH speaking as God's oracle since 1945.
-

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The Official, published stated policy of the Official leaders of the Local Church of Witness Lee.
http://www.lsm.org/onepublication/


Since when do you, or any other rank and file member of the Local Church decide what is or what is not good material for a policy? You are not allowed to make any such decision for yourself or for others. The Blended Brothers have made this perfectly clear. LEE. LEE. LEE. (some of Nee where it confirms LEE) Witness Lee made all sorts of bogus declarations throughout his life and ministry. What you have quoted is just one of many. This quote does not begin to mitigate what the man taught and practiced on a day-in and day-out basis - That HE, and HE ALONE was the only person ON EARTH speaking as God's oracle since 1945.
-

That is the one publication policy....

.... not the one read policy.

I’ve provided what may be as succinct a read “policy” as may be found. The suggestion was that we are restricted in what we read. Frankly, LSM has every right and obligation to use their limited resources to publish whatever they believe is proper before the Lord..... and encourage us to consume it.

As far as reading, Brother Lee exhorted us to read other material as per my quote from him in 399.

What I read, I decide. Never a question that it is my decision and never a problem.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

That is the one publication policy ....

.... not the one read policy.

Talk about political "spin." Spoken as a true LSM wordsmith. You help me to relate to scripture where Jesus was confronting the "scribes."

Unfortunately the facts here indicate some level of deceit on your part, especially when you just endorsed Blended Ed Marks bully pulpit directives about Christian bookstores only carrying "Chicken Soup for the Soul," and the recent quarantine of Midwest brothers.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

That is the one publication policy....
.... not the one read policy.

Your claim is a distinction without a difference. Show me where the Blended Brothers have clearly delineated the difference between the two. They have not delineated between the two because Witness Lee never delineated between the two. "I will publish EVERYTHING you need to read!" You shall read what I publish!" was the mantra in so many words. The One Publication declaration indicates an official continuation of this dynamic. Your claim to be an eclectic reader is commendable. Too bad that is not the official policy, much less encouraged by the leadership in the LC movement.
-

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Talk about political "spin." Spoken as a true LSM wordsmith. You help me to relate to scripture where Jesus was confronting the "scribes."

Unfortunately the facts here indicate some level of deceit on your part, especially when you just endorsed Blended Ed Marks bully pulpit directives about Christian bookstores only carrying "Chicken Soup for the Soul," and the recent quarantine of Midwest brothers.

The quarantines prove they will enforce the one publication policy in a way that is clearly not scriptural and abusive. Which is why I describe it as "brutish".

The disparaging remarks by Ed Marks and others shows that there are a multitude of insulting remarks spoken against all other ministries without any specific praise. They may say generic terms like "we love everyone" but in reality there isn't a single current ministry that they would lift up as a godly example other than LSM.

I experienced tremendous oversight in what was said or printed for public consumption that was associated with the Local church (we printed in the school paper).

But there is little or nothing they can do to control what you read, or what forums you visit online. Corporate living can be somewhat invasive, but other than that I don't see them having any ability to dictate terms.

However, since these other books and sources are not ever shared in the meetings (can you imagine a testimony or message that quoted other ministries in anything other than disparaging terms?) and since the other meetings can completely dominate your non work day they can control the time and influence what you speak.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Lee exhorted us to study Brethren theology.

So the oracle has spoken?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

However, since these other books and sources are not ever shared in the meetings (can you imagine a testimony or message that quoted other ministries in anything other than disparaging terms?) and since the other meetings can completely dominate your non work day they can control the time and influence what you speak.

I have an old friend from my Cleveland days who was living in Denver, CO a few years back. He decided that he would only share from the scripture what the Lord anointed him to speak in the meetings. Apparently he got away with it a couple times until one sister happened to say something like, "it was so refreshing what Brother Edward shared last week."

He knew that he was now in trouble. He definitely was not sharing from other ministries, only the Bible.

Sure enough, all the elders called him into the office and asked him not to come back.

True story.


So brother Drake, please be advised that you better not share in the meetings anything you read unless it comes from Lee. You are only allowed to read your outside books in private.

[awareness]

It's ironic. When I was in because Lee mention Darby I bought the whole set of Darby's Synopsis Of The Books Of The Bible.

I WAS reading them in private. But when I mentioned it at a lunch table all the brothers condemned me for it, and were literally crossing their fingers in the shape of a cross like they were demonic.

I was flummoxed. After all, Lee spoke highly of the Brethren & Darby.

But that wasn't the worst thing that happen because of my reading habits. I was reading Lee.

And when "The Flow of Oneness" came down from Anaheim, that Lee was the apostle, oracle, and authority of God on the earth, I was using Lee's books to counter that claim.

Then the lead elder, Mel Porter, accused me of "using Lee's works to destroy Lee's works."

This didn't make any sense to me at all. To be honest, it completely blew my mind. From that point on the local church didn't make any sense to me.

Darby was bad, William Law - The Spirit of Love - was bad (another story), and even Lee was bad.

Clearly, the LC had become Laodicea. And that was before the blended brothers.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Your claim is a distinction without a difference. Show me where the Blended Brothers have clearly delineated the difference between the two. They have not delineated between the two because Witness Lee never delineated between the two. "I will publish EVERYTHING you need to read!" You shall read what I publish!" was the mantra in so many words. The One Publication declaration indicates an official continuation of this dynamic. Your claim to be an eclectic reader is commendable. Too bad that is not the official policy, much less encouraged by the leadership in the LC movement.
-

There is a very big massive mega difference between what a ministry chooses to publish and what the "rank and file" members of the local churches read. Both are free and independent choices. They don't need to delineate the two because the two are not the same thing.

Consider this.

If a ministry publisher does not believe they have a unique value proposition then they do not need to publish even a single pamphlet. If Brother Ed were to say something like "Yeah, go ahead and just go down to your local christian bookstore or Amazon and read whatever you fancy", then I, and I imagine a lot of folks, would have to wonder just what does he stand for then? That is what we left.

But still, your argument is flawed because it ignores what Brother Lee actually said. It only works if you selectively include the one publication, ignore what Brother Lee actually said, and then conflate publishing with reading. For I have a provided a direct exhortation, a quote, from Brother Lee that cannot be completed unless one reads a lot of other material. Furthermore, that material is not published by LSM so there is no choice but to go purchase those studies if you want to read them as he exhorted.

There is no official policy about what I read.. or for any "rank and file" member (I acknowledge exceptions) in the local churches. Even if they made such a declaration about what to read and if they were so inclined (which they are not) there is no way to enforce it. The local churches are not set up to force their members to do anything against their will. This "control, force," narrative promoted in this forum misses the real dynamic going on there.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Then the lead elder, Mel Porter, accused me of "using Lee's works to destroy Lee's works."

This didn't make any sense to me at all.

yep. Enough said.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Talk about political "spin." Spoken as a true LSM wordsmith. You help me to relate to scripture where Jesus was confronting the "scribes."

Unfortunately the facts here indicate some level of deceit on your part, especially when you just endorsed Blended Ed Marks bully pulpit directives about Christian bookstores only carrying "Chicken Soup for the Soul," and the recent quarantine of Midwest brothers.

Oh yes Ohio, here you go again.

I'm a Pharisaical scribe and you are a scholar.

I practice deceit and you are the purveyor of truth.

I support bullies who issue directives about what to read and you are a champion of distressed souls who are being forced to read stuff they don't want to.



Ad hominem attacks.... your default argument when facts don’t support your contention.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But there is little or nothing they can do to control what you read, or what forums you visit online. Corporate living can be somewhat invasive, but other than that I don't see them having any ability to dictate terms

This is accurate.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

There is a very big massive mega difference between what a ministry publisher chooses to publish and what the "rank and file" members of the local churches read. Both are free and independent choices.

Sounds reasonable.

I do have one question though, if people are free to read other ministries using their independent choice, then at some point wouldn't you hear references to this in their testimonies?

In my recollection I could hear 10 or 20 references to WL's ministry in any meeting, yet I don't ever recall someone saying they enjoyed reading something from any other ministry in those meetings, ever.

[Kevin]

LSM’s Bridges to "Babylon"

"The books in Christianity are full of superstition, superficiality, and lukewarm theology, not to mention error in many cases. We are not part of organized Christianity." (The Ministry, March 2005)

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

There is a very big massive mega difference between what a ministry chooses to publish and what the "rank and file" members of the local churches read.

Mr Drake, I'm not sure what Local Church you are referring to here, but it ain't the one that is the subject of this forum...not even close. There must be some "Parallel Local Church" (cf: Parallel Universe) that you're a part of. There is absolutely NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between what comes off of the LSM printing presses and what is disseminated to LC members for their daily reading, which is in turn is the subject matter covered in the Sunday morning meetings. I really shouldn't have to make such an obvious point...but for the sake of some lurkers out there with little to no experience with the Local Church, I just couldn't let your statement above stand as it.

But still, your argument is flawed because it ignores what Brother Lee actually said.

Right. Sure thing. And Witness Lee actually said "There is no official or permanent leadership in the Local Churches". And Witness Lee SWORE UNDER OATH that "He did not consider himself to be an apostle and encouraged others not to consider him or call him an apostle" (close paraphrase) Witness Lee also told anyone who would listen "I do not control the churches! What churches to I control?" Witness Lee taught and said a lot of things. He also was infamous for contradicting himself. There is almost no significant teaching/doctrine/practice that he established without contradicting himself in a major way. As a matter of fact, he was also infamous for teaching something, then when the members practiced what he taught, and it turned out produce bad/harmful fruit, he would do an about-face and scold everyone with "why do you speak such things! Why do you practice such things!" As soon as the "flow" which he himself initiated went south, he would never take responsibility. It's just how the man rolled.

There is no official policy about what I read.. or for any "rank and file" member (I acknowledge exceptions) in the local churches.

You must be reading too many of awareness' posts. Do you actually believe that if you say something (that is patently false) enough times it will magically turn into the truth? What you need to acknowledge, my friend, is that YOU are apparently the exception to the rule, not the other way around as you claim.
-

[Drake]

-1

UntoHim,

You don’t need to take my word for it. The most credible witness against your prosecution is the very same witness you called to support your claim.

Reading the One Publication “policy” it is apparent that Brother Lee had no desire or intention to control the local churches and not a shred of evidence that he controlled what “rank and file” will be forced to read. None. Nunca. Nyet. Nada. However, he was acting responsibly in the publication of the ministry the Lord charged him with as he should be.

Your interpretation of the One Publication is an example of reading into the text things that are not there. If you disagree, then please show from the text itself. I welcome it. It is the primary witness of your choosing and it doesn’t say what you claim it does.

Everyone who cares to understand the facts in this matter should read that article. Show me where I am wrong.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Kevin

LSM’s Bridges to "Babylon"

"The books in Christianity are full of superstition, superficiality, and lukewarm theology, not to mention error in many cases. We are not part of organized Christianity." (The Ministry, March 2005)

They are not full of superstition, superficiality, lukewarm theology, and error in many cases?

I’ve provided several examples. How many more would you like?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drake

"The books in Christianity are full of superstition, superficiality, and lukewarm theology, not to mention error in many cases. We are not part of organized Christianity." (The Ministry, March 2005)

They are not full of superstition, superficiality, lukewarm theology, and error in many cases?

I’ve provided several examples. How many more would you like?

Any normal reader would take this as a plain statement that the books in Christianity are full of superstition, superficiality, and lukewarm theology. I have received many rebukings not to read any other materials except LSM publications. Only blendeds or LC apologists can read but for any lay LC members are discouraged to pursue those books.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Any normal reader would take this as a plain statement that the books in Christianity are full of superstition, superficiality, and lukewarm theology. I have received many rebukings not to read any other materials except LSM publications.

Only need to go into the medicine/nutrition of a Christian bookstore to know that.

For example, the biblical diet:

"Jesus ate fish and Daniel at vegetables, so you should just eat vegetables and fish and you'll be healed".

There is always some sort of superstitious meaning attached to the fact that it is biblical.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

You must be reading too many of awareness' posts
-

Now, now. Even Drake admits we love the Christians but hate their systems. It's the same for him and his system.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Any normal reader would take this as a plain statement that the books in Christianity are full of superstition, superficiality, and lukewarm theology. I have received many rebukings not to read any other materials except LSM publications. Only blendeds or LC apologists can read but for any lay LC members are discouraged to pursue those books.

Kevin,

Those telling you to only read LSM material are not basing that on LSM material.

Read the part of the One Pubication to them where Brother Lee emphatically says his ministry is not a basis for fellowship.

Drake

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drake

Kevin,

Those telling you to only read LSM material are not basing that on LSM material.

Read the part of the One Pubication to them where Brother Lee emphatically says his ministry is not a basis for fellowship.

Drake

Nah, I already did twice, but so much for kicking me out.

four favourite books authored by John Piper:
1. Desiring God
2. When I don't desire God
3. The Pleasures of God
4. God is the Gospel

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now, now. Even Drake admits we love the Christians but hate their systems. It's the same for him and his system.

Awareness, forgive me using you as example below.

UntoHim,

You exercise oversight of aberrant teachings in this forum by directing them to Alternate Views. Of course that is a responsible thing to do. In One Publication Brother Lee asked the elders to use discernment and accuracy according to scriptural truth as publications produced locally can, with modern technology, be made available to all the churches. That too is responsible oversight. I’m sure you love awareness as a Christian brother, provocateur that he may be, but you don’t just allow his aberrant teachings to remain unchecked.

In other words, you don’t tell awareness what he can read but you do exercise management over what he will publish where.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Nah, I already did twice, but so much for kicking me out.

four favourite books authored by John Piper:
1. Desiring God
2. When I don't desire God
3. The Pleasures of God
4. God is the Gospel

Kevin,

So you are testifying that the local church where you were kicked you out because you did not want to read ministry material and the elders said doing so was necessary as a basis for fellowship. Is that what you are saying?

If so, that is totally opposite to what Brother Lee charged the elders in One Publication.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Oh yes Ohio, here you go again.

I'm a Pharisaical scribe and you are a scholar.

Not a scholar, just a lifelong grunt, who gave my best years to the program, only to later learn that LSM leaders had little if any integrity.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drake

Kevin,

So you are testifying that the local church where you were kicked you out because you did not want to read ministry material and the elders said doing so was necessary as a basis for fellowship. Is that what you are saying?

Drake

My interest in reading was not to be limited by Lee's books.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Any normal reader would take this as a plain statement that the books in Christianity are full of superstition, superficiality, and lukewarm theology. I have received many rebukings not to read any other materials except LSM publications. Only blendeds or LC apologists can read but for any lay LC members are discouraged to pursue those books.

Brother Drake, do you read these posts?

For you to maintain blind faith in your delusion, you must dismiss every witness like Kevin. And this is what you always do -- dismiss every account which contradicts your own narrative.

Originally Posted by Drake

Kevin, Those telling you to only read LSM material are not basing that on LSM material.

Because LSM materials are not based on actual messages by LSM leaders. LSM materials are highly edited and sanitized lies.

[Drake]

]

Originally Posted by Kevin

My interest in reading was not to be limited by Lee's books.

So, Kevin, let me get this straight.

You were reading Witness Lee's books and you wanted to supplement your learning with additional Christian material and because of that the elders kicked you out of the local church telling you that the reason was that Witness Lee's books are the basis for fellowship in the local church. You pointed out to them that the One Publication document states clearly that the ministry cannot be a basis for fellowship in the local churches but they kicked you out anyway. So they were countermanding Brother Lees direct word in the One Publication document. Is that your testimony?

Drake

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drake

So, Kevin, let me get this straight.

You were reading Witness Lee's books and you wanted to supplement your learning with additional Christian material and because of that the elders kicked you out of the local church telling you that the reason was that Witness Lee's books are the basis for fellowship in the local church. You pointed out to them that the One Publication document states clearly that the ministry cannot be a basis for fellowship in the local churches but they kicked you out snyway. So they were countermanding Brother Lees direct word in the One Publication document. Is that your testimony?

Drake

It is as you say. But that's only half of the story. One black American came to our city and I opened up an extend of fellowship together with the saints in his home. The elders found out that he was not a brother in the Recovery. Really I was got into trouble afterwards.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

So, Kevin, let me get this straight.

You were reading Witness Lee's books and you wanted to supplement your learning with additional Christian material and because of that the elders kicked you out of the local church telling you that the reason was that Witness Lee's books are the basis for fellowship in the local church. You pointed out to them that the One Publication document states clearly that the ministry cannot be a basis for fellowship in the local churches but they kicked you out snyway. So they were countermanding Brother Lees direct word in the One Publication document. Is that your testimony?

Drake

Hi Drake, I noticed you refused to comment on my old friend's experience getting quarantined in Denver, CO for only testifying from the Bible.

I'm sure you can find a bunch of W. Lee quotes that "testifying from the Bible" is good for building up.

Why would my friend (former elder who migrated to startup numerous LC's) be then quarantined for doing what Lee had long instructed us to do?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Because LSM materials are not based on actual messages by LSM leaders. LSM materials are highly edited and sanitized lies.

No one here has ever provided a single substantive difference between audio and printed except as would be normal grammatical correction or removing of personal identity.

It is not even a rational argument, The power is in the enduring print, the record, not in the " nod nod wink wink we all know whar he really said. "

By saying Brother Lee said one thing but printed another allows you to make any claim you want about what he said.

Drake

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hi Drake, I noticed you refused to comment on my old friend's experience getting quarantined in Denver, CO for only testifying from the Bible.

I'm sure you can find a bunch of W. Lee quotes that "testifying from the Bible" is good for building up.

Why would my friend (former elder who migrated to startup numerous LC's) be then quarantined for doing what Lee had long instructed us to do?

Maybe it's a made-up story.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Those telling you to only read LSM material are not basing that on LSM material.

So is that where you get your material? Cuz it sounds to me like you don't really have a cue about the goings-on at headquarters in Anaheim, or the real actual things Lee did and claimed while alive. The LSM materials omits that.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hi Drake, I noticed you refused to comment on my old friend's experience getting quarantined in Denver, CO for only testifying from the Bible.

I'm sure you can find a bunch of W. Lee quotes that "testifying from the Bible" is good for building up.

Why would my friend (former elder who migrated to startup numerous LC's) be then quarantined for doing what Lee had long instructed us to do?

Ohio,

Think about this.

Just a few posts back you accuse me of deceit, being a Pharisee scribe, endorsing bully behavior. .. and then you want to know what I think of your friend's story?

You don't get to define me and I don't have to legitimize your insulting behavior. You want to engage in a discussion with me then stop the personal assaults else we can just agree to put each other on ignore.

Okay?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

Think about this.

Just a few posts back you accuse me of deceit, being a Pharisee scribe, endorsing bully behavior. .. and then you want to know what I think of your friend's story?

You don't get to define me and I don't have to legitimize your insulting behavior. You want to engage in a discussion with me then stop the personal assaults else we can just agree to put each other on ignore.

Okay?

You may not like my posts, but I have the right to challenge your statements when they are not honest and contradict the truth.

No personal assaults here. I was only reminded of how the Lord must have felt talking to the Jewish scribes and lawyers. For a guy who has made a career of critiquing Christianity, you sure are easily offended.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You may not like my posts, but I have the right to challenge your statements when they are not honest and contradict the truth.


No personal assaults here. I was only reminded of how the Lord must have felt talking to the Jewish scribes and lawyers. For a guy who has made a career of critiquing Christianity, you sure are easily offended.

I'm not offended. But whether I am or not is neither here nor there. What is important here is that you stop launching personal attacks and insults.

And yes, saying I am practicing deceit, equating me to a Pharisee, etc. is the quintessential examples of personal assault toward a Christian.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You may not like my posts, but I have the right to challenge your statements when they are not honest and contradict the truth.

No personal assaults here. I was only reminded of how the Lord must have felt talking to the Jewish scribes and lawyers. For a guy who has made a career of critiquing Christianity, you sure are easily offended.

Remember that when you call anyone a Pharisee, you call yourself Jesus. And I don't think you mean that in the sense of being a God-man.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Remember that when you call anyone a Pharisee, you call yourself Jesus. And I don't think you mean that in the sense of being a God-man.

Perhaps then Stephen was reprimanded by Christ after his martyrdom for calling the assembly of the Sanhedrin "stiff-necked people". Whether this was a righteous judgment or an unwarranted personal attack, it got him killed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Remember that when you call anyone a Pharisee, you call yourself Jesus. And I don't think you mean that in the sense of being a God-man.

It was from W. Lee that I learned that some folks are modern day Pharisees.

So that made him Jesus?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

I'm not offended. But whether I am or not is neither here nor there. What is important here is that you stop launching personal attacks and insults.

And yes, saying I am practicing deceit, equating me to a Pharisee, etc. is the quintessential examples of personal assault toward a Christian.

Drake

And Mr. Drake are you not practicing a far worse deceit by characterizing all Christians as Beyonce worshippers?

Talk about the "quintessential example of personal assaults" toward all your Christian brothers!

Is this not why you even started this thread? To launch ad hominens toward your brothers and sisters?

Lee made his ministerial career of this, yet you now feign moral outrage at our little push back on this forum.

[ZNPaaneah]

Not sure what the argument is about.

Everyone agrees that Beyonce worship can be characterized as "poor".

Everyone agrees that Christians should be free to read from any ministry and extensive libraries are not a negative thing.

Everyone agrees that church leaders do need to control what is said in a meeting (or in this case a forum).

Everyone agrees that excommunicating a brother because he has non ministry books is wrong.

No one is disputing testimonies of wrong doing by various Local Churches.

So then since as far as I can tell everyone agrees about all of the main points why the bitter argument? Witness Lee said one thing in the published ministry but church leaders did something else.

We all agree that casting someone out of the church because you want the preeminence is condemned in the NT. Therefore these testimonies of this action are also examples of "poor, poor Christianity".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Not sure what the argument is about.

Everyone agrees that Beyonce worship can be characterized as "poor".

Everyone agrees that Christians should be free to read from any ministry and extensive libraries are not a negative thing.

Everyone agrees that church leaders do need to control what is said in a meeting (or in this case a forum).

Everyone agrees that excommunicating a brother because he has non ministry books is wrong.

No one is disputing testimonies of wrong doing by various Local Churches.

So then since as far as I can tell everyone agrees about all of the main points why the bitter argument? Witness Lee said one thing in the published ministry but church leaders did something else.

We all agree that casting someone out of the church because you want the preeminence is condemned in the NT. Therefore these testimonies of this action are also examples of "poor, poor Christianity".

I may agree, but not "everyone" does.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I may agree, but not "everyone" does.

Bro Ohio, I'm sure you remember the good times in the LC. I remember them.

I discovered the LC was a cult back in the late 70s early 80s. I'm shocked that since then people have joined up, but I'm rather certain it has something to do with that enjoyment we remember.

So of course, those enjoying all that, are going to disagree with us exLCers.

I think if we just look at them like we look at those in the denominations we can love them.

I have to do that at family gatherings. Except for my local church days, it comes natural to me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Ohio, I'm sure you remember the good times in the LC. I remember them.

I discovered the LC was a cult back in the late 70s early 80s. I'm shocked that since then people have joined up, but I'm rather certain it has something to do with that enjoyment we remember.

I am only convinced that Mel Porter in Miami was cultic.

[UntoHim]

ZNP if you're not sure what the argument's all about then you haven't been following this thread very well.

The thread starter, Drake, gave us a proposition that Witness Lee was correct in his assessment of "poor, poor Christianity". Drake's contention that Lee's criticisms were not meant for all of Christianity falls flat in the face of the facts.

The rest of your "everyone agrees" are just your personal opinions. Maybe you and Drake agree about those things, but I doubt there are many others here that would agree with everything you posted.

Beyonce worship? Really? As much as I find the kind of "service" that was held at that so-called church appalling, it wasn't about worshiping Beyonce. Anyone who took a couple of minutes to read that article would know this.

Everyone agrees that Christians should be free to read from any ministry and extensive libraries are not a negative thing.

Sure. But this forum is about the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church of Witness Lee, and the Christians in the LC are not free to read from any ministry, and very few have extensive libraries (unless you want to consider all those green Life-Study books an extensive library!)

Everyone agrees that church leaders do need to control what is said in a meeting

Sure. But the rub comes in with just HOW the church leaders control what is said. To proclaim that "all the members can function" and then require them to regurgitate by rote or reading is not "functioning", it is being a "Witness Lee tape recorder".

Everyone agrees that excommunicating a brother because he has non ministry books is wrong.

Where do you come up with this stuff? No one has said any such thing ever happened. If you are aware of such a case please give specifics.

Witness Lee said one thing in the published ministry but church leaders did something else.

Actually Witness Lee said one thing and then did something else. In fact, this was pretty much his modus operandi throughout his entire ministry. As far as "church leaders" are concerned, the Blended Brothers are running the show almost exactly as Witness Lee did. They have truly fulfilled their mission of being "brother Lee's continuation". What have they taught that Witness Lee did not teach? What have they practiced that Witness Lee did not practice? I have made this challenge for anyone to show any significant difference between Lee and the Blendeds. Nobody has taken me up. And nobody can because there is no significant difference.

-

[Jo S]

Has anyone else found it ironic that the song sung in that church service was Destiny's Child "Survivor" which is quite literally a song about overcoming?

Perhaps the LC has more in common with Beyonce then they realize.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

ZNP if you're not sure what the argument's all about then you haven't been following this thread very well.

The thread starter, Drake, gave us a proposition that Witness Lee was correct in his assessment of "poor, poor Christianity". Drake's contention that Lee's criticisms were not meant for all of Christianity falls flat in the face of the facts.

I realize that is a point worthy of debate, but not the acrimony of the recent posts.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The rest of your "everyone agrees" are just your personal opinions. Maybe you and Drake agree about those things, but I doubt there are many others here that would agree with everything you posted.

Beyonce worship? Really? As much as I find the kind of "service" that was held at that so-called church appalling, it wasn't about worshiping Beyonce. Anyone who took a couple of minutes to read that article would know this.

I didn't say everyone agreed it was "Beyonce worship" only that everyone agrees that Beyonce worship is reasonably called "poor". Again, this is a point of debate if you wish. But certainly not a reason for the acrimony.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sure. But this forum is about the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church of Witness Lee, and the Christians in the LC are not free to read from any ministry, and very few have extensive libraries (unless you want to consider all those green Life-Study books an extensive library!)

So then the debate is not over whether or not you are free to own and read the books, since everyone agrees you are, but rather whether or not this is the actual practice in the LRC. Instead of the acrimony Drake's posts prove that the practice in the LRC is judged and condemned by the written ministry in the LRC.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually Witness Lee said one thing and then did something else. In fact, this was pretty much his modus operandi throughout his entire ministry. As far as "church leaders" are concerned, the Blended Brothers are running the show almost exactly as Witness Lee did. They have truly fulfilled their mission of being "brother Lee's continuation". What have they taught that Witness Lee did not teach? What have they practiced that Witness Lee did not practice? I have made this challenge for anyone to show any significant difference between Lee and the Blendeds. Nobody has taken me up. And nobody can because there is no significant difference.

-

So then Drake's quotes prove that "with what judgement you judge you shall be judged". The practice in the LRC violates what they say in print. With their own words the Lord will judge them and the judgement will probably be "poor, poor Christianity".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Where do you come up with this stuff? No one has said any such thing ever happened. If you are aware of such a case please give specifics.
-

Post #426 -- later Kevin said that this post was half the story and that his fellowship with a non member of the LRC was the other half, taken together it was the basis for him to be disciplined.

Drake also read this as Kevin being kicked out for reading non ministry books post #436.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

No one here has ever provided a single substantive difference between audio and printed except as would be normal grammatical correction or removing of personal identity.

It is not even a rational argument, The power is in the enduring print, the record, not in the " nod nod wink wink we all know whar he really said. "

By saying Brother Lee said one thing but printed another allows you to make any claim you want about what he said.

Drake

Sorry that I am not able to provide a substantive difference between audio and print since I don't have any audio tapes and have no interest in listening to them.

However, I was involved in the editorial process and would say that it was much more extensive than normal grammatical correction.

There was a three step process to it that I was aware of. First level involved college graduate volunteers like myself whose job was to read through and find obvious spelling and grammatical errors. The second step went to those that were English teachers or to fully polish the English. However they were instructed not to change the meaning.

Then the third step went to brothers like Ben M (before he was forced out) and others. These brothers were there to remove things that were not for public consumption. This was after the lawsuits began so there was a legal component to this.

I suppose you could characterize this as the kind of editing a legal department does to avoid litigation, so in that sense it was no different from much of the world. But to my perception it allowed Witness Lee to say some of his most outrageous quotes from the podium without fear that they would show up in print.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hi Drake, I noticed you refused to comment on my old friend's experience getting quarantined in Denver, CO for only testifying from the Bible.

I'm sure you can find a bunch of W. Lee quotes that "testifying from the Bible" is good for building up.

Why would my friend (former elder who migrated to startup numerous LC's) be then quarantined for doing what Lee had long instructed us to do?

Originally Posted by Kevin

Maybe it's a made-up story.

This story is totally legit. Happened at LC in Denver, CO about ten years ago.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

No one here has ever provided a single substantive difference between audio and printed except as would be normal grammatical correction or removing of personal identity.

It is not even a rational argument, The power is in the enduring print, the record, not in the " nod nod wink wink we all know whar he really said. "

By saying Brother Lee said one thing but printed another allows you to make any claim you want about what he said.

Drake

Hogwash.

Nell recently posted a story about this.

Nigel Tomes even wrote a paper about how LSM sanitized their radio broadcasts.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I am only convinced that Mel Porter in Miami was cultic.

Believe me, Mel Porter wasn't that smart. He brought it from Anaheim, at an elders meeting. The message was that Lee, in so many words, was the MOTA. It wasn't just a local matter, as all of us out here know very well, including you. It was setting Lee up as the local church personality cult leader.

So the LC cult was not just in Miami.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This story is totally legit. Happened at LC in Denver, CO about ten years ago.

To go back to your question, I think this is clearly a case of the elders wanting preeminence in the church. As long as they were the stewards of all things WL, then they had it.

This is an example of something the NT condemns and no one is defending it.

The basic premise of this thread is that this one example with Beyonce is enough to justify WL's claim of "poor, poor, Christianity". Based on that logic this one example is enough to condemn the LRC.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hogwash.

Nell recently posted a story about this.

Nigel Tomes even wrote a paper about how LSM sanitized their radio broadcasts.

Thank you for calling my attention to that Tomes article. How did I miss it? Glad to weigh in on it over there.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

These brothers were there to remove things that were not for public consumption. This was after the lawsuits began so there was a legal component to this.

I suppose you could characterize this as the kind of editing a legal department does to avoid litigation, so in that sense it was no different from much of the world. But to my perception it allowed Witness Lee to say some of his most outrageous quotes from the podium without fear that they would show up in print.

Sure, ZNP.

There was the legal, grammatical, removal of personal references. Etc. also, Brother Lee’s delivery style was, as you know, interactive and anecdotal relating borrowing examples and experiences both present and past. Much of that does not transfer well to print. Yet, there was nothing substantive lost between what was spoken and what was printed. I know because having attended the Life studies live twice a year for the better part of twenty years, followed by listening to the cassette tapes WHILE following along with the printed pamphlet I never noticed even one difference of theological import.

So, in spite of claims in this forums that it occurred not one shred of evidence had ever been produced. It never will because it did not happen. The purpose of those false claims are clear... they simply want to put their own words in Brother Lee’s mouth.

Drake

[Ohio]

Perhaps C.S. Lewis said it best to summarize this thread ...

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

So, in spite of claims in this forums that it occurred not one shred of evidence had ever been produced. It never will because it did not happen. The purpose of those false claims are clear... they simply want to put their own words in Brother Lee’s mouth.

Did you ever hear Lee say that there were 15 to 20 million shouters affiliated with the LSM on mainland China? I did. And I remember the noise from the crowd when we heard it: it was designed for effect. You coudn't say the man didn't know how to work a room.

Did it ever get printed? I doubt it. Then deniability was still there and Chris Wilde could say 10 years later, "No connection whatever" with the mainland shouters. Poof - 15 million people vanished.

Or Kangas saying, "Sometimes I think the only thing worse than a rebellious brother is a spiritual sister." There's headline material. Take that, Dora Yu! But it got buried.

Or "don't waste your time" with the windows & orphans. That was the FTTA trainer speaking to us. Not sure if that made it into the HWMR.

And we already know - This wasn't your experience. But it was ours.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

So, in spite of claims in this forums that it occurred not one shred of evidence had ever been produced. It never will because it did not happen. The purpose of those false claims are clear... they simply want to put their own words in Brother Lee’s mouth.

This is an interesting argument. I've read conversations along these lines for over a year on this forum. Person after person has posted their experiences as evidence. I have listened to Witness Lee first hand on a recording speaking about the ministry's finances with Sal (I also asked Drake and others to please let me know if that recording was doctored or a fake). I am a completely impartial party - nothing to gain or lose from these claims being true or false - but from what I've read here, why wouldn't I believe them to be true?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

This is an interesting argument. I've read conversations along these lines for over a year on this forum. Person after person has posted their experiences as evidence. I have listened to Witness Lee first hand on a recording speaking about the ministry's finances with Sal (I also asked Drake and others to please let me know if that recording was doctored or a fake). I am a completely impartial party - nothing to gain or lose from these claims being true or false - but from what I've read here, why wouldn't I believe them to be true?

You would. Always. You have already declared that.

Your example has zero to do with my argument.

Drake

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

You would. Always. You have already declared that.
Your example has zero to do with my argument.

Drake you are loved by God.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Drake you are loved by God.

Yes, I am.

Greatly loved by Him....... and.... did I mention...

.... your example has zero to do with my argument?

Drake

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes, I am.

Greatly loved by Him....... and.... did I mention...

.... your example has zero to do with my argument?

Drake

Brother Drake,

You act like this is a game or contest, but this is real stuff man. Is this your forum persona or the real Drake?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Did you ever hear Lee say that there were 15 to 20 million shouters affiliated with the LSM on mainland China? I did. And I remember the noise from the crowd when we heard it: it was designed for effect.

When Lee told us from the podium of the millions of shouters in China, it was after a recitation of the numbers of LC saints worldwide. China was presented last, and it was exponentially above any other (maybe Taiwan had several tens of thousands). There was a genuine stir from the assembly - it had the intended effect. Very dramatic.

But Lee the showman was also an accountant who knew to keep two sets of books, and only one got published. (btw this wasn't restricted to Lee alone - it had a cultural element. Lee disciple Dong Yu Lan followed the LC programme to a 't' and ran "Estancia Arvore Da Vida" as his own family business. When of the fund-raising 'co-workers' asked to see the books thy were told it was a "black box" and got tongue-lashed).

Originally Posted by aron

Did it ever get printed? I doubt it. Then deniability was still an option and Chris Wilde could say 10 years later, "No connection whatever" with the mainland shouters.

If you control what is written then you control the narrative. Then you can be as provocative as you want, and appear to be the model of rectitude and sobriety in the 'official' version. Lee loved to get a rise out of the crowd. But he also loved to appear the sober, balanced Bible teacher. So he kept two sets of books.

Originally Posted by aron

Or Kangas saying, "Sometimes I think the only thing worse than a rebellious brother is a spiritual sister." There's headline material. Take that, Dora Yu! But it got buried.

Not only Dora Yu - what happens to Elizabeth Fischbacher? Or Margaret Barber? Or Mary McDonald? Or Jessie Penn-Lewis? Or Madame Guyon? Or Ruth Lee? Or Peace Wang? What would happen if the word spoken by RK from the dias got published? The whole edifice might crumble!

No; better to keep two sets of books. Much less trouble that way.

[aron]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Brother Drake,

You act like this is a game or contest, but this is real stuff man. Is this your forum persona or the real Drake?

Drake's 'argument' is to present an a priori conclusion - no variance with the LSM between the spoken word from the podium and what was eventually published. Any evidences to the contrary are dismissed out of hand.

This m.o. is not limited to the LC; it's unfortunately rather widespread in primitivist, 'revelatory' fundamentalist religion. The 'oracle' got a revelation and any and all to the contrary, scripture included, be damned. Whatever happened to "test all things - prove the good"?

For example, Witness Lee the supposed oracle of God is held to be "closely following the teachings of the apostles" until someone points out that Paul was eager to help the poor, e.g., Galatians 2:10 (cf Romans 15 & 2 Cor 8). You know what Evangelical said? That was Paul's thing, not Lee's. Everyone has their own gig, see.

As I said at the beginning of this thread: "Christianity" (if, as I take it, one means the mass in toto of confessing believers in Christ) is indeed arguably "poor" (if one wants to find lacks, failures, ignorance, hypocrisy etc). But by the exact same measure you measure others, you are also measured. And by this same measure the Living Stream Ministry of Witness Lee is impoverished to the extreme. A desert, a ruin. A wasteland, of owls and cormorants. Like Ninevah, Ashkelon, Moab, Ammon before.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Drake's 'argument' is to present an a priori conclusion - no variance with the LSM between the spoken word from the podium and what was eventually published. Any evidences to the contrary are dismissed out of hand.

This m.o. is not limited to the LC; it's unfortunately rather widespread in primitivist, 'revelatory' fundamentalist religion. The 'oracle' got a revelation and any and all to the contrary, scripture included, be damned. Whatever happened to "test all things - prove the good"?

For example, Witness Lee the supposed oracle of God is held to be "closely following the teachings of the apostles" until someone points out that Paul was eager to help the poor, e.g., Galatians 2:10 (cf Romans 15 & 2 Cor 8). You know what Evangelical said? That was Paul's thing, not Lee's. Everyone has their own gig, see.

As I said at the beginning of this thread: "Christianity" (if, as I take it, one means the mass in toto of confessing believers in Christ) is indeed arguably "poor" (if one wants to find lacks, failures, ignorance, hypocrisy etc). But by the exact same measure you measure others, you are also measured. And by this same measure the Living Stream Ministry of Witness Lee is impoverished to the extreme. A desert, a ruin. A wasteland, of owls and cormorants. Like Ninevah, Ashkelon, Moab, Ammon before.

The Lord will judge you with the same measure you judge Lee. So I hope your home is full of widows and orphans that you are taking care of. I would wager that any persons good deeds in the recovery are just as much or more than anyone else. I know some giving up to 90 percent of their disposable income. But spiritual condition is more important and the recovery is about the more important matters.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Drake's 'argument' is to present an a priori conclusion - no variance with the LSM between the spoken word from the podium and what was eventually published. Any evidences to the contrary are dismissed out of hand.

Well, .... ummm... how about because no evidence has been produced?

Look, it was my practice for several decades and the end of the last century (oh my but I feel old now) to read the printed Life studies WHILE listening to the cassettes of the original speaking. I followed along with both eyes and ears simultaneously. Other than grammatical construct, removing the names of people mentioned, etc. there was never any substantive difference between what I read and what I heard.

My challenge still stands. Produce evidence showing substantive differences in teaching with what he spoke in ministry and what was published from that speaking.

Besides, Brother Lees opposers oppose him because of the things he said and published.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Brother Drake,

You act like this is a game or contest, but this is real stuff man. Is this your forum persona or the real Drake?

Could not be more serious LofT.

However, we must also recognize that this form of communication is deficient as it lacks both voice intonation and facial expressions.... two important signals to understand what a person is trying to convey. So, thanks for that question.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Could not be more serious LofT.

However, we must also recognize that this form of communication is deficient as it lacks both voice intonation and facial expressions.... two important signals to understand what a person is trying to convey. So, thanks for that question.

Drake

Even tho I don't always agree with you I've always thought of you as authentic. It's one thing I like about you. I also like that you are on this forum, and willing to take the inevitable beating.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Lord will judge you with the same measure you judge Lee.

I suppose if I'd claimed the ministry of the age, your comment might have some merit. As it is, Lee got the biggest tombstone in the cemetery. The Lord put it so well, "Truly I say to you, he got his reward."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I suppose if I'd claimed the ministry of the age, your comment might have some merit. As it is, Lee got the biggest tombstone in the cemetery. The Lord put it so well, "Truly I say to you, he got his reward."

That was until they made a new cemetery for him at Grace Terrace Memorial Assoc. Cost the saints $Millions.

As soon as Lee passed, folks at LSM got "the vision" of another money-making scheme to bilk the faithful. Read this:

In 1997, a group of Christians filled with commission and burden came together for discussion, preparing to build a solemn cemetery for Christians, in order to develop saints’ eternal knowledge of the biblical truths. Before long, a scenic terrace with the area of 2.5 acres was chosen. This terrace was hidden in the rolling mountainside in Rose Hills Memorial Park (undeveloped at that time), Southern California. Immediately the organizers established a permanent institution—Grace Terrace Memorial Association. They also entrusted a cemetery designing group, which was the most talented and renowned one in the United States, to plan out a unique design, in which the exalted principle of Christian faith was the content. As a result, a Christian cemetery, that is beautiful, fabulous, and rich in spiritual heritage, was established.

These are the kinds of teachings that really dupe the saints:

Genesis 23 is a window through which we can see the New Jerusalem. The New Jerusalem is not found in this chapter, but it can be seen through it. This chapter is like a telescope: through it we can see the eternal tabernacle that is far off in the future.

Verse 6 speaks of the “choice” sepulcher, referring to the best sepulcher. When the Lord Jesus was on earth, He did not have a good dwelling place. But after He died, He was put into a very good burying place. He lived in a poor home, but He was buried in a rich tomb. In the Bible, this is a principle. We should not live in a good home, but we should prepare the best tomb. Abraham paid more attention to the sepulcher than to the tent.

Can we ever spend too much on a grave site? What if it's near W. Lee?

What if it's also next to the "Fo Guang Shan Buddhist Memorial?"

I wanted to post this quote here, because it illustrates clearly what the LR teaching it’s members, or probably what it doesn’t speaks even louder.

The Pentecostal movement is a reaction to the dead doctrines and worship in traditional Christianity. Most of the sermons that people listen to in Christianity are simple to understand, such as, loving one's neighbor as oneself, being humble and patient, honoring one's parents, wives obeying their husbands, husbands loving their wives, and raising children.

This quote although is referring to Pentecostal movement, is an attitude and beliefs system that is promoted and practiced by the LR. What these people call dead, is what almost every book of the Bible calls believers to live by. WL was above that, or so he thought. No wonder none of those things are present in the movement that’s solely based on his blind and self serving lies.

[UntoHim]

Thanks for the quote and your counter. Could you please take a second and give the reference information? Thanks!
-

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Thanks for the quote and your counter. Could you please take a second and give the reference information? Thanks!
-

This is from:
CWWL, 1970, Vol 3.
“The Church Life in Spirit and Truthfulness” Ch 11.

[ACuriousFellow]

Witness Lee has certainly said many interesting things regarding "The Lord's Recovery" and "Christianity/Christendom."

Here's a list of fascinating quotes I've compiled from the "ministry" of The Lord's Recovery. I hope this provides some more sufficient background information and points of reference for those who happen upon this thread. It is by no means exhaustive, but I believe it will prove useful to curious minds.

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Here's a list of fascinating quotes I've compiled from the "ministry" of The Lord's Recovery.

Thanks ACF for providing that list of quotes.
This one (below) stood out to me like a sore thumb:


I would propose that TLR's so-called "Fully Interpreted Word Of God" meets the all the characteristics of that Golden Cup which Lee complained about!

P.S.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

I would propose that TLR's so-called "Fully Interpreted Word Of God" meets the all the characteristics of that Golden Cup which Lee complained about!

P.S.

Hi P.S.

Living in the "Great Lakes Region" most of us NEVER elevated the "Interpreted Word" above the Word of God, but obviously we were the outliers. When do you think this happened to the rest of TLR?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Witness Lee has certainly said many interesting things regarding "The Lord's Recovery" and "Christianity/Christendom."

Here's a list of fascinating quotes I've compiled from the "ministry" of The Lord's Recovery. I hope this provides some more sufficient background information and points of reference for those who happen upon this thread. It is by no means exhaustive, but I believe it will prove useful to curious minds.

WL had a way of negatively characterizing the whole of Protestant Christianity based on a few bad actors. Then he would positively characterize the whole of the Recovery based on a few exciting tests/testimonies of young people. Classic spin characteristic of Politicians.

I definitely would distinguish Protestant "Christianity" from Roman Catholic "Christendom." Remember Paul's word, "In a great house are both gold and silver vessels unto honor and wooden and earthen vessels unto dishonor." (2 Tm 2.20)

We should not mince words, however, since John's Apocalypse definitely characterizes Roman Catholicism as "BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." (Rev 17.5)