The Unique Move of God

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

LSM and the local churches will decide for themselves. As do Baptists, Pentecostals, Catholics, and every other group that stands for a certain set of beliefs. Any group that does not filter out teachings that do not align with their calling or mission has no purpose for existing.

I totally get your point and have made it myself here in the past. What you are missing is that the LCM goes a step further (to say the least) and claims to be "THE unique move of God" in exclusion of all others, and claims all other moves are just "movements of men." Leaving aside for a moment that that they have no possible way of knowing such a thing for sure, in this day and age every group should have by now realized from history and conscience that such claims are arrogant, short-sighted and ultimately divisive.

The LCM doesn't just say "if you want to be part of us you'll do things our way," That much is reasonable. No, they go on to say "and if you don't do that you are outside of God's unique move." That is utterly unreasonable. And that goes for any subset of the Church that says that.

That is the part that makes all their insistence on conformity a damaging travesty. Sure, if I go to work for a company I need to conform to its way of doing things. But if that company claims to be the only place to work and tries to impart the fear of leaving then there is something very rotten at its core. That's the problem with the LCM.

The LCM is not the only group to embrace this error. But to my view no group embraces it as tightly and willingly and to greater damage than the LCM does.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Lee ministered Christ, taught God's economy, God's purpose, the Church, the churches, the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, and all the basics of the Christian faith, salvation, redemption, the precious blood of Christ, the Spirit of Life, growth in life, consecration, transformation, glorification, the judgements, and the consumation of God in man and man in God as the New Jerusalem the universal divine human expression for eternity.

He also taught that if you weren't in his movement you were outside of God's move. He taught that if you left his ministry you could not go on with God.

That alone puts the rest of his stuff in a very bad light.

If you don't understand that you don't understand me, or many others here.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Igzy

He also taught that if you weren't in his movement you were outside of God's move. He taught that if you left his ministry you could not go on with God.

That alone puts the rest of his stuff in a very bad light.

If you don't understand that you don't understand me, or many others here.

Drake,

I have a question: Why didn't you honestly respond to this? Why did you just ignore it?

You know that I personally heard Lee talk about how T. Austin-Sparks (!) said that he "lost the flow of life" when he told Nee that the local ground wasn't for him, and how Sparks said he "could never get it back." Do you really believe that happened?

Do you know I heard this stuff from Lee regularly. About how he knew of no one that became "a prevailing Christian" after leaving his movement. About how everyone who left the movement fell by the wayside and became useless. He said this kind of thing regularly. I'm speaking from firsthand experience. I am not lying.

This is what he taught. It wasn't just about the LCM having the right to maintain order within its ranks. I was about how Lee declared all-out war on all rivals. How he put the fear of leaving his ministry into everyone he could. How he damaged many people in his care by doing so.

You've always seemed like fairly smart guy, unlike some others around here who shall remain unnamed. How does that stuff sit with you?

What say you? I'm counting on you to be righteous. Let's hear it, brother.

[Drake]

Igzy,

Sometimes I don't respond because I have no peace and the Lord prevents me. Or in some cases it is a more serious reason.

However, none of those are reasons for not responding to your post. With your post I heard the same things you did but I considered them differently or interpreted in a different way. So I simply chose not to debate your view because I understood how you might see it that way. In other words, though I don't have the same view as you do, I understand your view as plausible to you and that I probably could not offer anything to persuade you to my view.I don't differ in this case with the events you described, just your conclusion.

For instance, yes I believe the events surrounding T Austin Sparks because I have experienced a similar loss of flow of life. To me, it is not only possible, it is a certainty. Brother Lee brought this up not as self-serving as is often alleged, but as a lesson and a warning. At least, to me it is instruction and I take it from the Lord that way.

Or the usefulness before the Lord if one departs from the vision He has entrusted to him will diminish as regards to that vision. Could a person who has enjoyed the deep things of God related to, for instance, the Church and the churches leave and have a successful ministry or pastorship in the denominations? No doubt, I have seen it. Yet, are they useful to the vision that once guided and controlled them? I have not seen that at all.

Thanks for asking.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy,

Sometimes I don't respond because I have no peace and the Lord prevents me. Or in some cases it is a more serious reason.

However, none of those are reasons for not responding to your post. With your post I heard the same things you did but I considered them differently or interpreted in a different way. So I simply chose not to debate your view because I understood how you might see it that way. In other words, though I don't have the same view as you do, I understand your view as plausible to you and that I probably could not offer anything to persuade you to my view.I don't differ in this case with the events you described, just your conclusion.

For instance, yes I believe the events surrounding T Austin Sparks because I have experienced a similar loss of flow of life. To me, it is not only possible, it is a certainty. Brother Lee brought this up not as self-serving as is often alleged, but as a lesson and a warning. At least, to me it is instruction and I take it from the Lord that way.

Or the usefulness before the Lord if one departs from the vision He has entrusted to him will diminish as regards to that vision. Could a person who has enjoyed the deep things of God related to, for instance, the Church and the churches leave and have a successful ministry or pastorship in the denominations? No doubt, I have seen it. Yet, are they useful to the vision that once guided and controlled them? I have not seen that at all.

Thanks for asking.

Drake

Drake,

Lee wasn't talking about being useful to the vision of the LCM. He was talking about something else.

He was saying if you left the LCM you were in rebellion against God, by definition. No exceptions. I was there. I heard it myself. Benson taught it. The elders taught it.

Benson once said there was "nothing" in Christianity that can help you. Do you believe that? That is what he taught.

No offense, but it seems you must do some pretty heavy rationalizing to reconcile yourself to these kind of things. I understand you are committed to the LCM. But there has to be some place in your conscience that has a problem with this stuff.


Anyway, that is this gist of the problem with me. And that is what messed me up for so many years. As I said, if you don't understand that you don't understand why I post here. The LCM attempts to hold people there and is intolerant to any alternatives to their way. I believe that is extremely damaging. You can talk all you want to being faithful to a "vision." But why that "vision?" Is really because it is so plainly what God wants or is it because that's what you've been convinced of through fear and manipulation?

The problem with the LCM is a person cannot honestly even consider that question, because to them reconsideration is the beginning of rebellion and so is suspect in itself. It's the same mindset that prevented the callback of the bombers in the book "Fail-Safe." The pilots were so trained to carry out orders past a certain point in their flights that they ignored the pleas of their own wives to turn back, and so mistakenly obliterated Moscow.

It reaches the point where the psychological mechanisms necessary for healthy correction cannot even function because the person has been trained to be suspicious of them. That's when things get very dangerous. That's when you can be controlled and yet be convinced you are making your own decisions.

The psychological pressure for members to conform pushes them to agree with things they might otherwise disagree with. This causes them to think and argue in unreasonable and irrational ways. You see it all the time here. I know people don't necessarily agree with some of the tenets of the LCM in their hearts. But they convince themselves they do because they feel they have no choice, because they fear judgment, both from men and God for not doing so. And that expresses itself in irrational ways. Even you seem to manifest this sometimes, sorry to say.

I don't think the Lord operates that way. Certainly truth is objective. But God doesn't use peer pressure or the fear of ostracization from community to convince us (except in very extreme cases). He hand is gentle and fair. The LCM's is anything but that.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Nell

Perhaps you could provide UntoHim with the post # of those you consider to be relevant to your discussion.

Nell

Okay, UntoHim, could you please move posts 218, 219, 221, 222 and 223 to a new thread for Drake and I. Thanks you very much.

Thanks, Nell. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[UntoHim]

Ok guys, if you want to come up with a title for this thread let me know and I'll change it. Thanks

[Drake]

Thanks Untohim.

Igzy, I will share my view of your post by section/point as I am sure you prefer it that way. Sorry, it may be longer than my usual readers digest version type post but I want to address you points thoroughly.

Drake,

Lee wasn't talking about being useful to the vision of the LCM. He was talking about something else.

The vision is the overarching driver, Igzy. It's not about something being useful to the vision, for me its about a controlling vision. So it is part of everything.

He was saying if you left the LCM you were in rebellion against God, by definition. No exceptions. I was there. I heard it myself. Benson taught it. The elders taught it.

It would be useful to see the exact quote but for sake of argument I can hear Brother Lee saying that. I can hear Benson repeating it and some elders also. Yet, this was my earlier point. If you have once seen the vision of the ground unity of the believers, the local churches as the practical expression of the universal Body of Christ, the resurrected and ascended Christ as the Head transmitting His power into the members of His Body, as the means to defeat God's enemy and bring in the kingdom of God to the earth..... then, yes, if you having seen and affirmed that, and you then go back to denominations for instance, then you are in rebellion.

Benson once said there was "nothing" in Christianity that can help you. Do you believe that? That is what he taught.

I think I heard Benson say that also. Both agree and disagree. I disagree if the person is an unbeliever or a new believer because most denominations preach the gospel and can lead a person to the Lord. A new believer also can receive help with the basics of the faith and to overcome sin and sinful habits. Can learn to become grounded in the christian truths. Some charismatic groups can also help a person to experience the gifts of the Spirit.

Yet, I agree with it in this way. If you have been in the Lord's Recovery for more than a few years then all those experiences were available to you and the controlling vision took you even farther, deeper, and higher. Having received all that and to then consider returning to denominations or Catholicism , well, then I agree that there would be nothing in Christianity that could help you beyond what you already received. Nothing there for you.

No offense, but it seems you must do some pretty heavy rationalizing to reconcile yourself to these kind of things. I understand you are committed to the LCM. But there has to be some place in your conscience that has a problem with this stuff.

No offense taken. I have zero problem with this stuff just mentioned. Reconciliation is not only not difficult, it is perfectly congruent with my understanding of the truth in the Bible, my personal experience with the Lord, and my corporate experience (practicing the body life) in the local churches.

Anyway, that is this gist of the problem with me. And that is what messed me up for so many years. As I said, if you don't understand that you don't understand why I post here.

Ok. I understand that your experience is different from mine. I am sorry it messed you up for so many years. I have heard and read about folks who had a bad experience and had I went through what they went through I might be on your side of the fence. I cannot say for sure because on the other hand, I have read in this forum the bad experience someone had and I recognize that I went through the same experience but came out on a different side than they did.

The LCM attempts to hold people there and is intolerant to any alternatives to their way. I believe that is extremely damaging. You can talk all you want to being faithful to a "vision." But why that "vision?" Is really because it is so plainly what God wants or is it because that's what you've been convinced of through fear and manipulation?

I disagree. The local churches do not attempt to hold people there. That sounds like against their will. I watched people come and go. Of course, you want to understand if there was some offense to clear it up. Of course, there is concern and calls and persuading going on. That is not holding people there. That is not damaging. Eventually, they stay or they go, its up to them. The vision I described above is a real vision, a seeing, a spiritual insight, and a life-changing must have experience. Fear, manipulation? They don't even enter the equation.

The problem with the LCM is a person cannot honestly even consider that question, because to them reconsideration is the beginning of rebellion and so is suspect in itself. It's the same mindset that prevented the callback of the bombers in the book "Fail-Safe." The pilots were so trained to carry out orders past a certain point in their flights that they ignored the pleas of their own wives to turn back, and so mistakenly obliterated Moscow.

Well, a governing vision is governing but it is not irrational, obsessive, blind, or however you wish to think of it. Reconsideration is a healthy exercise and I do it often but it always brings me back to the governing vision, sometimes adjusted with a little more clarity.

It reaches the point where the psychological mechanisms necessary for healthy correction cannot even function because the person has been trained to be suspicious of them. That's when things get very dangerous. That's when you can be controlled and yet be convinced you are making your own decisions.

Well, that can be applied to any discipline but that is not my experience and healthy correction or adjustment are a necessary iterative process.

The psychological pressure for members to conform pushes them to agree with things they might otherwise disagree with. This causes them to think and argue in unreasonable and irrational ways. You see it all the time here. I know people don't necessarily agree with some of the tenets of the LCM in their hearts. But they convince themselves they do because they feel they have no choice, because they fear judgment, both from men and God for not doing so. And that expresses itself in irrational ways. Even you seem to manifest this sometimes, sorry to say.

As to judgement, a fear of God it is a healthy thing. I probably have expressed it here because here the brazen slander, false accusations, and derision leveled against brothers and sisters in the local churches is very disturbing and often shocking. At those moments, I truly am concerned for the well-being of that person at the judgement seat of Christ. I am not familiar with the "psychological pressure to conform" you speak of.

I don't think the Lord operates that way. Certainly truth is objective. But God doesn't use peer pressure or the fear of ostracization from community to convince us (except in very extreme cases). He hand is gentle and fair. The LCM's is anything but that.

I agree the Lord is that way. My experience in the local churches is also that way.

That does not mean that once in a while a brother or a leading one will not say something that comes across as emphatic, zealous, or prescriptive. I welcome zeal but that does not mean that that particular word was for me. Everything that is stated may not be for me, or at least maybe not for me at the time I first hear it. The Lord knows what we can absorb so we just have to keep our eyes on Him. Every man is a sinner, every man needs the blood daily, every man has weaknesses and faults. Every man, no exceptions. We are all in the process, we are growing, sometimes more, sometimes less. The fear you describe is not the fear I am familiar with in the Lords' Recovery. I acknowledge that you and others may have indeed experienced something different than I did. Or based on your circumstances or who delivered the message or how it was delivered are all factors that I cannot know. Maybe expectations were set too high and when others did not live up to them their world crashed and the disappointment was to great to overcome. I cannot know that either for you or for anyone else. I can only tell you that for me, I did not have the same experience and do not recognize the local churches you describe.

Drake

[Cal]

Drake,

I am so grateful to the Lord and you for your careful and thorough response. Thanks for taking the time to write with such care.

I think one of the things that separates us is that I speak of an LCM of about 30 years ago. You speak of the one of today. They are no doubt different. LCMers of my day would have never joined Facebook, had it existed. Now such a thing is pretty much accepted. Things have softened, and that's good.

Davy Crockett, a Texas hero, famously said, "Be sure you are right, then go ahead." Feeling assured makes us feel good. But regardless of your feelings of assuredness about your vision, in the final analysis you must admit that you cannot be 100% certain of its complete accuracy. That being the case, and in keeping with the humility the Lord commands us to embrace, you must defer to at least the possibility that you may be wrong about some things. And that being so, you should be more tolerant of those who disagree with you on those points that reflection says you may be overly confident in.

Take the local ground for example. The fact that the Bible does not command it is incongruous with your insistence on it. However much you think your vision of it is clear, you have to ask yourself, Why didn't the Lord specify it more clearly? I believe this: if you really pray and think about it, the only conclusion you can come to is that he wanted us to be less contentious about it.

The fact is that in his Word God is vague about some things. Why is that? I can think of two possible reasons. One is so that an anointed few can know they are right about things that others miss. Another possibility, which I favor, is that God wishes to convey deeper points about which more specificity would lead to superficial misapplications.

Take, for example, Babylon the Great. We all want to know--What is Babylon? So why didn't God just tell us? I think it is because the important point about Babylon is not what it is, but what it represents.

Babylon is about people organized in rebellion against God. In the LCM we were taught that Babylon is the Roman Catholic Church. Cut and dried. Plain and simple. And that may be true. But for some reason God didn't make that so clear. Why?--so that those of us who "know" can know we have special insight? Or was it because the important point is not the superficial specifics, but rather the deeper principles? I believe the latter. I believe this is always the reason God sometimes speaks in vague parables, figures and analogies--not to present a puzzle, but to lead us to deeper realizations.

So when you look at the local ground, what does it represent? That we all need to meet as the church in the city? Or does it represent a deeper principle about oneness? And does being contentious for the local ground represent a desire for that deeper principle of oneness? Or something else?

It's an interesting dilemma, and one which I hope is not lost on a guy as smart as you.

I hope this makes some sense.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

He was saying if you left the LCM you were in rebellion against God, by definition. No exceptions. I was there. I heard it myself. Benson taught it. The elders taught it.

It would be useful to see the exact quote but for sake of argument I can hear Brother Lee saying that. I can hear Benson repeating it and some elders also. Yet, this was my earlier point. If you have once seen the vision of the ground unity of the believers, the local churches as the practical expression of the universal Body of Christ, the resurrected and ascended Christ as the Head transmitting His power into the members of His Body, as the means to defeat God's enemy and bring in the kingdom of God to the earth..... then, yes, if you having seen and affirmed that, and you then go back to denominations for instance, then you are in rebellion.

I was hoping we could dig down here because I would hope this is something that everyone on this forum can agree on.

1. There is a ground of unity for all believers.

I would argue that this ground of unity is the work of redemption of Jesus Christ that tore down the middle wall of partition and made us all one. I stand on the work that Jesus did and this is what makes me one. It is a blood soaked ground that is outside the camp. It is the ground where the Father offered up His Son because of His love for us that we could believe on Him and have life. It is also the ground where Christ made a peace offering for our sin of pride and rebellion.

Now I realize WL thought he was making it "practical" through his doctrine, but in my experience he was merely building a middle wall to partition himself from other Christians.

2. To me the "practical expression of the universal body" is when believers stand on this ground and allow the Lord's blood to make them one, they allow the Lord's work to tear down those walls, they allow the Lord's work to make peace, they repent of their pride and rebellion to submit to the Lord's word.

I would argue that what WL taught was the "practical expression" was merely having a child with Hagar, a child according to the flesh. You have to have faith to walk this path and it does not require faith to claim that you have a monopoly on the proper ground, that is pride and rebellion.

3. I also agree that the vision is of "the resurrected and ascended Christ as the Head". I believe that we see this worked out practically in Matt 18. Matthew 18 answers the question "who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"

I asked EM why he signed the letter apologizing to PL for the discipline from the previous Anaheim elders. He said that "it made WL happy". That is not someone who is walking by this vision that Jesus is "the resurrected and ascended Christ, the head of the Body". If you see that Jesus is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven then the real question is what makes Jesus happy?

In verse 6 Jesus said that "whosoever offends one of these little ones who believe in me it were better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck". That is a very clear statement that offending little believers who believe in Jesus does not make Him happy. Making Witness Lee happy at their expense does not make Jesus happy. That letter, signed by EM, was an offense to many "little ones who believe in Jesus". Yet EM's response as well as all the elders in the church in NY is that "he doesn't want to deal with that right now". This was 20 years after the fact and they have still not dealt with this, still not accountable. This was the response from several "blended brothers", and four leaders of the LRC.

Therefore I would argue that they are the ones who have left this vision that Jesus is Lord. I would say that they are the ones who are in rebellion.

[Evangelical]

Hopefully I can clarify what is meant by the unique move of God. It is a misconception that when we say "the unique move of God" we are talking about our own ministry efforts. We are not. It is possible for us not to be in the unique move of God. We devote time, prayer and attention to the matter of getting "in the flow" or "staying in the flow". Why would we do that if we thought we are automatically "in the unique move of God"?

Put simply, "the unique move of God is the ministry that God does, not ourselves". Witness Lee would probably not say it that way but that is my best understanding. In Christianity most don't have this concept - they define ministry by what they do, and not by what God does.

Let us be clear that when we say "the unique move of God" we are talking about the move of God, not the move of ourselves. The unique move of God is not of ourselves, but of God. He is the initiator and we "go with the flow". It is our aim, desire, intention and goal to get in flow with "the unique move of God".

The unique move of God is evident in this verse:
Acts 2:47 "And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

It is the Lord who is moving to add to their number. This is a clear example of the unique move of God. It is something of God not ourselves, although we must cooperate with Him in it.

Contrast this statement to that of most gospel ministries which might say "And we added to our number through our gospel outreach program". This is a move of man.

Most Christians today think that God moves in a haphazard and random way. But the history of the church and the book of Acts reveals that God moves in a purposeful and intentional way. "God is a God of order". God as an intelligent Creator brings order to the chaos of the world. God does not move in a chaotic way to spread the gospel.

A side effect of denominationalism was to bring about a view in Christianity that there are multiple ministries all started by God and doing His will. This is in contrast with the bible which presents to us only one unique ministry - the ministry "of Paul", which is to minister Christ.

In addition to the "unique move" we talk about the "unique ministry" which is related to the "one Lord", "one Christ" and "one Spirit".

The sobering thought is that very few of these gospel ministries may actually be God's move, but rather, the attempts of men to please the Lord apart from the flow of the Spirit, and not in oneness with Christ. Some may say that is arrogant, but actually I'm just paraphrasing Matt 7:21 "many will say to me... Lord did I not do this.. or that".

Really when we think about it how can multiple ministries be possible if God is a God of order? On the one hand God starts a ministry that brings about baptism by full immersion, and starts another ministry that baptizes by sprinkling. One ministry that furthers the cause of the Pope and another which brings about tongue speaking and rolling on the floor in "holy laughter". How can God be the author of such contradiction and confusion? Did God raise up an apostle for the tongue speakers, and an apostle for the baptizers, and an apostle for the Papists and give each their own heavenly vision experience? Of course not.

The bible is fairly clear that there is only one unique move of God:

Acts 26:19 Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to THE heavenly vision.

Paul does not say "I was not disobedient to "a" or "my" heavenly vision".
Paul does not tell others "well I've had my heavenly vision on the road to Damascus.. have you had yours yet?"

Paul says THE heavenly vision. Paul knew that what he experienced was not just for his personal spirituality or edification, or even for his personal salvation. This vision he experienced guided his whole life and ministry from that point forward. It even touches us today - when we read the New Testament written by Paul, we are touching the one heavenly vision that Paul had.

Paul nowhere entertains the thought that others may have a different heavenly vision. He goes so far as to say "my gospel" in Romans 16:25 and other places, as if his gospel and "the gospel" are one and the same. When he says "my gospel" he does not mean there are different gospels. There is only one gospel (Gal 1:6-8). Similarly, when we say "my ministry" we should be speaking of the one unique ministry of God. This concept of one ministry is not understood by those in denominations.
When they read the bible they do not see the one ministry of God, but they see each practical aspect of the one ministry as distinct and different ministries. E.g. a "teaching ministry", "evangelism ministry", "children's ministry". They define ministry by what they do, and not by what God does (Acts 2:47).

Gill's commentary on this verse helps explain:
I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision; to Christ himself, who appeared from heaven in so much light and glory, and spoke unto him, and appointed him what he should be, and do, and declared what use he should be of: he did not disbelieve what Christ said, nor was he disobedient to the orders he gave, but immediately set about the work he called him to, without consulting flesh and blood; see Galatians 1:16.

We cannot be in the flow of God, in the "unique move of God" if we are merely carrying out the wishes of a man-made organization according to our job description or organizations "vision statement".

It is the difference between "being set apart for the work to which I have called them" (Acts 13:1-4) and "working for the Lord because I or my denomination thinks its a good thing to do". To be in the unique move of God requires the Lord's leading and our willingness and cooperation to be led.

[OBW]

To place the word "unique" into the discussion is to imply that there is something special and focused and that is not found in the whole of the moving of God on the earth. It implies that it could be only found in a certain kind of outreach to the unsaved and not in other kinds.

But the accounts given by Paul would make a lie of that kind of thinking. He took every way that he could find to his benefit. He went to some places and just made tents and preached a little as he did. In others he made more robust speeches to the people in general. In one place he found a shrine to an unknown god and made hay out of it.

And when he discovered that some were even preaching the gospel in regions that would potentially cause his present captors to possibly give him a worse time in his imprisonment, he still commended them as preaching the gospel. Even if they did it to give him problems, it was the preaching of the gospel. There was no hint that any who were converted as a result of such preaching were deficient Christians that were not truly part of the body of Christ.

The truth is that the only "unique" in God's move is that it is God that is moving, not someone else. You use the terms as a pejorative to denigrate what others are dong because you think it is not "God's move" because it is not what you are doing. That suggests that God only speaks to, and moves in an infinitesimally small part of his body to the exclusion of all others.

But Christ/God moves in his people. We are all his people. He moves in more than some singular "move of God" as if it is only door knocking and baptizing people in their bath tubs at one point in time, and going to the campuses at another. And based on current LRC rhetoric, it is currently looking only for "good material' by ignoring the highways and byways and instead seeking only university students.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The bible is fairly clear that there is only one unique move of God:

Acts 26:19 Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to THE heavenly vision.

You make much more out of the article "the" than a normal person would. The heavenly vision of Paul would seem to be found initially in the vision of God telling him that he would be apostle to the Gentiles. That did not limit the breadth of how that was to occur. But it did focus Paul on a mission. His vision was of his calling. It was not of the limitation of the move of God overall, but the specific declaration of God's moving through him.

There is nothing in this verse that limits God's move to what Paul was doing. Rather it put a limit on what Paul was doing. No limit on what Peter was doing. Or John, James (either), Barnabas (and Paul refers to him positively after their parting), Mark, Timothy, or so many others.

You have a calling. It may be to preach to aborigines in some far land. Or it may be to live the righteousness of Christ in the sight of those around you in urban America. And lots of places in between. But for you or me, it is not likely both. At least not at the same time. So for yourself, you might be ablt to say that God has called you to a specific (and therefore unique from your own perspective) work. But that does not make it God's unique work.

Your whole argument in this post is based on the same kind of logic that got you the doctrine of dirt. Paul said "the heavenly vision" so you declare that there is only one such vision rather than recognize that it was Paul who saw that vision while Peter saw a different one. Yet they all work in God's move. You make universal declarations out of contextually discreet statements that do not make any kind of universal statement. It is among the core errors of both Nee and Lee. And once you make those errors and teach them, the foundation for the next teaching is flawed and therefore subject to taking you someone you shouldn't go. Like declaring that Christ is just the Holy Spirit.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hopefully I can clarify what is meant by the unique move of God...

Witness Lee refers to:

unique oneness
unique body of christ
unique fellowship
unique spirit
unique flow
Unique move of the unique God for the unique accomplishment
unique blending
unique testimony

Concerning the "unique oneness" he says:

“When we say that the unique oneness of the church is expressed in the place where the saints are, we need to define what we mean by place. What is the limit of this place? The limit is not a house or a street. In the New Testament there are no street churches or avenue churches. Today, however, so-called churches are designated by a street or an avenue. Some might say, “In the Bible there are no street churches, but there are house churches.” Concerning house churches or home churches we need to be careful. Yes, the New Testament does mention the church in the house of certain saints (Rom. 16:5a; Col. 4:15-16). If we read the New Testament carefully, we will see that in these cases the church in the house was the same in limit as the church in the city. In other words, the limit of the house church was equal to the city.” Witness Lee, The Heavenly Vision, Chapter 2, Section 2)

Witness Lee's definition of the unique oneness is all about a physical place. I reject that definition. I would say the NT teaches that the unique oneness of the believers is due to the Lord's redemptive work on the cross in breaking down all the walls of partition so that the Body could be one.

If you read WL's definition it is clearly designed to build a partition. He points out that his oneness is different from the denominations, different from the Pentecostals, different from street churches and even "house" churches. Never once does he deny that all of these other groups are redeemed Christians who are standing on the Lord's redemption, yet his oneness is unique from theirs. I agree, it is unique from theirs.

I prefer the oneness from the Lord's redeeming work to the "unique oneness" of Witness Lee's partition teaching.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

To place the word "unique" into the discussion is to imply that there is something special and focused and that is not found in the whole of the moving of God on the earth. It implies that it could be only found in a certain kind of outreach to the unsaved and not in other kinds.

The only thing truly "unique" about Lee and TLR is their pride.

This arrogant pride is manifested in their teachings and practices. Jesus Himself identified these attitudes in Revelation 3.14-22.

In this regard their attitude is no different than the Jews' attitude, which Paul aptly addressed in certain sections of scripture like in Romans chapter 2.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

You make much more out of the article "the" than a normal person would. The heavenly vision of Paul would seem to be found initially in the vision of God telling him that he would be apostle to the Gentiles. That did not limit the breadth of how that was to occur. But it did focus Paul on a mission. His vision was of his calling. It was not of the limitation of the move of God overall, but the specific declaration of God's moving through him.

There is nothing in this verse that limits God's move to what Paul was doing. Rather it put a limit on what Paul was doing. No limit on what Peter was doing. Or John, James (either), Barnabas (and Paul refers to him positively after their parting), Mark, Timothy, or so many others.

You have a calling. It may be to preach to aborigines in some far land. Or it may be to live the righteousness of Christ in the sight of those around you in urban America. And lots of places in between. But for you or me, it is not likely both. At least not at the same time. So for yourself, you might be ablt to say that God has called you to a specific (and therefore unique from your own perspective) work. But that does not make it God's unique work.

Your whole argument in this post is based on the same kind of logic that got you the doctrine of dirt. Paul said "the heavenly vision" so you declare that there is only one such vision rather than recognize that it was Paul who saw that vision while Peter saw a different one. Yet they all work in God's move. You make universal declarations out of contextually discreet statements that do not make any kind of universal statement. It is among the core errors of both Nee and Lee. And once you make those errors and teach them, the foundation for the next teaching is flawed and therefore subject to taking you someone you shouldn't go. Like declaring that Christ is just the Holy Spirit.

As usual your post lacks any sort of biblical scripture or theological support. Your post seems to suggest that each of the disciples had their own little heavenly vision which by implication means they preached their own gospel as well.

Just because there are many different ways to preach the gospel does not mean there are different gospels. Similarly just because the disciples had their own visions and callings does not mean there are different visions and callings - there is only one capital V and capital C Vision and Calling. This flows from the one God and one Spirit.
The "ones" of scripture is not something denominational people easily grasp.

If you think that I say THE heavenly gospel because I focus only on those three words and assume that there is only one heavenly vision, you would be wrong. Maybe that is how you interpret the bible but I don't.

I say THE heavenly vision because I know the relationship between THE heavenly vision and THE gospel and THE crucified Christ.

The limitation here is not with me not being a "normal person". It is with you, not knowing the Scriptures. I will explain in the follow.

Paul experienced many visions in his life. As did Peter.

But THE heavenly vision was the the initial and most dramatic vision that guided Paul's whole life.

Remember that Paul's heavenly vision was an experience of THE crucified and risen Christ.

THE heavenly vision that Paul had was also when God revealed THE gospel to him:

Gal 1:12 "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

There is one heavenly vision and one gospel.

Ellicotts bible commentary explains that it was at or near this heavenly vision:

The context shows that it must have been at some time either at or near the Apostle’s conversion. This would be sufficient to exclude the later revelation of 2Corinthians 12:1. But can it be the vision on the way to Damascus itself alone? At first sight it would seem as if this was too brief, and its object too special, to include the kind of “sum of Christian doctrine” of which the Apostle is speaking. But this at least contained the two main points—the Messiahship of Jesus, and faith in Jesus, from which all the rest of the Apostle’s teaching flowed naturally and logically. When once it was felt that the death of Christ upon the cross was not that of a criminal, but of the Son of God, the rest all seemed to follow. Putting this together with the sense, which we may well believe had been growing upon him, of the inefficacy of the Law, we can easily see how the idea would arise of a sacrifice superseding the Law, and in the relegation of the Law to this very secondary position the main barrier between Jew and Gentile would be removed. St. Paul himself, by laying stress upon his retreat to the deserts of Arabia, evidently implies that the gospel, as taught by him in its complete form, was the result of gradual development and prolonged reflection; but whether this is to be regarded as implicitly contained in the first revelation, or whether we are to suppose that there were successive revelations, of which there is no record in the Acts, cannot be positively determined.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As usual your post lacks any sort of biblical scripture or theological support. Your post seems to suggest that each of the disciples had their own little heavenly vision which by implication means they preached their own gospel as well.

Just because there are many different ways to preach the gospel does not mean there are different gospels. Similarly just because the disciples had their own visions and callings does not mean there are different visions and callings - there is only one capital V and capital C Vision and Calling. This flows from the one God and one Spirit.
The "ones" of scripture is not something denominational people easily grasp.

If you think that I say THE heavenly gospel because I focus only on those three words and assume that there is only one heavenly vision, you would be wrong. Maybe that is how you interpret the bible but I don't.

I say THE heavenly vision because I know the relationship between THE heavenly vision and THE gospel and THE crucified Christ.

The limitation here is not with me not being a "normal person". It is with you, not knowing the Scriptures. I will explain in the follow.

Paul experienced many visions in his life. As did Peter.

But THE heavenly vision was the the initial and most dramatic vision that guided Paul's whole life.

Remember that Paul's heavenly vision was an experience of THE crucified and risen Christ.

THE heavenly vision that Paul had was also when God revealed THE gospel to him:

Gal 1:12 "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

There is one heavenly vision and one gospel.

Ellicotts bible commentary explains that it was at or near this heavenly vision:

The context shows that it must have been at some time either at or near the Apostle’s conversion. This would be sufficient to exclude the later revelation of 2Corinthians 12:1. But can it be the vision on the way to Damascus itself alone? At first sight it would seem as if this was too brief, and its object too special, to include the kind of “sum of Christian doctrine” of which the Apostle is speaking. But this at least contained the two main points—the Messiahship of Jesus, and faith in Jesus, from which all the rest of the Apostle’s teaching flowed naturally and logically. When once it was felt that the death of Christ upon the cross was not that of a criminal, but of the Son of God, the rest all seemed to follow. Putting this together with the sense, which we may well believe had been growing upon him, of the inefficacy of the Law, we can easily see how the idea would arise of a sacrifice superseding the Law, and in the relegation of the Law to this very secondary position the main barrier between Jew and Gentile would be removed. St. Paul himself, by laying stress upon his retreat to the deserts of Arabia, evidently implies that the gospel, as taught by him in its complete form, was the result of gradual development and prolonged reflection; but whether this is to be regarded as implicitly contained in the first revelation, or whether we are to suppose that there were successive revelations, of which there is no record in the Acts, cannot be positively determined.

You complain about my lack of verses as if your verses actually say anything (at least that you think they say). And this particular post has only one verse/passage that also does not answer the question as to whether Paul had a vison that was unique relative to God for all persons at that time, or simply to himself and his part in the overall ministry of God. His references to that actions of others would indicate that he did not consider their preaching to be at odds with his.

But the most important point about all of this is that Paul, nor any other part of the scripture, causes either of these to clearly mean some overriding vision that controlled how God was working in everyone at that time. But it was clearly what Paul was acting according to. And since Jesus had sent the disciples into "all the world" and they did not consult with Paul before any particular one of them did whatever they did, it would be odd to think that what Paul was taught in the desert was part of some unique move of God that excluded all others, including that of the spreading of others to other places without ever seeing or hearing from Paul after the time of such teaching.

In short, Lee sought to make something he couldn't even properly define into some nebulous "Unique move of God" that precluded any Christian "move" as actually being from God unless it was aligned with Lee's. There is no construct of words, sentences, etc., found in the scripture that either declares it as so or specifically denies it (as if they were expecting the stupidity of Lee, so they commented on it negatively almost 2,000 years in advance).

In another thread you want to discuss logic yet fail miserably at understanding the meaning of simple words. When you start with a system of logic that reads like someone saying 3x > 5, therefore x =1, you establish that either you are pretty poor at logic, or you are reading from someone else that is poor at logic but presuming they are good at it without checking them out. I actually think it is at least partly the latter. You have been duped into thinking that if Lee said it, then it has to be true and you will not dare check it out because you are afraid of how wrong he might be and what that would do to you.

If you are lucky, one day you will be man enough to stand up to your fears and check Lee out without relying on what he said as the proof that he is right. I am pretty confident that if you do it that way, the walls will begin to crumble.

I don't need verses to declare that something that is not there is not there. You need to do more than refer to a vision that someone had and say it is universal and excludes anyone else from having any kind of vision that differs. You need to show how the scripture you are relying on actually creates an exclusionary aspect to Paul's vision.

And saying that Paul had a vision and it is God's unique move on the earth without finding where scripture actually says that is not proof. And just because you are not forbidden by scripture from saying such an unsubstantiated thing does not put the burden on me to prove you wrong. It is as if you are declaring that because the scripture does not say that grass cannot be purple that only purple grass will be allowed. And then declare that no one is proving from scripture that grass cannot be purple.

It doesn't prove your point. It makes you a fool. One with no ability to handle logic or scripture.

[Evangelical]

Re: But the most important point about all of this is that Paul, nor any other part of the scripture, causes either of these to clearly mean some overriding vision that controlled how God was working in everyone at that time.


What your view implies is that the vision given to us by the New Testament is not enough - There is OBW's vision and Evangelical's vision etc. The New Testament is written by three people - Luke, Paul and John. We are controlled by Paul's vision every time we come to the New Testament. To "follow the bible" means to be controlled by Paul, Luke, or John's vision, which is one and the same. Everything that Paul wrote in there is coming from his heavenly vision and the gospel which God gave Him by revelation.

This gospel of Paul's we understand to be the same gospel that John and Luke and all the other disciples had.

If you don't understand that there is only one true gospel from one vision from God that controlled all of the disciples then you cannot seriously call yourself a Christian because they were all controlled by God's voice and followed Christ.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was hoping we could dig down here because I would hope this is something that everyone on this forum can agree on.

1. There is a ground of unity for all believers.

I would argue that this ground of unity is the work of redemption of Jesus Christ that tore down the middle wall of partition and made us all one. I stand on the work that Jesus did and this is what makes me one. It is a blood soaked ground that is outside the camp. It is the ground where the Father offered up His Son because of His love for us that we could believe on Him and have life. It is also the ground where Christ made a peace offering for our sin of pride and rebellion.

Now I realize WL thought he was making it "practical" through his doctrine, but in my experience he was merely building a middle wall to partition himself from other Christians.

2. To me the "practical expression of the universal body" is when believers stand on this ground and allow the Lord's blood to make them one, they allow the Lord's work to tear down those walls, they allow the Lord's work to make peace, they repent of their pride and rebellion to submit to the Lord's word.

I would argue that what WL taught was the "practical expression" was merely having a child with Hagar, a child according to the flesh. You have to have faith to walk this path and it does not require faith to claim that you have a monopoly on the proper ground, that is pride and rebellion.

3. I also agree that the vision is of "the resurrected and ascended Christ as the Head". I believe that we see this worked out practically in Matt 18. Matthew 18 answers the question "who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"

I asked EM why he signed the letter apologizing to PL for the discipline from the previous Anaheim elders. He said that "it made WL happy". That is not someone who is walking by this vision that Jesus is "the resurrected and ascended Christ, the head of the Body". If you see that Jesus is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven then the real question is what makes Jesus happy?

In verse 6 Jesus said that "whosoever offends one of these little ones who believe in me it were better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck". That is a very clear statement that offending little believers who believe in Jesus does not make Him happy. Making Witness Lee happy at their expense does not make Jesus happy. That letter, signed by EM, was an offense to many "little ones who believe in Jesus". Yet EM's response as well as all the elders in the church in NY is that "he doesn't want to deal with that right now". This was 20 years after the fact and they have still not dealt with this, still not accountable. This was the response from several "blended brothers", and four leaders of the LRC.

Therefore I would argue that they are the ones who have left this vision that Jesus is Lord. I would say that they are the ones who are in rebellion.

ZNP, I agree with your points 1, 2 and 3. Emphasis is mine.
In regard to EM's response to you in NYC, same applies to other LSM/LC leaders and none have exhibited any sense of reconciliation towards brothers and sisters they have become estranged from.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

ZNP, I agree with your points 1, 2 and 3. Emphasis is mine.
In regard to EM's response to you in NYC, same applies to other LSM/LC leaders and none have exhibited any sense of reconciliation towards brothers and sisters they have become estranged from.

So then according to Matt 18

9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Even if you want to refer to WL as "your eye" the counsel from Jesus is to pluck him out and cast him from thee.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

You and I have told the church, now they should be treated as a heathen man and a publican. I no longer consider them men of God, elders, or those who deserve double honor.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hopefully I can clarify what is meant by the unique move of God. It is a misconception that when we say "the unique move of God" we are talking about our own ministry efforts. We are not. It is possible for us not to be in the unique move of God. We devote time, prayer and attention to the matter of getting "in the flow" or "staying in the flow". Why would we do that if we thought we are automatically "in the unique move of God"?

Put simply, "the unique move of God is the ministry that God does, not ourselves". Witness Lee would probably not say it that way but that is my best understanding. In Christianity most don't have this concept - they define ministry by what they do, and not by what God does.

Let us be clear that when we say "the unique move of God" we are talking about the move of God, not the move of ourselves. The unique move of God is not of ourselves, but of God. He is the initiator and we "go with the flow". It is our aim, desire, intention and goal to get in flow with "the unique move of God".

The unique move of God is evident in this verse:
Acts 2:47 "And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

It is the Lord who is moving to add to their number. This is a clear example of the unique move of God. It is something of God not ourselves, although we must cooperate with Him in it.

Contrast this statement to that of most gospel ministries which might say "And we added to our number through our gospel outreach program". This is a move of man.

Most Christians today think that God moves in a haphazard and random way. But the history of the church and the book of Acts reveals that God moves in a purposeful and intentional way. "God is a God of order". God as an intelligent Creator brings order to the chaos of the world. God does not move in a chaotic way to spread the gospel.

As usual, you are speaking in half-truths. Yes, God's move is of him alone--yet he uses and limits himself to imperfect people. Yes, God is not random and chaotic--yet he uses seeming random and chaotic events as opportunities to bring people to himself. Yes, there is one flow from the throne--yet that does not express itself as "one ministry" on earth--Paul said clearly there were "many ministries" (1 Cor 12:5). Yes, Paul's ministry was very important to the New Testament--yet he and the Bible never say nor imply that his ministry nor his visions supersede or even encompass all other teachings.

Evangelical, you consistently speak in half-truths, as Lee did.

And, of course, there is your reliable old saw, "most gospel ministries" and "most Christians" set up as straw men so you can knock them down, when it's plainly clear you have no idea what most Christians and ministries believe, think or do.

Christians these days are very aware that the work of God is God's work. Those in the church I meet with and the leadership there are constantly praying for God's guidance and leading. And guess what? We get it. I've never been in situation where I was so much in touch with God's practical leading of a church as I am now.

Yes, when I was in the LCM we told ourselves we were smack dab in the middle of "God's move." But why did we think that? Not so much because we sought or felt his leading, but because we thought we had all the right beliefs about everything in place--about the Christian experience, the church experience, the end times, God's economy, etc--so we must be in the right place. But in spite of that, nothing we did led to much. We just did church life year-in and year-out and bounced from thing to thing and went around in circles. There was no sense of progress. Basically we just got excited about the "revelation" from the latest Lee training for a few weeks, and then waited for the next one. From what I can tell not much has changed. It's as if the movement is stuck in a time loop, not much change, progress, growth or increase. How is that God's move?

Contrast that to my experience in the last ten years. I can definitely see the results of the Lord's guidance and leading in the church I meet with. More and more our focus has become others-centered and serving-oriented. We have branched out in our outreach. Several new churches have been planted. I myself have definitely grown and changed. Ten years ago all I had was knowledge, most of it from the LCM. Now I think I at least have a little bit of real growth and knowledge of the Lord.

It's very discouraging to hear people talking about "God's move" and instead of them talking about all the wonderful things God is doing to bring people to himself they are really just talking about how they are right and everyone else is wrong. It's sad.

LCMers talk in high-sounding phraseology, but in a very self-serving way. Take, for example, oneness. If the LCM were really as much for oneness as they claim to be there is no way they would go around with the attitudes they do about other Christians, ministries and churches. I'm sorry, but your attitude and behavior are testimonies against what you claim to have and believe. If you were really rich you'd be generously giving it away, instead of talking about how rich you are. Those who are truly rich don't talk about how stupid the poor are, they just do everything they can to help them in a spirit of support and acceptance.

Simply put, you don't do that, not the LCM in general and certainly not you here. So I'm not sure what you are more fooled about: your status or that you are fooling anyone else about it.

I can go around saying I'm a great golfer, but if I can't play the game it's just talk. The LCM can talk all they want about being for oneness and God's move. The evidence speaks otherwise.

[Cal]

This is the attitude we all, especially you-know-who, would have if we were really "rich" and really in "God's unique move."

Romans 15-1-9 verse and devotional

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LCM doesn't just say "if you want to be part of us you'll do things our way," That much is reasonable. No, they go on to say "and if you don't do that you are outside of God's unique move." That is utterly unreasonable. And that goes for any subset of the Church that says that.

No wonder there's confusion when there's speaking both ways.
One leader is reputed to have said "If you're not for brother Lee and his ministry, you might as well not be here."
Another, it's best you meet with another church.
And yet another leader, "the recovery is not for everyone".
On the other hand implying if not saying:
The recovery is God's move on earth.
If you leave the recovery, you'll be spiritually bankrupt.
Which is it because you can't have it both ways.
Brothers who truly feel the recovery is God's move on earth would say the recovery is for everyone. If a leading brother can say the recovery is not for everyone, to me that's conceding local churches are really ministry churches.

[Evangelical]

What many call "church plants" are more correctly "sect plants". Without making this distinction then those who believe in "many churches" in an area, must by default accept LGBT churches as being a genuine church. The word "sect" is more appropriate for a church that caters to a particular "need" or preference. It is an assembly that looks like an arm or a leg rather than the whole body. (Insert Spurgeon quote here)

A genuine church plant is starting a church where no church has existed before. In the Bible the apostles traveled to new areas and established the new believers in churches. And the term church is a group of believers meeting together on the basis of their unity in Christ, not in any other person or thing.

Most of what people call "church plants" are plants of assemblies of a different flavor to the rest. For example Pentecostal churches like to start "church plants". If there are no tongue-speaking churches in a place a pentecostal church will start a "church plant" for those who like to speak in tongues. So there is a different "sect plant" for every type of sect that cater for different people's needs.

However we do not find this situation in the bible at all even though the early church had good reason enough to do so.

If this was how it was meant to be then we would find Paul establishing different churches for the gentiles and churches for the Jews.

Instead, he writes:
Gal 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"

We could continue Paul's line of thought and say

"There is neither tongue speaker nor non-tongue speaker..." you are all one in Christ.

Of course, Paul is not saying these differences do not exist. Of course we are still in our bodies, male and female, and we are either Jew or Gentile, and some of us like to speak in tongues and others do not like to speak in tongues. He is asking people to forget the differences and "clothe themselves with Christ" Galatians 3:27-29.

If everyone clothes themselves with the same clothing, which is Christ, then they all look the same. Paul also affirms that they are "baptized into Christ".

If every believer is baptized into Christ, then there is really no basis for different "sect plants" catering for different people's "needs", based upon the desire to establish a form of worship service or practice such as tongue speaking.

Regardless of our experience and how we feel, establishment of a sect plant is no more "God's unique move" than the construction of a new LGBT, JW, or Mormon church in a particular location.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What many call "church plants" are more correctly "sect plants". Without making this distinction then those who believe in "many churches" in an area, must by default accept LGBT churches as being a genuine church. T

Your reasoning is very faulty. It's an example of the fallacy of the appeal to the extreme. You are saying that if we must accept all churches that claim to be churches we must accept LGBT churches. But there are other reasons to question the validity of groups. The Bible plainly tells us to not keep company with fornicators, and gay sex is plainly always fornication according to the Bible. So the reason to question the validity of LGBT churches has nothing to do with their being one of many, but that they are seated in gross sin, and so fellowship with them must be withheld. In this case "fellowship" does not mean that we can never talk to them, but that we do not confer to them the "right hand of fellowship," meaning full receiving of them.

So your argument fails that if there can be many churches that we must accept all who claim to be churches. We don't have to do that if there are aspects of the group (namely gross sin) which the Bible plainly tells us not to receive.

You seem to think that there must be a some cut-and-dried standard of what is a "church" and what isn't. But the Bible does not plainly give us that information. Nee and Lee decided that it should have and so invented standards for which the biblical argument is tenuous to say the least.

Ironically, expecting others to agree with such tenuous arguments is in DIRECT violation of the Bible's mandate to not judge matters that plainly rely on each of us to be "fully persuaded in our own mind." The local ground, the view of the LCM about God's "unique move" and other sectarian LCM beliefs are not supported enough in the Bible to permit the LCM to expect others to believe them.

Some things in the Bible are plain. Some things are not. Yes, the Bible is plain that we should be "one." But the Bible is not plain about exactly what that looks like. Clearly each of us must decide in our own conscience what oneness means. This is the only way it could be, if you think about it. Because otherwise if what oneness looks could be defined in the superficial way the LCM insists it can, then that would subject the consciences of believers to the whims of leadership about superficial matters. This would clearly tie the Lord's hands, resulting in the sclerosis you see in the LCM.

Yes, in extreme cases the church can decide to cease fellowship with individuals and groups. But plainly it is not the Lord's desire to give us a blank check to reject all those who do not measure up to our proprietary "oneness" standards which cannot be plainly and clearly understood and accepted by most Christians.

A sect is not just a distinctive group. It is a group which in general feels it should separate itself from other groups because of that distinction. In laymans's terms it is a group that in general thinks it is too good for others. And THAT is the distinction that matters. By that definition the LCM is definitely a sect, while many of the groups it considers sects are not.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What many call "church plants" are more correctly "sect plants". Without making this distinction then those who believe in "many churches" in an area, must by default accept LGBT churches as being a genuine church. The word "sect" is more appropriate for a church that caters to a particular "need" or preference. It is an assembly that looks like an arm or a leg rather than the whole body. (Insert Spurgeon quote here)

Church planting sectarian? I had not heard that one before.
However I would agree sect is appropriate for a church that caters to a particular "need" of preference. That would apply to LSM affiliated assemblies. Whether on Maui, Toronto, or Renton it's a preference towards a specific Christian publishers publications for fellowship. It's essentially a "closed" assembly/assemblies. Not open to fellowship apart from their preference. That's what makes this system sectarian.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Some things in the Bible are plain. Some things are not. Yes, the Bible is plain that we should be "one." But the Bible is not plain about exactly what that looks like. Clearly each of us must decide in our own conscience what oneness means. This is the only way it could be, if you think about it. Because otherwise if what oneness looks could be defined in the superficial way the LCM insists it can, then that would subject the consciences of believers to the whims of leadership about superficial matters. This would clearly tie the Lord's hands, resulting in the sclerosis you see in the LCM.

As Christians we should be able to be one based on the Word of God alone.
When we start basing our oneness on affiliations through ministers and ministries we fall into the trap Paul warned about in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13.
In more recent history it's clear divisions were produced through the Brethren movement or currently with the TLR movement by lifting up men. "I of Darby" or "I of Lee".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Some things in the Bible are plain. Some things are not. Yes, the Bible is plain that we should be "one." But the Bible is not plain about exactly what that looks like. Clearly each of us must decide in our own conscience what oneness means.

Looking at I Corinthians closely regarding oneness, Apostle Paul addresses member attitudes first and primarily. To Paul, oneness and divisiveness is directly related to how we treat the members all around us. Read about all the examples he uses.

Nee and Lee have twisted this all around, making the STANDARD of oneness how each member and each congregation is related to a minister at headquarters. That would be like Paul demanding that the Corinthians, Ephesians, Bereans, etc. all have the right relationship with James in Jerusalem. Sound a little ridiculous? Then just think for a moment what the Blendeds today demand of LC's and their members.

The Corinthians, in their loveless ways, pitted their allegiances to notable ministers against one another. Hence, "I am of" was a way to disagree with the other member he didn't agree with in the first place. The Corinthians also used attitudes towards food, finances, personal liberties, etc. to also combat one another. How sad it was! Paul's solution was to bring all the believers back to the cross of Christ and the love of God. There, and only there, are we truly one. Leave the cross and leave God's love, and no two members can get along any more. Forget about the "one city one church" nonsense. Have we not seen enough divisions there? Enough quarantines, back-stabbing, public slanders, and worse?

Back in 1977 as a young believer and college student in the church in Cleveland, I migrated to "take the ground" and start the so-called "church in Columbus" on the OSU campus according to W. Lee's fellowship. Today Columbus has 3 so-called LC's -- one of (Blended) Lee, one of Chu, and one (apparently) of Christ. So much for the ideals of oneness -- one church one city -- that "heavenly vision" which governed my earlier life.

Nee and Lee's oc/oc model does not produce its expected fruit because it is not of the Spirit, and not according to the scripture. Instead of oneness, it produces the exact same problems it was intended to solve in the first place. Only thru ministry deception, extensive litigation teams, and strict control of the press did the system of error continue as long as it did.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Your reasoning is very faulty. It's an example of the fallacy of the appeal to the extreme. You are saying that if we must accept all churches that claim to be churches we must accept LGBT churches. But there are other reasons to question the validity of groups. The Bible plainly tells us to not keep company with fornicators, and gay sex is plainly always fornication according to the Bible. So the reason to question the validity of LGBT churches has nothing to do with their being one of many, but that they are seated in gross sin, and so fellowship with them must be withheld. In this case "fellowship" does not mean that we can never talk to them, but that we do not confer to them the "right hand of fellowship," meaning full receiving of them.

I used the extreme example to make a point. But that "LGBT church" could as well be a tongue-speaking pentecostal church which the Presbyterians might reject because they speak in tongues. In other words the acceptance for fellowship becomes very subjective based upon doctrinal matters. The basis for fellowship is not something necessarily sinful. This is why the basis for spiritual fellowship should only be Christ and the basis for practical fellowship is both Christ and the locality.

Originally Posted by Igzy

So your argument fails that if there can be many churches that we must accept all who claim to be churches. We don't have to do that if there are aspects of the group (namely gross sin) which the Bible plainly tells us not to receive.

I agree but this does not explain why the Presbyterians do not receive the Baptists and why Lutherans do not receive Anglicans. Their differences are not due to sin but doctrinal, practical or historical preference. There is really no biblical mandate for that.

Originally Posted by Igzy

You seem to think that there must be a some cut-and-dried standard of what is a "church" and what isn't. But the Bible does not plainly give us that information. Nee and Lee decided that it should have and so invented standards for which the biblical argument is tenuous to say the least.

The bible does not precisely define what a "born again Christian" is either. Yet the evangelical protestant community has concocted a rather precise and dogmatic definition or standard for what it means based upon a very short dialogue between Jesus and one man Nicodemus. There are various takes on "born again" in Christianity as a whole - e.g. to be born again means the resurrection (after death), it means a process over ones lifetime, or it is instantaneous as soon as one believes in Christ.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ironically, expecting others to agree with such tenuous arguments is in DIRECT violation of the Bible's mandate to not judge matters that plainly rely on each of us to be "fully persuaded in our own mind." The local ground, the view of the LCM about God's "unique move" and other sectarian LCM beliefs are not supported enough in the Bible to permit the LCM to expect others to believe them.

1 Corinthians 5:12 says we can judge those in the church. In particular Romans 16:17 says to mark those which cause divisions. Marking those which cause divisions can include those who plant new sects.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Some things in the Bible are plain. Some things are not. Yes, the Bible is plain that we should be "one." But the Bible is not plain about exactly what that looks like. Clearly each of us must decide in our own conscience what oneness means. This is the only way it could be, if you think about it. Because otherwise if what oneness looks could be defined in the superficial way the LCM insists it can, then that would subject the consciences of believers to the whims of leadership about superficial matters. This would clearly tie the Lord's hands, resulting in the sclerosis you see in the LCM.

The bible defines what being "one" means in Ephesians 4:4-6, John 17:21. The "ones" in Ephesians 4:4-6 are the basis for practical oneness. Even without those precise definitions, one would think it should look something like Christ and the 12 disciples, and not like the conglomeration of denominations we see today.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, in extreme cases the church can decide to cease fellowship with individuals and groups. But plainly it is not the Lord's desire to give us a blank check to reject all those who do not measure up to our proprietary "oneness" standards which cannot be plainly and clearly understood and accepted by most Christians.

A sect is not just a distinctive group. It is a group which in general feels it should separate itself from other groups because of that distinction. In laymans's terms it is a group that in general thinks it is too good for others. And THAT is the distinction that matters. By that definition the LCM is definitely a sect, while many of the groups it considers sects are not.

Can't your definition apply to all denominations? Did not Luther separate from the Catholics because the Catholics were not good enough? By this definition the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are sects also because they reject protestant churches that do not measure up to their standards of what is a genuine church. If we want to define church versus sect, we have to find a definition which works for all cases.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Terry

Church planting sectarian? I had not heard that one before.
However I would agree sect is appropriate for a church that caters to a particular "need" of preference. That would apply to LSM affiliated assemblies. Whether on Maui, Toronto, or Renton it's a preference towards a specific Christian publishers publications for fellowship. It's essentially a "closed" assembly/assemblies. Not open to fellowship apart from their preference. That's what makes this system sectarian.

I believe in Paul's day if anyone came along and started a house assembly for Jews only or Gentiles only right next door to his planted house assembly, he would condemn it as being sectarian and divisive. Today churches are planted for far less trivial reasons than being Jewish or Gentile.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I used the extreme example to make a point. But that "LGBT church" could as well be a tongue-speaking pentecostal church which the Presbyterians might reject because they speak in tongues. In other words the acceptance for fellowship becomes very subjective based upon doctrinal matters. The basis for fellowship is not something necessarily sinful. This is why the basis for spiritual fellowship should only be Christ and the basis for practical fellowship is both Christ and the locality.

I agree but this does not explain why the Presbyterians do not receive the Baptists and why Lutherans do not receive Anglicans. Their differences are not due to sin but doctrinal, practical or historical preference. There is really no biblical mandate for that.

Evangelical, instead of blaming everyone else for what they do or may not do, why don't the LC's stop rejecting other Christians and start opening their hearts to others? There are great numbers of Christians who serve in old denominations, yet the Lord is touching their hearts to reach out in love. You condemn others for what you are not doing yourselves. The LSM/LC leadership ought to start pray-reading verses like Romans 2.1-8 for themselves.

Therefore, you have no excuse—every one who judges. For when you judge others, you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, practice the exact same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who act like this is based on truth. So when you pass judgment on those who practice these things and then do them yourself, do you think you will escape God's judgment?

Or are you unaware of his rich kindness, forbearance, and patience, that it is God's kindness that is leading you to repent? But because of your stubborn and unrepentant heart you are reserving wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who strive for glory, honor, and immortality by patiently doing good; but wrath and anger to the factious and disobedient to the truth, obeying unrighteousness.

For example, the church closest to me, which I have visited, is PCA (Presbyterian Church of America), yet they don't go by that name anymore, but instead call themselves the Blankville Community Church. They have made far more progress in the oneness of the faith than you have. At least they are moving forward, while you are moving backwards.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evangelical, instead of blaming everyone else for what they do or may not do, why don't the LC's stop rejecting other Christians and start opening their hearts to others? There are great numbers of Christians who serve in old denominations, yet the Lord is touching their hearts to reach out in love. You condemn others for what you are not doing yourselves. The LSM/LC leadership ought to start pray-reading verses like Romans 2.1-8 for themselves.

For example, the church closest to me, which I have visited, is PCA (Presbyterian Church of America), yet they don't go by that name anymore, but instead call themselves the Blankville Community Church. They have made far more progress in the oneness of the faith than you have. At least they are moving forward, while you are moving backwards.

Are you saying they changed their name because they rejected Presbyterianism? Or they have changed their name to cater for non-presbyterians (e.g. tongue-speakers and arm wavers).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Are you saying they changed their name because they rejected Presbyterianism? Or they have changed their name to cater for non-presbyterians (e.g. tongue-speakers and arm wavers).

You mocking arm wavers? You mean like Paul said, "I would that men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands"?

You obviously got problems with saints simply following the instructions of scripture.

Can't you just accept the leading of the Spirit to reach out to the members of the community? Must you always find some evil motive?

[Cal]

The fact is, Evangelical, you are way out of touch both with the Church and yourself.

Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans and most of the rest receive each other a whole lot better that you receive any of them. So I think it's a bit humorous that you talk about their not receiving each other in light of your attitude.

A lot has changed. Just about everyone these days realizes the basis for fellowship is Christ. I have met a lot of Christians. I rarely meet any who think the basis of fellowship is some doctrine. I recall, years ago, playing golf with a couple of guys who turned out to be staunch Calvinists. When they found out I didn't quite share their view of predestination they started treating me with suspicion. It was quite odd. But I experienced firsthand being around someone whose basis of fellowship was not Christ but a doctrine. And I can tell you that rarely happens to me. Almost always the Christians I meet receive me as brother in Christ and send me the message that our commonality is Christ.

I just think you simply don't know what you are talking about. You really need to get out more. You talk as if you are still locked into the view of a Witness Lee book written fifty years ago. Your suspicion of other Christians reflects poorly on you, not them.

Also, locality is most definitely not a basis of fellowship. Locality is just a reflection of the fact that we should receive and fellowship with any Christian we come in contact with. And in ancient times that was almost exclusively those in geographic proximity. We should fellowship with any Christians we meet, whether they are near or far. In this day and age, with communication and the Internet, geography plays less of an important role. And guess what, here we are in a situation where we should receive each other and who is it among us who seems most hung up on doctrines? Well, I'm afraid that would be you, my friend. And that tells me a lot.

The bible does not precisely define what a "born again Christian" is either. Yet the evangelical protestant community has concocted a rather precise and dogmatic definition or standard for what it means based upon a very short dialogue between Jesus and one man Nicodemus.

Yes, but you are just making my point. There is general agreement about regeneration. There is very little agreement with the LCM proprietary vision of locality. That alone should tell you something.

1 Corinthians 5:12 says we can judge those in the church. In particular Romans 16:17 says to mark those which cause divisions. Marking those which cause divisions can include those who plant new sects.

Well, I'm sure it gets your blood pumping to think about another excuse to judge other Christians, but just settle down a little, hotshot.

If your only reason for calling a group a "sect" is that they don't meet with you anymore that is not a good enough reason. God doesn't give one group the right to call another group a sect just because the other group doesn't meet with the first group anymore. God has called us to peace, and we need to respect the consciences of others. If someone chooses not to meet with you it may just be because you have a problem that bothers their conscience. What you should do is respect them and continue to reach out. Perhaps through that the Lord might teach you something.

Certainly some groups are sectarian. But just because a group doesn't meet with the LCM and comply to your view of locality does not make them sectarian. Locality as taught and practiced by the LCM is a tenuous and most likely unbiblical practice. As I've said there is not enough biblical ground for insisting on it and so doing so is actually divisive.

Again, a sect is a group with such an attitude of superiority that they think everyone needs to join them, and that no other groups are legitimate. Ironically, that describes the LCM to a "T." Claiming to be on the local ground means nothing if you don't truly embrace genuine oneness. And to my observation the LCM doesn't.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You mocking arm wavers? You mean like Paul said, "I would that men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands"?

You obviously got problems with saints simply following the instructions of scripture.

Can't you just accept the leading of the Spirit to reach out to the members of the community? Must you always find some evil motive?

No, Presbyterians do. I used arm wavers as one example of non-Presbyterians. The tongue speakers and arm wavers normally do not join Presbyterian churches. It's a nice gimmick to change the church name to attract non-Presbyterians. The irony is not lost on me that we in the LC are sometimes called "shouters" because we call on the name of the Lord, and a pentecostal church rock concert service at full volume and many times the decibel rating of our small gatherings, is considered normal.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The fact is, Evangelical, you are way out of touch both with the Church and yourself.

Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans and most of the rest receive each other a whole lot better that you receive any of them. So I think it's a bit humorous that you talk about their not receiving each other in light of your attitude.

A lot has changed. Just about everyone these days realizes the basis for fellowship is Christ. I have met a lot of Christians. I rarely meet any who think the basis of fellowship is some doctrine. I recall, years ago, playing golf with a couple of guys who turned out to be staunch Calvinists. When they found out I didn't quite share their view of predestination they started treating me with suspicion. It was quite odd. But I experienced firsthand being around someone whose basis of fellowship was not Christ but a doctrine. And I can tell you that rarely happens to me. Almost always the Christians I meet receive me as brother in Christ and send me the message that our commonality is Christ.

I just think you simply don't know what you are talking about. You really need to get out more. You talk as if you are still locked into the view of a Witness Lee book written fifty years ago. Your suspicion of other Christians reflects poorly on you, not them.

Also, locality is most definitely not a basis of fellowship. Locality is just a reflection of the fact that we should receive and fellowship with any Christian we come in contact with. And in ancient times that was almost exclusively those in geographic proximity. We should fellowship with any Christians we meet, whether they are near or far. In this day and age, with communication and the Internet, geography plays less of an important role. And guess what, here we are in a situation where we should receive each other and who is it among us who seems most hung up on doctrines? Well, I'm afraid that would be you, my friend. And that tells me a lot.




Yes, but you are just making my point. There is general agreement about regeneration. There is very little agreement with the LCM proprietary vision of locality. That alone should tell you something.



Well, I'm sure it gets your blood pumping to think about another excuse to judge other Christians, but just settle down a little, hotshot.

If your only reason for calling a group a "sect" is that they don't meet with you anymore that is not a good enough reason. God doesn't give one group the right to call another group a sect just because the other group doesn't meet with the first group anymore. God has called us to peace, and we need to respect the consciences of others. If someone chooses not to meet with you it may just be because you have a problem that bothers their conscience. What you should do is respect them and continue to reach out. Perhaps through that the Lord might teach you something.

Certainly some groups are sectarian. But just because a group doesn't meet with the LCM and comply to your view of locality does not make them sectarian. Locality as taught and practiced by the LCM is a tenuous and most likely unbiblical practice. As I've said there is not enough biblical ground for insisting on it and so doing so is actually divisive.

Again, a sect is a group with such an attitude of superiority that they think everyone needs to join them, and that no other groups are legitimate. Ironically, that describes the LCM to a "T." Claiming to be on the local ground means nothing if you don't truly embrace genuine oneness. And to my observation the LCM doesn't.

You have some very practical and useful suggestions for reaching out. Of course we could all do reaching out a lot better than we do. However the fact is we have nothing against reaching out, we reach out to other Christians in our daily lives and invite them to have fellowship with us. Through such encounters I have fellowshipped with people from a number of different denominations. However I do not see this personal interaction to be the same thing as oneness. It is a kind of oneness but not at the corporate level.

If the fellowship between them is one of receiving each other and oneness in Christ, then we should see that expressed in the communion service. Afterall the Lord's Table is the primary fellowshipping thing to do between Christians. It's the thing which Christ told his disciples to do on a regular basis when they meet together. So, you tell me, can an Anglican priest, being only ordained in the Anglican church, host a communion service in a baptist church? Can a baptist pastor host an Anglican communion service? If you cannot answer "yes" to that, then the fellowship you speak of is not as real as you think it is, and things have not changed much since the 50's.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No, Presbyterians do. I used arm wavers as one example of non-Presbyterians. The tongue speakers and arm wavers normally do not join Presbyterian churches. It's a nice gimmick to change the church name to attract non-Presbyterians. The irony is not lost on me that we in the LC are sometimes called "shouters" because we call on the name of the Lord, and a pentecostal church rock concert service at full volume and many times the decibel rating of our small gatherings, is considered normal.

Do you mean like the "christians on campus" names the LC takes to disguise who they really are?

Oh the hypocrisy you regularly exhibit, Evangelical, as you condemn your Christian brothers!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Do you mean like the "christians on campus" names the LC takes to disguise who they really are?

Oh the hypocrisy you regularly exhibit, Evangelical, as you condemn your Christian brothers!

What exactly is the hypocrisy? What did we change our name from before calling it "christians on campus" ?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What exactly is the hypocrisy? What did we change our name from before calling it "christians on campus" ?

When my neighborhood PCA calls themselves the Blankville Community Church, you called it a "gimmick."

So I pointed out how all the LC's did the same thing, disguising the name of their campus group as the generic "Christians on Campus." The practice was initiated and regularly encouraged by LSM.

To condemn others and do the same thing yourselves is hypocrisy, by definition.

Romans 2.1-8 clearly states this, and says that your practice will bring God's anger and wrath.

You can read these verses in my post #31 above.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Do you mean like the "christians on campus" names the LC takes to disguise who they really are?

Oh the hypocrisy you regularly exhibit, Evangelical, as you condemn your Christian brothers!

That is correct Ohio and it is an intentional disguise. There is a formula to campus outreach which slowly brings students to the LSM church and witness lee's ministry. Rule number 1 - bring to home meetings BEFORE church meetings.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

That is correct Ohio and it is an intentional disguise. There is a formula to campus outreach which slowly brings students to the LSM church and witness lee's ministry. Rule number 1 - bring to home meetings BEFORE church meetings.

Right, and I know all too well how things work having been there since the mid-70's, but still my point is simple: Evangelical, don't condemn others for what you also do.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

That is correct Ohio and it is an intentional disguise. There is a formula to campus outreach which slowly brings students to the LSM church and witness lee's ministry. Rule number 1 - bring to home meetings BEFORE church meetings.

Even for non-college brothers/sisters this is the formula. Home meetings first before being invited to LDM.

[OBW]

A few posts had things worthy of comment.

Beginning with this response by Igzy to Evangelical.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Your reasoning is very faulty. It's an example of the fallacy of the appeal to the extreme. You are saying that if we must accept all churches that claim to be churches we must accept LGBT churches. But there are other reasons to question the validity of groups. The Bible plainly tells us to not keep company with fornicators, and gay sex is plainly always fornication according to the Bible.

What is completely missed in this particular appeal to the extreme is that while Paul would likely treat the actual participation of someone who was openly engaging in such fornication like he did the one in Corinth, he might not simply because it was thought that they might or could. And just because they were not convinced they shouldn't, but otherwise appeared to be abstaining, what should we say to that?

Paul spent a lot of time talking about people who were "sinning so grace could abound." He did not simply say it was a false hope, but rather that we should be moving toward less and less sin. But he agreed that when there was sin, grace did abound. So do we deny that grace to someone whose besetting sin is a really big no-no like same-sex activities? And do we deny them even access to the building when they have not yet come to Christ? Do we demand that they become "saved" elsewhere before they can even come inside where we are constantly asking all other sinners to "come as they are"?

I can assure anyone that I have a lot of issues around this from both sides. I see a conundrum. I've heard some talk about this in ways that was more loving, yet it never covers everything. I am not far from being a hardliner with a realization that the hard line is probably not the way to go on much of anything.

Originally Posted by Terry

Church planting sectarian? I had not heard that one before.
However I would agree sect is appropriate for a church that caters to a particular "need" of preference. That would apply to LSM affiliated assemblies. Whether on Maui, Toronto, or Renton it's a preference towards a specific Christian publishers publications for fellowship.

I'm not sure that catering to a need or a preference is so bad. As someone (Igzy? Ohio?) said in another post, if my conscience is bothered about certain things (doctrine, practice, etc.) or persons, making my primary meeting group not include those things or persons is good. It allows for continued fellowship without forced contact with a problem. But that does not mean they think the others are sects or deficient. Or declare that they cannot meet together or be welcome wherever they are.

Originally Posted by Terry

As Christians we should be able to be one based on the Word of God alone.
When we start basing our oneness on affiliations through ministers and ministries we fall into the trap Paul warned about in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13.

I'm not even sure that oneness should be based on the Word of God alone unless you mean that the oneness/unity would be based on what the Word says it is based on — Christ. Even reading the "ones" in Ephesians can give you a wrong understanding of oneness.

"One faith" is not a reference to our particular set of doctrines, but of faith in Christ.

"One baptism" is not about who baptized you or how it was done, but that you are baptized. (And it is not simply clear that it is talking about baptism in water or in the Spirit.)

And so on.

Our oneness is truly not in city. Some live in a city that the would rather not live in. If I moved to Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, LA, Seattle, and so many other places, I might not want to be there, but find that having a job dictates it. So I surely would not want to think that my oneness with other Christians was based on the city. Other than the fact that they are nearby and I should be one with them, and recognize that in Christ I am.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree but this does not explain why the Presbyterians do not receive the Baptists and why Lutherans do not receive Anglicans. Their differences are not due to sin but doctrinal, practical or historical preference. There is really no biblical mandate for that.

As someone else has asked, why do you think that they don't? On what basis do you declare that Presbyterians don't receive Baptists? They receive people from the AOG and from the LRC. I've attended Presbyterian assemblies during both sojourns.

If you mean to say that they don't just ask the Baptist group to close-up shop and join with them, that is not what we do. We don't presume that there is no reason for their assembly, but rather that there is. Just like there is reason for ours. But there is essentially no such thing as assemblies joining together. People assemble. And when they do they join together. And if their joining has the general doctrinal positions of Presbyterians, so be it. Same for the Baptists.

And there is the rub. You have problems with the fact that they understand things differently. Well, you do too. And if you suddenly had all the Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans, AOG, Lutherans, RCCs, EOCs, etc. in one place, that would be something. But do you think it would be simply wonderful all the time? What about those who believe that you can lose your salvation? Will they be required to stop teaching that in smaller groupings? (Don't presume that the meetings will look like LRC meetings because you are not the decider of such things when you are now the marble in the corner of the boxcar.) Will the assembly as a whole come to make certain positions the ones they allow to be taught and not others? What if the ones they latch onto aren't the ones you want? What if they don't want to have and LSM materials used in the meetings or taught?

I have asked Evangelical this many times and he has avoided the question. He is obviously convinced that the only way it works is that it works entirely his way which means that oneness only occurs on the ground of dirt, using LSM material, having a "church in [city]" sign out front, dismissing James "because of God's economy," and so on.

Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

1 Corinthians 5:12 says we can judge those in the church. In particular Romans 16:17 says to mark those which cause divisions. Marking those which cause divisions can include those who plant new sects.

Apparently some that cause division mark themselves and start their own group. Then they find a way to declare that everyone else is the one that is divided.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Did not Luther separate from the Catholics because the Catholics were not good enough?

Did not the LRC separate from everyone else because they were not good enough?

I would suggest that Luther did not separate from the RCC as much as the RCC gave him a choice — drop it, run, or die. If you can't drop it for conscience, then the options are run or die.

Inquisitor: "Cake or death!"
Guy on trial: "I'll take cake."
Inquisitor: 'That's a popular option today."

OK. My "squirrel" moment is over.

You want to there to be the LRC today while you are alive, but you don't want Luther to have separated. Without that separation, you wouldn't likely be even close to having an LRC now. In fact, we might all be participants in an RCC that is still burning heretics at the stake. Or an RCC that is somewhat evangelical. (Don't want to be too evangelical because that is probably beyond what is reasonable and supportable.) Then this discussion might actually be part of the first nail in the door. Just not somewhere in Germany.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When my neighborhood PCA calls themselves the Blankville Community Church, you called it a "gimmick."

So I pointed out how all the LC's did the same thing, disguising the name of their campus group as the generic "Christians on Campus." The practice was initiated and regularly encouraged by LSM.

To condemn others and do the same thing yourselves is hypocrisy, by definition.

Romans 2.1-8 clearly states this, and says that your practice will bring God's anger and wrath.

You can read these verses in my post #31 above.

It's not disguising anything because "Christians on campus" is what we are.

We did not try to hide anything because we do not see ourselves as the L S M denomination, just Christians in the city.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

As someone else has asked, why do you think that they don't? On what basis do you declare that Presbyterians don't receive Baptists? They receive people from the AOG and from the LRC. I've attended Presbyterian assemblies during both sojourns.

If you mean to say that they don't just ask the Baptist group to close-up shop and join with them, that is not what we do. We don't presume that there is no reason for their assembly, but rather that there is. Just like there is reason for ours. But there is essentially no such thing as assemblies joining together. People assemble. And when they do they join together. And if their joining has the general doctrinal positions of Presbyterians, so be it. Same for the Baptists.

And there is the rub. You have problems with the fact that they understand things differently. Well, you do too. And if you suddenly had all the Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans, AOG, Lutherans, RCCs, EOCs, etc. in one place, that would be something. But do you think it would be simply wonderful all the time? What about those who believe that you can lose your salvation? Will they be required to stop teaching that in smaller groupings? (Don't presume that the meetings will look like LRC meetings because you are not the decider of such things when you are now the marble in the corner of the boxcar.) Will the assembly as a whole come to make certain positions the ones they allow to be taught and not others? What if the ones they latch onto aren't the ones you want? What if they don't want to have and LSM materials used in the meetings or taught?

I have asked Evangelical this many times and he has avoided the question. He is obviously convinced that the only way it works is that it works entirely his way which means that oneness only occurs on the ground of dirt, using LSM material, having a "church in [city]" sign out front, dismissing James "because of God's economy," and so on.

Good luck with that.

Apparently some that cause division mark themselves and start their own group. Then they find a way to declare that everyone else is the one that is divided.

Did not the LRC separate from everyone else because they were not good enough?

I would suggest that Luther did not separate from the RCC as much as the RCC gave him a choice — drop it, run, or die. If you can't drop it for conscience, then the options are run or die.

Inquisitor: "Cake or death!"
Guy on trial: "I'll take cake."
Inquisitor: 'That's a popular option today."

OK. My "squirrel" moment is over.

You want to there to be the LRC today while you are alive, but you don't want Luther to have separated. Without that separation, you wouldn't likely be even close to having an LRC now. In fact, we might all be participants in an RCC that is still burning heretics at the stake. Or an RCC that is somewhat evangelical. (Don't want to be too evangelical because that is probably beyond what is reasonable and supportable.) Then this discussion might actually be part of the first nail in the door. Just not somewhere in Germany.

You've given me a lot to think about. I think they don't receive each other in a full way because outside of occasional get togethers, or ecumenical services as they call them, they don't hold a common Lord's Table meeting and if you are a minister in one denomination you often cannot minister in the other denomination. And while some can point to individual fellowship they have had between each other in small groups etc, well anyone can do that. Even we do that.

Here's the real rub, I have one denominational background and others in the LC have different denominational backgrounds, and others have only known the LC. Yet we can all happily meet together every Sunday for the Lord's Table meeting. We may have different opinions over salvation etc. I have yet to see such fellowship and oneness between denominations. While it could happen between like-minded denominations, it certainly does not happen between all denominations, particularly when concerning Anglican/Lutheran/Catholic/Orthodox etc.

I have been to ecumenical services before during my denominational days where first one denomination will do their bit for 30 minutes ,then another denomination will do their bit for another 30 minutes. It's not the same thing. It feels like when a divorced couple get together once a year for their son's birthday.

Your comment about Luther doesn't make sense to me because remember we consider Luther to be part of the Recovery. That was God's move. But if the RC church was a genuine church then I would consider Luther's move to be sectarian and divisive.

Regarding the LSM publications, there is no demand placed on anyone to use them although people are encouraged. What if someone wants to speak Swahili and we only offer English or Chinese. What if a Catholic or Anglican, doesn't want to use the order of service book, what if a Pentecostal doesn't want to pray in tongues, and what if a family wants to baptize their infant baby in a Baptist church. These are all practical matters that should not prevent anyone from participating in the Lord's Table.

I could go further and ask, what if a Christian does not even want to partake of the Lord's table ,sing worship songs or pray? Are you going to make a denomination to cater for their "needs" too? When you think about it, what is really so different between a denomination which caters for people's beliefs that only adults should be baptized, versus a denomination which caters for people's beliefs that we should not hold the Lord's table meeting?

We have to draw the line somewhere. But actually we don't - the core problem is that church is defined by what caters for people's needs rather than what the bible reveals church should be. This is why today we even see LGBT churches that cater for their needs.

[Cal]

However I do not see this personal interaction to be the same thing as oneness. It is a kind of oneness but not at the corporate level.

I disagree. There is only one God and one kind of oneness--our oneness in Christ. We might experience that in different ways, but there is only one real oneness.

Can a baptist pastor host an Anglican communion service? If you cannot answer "yes" to that, then the fellowship you speak of is not as real as you think it is, and things have not changed much since the 50's.

Well, all I can say is this kind of thing is happening more and more all the time. Things are changing and it is God's handiwork. Don't make the good the enemy of your view of perfect.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We have to draw the line somewhere. But actually we don't - the core problem is that church is defined by what caters for people's needs rather than what the bible reveals church should be. This is why today we even see LGBT churches that cater for their needs.

Again, you seem to think that "what the bible reveals church should be" is agreed on by everyone. It isn't and probably will never be. And you can't decide for everyone else. All you can do is take care of your own conscience, meet where and as the Lord leads you and give others the freedom to do so as well. From that place minister positively. Things generally work out better that way.

From that basis of generality, tolerance and doing one's best to get along (blessed are the peacemakers), God has a platform where he can work.

The only other option is to become the negative busybody you seem to have become. If you insist on "drawing lines" you are just going to aggravate more animosity. I'm not saying there are not times to put our feet down. But let's wait for the Lord to tell us to do so in specific, strategic situations. Otherwise you just begin to sound like the boy who cried wolf, and everybody is going to tune you out. You've been droning on ever since you got here about all the problems in Christianity. It just gets tedious after a while.

What you don't realize is you are also talking about the Church, because whether you like it or not the state of Christianity is the state of the Church. And constant harping is just discouraging.

Simply put, I suggest a more positive approach. If you still feel to be pedantic, do so more strategically, instead of constantly. Less is quite often more.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Again, you seem to think that "what the bible reveals church should be" is agreed on by everyone. It isn't and probably will never be. And you can't decide for everyone else. All you can do is take care of your own conscience, meet where and as the Lord leads you and give others the freedom to do so as well. From that place minister positively. Things generally work out better that way.

From that basis of generality, tolerance and doing one's best to get along (blessed are the peacemakers), God has a platform where he can work.

The only other option is to become the negative busybody you seem to have become. If you insist on "drawing lines" you are just going to aggravate more animosity. I'm not saying there are not times to put our feet down. But let's wait for the Lord to tell us to do so in specific, strategic situations. Otherwise you just begin to sound like the boy who cried wolf, and everybody is going to tune you out. You've been droning on ever since you got here about all the problems in Christianity. It just gets tedious after a while.

What you don't realize is you are also talking about the Church, because whether you like it or not the state of Christianity is the state of the Church. And constant harping is just discouraging.

Simply put, I suggest a more positive approach. If you still feel to be pedantic, do so more strategically, instead of constantly. Less is quite often more.

Would you agree with an idea that God is moving in a unique way, but we just have different opinions about what God's unique move looks like? I think we all could share our subjective positive experiences in how God is moving in our lives and the lives of others.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's not disguising anything because "Christians on campus" is what we are.

We did not try to hide anything because we do not see ourselves as the L S M denomination, just Christians in the city.

Really... I mean do you really believe this? Your locality must be much different than the ones I've visited. We'll never know for sure because it isn't safe for you to disclose your location - can't let big brother know what you're up to.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Really... I mean do you really believe this? Your locality must be much different than the ones I've visited. We'll never know for sure because it isn't safe for you to disclose your location - can't let big brother know what you're up to.

Are you saying that the ones you visited called themselves the "LSM church" ? You ask some Catholics are you catholic, they say yes. If you ask Presbyterians, they will say yes we're presbyterian, even if their church name is something community something. Ourselves, we don't talk like that. We say, LSM denomination?, we just Christians. If we meet other Christians, we call them brother and sister, even if they are Catholic. We have fellowship with them.

[Evangelical]

By the way, people on here may talk about the decline in numbers in church attendance, but I think that is across the board of most denominations. Despite this, "Christians on campus" is very successful. Our groups are often much larger than other on-campus groups. This is because we make nurturing and nourishing students with the bible a primary focus that meets the needs of seeking students. Many other groups only offer social activities.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Here's the real rub, I have one denominational background and others in the LC have different denominational backgrounds, and others have only known the LC. Yet we can all happily meet together every Sunday for the Lord's Table meeting.

Same where I meet. Everyone is not born and raised in this group and disassociating with all others.

You keep making stuff up in hopes you find something that stumps the band.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Regarding the LSM publications, there is no demand placed on anyone to use them although people are encouraged. What if someone wants to speak Swahili and we only offer English or Chinese. What if a Catholic or Anglican, doesn't want to use the order of service book, what if a Pentecostal doesn't want to pray in tongues, and what if a family wants to baptize their infant baby in a Baptist church.

Regarding LSM publications, if there was a sudden influx of Christians that somehow decide that one church in the city, meeting on the "ground" is correct, but they have no desire for LSM materials, what are you going to do, for example here in Dallas where a few meet each week, but would essentially disappear into a sea of others if even 0.1% of the Christians in the city decided to join up. When there is no more use of LSM materials in the meetings in Dallas, what happens?

I'll tell you what happens. It already has happened in other cities where just the insiders so sufficiently stopped LSM materials and the leadership was behind it. And the LSM sent its legal team to help sue to get the property back. Back from who, you may ask? From the "church in [city]" that is still meeting there.

There is your oneness. It is shattered over LSM materials. Your mockery of suggesting that we create another group to cater to those who don't want to use LSM materials has happened. But it happened backwards. The church decided to quit the LSM materials and the few that still wanted to use the materials left and started a new group. And they sued for the building.

The mockery is that LSM reality is worse than the differences among those Christian groups that you consider to be "not genuine." Your testimony is that everything you claim about oneness is a hollow shell game that hides division on a grand scale. And the division is that you claim you can't come have the Lord's table with us but we can with you. But you won't allow it to continue if many other things are not also agreed with (if not immediately, then over time).

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Would you agree with an idea that God is moving in a unique way, but we just have different opinions about what God's unique move looks like? I think we all could share our subjective positive experiences in how God is moving in our lives and the lives of others.

I can't agree with that. God is moving. Period. Saying "God's unique move" suggests that there is a "God's run-of-the-mill move."

Or a faux move of God.

Your claim is that if it is grand (in your eyes) then it is God's move. And if it is not, then it is not God's move. But you don't bother to actually assess anything that could be part of God's move. You just say that yours is "God's unique" move and therefore all others are either run-of-the-mill, or shams.

But the real problem is that you think that God only works in a single "way" in outward terms. He has missionaries, then he doesn't. He moves through the RCC, then the Lutherans but no longer the RCC. Then the Calvinists but no longer the Lutherans. And so on.

But that is not a view supported by the scripture. God moves in the ways that he moves. They are designed to reach people from the slums to the penthouse. From the G8 to the poorest of the third world. From the most educated to the illiterate.

Christians on Campus and door knocking (which is probably no longer part of "God's unique move" are not all that God is doing. He is still working in soup kitchens, missionaries, people on the job following the internal leading of the Spirit, and so on.

So the only way that "The Unique Move of God" can be a valid construct is for it to mean "all that God is doing" in his multifarious ways.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Same where I meet. Everyone is not born and raised in this group and disassociating with all others.

You keep making stuff up in hopes you find something that stumps the band.

Regarding LSM publications, if there was a sudden influx of Christians that somehow decide that one church in the city, meeting on the "ground" is correct, but they have no desire for LSM materials, what are you going to do, for example here in Dallas where a few meet each week, but would essentially disappear into a sea of others if even 0.1% of the Christians in the city decided to join up. When there is no more use of LSM materials in the meetings in Dallas, what happens?

I'll tell you what happens. It already has happened in other cities where just the insiders so sufficiently stopped LSM materials and the leadership was behind it. And the LSM sent its legal team to help sue to get the property back. Back from who, you may ask? From the "church in [city]" that is still meeting there.

There is your oneness. It is shattered over LSM materials. Your mockery of suggesting that we create another group to cater to those who don't want to use LSM materials has happened. But it happened backwards. The church decided to quit the LSM materials and the few that still wanted to use the materials left and started a new group. And they sued for the building.

The mockery is that LSM reality is worse than the differences among those Christian groups that you consider to be "not genuine." Your testimony is that everything you claim about oneness is a hollow shell game that hides division on a grand scale. And the division is that you claim you can't come have the Lord's table with us but we can with you. But you won't allow it to continue if many other things are not also agreed with (if not immediately, then over time).

I don't see much difference in the denominations. No pastor or priest and his congregation is going to say "today let's have the Lord's table with the recovery church". They don't even do that with each other. For starters, the pastor or priest wouldn't get his weekly pay for his Sunday service.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

I can't agree with that. God is moving. Period. Saying "God's unique move" suggests that there is a "God's run-of-the-mill move."

Or a faux move of God.

Your claim is that if it is grand (in your eyes) then it is God's move. And if it is not, then it is not God's move. But you don't bother to actually assess anything that could be part of God's move. You just say that yours is "God's unique" move and therefore all others are either run-of-the-mill, or shams.

But the real problem is that you think that God only works in a single "way" in outward terms. He has missionaries, then he doesn't. He moves through the RCC, then the Lutherans but no longer the RCC. Then the Calvinists but no longer the Lutherans. And so on.

But that is not a view supported by the scripture. God moves in the ways that he moves. They are designed to reach people from the slums to the penthouse. From the G8 to the poorest of the third world. From the most educated to the illiterate.

Christians on Campus and door knocking (which is probably no longer part of "God's unique move" are not all that God is doing. He is still working in soup kitchens, missionaries, people on the job following the internal leading of the Spirit, and so on.

So the only way that "The Unique Move of God" can be a valid construct is for it to mean "all that God is doing" in his multifarious ways.

In their practice, even denominations believe that God moves in one way at a time. For example, they will set up a new church in a place where there has been a Catholic church hundred of years before. A pentecostal will setup a church in an area where a baptist or methodist has been for ages. These are all statements of "God is not moving anymore with the catholics, they are too out dated, we need a new fresh move of God". They may say that God is moving with the Catholics, as you do, but their actions speak otherwise.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

By the way, people on here may talk about the decline in numbers in church attendance, but I think that is across the board of most denominations.

Attendence in some denominations is down, but in non-denominational community churches it is skyrocketing.

I think I showed this a while back. Or don't you remember?

This is what makes all your talk about "denominations" so out-of-touch.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

So the only way that "The Unique Move of God" can be a valid construct is for it to mean "all that God is doing" in his multifarious ways.

This brings to mind what always seemed so bogus about all this "unique move of God" stuff. God was and is clearly working elsewhere other that the LCM. Anyone who denies that has bigger problems than we can solve here. So how do LCMers account for God's working in other places?

So if God is working elsewhere, and he is, then the LCM cannot be uniquely God's move. Perhaps what they really meant was they were "God's best move" or "the only move that is doing it right" or something like that. They are God's "first team." The rest of us are scrubs and benchwarmers.

It was almost as if they were accusing God of compromising himself by actually doing anything or appearing anywhere other than the LCM. Of course, they'd never say that, but that's what all their talk of being the only legit venue added up to. Doesn't God know better?!

But does God work in an inferior, second-class fashion in one place while reserving his "best stuff" for another place? Sheer nonsense. God gives it his all wherever he works, or he does nothing at all. So we should praise and appreciate all he does, and not try and play any of it down.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Would you agree with an idea that God is moving in a unique way, but we just have different opinions about what God's unique move looks like? I think we all could share our subjective positive experiences in how God is moving in our lives and the lives of others.

I'm not sure why you use the word "unique." Of course God is unique. There is only one of Him. And he is holy. Only he can truly carry out his work because only he completely understands it. Beyond that I'm not sure of a useful meaning for the word in this context.

Certainly there is probably a better way of doing most things. That's what growth is all about--learning the better way. But though God knows the perfect way in every situation, things are not so clear for us yet. We can come to understand certain dependable principles, but we can never quite define everything. We walk in grace, but can never have the ultimate confidence that we know all we need to know to stay there. We walk, we learn, we stumble, we start over, we reach higher ground, we fall back, we repeat.

But we never reach the place where we know everything or have the confidence to declare what everyone else needs to do. And that's a mercy, because if we ever got that confident (arrogant really) we'd be demagogues, like some in a certain "unique" movements down through history.

And, yes, I can share how God is working. He seems to be trying to get me to be less self-centered and more trusting of him and caring of others. In the end, it all seems to be about loving and trusting him more and loving our neighbors as ourselves more. I know that sounds trite, but I think we will need eternity to explore it.

There are basically three relationships: with God, with others and with ourselves. That's all there is. There is nothing else. It's all about those three things. And there it is again, that number three.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Same where I meet. Everyone is not born and raised in this group and disassociating with all others.

You keep making stuff up in hopes you find something that stumps the band.

Regarding LSM publications, if there was a sudden influx of Christians that somehow decide that one church in the city, meeting on the "ground" is correct, but they have no desire for LSM materials, what are you going to do, for example here in Dallas where a few meet each week, but would essentially disappear into a sea of others if even 0.1% of the Christians in the city decided to join up. When there is no more use of LSM materials in the meetings in Dallas, what happens?

I'll tell you what happens. It already has happened in other cities where just the insiders so sufficiently stopped LSM materials and the leadership was behind it. And the LSM sent its legal team to help sue to get the property back. Back from who, you may ask? From the "church in [city]" that is still meeting there.

There is your oneness. It is shattered over LSM materials. Your mockery of suggesting that we create another group to cater to those who don't want to use LSM materials has happened. But it happened backwards. The church decided to quit the LSM materials and the few that still wanted to use the materials left and started a new group. And they sued for the building.

The mockery is that LSM reality is worse than the differences among those Christian groups that you consider to be "not genuine." Your testimony is that everything you claim about oneness is a hollow shell game that hides division on a grand scale. And the division is that you claim you can't come have the Lord's table with us but we can with you. But you won't allow it to continue if many other things are not also agreed with (if not immediately, then over time).

So well said!

This is the nasty side of LSM which evangelical and drake refuse to address.

LSM's "oneness" is no different than Rome's use of force during its power days. It's the oneness enforced by the edge of a sword.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Attendence in some denominations is down, but in non-denominational community churches it is skyrocketing.

I think I showed this a while back. Or don't you remember?

This is what makes all your talk about "denominations" so out-of-touch.

So out-of-touch, and about 100 years out of date!

So much for a ministry that prides itself for up-to-date speaking.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Attendence in some denominations is down, but in non-denominational community churches it is skyrocketing.

I think I showed this a while back. Or don't you remember?

This is what makes all your talk about "denominations" so out-of-touch.

Wait a minute.

Those 5 lines on the bottom of a chart in a down trend just confirm my statement. Thankyou for proving me right.

Or are you saying that non-denominational community churches are a denomination?

And I think we could include ourselves in that big growing blue line. We would be considered evangelical non-denominational, although we would not call ourselves that. So, thankyou for proving me right again.

Also, I wonder if the chart is reflective of the change in denomination or is it in terms of real growth (i.e. new believers) being added. It is also not clear whether the chart is from roll numbers or actual church attendance.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not sure why you use the word "unique." Of course God is unique. There is only one of Him. And he is holy. Only he can truly carry out his work because only he completely understands it. Beyond that I'm not sure of a useful meaning for the word in this context.

Certainly there is probably a better way of doing most things. That's what growth is all about--learning the better way. But though God knows the perfect way in every situation, things are not so clear for us yet. We can come to understand certain dependable principles, but we can never quite define everything. We walk in grace, but can never have the ultimate confidence that we know all we need to know to stay there. We walk, we learn, we stumble, we start over, we reach higher ground, we fall back, we repeat.

But we never reach the place where we know everything or have the confidence to declare what everyone else needs to do. And that's a mercy, because if we ever got that confident (arrogant really) we'd be demagogues, like some in a certain "unique" movements down through history.

And, yes, I can share how God is working. He seems to be trying to get me to be less self-centered and more trusting of him and caring of others. In the end, it all seems to be about loving and trusting him more and loving our neighbors as ourselves more. I know that sounds trite, but I think we will need eternity to explore it.

There are basically three relationships: with God, with others and with ourselves. That's all there is. There is nothing else. It's all about those three things. And there it is again, that number three.

It means the one unique ministry the disciples had as per Acts 1:17. God established one ministry with the disciples/apostles and we believe God continues that one unique ministry today. God's unique move is what He does in relation to that.

The Seventh Day Adventists have what they call a Health Ministry. It's not unique. Nothing to do with the ministry of Acts 1:17.

We say we need the unique move of God. People in denominations say they "need revival". Aren't we really saying the same thing - that we are not satisfied with "God's move" in our day to day activities, we are seeking God and expecting Him to do more.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Wait a minute.

Those 5 lines on the bottom of a chart in a down trend just confirm my statement. Thankyou for proving me right.

Or are you saying that non-denominational community churches are a denomination?

And I think we could include ourselves in that big growing blue line. We would be considered evangelical non-denominational, although we would not call ourselves that. So, thankyou for proving me right again.

Also, I wonder if the chart is reflective of the change in denomination or is it in terms of real growth (i.e. new believers) being added. It is also not clear whether the chart is from roll numbers or actual church attendance.

The was a time when the LCM show the same increases as the non-denom churches. But then they became wose of a denomination than most of the denominations.

How do you excommunicate the entire GLA and Brazil, and then still claim to be growing like the non-denoms?

Sorry, bro, but we know better.

[ZNPaaneah]

The only way you can lay claim to a "unique move of God" is if you are a mediator between man and God. Since the only mediator between man and God is Jesus, anyone who is connected with Jesus has the potential to be involved with whatever God's unique move is on earth.

As a result to claim that your group is the "unique move of God" is simply one more example of a false Christ.

If you fell for this and thought that somehow you were sitting at the head of the table in a prominent position right next to Jesus Christ, then repent and now go take your place where you belong, at the end of the table. In the final judgement there will be a whole lot of people who thought they were something, thought they were doing great works of power, and Jesus will tell them to depart from Him because they are workers of iniquity. Usurping Jesus to claim to be the unique move of God is one example of being a worker of iniquity who never knew Jesus.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The only way you can lay claim to a "unique move of God" is if you are a mediator between man and God. Since the only mediator between man and God is Jesus, anyone who is connected with Jesus has the potential to be involved with whatever God's unique move is on earth.

As a result to claim that your group is the "unique move of God" is simply one more example of a false Christ.

If you fell for this and thought that somehow you were sitting at the head of the table in a prominent position right next to Jesus Christ, then repent and now go take your place where you belong, at the end of the table. In the final judgement there will be a whole lot of people who thought they were something, thought they were doing great works of power, and Jesus will tell them to depart from Him because they are workers of iniquity. Usurping Jesus to claim to be the unique move of God is one example of being a worker of iniquity who never knew Jesus.

During the "turmoil" of the late 80's, I can still picture Witness Lee ranting on down in Irving, Tx, after the winter training, "this is not some piece of Christianity, a movement by man, but this is THE unique move of Processed Triune God ..."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

During the "turmoil" of the late 80's, I can still picture Witness Lee ranting on down in Irving, Tx, after the winter training, "this is not some piece of Christianity, a movement by man, but this is THE unique move of Processed Triune God ..."

So then he equated himself with the Processed Triune God and even if confronted would have probably justified it with some drivel about being transformed, reconstituted, etc.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then he equated himself with the Processed Triune God and even if confronted would have probably justified it with some drivel about being transformed, reconstituted, etc.

According to many accounts, Witness Lee became defensive and belligerent when confronted, unlike many men of God who were meek and humble.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Wait a minute.

Those 5 lines on the bottom of a chart in a down trend just confirm my statement. Thankyou for proving me right.

Or are you saying that non-denominational community churches are a denomination?

And I think we could include ourselves in that big growing blue line. We would be considered evangelical non-denominational, although we would not call ourselves that. So, thankyou for proving me right again.

Also, I wonder if the chart is reflective of the change in denomination or is it in terms of real growth (i.e. new believers) being added. It is also not clear whether the chart is from roll numbers or actual church attendance.

Evangelical, your continued use of the word "we" is interesting. Apparently a small thing, but a subtle indicator of a sectarian mindset.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The only way you can lay claim to a "unique move of God" is if you are a mediator between man and God. Since the only mediator between man and God is Jesus, anyone who is connected with Jesus has the potential to be involved with whatever God's unique move is on earth.

As a result to claim that your group is the "unique move of God" is simply one more example of a false Christ.

If you fell for this and thought that somehow you were sitting at the head of the table in a prominent position right next to Jesus Christ, then repent and now go take your place where you belong, at the end of the table. In the final judgement there will be a whole lot of people who thought they were something, thought they were doing great works of power, and Jesus will tell them to depart from Him because they are workers of iniquity. Usurping Jesus to claim to be the unique move of God is one example of being a worker of iniquity who never knew Jesus.

Jesus's statements are directed at workers of lawlessness. Denominational ism is a kind of lawlessness, like the Wild West, everyone doing as they please, and calling it "God's move". In the final judgement there will be a whole lot of people who thought they were in the genuine church, to find out they were in a sect and doing sectarian, divisive and lawless things with their denomination. Plus, we don't talk about great works of power, so I don't think we fit the description. Remember, we are the ones who believe "the age of spiritual giants is over", so your "great works of power" analogy doesn't work, sorry. Sounds more like TV evangelists and prosperity preachers.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, your continued use of the word "we" is interesting. Apparently a small thing, but a subtle indicator of a sectarian mindset.

What word should I use then?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What word should I use then?

It's not the word "we;" it is your use of the word.

[Evangelical]

I think the bigger issue is not my use of the word "we" (that is only a distraction), but that Igzy is misrepresenting the facts or cannot interpret a simple graph (I hope he doesn't work in finance).

I think this is a major embarrassment for Igzy that he is using a chart entitled "non-denominationalism on the rise" and showing declining denominationalism to disprove my statement that denominationalism is on the decline. If anyone want to disprove my statement they have to find a chart which shows the major denominations actually increasing in number, not decreasing. A major embarrassment for me is that I cannot find a chart to disprove myself. Maybe I am right afterall.

I said...
"the decline in numbers in church attendance,....is across the board of most denominations."

The chart shows exactly that. The chart shows 5 major protestant denominations in decline. But according to Igzy this is only "some denominations are down".

Non-denominational is increasing at 428% and "other" (whatever other represents, AoG I think) at 16%. Everyone else is down.

From the full article here:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/eds...ost-recen.html

Soon, a third of all evangelicals will be nondenominational.

Despite recent data from LifeWay Research, which found most Americans are open to denomination churches, many pastors feel they can be more effective by not promoting their denominational affiliation.

- yup, it's that name/affiliation issue again, which everyone here says is unimportant, and I've been saying it is all along. The rise of non-denominationalism is a step away from de-name-iating. Pastors find it more effective probably because when you promote a particular denomination of Christianity it turns people away, it even divides.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

- yup, it's that name/affiliation issue again, which everyone here says is unimportant, and I've been saying it is all along. The rise of non-denominationalism is a step away from de-name-iating. Pastors find it more effective probably because when you promote a particular denomination of Christianity it turns people away, it even divides.

So, then, what is the problem?

[SteVee]

I am an outsider to the LC. I've attended one meeting, and believe that the NT adequately reveals what the gathering of Christ's disciples should look like, which coincidentally looks a lot like a Lord's table meeting as practiced by the Brethren and different groups (not just "The Local Church") from the Chinese movement categorically referred to as the Lord's Recovery.

I have been in multiple Bible-teaching churches over the past 35 years, usually staying in a church 5 years or more, unless we moved. I am sympathetic to your line of reasoning if I loosely paraphrase it, as the apostles' and NT disciples eyes were fixed on Christ, and had a common "vision" of the Lord's final instruction while physically on the earth (Mt 28:19,20; Mk 16:15-18) and sought to be obedient.

The following statement gives me pause though.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

[I]The New Testament is written by three people - Luke, Paul and John.

Are you suggesting that the following books aren't Scripture?

James - the half brother of Jesus
Jude
1&2 Peter
Mark - Peter's nephew, presumably recording Peter's recollections.
Hebrews - unknown, but possibly Paul

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

when you promote a particular denomination of Christianity it turns people away, it even divides.

In relation to LC LDM this has been my point. Set aside the ministry publications and use the Bible translation of one's preference for the prophesying meeting.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by SteVee

I am an outsider to the LC. I've attended one meeting, and believe that the NT adequately reveals what the gathering of Christ's disciples should look like, which coincidentally looks a lot like a Lord's table meeting as practiced by the Brethren and different groups (not just "The Local Church") from the Chinese movement categorically referred to as the Lord's Recovery.

I have been in multiple Bible-teaching churches over the past 35 years, usually staying in a church 5 years or more, unless we moved. I am sympathetic to your line of reasoning if I loosely paraphrase it, as the apostles' and NT disciples eyes were fixed on Christ, and had a common "vision" of the Lord's final instruction while physically on the earth (Mt 28:19,20; Mk 16:15-18) and sought to be obedient.

The following statement gives me pause though.



Are you suggesting that the following books aren't Scripture?

James - the half brother of Jesus
Jude
1&2 Peter
Mark - Peter's nephew, presumably recording Peter's recollections.
Hebrews - unknown, but possibly Paul

Good pickup. I should have said most of the NT is written by 3 people.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Wait a minute.

Those 5 lines on the bottom of a chart in a down trend just confirm my statement. Thank you for proving me right.

Or are you saying that non-denominational community churches are a denomination?

No, I'm asking why you keep obsessing about denominations when its clear the Lord is moving outside the denominations in the community churches. But you act if those are an afterthought and the denominations are the major representative.

Clearly Christians are less and less interested in denominational labels. That should make you happy. But you keep acting as if nothing has changed.

The denominations are the red herring you use to bash any group other than the LCM. You obsess about them because they are an easier target for you.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It means the one unique ministry the disciples had as per Acts 1:17. God established one ministry with the disciples/apostles and we believe God continues that one unique ministry today. God's unique move is what He does in relation to that.

Well, to me it's mostly just a way to bolster your claims of special status.

The LCM is basically doing nothing different than what any arrogant, self-obsessed group claiming to be the "one true way" has done. The LCM is just more creative and clever with its rationalization of it.

I don't know if you've seen this, but below is something I posted a while back. It shows how groups thinking they are special and unique is nothing new and is an error that has been repeated over and over down through history.

As I said, the LCM is more creative and clever with its rationalization of special status. Rather than say they have the "right doctrines," they say things like they are "the continuation of the one ministry." Rather than say they are the "one true church," they say they are the "proper manifestation of the church."

But it doesn't matter because the intent is the same and adds up to the same error. You want to believe you are better than everyone else to the point that you are the only valid group. You are not trying to help others get it right as much as you are trying to validate your group and discredit all others.

That's not ministry, that's self-aggrandiziation.

And as the record below shows, it is an error that has occurred many times in history--which is, ironically, more proof you are nothing special.

What's funny is that #16 sounds just like something you would say.

WHO SAID IT??

1. “This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth...”
   
2. "The gospel of the kingdom ceased to be proclaimed shortly after the death of the apostles. It was not preached again until ________."
   
3. "_________, the one and only channel which the Lord has used in dispensing his truth."
   
4. "There is one church! There is one God. There is one kingdom of God and this is it!"
   
5. "The only way to follow the Lord absolutely is to go the way of _______."
   
6. "This is the only way that was started by Christ."
   
7. "This is God's inner circle--His very elect...we are God's only true representative on this earth.”
   
8. "...we _________ are the remnant church!"
   
9. “The church is careful to not be allied with other churches..."
   
10. "All of the doctrines of God were restored by _________."
    
11. "The true church will be a restored Church."
    
12. "There is nobody else in this country that has the true gospel...There is nobody else in this entire world....There is no place to go.”
    
13. “Some people say there are other fellowships that can be alright. No, there can't be! Because there is only one body..."
    
14. "This is the one unique move of God on earth today."
    
15. “When you walk away from ________, there is no where to walk. Walking out of the light into the darkness."
    
16. "Just taking a look at the hundreds of Christian churches in existence today, it doesn't take much to notice all the disputes among beliefs, practices, doctrines, and authority that divide each denomination. It would be impossible to join all these churches, even the Protestant sects, into one church. Therefore, all of them do not make "one body without schisms". There can only be one, and I testify that the one is _________."

1. Ezra Taft Benson, Mormon leader
2. Jehovah's Witness Watchtower publication, 12/1/1928, pp. 363-6
3. Jehovah's Witness Watchtower publication, 4/1/1919, p. 6414
4. Dave Weger, International Church of Christ
5. Witness Lee, the Lord's Recovery
6. The Cooneyites
7. The Philadelphia Church of God
8. Seventh Day Adventist
9. Church of God in Christ, Mennonite
10. Philadelphia Church Of God
11. Mormons
12. Nick Young, International Church of Christ
13. Cooneyites
14. Witness Lee, the Lord's Recovery
15. Nick Young, International Church of Christ
16. Mormons

http://www.letusreason.org/cult12.htm

http://www.theholdemans.com/Compare.htm[/QUOTE]
__________________

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

If can only tell you that for me, I did not have the same experience and do not recognize the local churches you describe.

If you are remaining in the LCM because you believe it is right for you then that's fine.

If you are remaining in the LCM because you believe it is the "one true way on earth today" then you have validated most of the complaints on this board that you claim you don't recognize--because that belief leads to all the fear, manipulation, abuse and damage that those complaints testify of.

When any subset group of the Church holds the belief that it is "one true way," abuse within that subset group is unavoidable. History cites no exceptions that I know of.

Please pray about it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, to me it's mostly just a way to bolster your claims of special status.

The LCM is basically doing nothing different than what any arrogant, self-obsessed group claiming to be the "one true way" has done. The LCM is just more creative and clever with its rationalization of it.

I don't know if you've seen this, but below is something I posted a while back. It shows how groups thinking they are special and unique is nothing new and is an error that has been repeated over and over down through history.

As I said, the LCM is more creative and clever with its rationalization of special status. Rather than say they have the "right doctrines," they say things like they are "the continuation of the one ministry." Rather than say they are the "one true church," they say they are the "proper manifestation of the church."

But it doesn't matter because the intent is the same and adds up to the same error. You want to believe you are better than everyone else to the point that you are the only valid group. You are not trying to help others get it right as much as you are trying to validate your group and discredit all others.

That's not ministry, that's self-aggrandiziation.

And as the record below shows, it is an error that has occurred many times in history--which is, ironically, more proof you are nothing special.

What's funny is that #16 sounds just like something you would say.

WHO SAID IT??

1. “This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth...”
   
2. "The gospel of the kingdom ceased to be proclaimed shortly after the death of the apostles. It was not preached again until ________."
   
3. "_________, the one and only channel which the Lord has used in dispensing his truth."
   
4. "There is one church! There is one God. There is one kingdom of God and this is it!"
   
5. "The only way to follow the Lord absolutely is to go the way of _______."
   
6. "This is the only way that was started by Christ."
   
7. "This is God's inner circle--His very elect...we are God's only true representative on this earth.”
   
8. "...we _________ are the remnant church!"
   
9. “The church is careful to not be allied with other churches..."
   
10. "All of the doctrines of God were restored by _________."
    
11. "The true church will be a restored Church."
    
12. "There is nobody else in this country that has the true gospel...There is nobody else in this entire world....There is no place to go.”
    
13. “Some people say there are other fellowships that can be alright. No, there can't be! Because there is only one body..."
    
14. "This is the one unique move of God on earth today."
    
15. “When you walk away from ________, there is no where to walk. Walking out of the light into the darkness."
    
16. "Just taking a look at the hundreds of Christian churches in existence today, it doesn't take much to notice all the disputes among beliefs, practices, doctrines, and authority that divide each denomination. It would be impossible to join all these churches, even the Protestant sects, into one church. Therefore, all of them do not make "one body without schisms". There can only be one, and I testify that the one is _________."

1. Ezra Taft Benson, Mormon leader
2. Jehovah's Witness Watchtower publication, 12/1/1928, pp. 363-6
3. Jehovah's Witness Watchtower publication, 4/1/1919, p. 6414
4. Dave Weger, International Church of Christ
5. Witness Lee, the Lord's Recovery
6. The Cooneyites
7. The Philadelphia Church of God
8. Seventh Day Adventist
9. Church of God in Christ, Mennonite
10. Philadelphia Church Of God
11. Mormons
12. Nick Young, International Church of Christ
13. Cooneyites
14. Witness Lee, the Lord's Recovery
15. Nick Young, International Church of Christ
16. Mormons

http://www.letusreason.org/cult12.htm

http://www.theholdemans.com/Compare.htm

__________________[/QUOTE]

You seem to take issue with any group that calls itself the one true church or one true way. However when we think about it, for hundreds of years Christians had no issue with a belief there is only one true church. Why do we take issue with this today?

I think you'll find many more quotes too from Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist (successionism), so these must also be "arrogant, self-obsessed groups". Are you willing to say that about these?

It may surprise you or others on here, that Luther wrote,"The true church must appear or be visible in the world. But it can only appear in a covering (larva), a veil, a shell, or some kind of clothes which a man can grasp, otherwise it can never be found".

The Lutheran theologian Ernst Kinder said:
"One may distinguish between an outward belonging to the church and true membership in the body of Christ-distinguish, that is, but not separate, for we possess the latter only through the former".

Luther and other Reformers were very clear on the matter of a true church versus a false church. Of course Luther had the Roman Catholic church in mind as the false church.

A view that a true church does not exist, or that it is not visible, is a false view, and possibly a result of being affected by new-age mumbo jumbo.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No, I'm asking why you keep obsessing about denominations when its clear the Lord is moving outside the denominations in the community churches. But you act if those are an afterthought and the denominations are the major representative.

Clearly Christians are less and less interested in denominational labels. That should make you happy. But you keep acting as if nothing has changed.

The denominations are the red herring you use to bash any group other than the LCM. You obsess about them because they are an easier target for you.

Would you agree then that the Lord has left the denominations and is now supporting the community churches. To me this is more or less implied by your statement "the Lord is moving outside the denominations". I mean, if you point at our declining numbers as proof that the Lord's move has left us, then you must also conclude the same about the denominations. You seem to be saying that the Lord's move is now with the community churches. This is if we take the charts to imply something about where the Lord is working. That one big line bigger than all others seems to be "one unique move" to me.

I think most Christians might understand "the Lord's unique move" as Revivals. The next big revival is often seen as a "new thing" (unique?) the Lord is doing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You seem to take issue with any group that calls itself the one true church or one true way. However when we think about it, for hundreds of years Christians had no issue with a belief there is only one true church. Why do we take issue with this today?

And what church might that be? The church of Jesus? The church birthed by the death and resurrection of His Son?

Your (lack of) knowledge of church history duplicates that of your mentor.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You seem to take issue with any group that calls itself the one true church or one true way. However when we think about it, for hundreds of years Christians had no issue with a belief there is only one true church. Why do we take issue with this today?

Because when it's done in a self-serving and exclusive way it is divisive.

Everyone now knows there is one Church and we are all part of it. The problem occurs when people say their groups are valid expressions of the one Church and others are not. Doing that is divisive.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Would you agree then that the Lord has left the denominations and is now supporting the community churches. To me this is more or less implied by your statement "the Lord is moving outside the denominations". I mean, if you point at our declining numbers as proof that the Lord's move has left us, then you must also conclude the same about the denominations. You seem to be saying that the Lord's move is now with the community churches. This is if we take the charts to imply something about where the Lord is working. That one big line bigger than all others seems to be "one unique move" to me.

I think most Christians might understand "the Lord's unique move" as Revivals. The next big revival is often seen as a "new thing" (unique?) the Lord is doing.

I wouldn't say the Lord has left the denominations. I would just say it's clear that what is there is not totally meeting the needs of believers and seekers. Denominations are somewhat stuck in tradition and protocol, as the LCM is now as well. This limits the Lord.

People are moving to the community churches because those groups are not bound to the constricting doctrines and other limitations of more traditional denominations. I think many people are becoming uncomfortable with unnecessary distinctions as well.

But the Lord appears wherever people gather in his name, and that should be good enough for any of us.

I think most Christians might understand "the Lord's unique move" as Revivals. The next big revival is often seen as a "new thing" (unique?) the Lord is doing.

But history has shown that once you start claiming to be the embodiment of that "new move" you are on your way to not being it. The LCM has been claiming to be the unique move of God long after whatever chance they had to carry the torch was squandered in self-absorption and antagonistic self-promotion.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A view that a true church does not exist, or that it is not visible, is a false view, and possibly a result of being affected by new-age mumbo jumbo.

The true Church absolutely does exist, and it is visible. Always has been.

The Church is always visible somehow. Your error is in thinking it must be visible in some kind of cut-and-dried practical organization. There is no reason to believe this. For decades the Church in China was only visible in home churches with a few members, because that's the only thing the government allowed. But visible it was.

God is not limited by your insistence on a particular local organization of a church for the Church to be visible, or valid.

But actually now you are contradicting yourself. Because if the true Church can only be embodied in LCM-like local churches, then by that definition it was invisible for at least 1700 years. Yet you just said saying it can be invisible is a false view.

So either the Church has been visible in every century since Christ ascended, in which case localism is not necessary for a valid expression of the Church, or the Church was invisible until the Brethren and Nee came along with localism, which is to say that the Lord had no visible Church on the earth for centuries.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The true Church absolutely does exist, and it is visible. Always has been.

The Church is always visible somehow. Your error is in thinking it must be visible in some kind of cut-and-dried practical organization. There is no reason to believe this. For decades the Church in China was only visible in home churches with a few members, because that's the only thing the government allowed. But visible it was.

God is not limited by your insistence on a particular local organization of a church for the Church to be visible, or valid.

But actually now you are contradicting yourself. Because if the true Church can only be embodied in LCM-like local churches, then by that definition it was invisible for at least 1700 years. Yet you just said saying it can be invisible is a false view.

So either the Church has been visible in every century since Christ ascended, in which case localism is not necessary for a valid expression of the Church, or the Church was invisible until the Brethren and Nee came along with localism, which is to say that the Lord had no visible Church on the earth for centuries.

Yes that would be a contradiction wouldn't it. Would you say that Witness Lee believed the true church was invisible for 1700 years? I think he has made reference to various denominations being part of God's unique move, or "the Recovery".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I wouldn't say the Lord has left the denominations. I would just say it's clear that what is there is not totally meeting the needs of believers and seekers. Denominations are somewhat stuck in tradition and protocol, as the LCM is now as well. This limits the Lord.

People are moving to the community churches because those groups are not bound to the constricting doctrines and other limitations of more traditional denominations. I think many people are becoming uncomfortable with unnecessary distinctions as well.

But the Lord appears wherever people gather in his name, and that should be good enough for any of us.

But history has shown that once you start claiming to be the embodiment of that "new move" you are on your way to not being it. The LCM has been claiming to be the unique move of God long after whatever chance they had to carry the torch was squandered in self-absorption and antagonistic self-promotion.

We could put it down to human obstruction/failure, and the Lord has found a way to move unhindered.

You are basically saying that the new move was claimed after let's call it the "real" new move was over - or at least that period of LC history that people on here seem to recall as being mostly positive.

But then we are told that if our church is in a poor condition it is the Lord's will. A church in a poor condition does not mean it is not a true church.

So we could interpret those graphs as saying the Lord has not left the denominations at all, the condition of the church has no bearing on whether or not it is a genuine church.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We could put it down to human obstruction/failure, and the Lord has found a way to move unhindered.

You are basically saying that the new move was claimed after let's call it the "real" new move was over - or at least that period of LC history that people on here seem to recall as being mostly positive.

But then we are told that if our church is in a poor condition it is the Lord's will. A church in a poor condition does not mean it is not a true church.

So we could interpret those graphs as saying the Lord has not left the denominations at all, the condition of the church has no bearing on whether or not it is a genuine church.

A true church is a hospital, there will always be the "sick" and "dying" in a genuine church and it will be full of very dangerous germs. I for one would be terrified to dig through the garbage of a hospital.

The church is not defined as being true based on the maturity of the believers.

I was recently touched by James 1:1. It seems clear to me, based on this book, that the errors made by the apostles was instrumental in their ministry.

Peter's denial helped him once he repented to stand strong in opening the kingdom to the gentiles. Paul's persecution of the Body helped him see the Body once the scales fell from his eyes. James was the head of a personality cult, bringing in the "judaizers" until the Lord appeared to him and he repented. Mark became impressed with Jesus as a slave after he ditched his responsibility with Paul.

But I didn't know how to encapsulate this idea until I read James 1:1

James, a bond servant. James had a debt, the Lord paid it and in return he was serving the Lord. This gave him the clear conscience to serve the Lord while at the same time never forgetting his past error.

I think we can all have that experience. James error didn't disqualify the church, rather it gave him a burden.

The book is written to the 12 tribes in the dispersion. Clearly that is an OT concept and indicates these ones, like James in the past, do not have a clear vision. But he refers to them as his brothers in the Lord.

This is the right attitude. They were being tried, their religion was falling apart, everything they thought they knew was coming undone, and they were being persecuted by both Jews and Romans. But James view is to count it all joy and that the rich should rejoice when they are brought low. That is a very interesting concept, Why?

The picture in James 1 is of a flower. The flower has withered and died but the seeds have been dispersed. This is why they should rejoice. They were that flower that burst and dispersed the seeds.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by SteVee

. . . and believe that the NT adequately reveals what the gathering of Christ's disciples should look like, which coincidentally looks a lot like a Lord's table meeting as practiced by the Brethren and different groups . . .

I would say that the NT reveals enough to recognize that a Lord's table meeting under the Form that is practiced by those groups would be consistent with what is revealed. But that is very different from declaring that it is what the NT reveals.

The NT reveals no particular Form. But it reveals enough that certain Forms could be understood as meeting what is revealed. In other words, the way of "doing the table" in the Brethren, the LRC and some others is within the boundaries of what is revealed by the NT. But there is nothing which makes those "what is revealed in the NT" in such a way that they are the way it should be done.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would say that the NT reveals enough to recognize that a Lord's table meeting under the Form that is practiced by those groups would be consistent with what is revealed. But that is very different from declaring that it is what the NT reveals.

The NT reveals no particular Form. But it reveals enough that certain Forms could be understood as meeting what is revealed. In other words, the way of "doing the table" in the Brethren, the LRC and some others is within the boundaries of what is revealed by the NT. But there is nothing which makes those "what is revealed in the NT" in such a way that they are the way it should be done.

I completely agree.

This little story exposed for me the utter nonsense that the Recovery had somehow "recovered" the way to break bread ...

The sisters took turns making the bread, and one week a college sister made the bread out of whole wheat flour. It was out of convention, so my wife who was coordinating the service asked me if WHOLE WHEAT flour was OK. I said something like "it seemed good to me and the Holy Spirit." But when the leading sister in the church saw it before the meeting, she tore it up, and demanded another bread be used.

So later on I researched bleached white flour and learned that it was developed around the end of the 19th century. That was all I needed to know. For 19 centuries the church was doing the Lord's Table Meeting all wrong because they must have been using whole wheat flour.

At some point in our history, a perfectly acceptable way of making bread become THE WAY to make the bread. We had thus established the bread making ORDINANCE in the body of Christ. A way became THE WAY. This extra Biblical ordinance was thus added to our Bible. It was added to the growing list in our Official Recovery Book Of Bible Amendments. We could now feel completely justified in comdemning all others who differed from us. And we did!

[SteVee]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would say that the NT reveals enough to recognize that a Lord's table meeting under the Form that is practiced by those groups would be consistent with what is revealed. But that is very different from declaring that it is what the NT reveals.

The NT reveals no particular Form. But it reveals enough that certain Forms could be understood as meeting what is revealed. In other words, the way of "doing the table" in the Brethren, the LRC and some others is within the boundaries of what is revealed by the NT. But there is nothing which makes those "what is revealed in the NT" in such a way that they are the way it should be done.

I'll stick my neck out and be more specific. i won't be able to explain it all tonight, but hit a couple of main ideas.

The doctrine of the "Perspicuity of Scripture" means that the Scripture is adequately clear.

The doctrine of the "Sufficiency of Scripture" implies that it has everything we need for life and godliness.

Another starting presupposition for me is that we as individuals are first and foremost called to be disciples of Christ, and as such have and need no intermediaries. We are priests of God. God the Holy Spirit distributes gifts as He wills, and not all have the same gifts, but all are equal in Christ - as man and woman are equal in worth - but we have differing roles in the body.

I believe that 1 Corinthians 11 - 14 provides enough breadth, context, and detail to describe what the New Testament church was as an example to future generations. These combined with 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, Ephesians 4 and others paint a picture of the church offices of elders who shepherd the flock exercising over sight, and servants (aka deacons).

1 Corinthians 14:26-40 describes a church meeting where "all" disciples are free to speak forth what the Lord has been making real to them in their life in an orderly manner.

This is not practiced as the "main" service in any assembly that I have been a part of except an open brethren assembly that I attended more than 20 years ago. Most churches have no meeting like that at all, and most are highly planned and organized by the pastoral staff, leaving no room for the disciples to be exercised. Believers become "attendees".

While this "control" in most churches isn't cult-like in the mold of LSM that I have read here and other places, it is stifling to spiritual growth except to the naturally intelligent, who are considered spiritual.

I would like to suggest, that a Lord's table meeting where all are free to share is the "baby" that you should keep from the LC/LSM/the Lord's Recovery and throw out all of the other abusive, personality cultish stuff that is documented on this site.

Don't exchange a cultish intermediary between you and Christ for a more traditional intermediary non-cultish, but equally wrong, over planned, professional pastorate.

Some of us who have never (or in my case only once) stepped foot in an LC meeting have been deeply wounded by immoral, unscrupulous, carnal leaders in various Protestant churches including having marriages broken or teen children led astray, and not to greater commitment to Christ, but to compromised morals and moral confusion.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by SteVee

The doctrine of the "Sufficiency of Scripture" implies that it has everything we need for life and godliness.

But having everything we need for life and godliness (a point that I constantly insist stands against Lee's "wait for the dispensing" teaching) is quite different from "spelling out" for us everything that we need.

Originally Posted by SteVee

I believe that 1 Corinthians 11 - 14 provides enough breadth, context, and detail to describe what the New Testament church was as an example to future generations.

Actually, I think that these chapters provide a broad enough framework as to be very inexact.

• They are written into a truly dysfunctional situation yet there is little direction beyond recognition of the variety of "gifts" that are in the body and that all are needful (don't cut off the toes as unnecessary).
• The meeting is open, but not altogether. Oversight is required. And restraint.
• I'll get to the "all can" in a minute.

But there is nothing in what is provided that defines how. Just gives some principles that were needed in Corinth because of their three-ring circus of competing groups and probably a lot of "show offs." A meeting with a single table and one piece of crisp unleavened bread and a single glass of wine around which a meeting begins according to a particular structure of song topics (in order), with a breaking of the bread in a particular way by two or more persons, then the passing of the elements around the room is a fully acceptable way to do it. But it is not found in 1 Corinthians or anywhere else. Neither is the typical LRC way of doing other meetings. They are not necessarily "wrong." But they are not simply "right" and especially not the "preferred" or even "only" way to do them.

The point of the Lord's table is not the form in which it is done. It is that when it is done, you remember. The Lord. His death. Those are the things specified. The rest is preferences and everyone's are not the same.

Originally Posted by SteVee

1 Corinthians 14:26-40 describes a church meeting where "all" disciples are free to speak forth what the Lord has been making real to them in their life in an orderly manner.

First, the content of those who are described as participating as "prophets" is not defined as "what the Lord has been making real in their lives." Second, there is first a restraint to "2 or three" within which the remainder of that part of the passage refers. It does not start by saying that there should be 2 or 3 prophets, then just toss it aside and declare that "all can prophesy" meaning the entire congregation. That is a gross misunderstanding of the meaning and structure of the passage.

The passage as a whole has put a limit on certain things. It has limited the exhibition of tongues to a very little and only if someone is present to interpret it (which means someone who can understand that tongue is present). Then it gets to "prophets" and says "2 or 3." Now what is that supposed to mean if you think that the "all can prophesy" reaches beyond them to all present? It has made a mockery of Paul's opening words on that subject.

Now I am not saying that there cannot also be a third part of the meeting that in the Pentecostal circles used to be called as "testimony meeting." But that would be something other than the 2 or three who "prophesy."

[ZNPaaneah]

The doctrine of the "Sufficiency of Scripture" implies that it has everything we need for life and godliness. (SteVee)

But having everything we need for life and godliness (a point that I constantly insist stands against Lee's "wait for the dispensing" teaching) is quite different from "spelling out" for us everything that we need. (OBW)

OBW -- Why can't a verse that says we have all that we need for life and godliness be the essential basis and meaning for the "doctrine of sufficiency of Scripture"?

I believe that 1 Corinthians 11 - 14 provides enough breadth, context, and detail to describe what the New Testament church was as an example to future generations. (Stevee)

Actually, I think that these chapters provide a broad enough framework as to be very inexact.
• They are written into a truly dysfunctional situation yet there is little direction beyond recognition of the variety of "gifts" that are in the body and that all are needful (don't cut off the toes as unnecessary).
• The meeting is open, but not altogether. Oversight is required. And restraint.
• I'll get to the "all can" in a minute.
But there is nothing in what is provided that defines how. Just gives some principles that were needed in Corinth because of their three-ring circus of competing groups and probably a lot of "show offs." A meeting with a single table and one piece of crisp unleavened bread and a single glass of wine around which a meeting begins according to a particular structure of song topics (in order), with a breaking of the bread in a particular way by two or more persons, then the passing of the elements around the room is a fully acceptable way to do it. But it is not found in 1 Corinthians or anywhere else. Neither is the typical LRC way of doing other meetings. They are not necessarily "wrong." But they are not simply "right" and especially not the "preferred" or even "only" way to do them.

The point of the Lord's table is not the form in which it is done. It is that when it is done, you remember. The Lord. His death. Those are the things specified. The rest is preferences and everyone's are not the same. (OBW)


SteVee -- I do have the same feeling, except I feel it is the entire book, I would not limit it to 11-14.

OBW -- a "broad enough framework" is not contrary to what SteVee shared about having "enough breadth" to be an example for all future churches, despite the wide variation.

We can debate whether the "how" is provided. I don't disagree that it is not provided in chapter 14, but if you look at the entire book with that in mind it is there.

1 Corinthians 14:26-40 describes a church meeting where "all" disciples are free to speak forth what the Lord has been making real to them in their life in an orderly manner. (Stevee)

First, the content of those who are described as participating as "prophets" is not defined as "what the Lord has been making real in their lives." Second, there is first a restraint to "2 or three" within which the remainder of that part of the passage refers. It does not start by saying that there should be 2 or 3 prophets, then just toss it aside and declare that "all can prophesy" meaning the entire congregation. That is a gross misunderstanding of the meaning and structure of the passage.

The passage as a whole has put a limit on certain things. It has limited the exhibition of tongues to a very little and only if someone is present to interpret it (which means someone who can understand that tongue is present). Then it gets to "prophets" and says "2 or 3." Now what is that supposed to mean if you think that the "all can prophesy" reaches beyond them to all present? It has made a mockery of Paul's opening words on that subject.

Now I am not saying that there cannot also be a third part of the meeting that in the Pentecostal circles used to be called as "testimony meeting." But that would be something other than the 2 or three who "prophesy." (OBW)

SteVee -- the problem with "all are free to speak" is in the practice. This is really where OBW can make a strong case concerning the "how". For example, if you are going to use this as the model for all true churches would you then say that if all are not free to speak it is not a true church? Also, how would you define "free to speak"? Would it be in a large meeting, what if you are free to speak in smaller meetings?

OBW -- when it says "all can prophesy" I don't understand that to mean that all 100 attendees can prophesy, but rather all members of the body of Christ can (have the ability or potential to) prophesy. As a result when 2 or 3 can prophesy it doesn't mean to imply that there is an office of "prophet" who will stand up and speak every week. Rather it means that any of those attendees, at some time or other, as the Lord leads, can prophesy.

[SteVee]

Originally Posted by OBW

But having everything we need for life and godliness (a point that I constantly insist stands against Lee's "wait for the dispensing" teaching) is quite different from "spelling out" for us everything that we need.

Actually, I think that these chapters provide a broad enough framework as to be very inexact.

• They are written into a truly dysfunctional situation yet there is little direction beyond recognition of the variety of "gifts" that are in the body and that all are needful (don't cut off the toes as unnecessary).
• The meeting is open, but not altogether. Oversight is required. And restraint.
• I'll get to the "all can" in a minute.

But there is nothing in what is provided that defines how. Just gives some principles that were needed in Corinth because of their three-ring circus of competing groups and probably a lot of "show offs." A meeting with a single table and one piece of crisp unleavened bread and a single glass of wine around which a meeting begins according to a particular structure of song topics (in order), with a breaking of the bread in a particular way by two or more persons, then the passing of the elements around the room is a fully acceptable way to do it. But it is not found in 1 Corinthians or anywhere else. Neither is the typical LRC way of doing other meetings. They are not necessarily "wrong." But they are not simply "right" and especially not the "preferred" or even "only" way to do them.

The point of the Lord's table is not the form in which it is done. It is that when it is done, you remember. The Lord. His death. Those are the things specified. The rest is preferences and everyone's are not the same.
First, the content of those who are described as participating as "prophets" is not defined as "what the Lord has been making real in their lives." Second, there is first a restraint to "2 or three" within which the remainder of that part of the passage refers. It does not start by saying that there should be 2 or 3 prophets, then just toss it aside and declare that "all can prophesy" meaning the entire congregation. That is a gross misunderstanding of the meaning and structure of the passage.

The passage as a whole has put a limit on certain things. It has limited the exhibition of tongues to a very little and only if someone is present to interpret it (which means someone who can understand that tongue is present). Then it gets to "prophets" and says "2 or 3." Now what is that supposed to mean if you think that the "all can prophesy" reaches beyond them to all present? It has made a mockery of Paul's opening words on that subject.

Now I am not saying that there cannot also be a third part of the meeting that in the Pentecostal circles used to be called as "testimony meeting." But that would be something other than the 2 or three who "prophesy."

Thanks for both your content and tone. When I have time to respond in detail I will.

[Evangelical]

I think the point SteVee is making is that in the "free churches", there is ample opportunity for people to prophesy if they wish to. Not so in most denominations.

In the free churches there are often long pauses and breaks in the meeting to allow the Spirit to move, so people have opportunity to speak. In denominational churches, a 10 minute break would be a disaster in terms of "running the service" and the pastor would be hurrying people up to take care of the microphone. Furthermore, in a denominational church, if one stands up during the service it would be counted as an unwanted disruption. In a pentecostal church, people cannot last 10 minutes without praying in tongues.

The liturgical denominations especially provide no opportunity. Many denominations do not even believe in prophesy (cessationists), or they believe in the version of prophesy which is more or else "fortune telling" or the sorts of prophecies that Nostradamus made.

the bible says:

1 Cor 14:1 eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy.

The purpose of prophesy is to build/edify the church:

1 Cor 14:3-4
But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort.
Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church.

Paul says "every one of you" should prophesy:

1 Cor 14:5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

Paul did not forbid them all prophesying, as long as it was done in an orderly way. The instruction of "two or three "prophesying was not to place a limit on the prophesying, but a way to limit the confusion and do things in an orderly way.

I don't know why anyone would want to limit the building and edification of the church by restricting the prophesying.

In the Recovery, not only are there breaks and opportunities to speak, but we dedicate a whole hour or more to the prophesying meeting. Denominational services which last 2 hours are padded with various performances and entertainment. They usually do not have dedicated time for prophesying.

[SteVee]

Great responses. Worthy of a thoughtful reply, and I'll try to do so later this week. One question I'll answer right away, though is your statement about "true" churches.

" For example, if you are going to use this as the model for all true churches would you then say that if all are not free to speak it is not a true church?"

If I said "true" church, I apologize. "Healthy" would be a better word.

The Lord Jesus Christ saves individuals and calls them to follow Him, and gather with others to - among many other things - encourage and be encouraged to follow Him. Careful personal Bible study with the intent of growing closer to Him in character, practice, attitude and ... (add many other descriptive phrases) is every disciples responsibility. Sharing what we learn, what sin we've been convicted of, what loving encouragement we've received from the Savior, what specific answer prayer we've received is spiritual exercise and edifies the body, encouraging other's to expect the reality of Christ in their lives.

It is easy, I might dare say normative, for church to become like a movie or concert that we attend, and afterward talk about (insert hobby, vocation or family circumstance here) without ever stirring one another up in the "most holy faith" or encouraging one another in love and good works. That isn't healthy.

In the kind of meeting I am speaking of - which is distinct from and does not replace a meeting where apostolic doctrine is taught - if the saints don't seek the Lord during the week, there is awkward silence. In fact there is a fair amount of prayerful silence as God impresses the mature and young to call for a hymn, to speak out in prayer, or to "prophesy" i.e. Speak revealed truth from the written Word of God, that has convicted or encouraged them. It is stunning, how different people - from older children to adults - can share anything from one verse, to a Two or three minute monologue, and without their corroboration, a theme arises that the Holy Spirit wants to communicate to the body. That type of interaction is spiritual exercise is as exciting as a highly specific answered prayer.

Both of you deserve a more careful Scriptural reply, not as an argument, but maybe as an iron sharpening iron exercise.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes that would be a contradiction wouldn't it. Would you say that Witness Lee believed the true church was invisible for 1700 years? I think he has made reference to various denominations being part of God's unique move, or "the Recovery".

This is where his theology was fuzzy and inconsistent.

Nee and Lee desired to define what a practical church was because they wanted to be able to claim their groups were indeed churches (and possibly so they could claim others were not). The problem is although they came up with a definition, it is not one the Bible defines, it is one manufactured by focusing on certain patterns in the Bible (local churches) and making them rules, while ignoring other patterns in the Bible (house churches, regional churches, and that the Bible does not clearly define what a "practical church" is, nor ever asks us to discern what one is).

Their advantage, if you want to call it that, is that they felt they could confidently claim their groups were churches and other groups were not. Their disadvantage was that they became strident and ultimately sectarian and even divisive.

They also became ultimately absurd. Lee probably wouldn't have said that the Church was not visible before the localism of his movement. Yet that was the upshot of his doctrines, because he claimed that the Church could only be expressed through local churches. Well, if the church can only be expressed through local churches, then that means without local church nothing of the Church could have been expressed.

So which was it? If the Church was seen before localism, then localism is not required to express the Church. But if localism is required to express the Church, then it was not seen before localism: ergo, no Church seen on earth for centuries.

This is know as reducio ad absurdum, taking an idea to its logical and absurd conclusion, and thus showing it to be most likely false.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We could put it down to human obstruction/failure, and the Lord has found a way to move unhindered.

You are basically saying that the new move was claimed after let's call it the "real" new move was over - or at least that period of LC history that people on here seem to recall as being mostly positive.

But then we are told that if our church is in a poor condition it is the Lord's will. A church in a poor condition does not mean it is not a true church.

So we could interpret those graphs as saying the Lord has not left the denominations at all, the condition of the church has no bearing on whether or not it is a genuine church.

The Bible tells us to discern teachings. It tells us to discern teachers and apostles. It tells us to discern spirits.

But what's interesting is the Bible never says nor implies that we should discern what is and isn't a church. Never.

There is no place in the NT where a writer talks about a "false church." Some churches are rebuked for being in error, but no group is ever directly or indirectly said to be "false."

I would say this is more evidence that the impulse to find some standard for deciding whether a group is or isn't a "church" is completely wrong-headed, and it exposes a huge error of the Local Church Movement.

To say that this group is church because they do this and this, and another isn't because they do that and that (assuming no gross sin) is not in keeping with the Lord's heart. I believe the Lord gives us neither the wisdom nor the commission to do that. And with good reason. If he did, then the back and forth claims of "you are not a church" would be never-ending and fatal to the Lord's testimony.

Fortunately, only tiny, fringe groups make such claims now. The RCC used to do it. How did that work out for the Lord, eh?

Sure, there has to be some point where a group of so-called Christians are so off-the-mark that they become no longer a church. But long before that point most real seekers would have left anyway, because the conditions which led to that ultimate losing of the lampstand would have already become blatantly obvious.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Bible tells us to discern teachings. It tells us to discern teachers and apostles. It tells us to discern spirits.

But what's interesting is the Bible never says nor implies that we should discern what is and isn't a church. Never.

There is no place in the NT where a writer talks about a "false church." Some churches are rebuked for being in error, but no group is ever directly or indirectly said to be "false."

I would say this is more evidence that the impulse to find some standard for deciding whether a group is or isn't a "church" is completely wrong-headed, and it exposes a huge error of the Local Church Movement.

To say that this group is church because they do this and this, and another isn't because they do that and that (assuming no gross sin) is not in keeping with the Lord's heart. I believe the Lord gives us neither the wisdom nor the commission to do that. And with good reason. If he did, then the back and forth claims of "you are not a church" would be never-ending and fatal to the Lord's testimony.

Fortunately, only tiny, fringe groups make such claims now. The RCC used to do it. How did that work out for the Lord, eh?

Sure, there has to be some point where a group of so-called Christians are so off-the-mark that they become no longer a church. But long before that point most real seekers would have left anyway, because the conditions which led to that ultimate losing of the lampstand would have already become blatantly obvious.

Igzy, excellent observations here.

Else Thyatira would never have received their letter.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Bible tells us to discern teachings. It tells us to discern teachers and apostles. It tells us to discern spirits.

But what's interesting is the Bible never says nor implies that we should discern what is and isn't a church. Never.

There is no place in the NT where a writer talks about a "false church." Some churches are rebuked for being in error, but no group is ever directly or indirectly said to be "false."

I would say this is more evidence that the impulse to find some standard for deciding whether a group is or isn't a "church" is completely wrong-headed, and it exposes a huge error of the Local Church Movement.

To say that this group is church because they do this and this, and another isn't because they do that and that (assuming no gross sin) is not in keeping with the Lord's heart. I believe the Lord gives us neither the wisdom nor the commission to do that. And with good reason. If he did, then the back and forth claims of "you are not a church" would be never-ending and fatal to the Lord's testimony.

Fortunately, only tiny, fringe groups make such claims now. The RCC used to do it. How did that work out for the Lord, eh?

Sure, there has to be some point where a group of so-called Christians are so off-the-mark that they become no longer a church. But long before that point most real seekers would have left anyway, because the conditions which led to that ultimate losing of the lampstand would have already become blatantly obvious.

The reason the bible does not talk about false churches is because at the time there was only one church per city.

There was only one church per town/city as even Christian evangelical websites recognize, such as gotquestions.org:

https://www.gotquestions.org/church-hopping.html

The early church consisted of small groups of Christians meeting in homes or in public places. There is no indication in Scripture that towns or cities had more than one group of believers meeting there.

So it would not make sense for Paul at the time to write about avoiding "false churches".

"Fortunately, only tiny, fringe groups make such claims now. The RCC used to do it. " - Used to?
see

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...icism.religion
"It is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to [Protestant communities]

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/comm...why-hes-wrong/

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Bible tells us to discern teachings. It tells us to discern teachers and apostles. It tells us to discern spirits.

But what's interesting is the Bible never says nor implies that we should discern what is and isn't a church. Never.

There is no place in the NT where a writer talks about a "false church." Some churches are rebuked for being in error, but no group is ever directly or indirectly said to be "false."

I would say this is more evidence that the impulse to find some standard for deciding whether a group is or isn't a "church" is completely wrong-headed, and it exposes a huge error of the Local Church Movement.

To say that this group is church because they do this and this, and another isn't because they do that and that (assuming no gross sin) is not in keeping with the Lord's heart. I believe the Lord gives us neither the wisdom nor the commission to do that. And with good reason. If he did, then the back and forth claims of "you are not a church" would be never-ending and fatal to the Lord's testimony.

Fortunately, only tiny, fringe groups make such claims now. The RCC used to do it. How did that work out for the Lord, eh?

Sure, there has to be some point where a group of so-called Christians are so off-the-mark that they become no longer a church. But long before that point most real seekers would have left anyway, because the conditions which led to that ultimate losing of the lampstand would have already become blatantly obvious.

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2Pet 2:1

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matt 7:15

And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. Matt 24:14

For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. Mark 13:22

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 2Cor 11:13

false brethren 2Cor 11:26

And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: Gal 2:4

Yes, we are told to beware of false prophets, false teachings, false brethren, being seduced by them and being brought into bondage by them. But how?

15*Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

It is very clear that the way to identify them, prescribed by the Lord is by their fruit.

False prophet + damnable heresy + false brethren + fruit of false prophet + bondage = false church / cult

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The reason the bible does not talk about false churches is because at the time there was only one church per city.

OMG, you can't make this stuff up.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The reason the bible does not talk about false churches is because at the time there was only one church per city.

There was only one church per town/city as even Christian evangelical websites recognize, such as gotquestions.org:

https://www.gotquestions.org/church-hopping.html

The early church consisted of small groups of Christians meeting in homes or in public places. There is no indication in Scripture that towns or cities had more than one group of believers meeting there.

That's not true at all. Both Rome and Colosse, for example, had more than one group of believers there.

These contradictions to Lee's church model have been cited repeatedly, yet you refuse to acknowledge these Scriptures.

John's Revelation seems to imply the one church one city model, yet when we study the rest of the N.T., that theory is not supported.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The reason the bible does not talk about false churches is because at the time there was only one church per city.

That is pure speculation. There were all kinds of groups back then. Where do you think all the strange writings like "The Shepherd of Hermas" and "The Gospel of Thomas" came from?

Paul said there were those who were preaching Christ to try to hurt him. He talked of the "super apostles" who obviously were in competition with him. Are you saying those apostles had no followers? Are you saying the apostles were in different groups and loyalties and the common believers were not? That makes no sense. How would you know this?

Again, it just seems you are seeing things the way you want to, without real evidence to support your conclusions.

I think it is possible that the reason Paul addressed his letters to the church in the city was not because there was only one church or group of Christians there, but because he didn't want to favor one over the other. He wanted to reach all the Christians. Sometimes he didn't even address "the church," as in Romans. There he just addressed the believers directly. He doesn't mention the "church in Rome."

In reality any group of believers is "the Church." You can't take that away from them.

And again, if you are going to base your beliefs on biblical patterns, you have to acknowledge that your practice of proclaiming who is a church and who isn't is not Biblical.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think it is possible that the reason Paul addressed his letters to the church in the city was not because there was only one church or group of Christians there, but because he didn't want to favor one over the other. He wanted to reach all the Christians. Sometimes he didn't even address "the church," as in Romans. There he just addressed the believers directly. He doesn't mention the "church in Rome."

That is an interesting concept. It would suggest that although there were many different meeting halls, homes, etc that there was still a fellowship that would allow the letter to be passed from one group to the next.

I would think that the idea of a large meeting hall for a hundred or more Christians is highly unlikely in a period where there is persecution, so by necessity they had to be "underground" in houses and small gatherings.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The reason the bible does not talk about false churches is because at the time there was only one church per city.

And once again, the intended conclusion is provided as the evidence that it is correct. A truly circular argument. Begging of the question at its finest.

Evidence that evidence is of no importance to those who argue in that manner. That reason is left at the door with their opinions and even their brains so that they will not be hindered by thinking.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

John's Revelation seems to imply the one church one city model, yet when we study the rest of the N.T., that theory is not supported.

But the only thing it clearly indicates is that the body of Christ was to be found in those cities. It does not define the "boundaries" of an assembly, or the manner in which it should be identified.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

But the only thing it clearly indicates is that the body of Christ was to be found in those cities. It does not define the "boundaries" of an assembly, or the manner in which it should be identified.

If you want to infer one church per city you can make that inference, but you have to understand this is an inferred teaching and not based on the black and white word.

So whereas there is a very clear word concerning Jesus coming in the flesh, or how to have the Lord's table meeting, or about the requirement to baptize, there is no such teaching on the boundaries of the city and how they relate to church administration.

Also, you might want to rethink or restate the part about the church being identified. Each letter gives very distinct description that would identify Laodicea from Philadelphia from Ephesus. It surely does tell you how to identify them.

To infer that these seven are representative of genuine churches throughout the age is, once again, an inferred teaching that is never given in black and white. To take that inference further and say that if your gathering does not fit one of these seven models it is not a genuine church would surely be unwarranted and without any real basis.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

To infer that these seven are representative of genuine churches throughout the age is, once again, an inferred teaching that is never given in black and white. To take that inference further and say that if your gathering does not fit one of these seven models it is not a genuine church would surely be unwarranted and without any real basis.

One of the craziest conclusions from these theories was to assume that Philadelphia -- brotherly love -- did NOT exist as a church until the Darby Brethren came along, with their endless anf fickle divisions I should add.

This was based on their ideal that no name was the right name, thus negating all manners of evil.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

One of the craziest conclusions from these theories was to assume that Philadelphia -- brotherly love -- did NOT exist as a church until the Darby Brethren came along, with their endless anf fickle divisions I should add.

This was based on their ideal that no name was the right name, thus negating all manners of evil.

That is what happens when you take create teachings based on shadows, types and allegories.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Also, you might want to rethink or restate the part about the church being identified. Each letter gives very distinct description that would identify Laodicea from Philadelphia from Ephesus. It surely does tell you how to identify them.

Actually, it gives a very distinct reference to the body of Christ as found in that city, the significance being that within that city there was found something noteworthy. Deeds of Nicolaitans, deep things of Satan, belief that they had the best and needed nothing, etc. And even those statements do not suppose that everyone in that city were mired in these problems. So there begins to be a question. If we understand things correctly, then the problems were not just a few on the side with issue, but more systemic problems seen in that area.

Whether it was within certain ones meeting separately from those who were noted as not going along with the error is never stated in any form. Yet you seem to talk about it as if the term church is simply synonymous with both a single assembly and the city in which that assembly is found. I find no such implication. The only reason that we ever thought it was that simple was because someone once said it was yet ever bothered to say why. I know that you do not subscribe to the inferred teaching of one church in a city, yet the rest of what you say concerning the letters in Revelation "infers" that it must be understood that way. If there is no church-city equivalence, then referring to the body of Christ (and not specific assemblies, whether singular or plural) in that city would be correct to call according to the city.

You wouldn't write to the Baptists who are in Dallas if you meant to cover all the believers. You would write to the church in Dallas (not to be confused with the group meeting on Meandering Way and using that as their name). The church in Dallas, as the body of Christ, is composed of many Christians who meet in many assemblies that have various names of all kinds. There is no conflict in this.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

To infer that these seven are representative of genuine churches . . . .

I'll stop the quote there. I do not disagree (much) with what you wrote. But this term "genuine church" is problematic. It presumes that a gathering of Christians for the purpose of teaching, worship, etc., can be "not genuine" and therefore not really church. I realize that there is a "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" that we generally consider to not be a church because it does not hold that Jesus is God and is the source of salvation. And there a some others. But when discussing the LRC, Baptists, Methodists, AOG, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, various other evangelical, Pentecostal or free groups, or even Catholics, if we insert "genuine" into the discussion, we are implying that some of those are not churches in the sense of assemblies collecting together the Christ-believing, Christ-following members of that body.

It is mostly brought into the conversations to differentiate and marginalize. Much like the "c" word recently discussed. "Not genuine" is an unfounded overlay onto the body of Christ that marginalizes and demeans brothers and sisters in Christ.

Jesus prayed that we would be one. Those who find ways to dismiss others are exercised to see to it that only they count and their lack of being one with others can instead be transformed into the only true oneness.

[countmeworthy]

I have a question for those who were or are more enveloped in "the Unique Move of God" than I ever was.

In the 70s, the 'leading brothers' were called 'elders' not pastors. Elders is an OT word.

Yet, PAUL describes certain offices in Ephesians 4:11
Prophets,
Evangelists,
Pastors,
Teachers

He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

In other letters we read about bishops (overseers) and deacons (ministers)

No blended brothers are mentioned in the scriptures though

Did Lee ever give any reason why those offices mentioned in the bible were ignored by him and possibly Nee? They ARE in the scriptures after all.

Personally, I think naming these offices invited the religious 'spirits'. The RCC has bishops as do some denominations. Pastors, prophets, evangelists and teachers. These 'offices' ended up elevating man.


2nd question
How did Lee explain the many mansions mentioned in John 14:2
In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Thanks in advance

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

2nd question
How did Lee explain the many mansions mentioned in John 14:2
In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Thanks in advance

Mansions make no sense in the translation. How does the Father's house contain many "mansions?" The proper translation should be literally "places to stay", i.e. "rooms, dwelling places, abodes, resting places, habitats, lodgings, etc." The word "mansion" (and I'm not sure what this word once meant in the Shakespearean English of the early 17th century) comes from Greek "monai" which root is from Greek "mone."

The KJV translation of "mansions," or even "manor or manse," partly transliterates this Greek word into English, but wrongly connotes large, private, individual homes for each believer for the future only.

Little Kittel (p.582): "In the NT the word occurs only twice in John. In 14.2 it denotes the abiding dwelling (in contrast with our transitory earthly state) that Christ prepares for His people in His Father's house. In 14.23, however,the abode is on earth, for Christ and the Father will come to believers and make their home with them... In both of these verses, the reference is individual rather than universal or eschatological. Salvation consists of union with God and Christ through their dwelling in believers and their taking believers to dwell in them. The "mone" brings out the indestructibility of the union."

This means, in part, that our "mansion" in the Father's house is both today and forever, and is not physical, but spiritual in nature.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I have a question for those who were or are more enveloped in "the Unique Move of God" than I ever was.

In the 70s, the 'leading brothers' were called 'elders' not pastors. Elders is an OT word.

Yet, PAUL describes certain offices in Ephesians 4:11
Prophets,
Evangelists,
Pastors,
Teachers

He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

In other letters we read about bishops (overseers) and deacons (ministers)

No blended brothers are mentioned in the scriptures though

Did Lee ever give any reason why those offices mentioned in the bible were ignored by him and possibly Nee? They ARE in the scriptures after all.

Personally, I think naming these offices invited the religious 'spirits'. The RCC has bishops as do some denominations. Pastors, prophets, evangelists and teachers. These 'offices' ended up elevating man.





2nd question
How did Lee explain the many mansions mentioned in John 14:2
In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Thanks in advance

In Ephesians 4:11 the grammatical construction for the word describing pastors (shepherds) and teachers are one function - those who "teach and shepherd".

So there are really 4 kinds of persons:
Apostles
Prophets,
Evangelists,
Pastors (Shepherds/Teachers)

Christianity takes it heritage from Judaism that is why the terminology "elders" for presbuteros carried over from Old testament to New Testament. In Scripture the role of presbuteros is not well defined, only defined are the episcopos and the diakonos. The presbuteros is thought to be leading men, who are spiritually older and more mature. Hence, the "leading brothers" is an appropriate term for the presbuteros. If we want to be particular about names, in the LC there are really no terms for the episcopos or the diakonos.

The view of Lee/Nee was that the offices were never intended to be official positions in the church, but a matter of function and calling. e.g. pastors are those who perform the function of shepherding and teaching. The LC sees them as functions (things people do) not as particular offices or positions to hold. The LC also believes that all believers are priests, all can prophesy, all can be an evangelist or a pastor.

The concept of particular people holding certain office or position in the church such as the Prophets of the old testament, ceased when the New Testament came about.

I see it like this. There is really only one gift God gives us- the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13), and all gifts and functions are a result of the one gift. That is, anyone with the gift of the Spirit can operate in any of the 4 or 5 gifts as the Spirit wills. There is really no such thing in the bible of a person operating in only one of the gifts for their entire life (e.g. the apostle Paul, also functioned as a pastor, evangelist, prophet, miracle worker etc). A person who the Spirit uses to operate in one of the gifts more than others might be known or recognized according to that gift (e.g. a person who evangelizes much might be known as an evangelist, but this is not to say that the same person cannot teach in a church).

John 14:2 - many mansions or better - abodes.
The Father's house is the body of Christ, the temple, God's dwelling place. God's dwelling place is mankind, or us - Revelation 21:2..Therefore we are the many abodes of the Father/Son.

Lee/Nee did not believe that "the Father's house" or the New Jerusalem is a physical city as in a building. It is a metaphor to describe God's people. Just like the metaphor "temple" is used to describe our bodies (we are temples of the Spirit etc).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

That is pure speculation. There were all kinds of groups back then. Where do you think all the strange writings like "The Shepherd of Hermas" and "The Gospel of Thomas" came from?

Paul said there were those who were preaching Christ to try to hurt him. He talked of the "super apostles" who obviously were in competition with him. Are you saying those apostles had no followers? Are you saying the apostles were in different groups and loyalties and the common believers were not? That makes no sense. How would you know this?

Again, it just seems you are seeing things the way you want to, without real evidence to support your conclusions.

I think it is possible that the reason Paul addressed his letters to the church in the city was not because there was only one church or group of Christians there, but because he didn't want to favor one over the other. He wanted to reach all the Christians. Sometimes he didn't even address "the church," as in Romans. There he just addressed the believers directly. He doesn't mention the "church in Rome."

In reality any group of believers is "the Church." You can't take that away from them.

And again, if you are going to base your beliefs on biblical patterns, you have to acknowledge that your practice of proclaiming who is a church and who isn't is not Biblical.

I do not think that Paul was writing to "all kinds of groups" including the "super apostles" just in the hope that it might reach one or two genuine believers in their midst.

It seems to me that he wrote to specific households and individuals by name (see Romans 16:5), as if to single out the assemblies which he knew to be genuine assemblies. This is why Paul says greetings to this house and greetings to such and such in that house. Paul is not extending those greetings to the churches that he knows to be false.

If there was an assembly at the time lead by a "super apostle" , those who are against Paul's writings, I think it would be easy for the churches faithful to Paul to know that and avoid them. Rather than pretend they are all in unity and part of the common faith.

Writing to everyone including the churches of the super apostles and those holding erroneous beliefs just doesn't seem like a common sense thing to do. Particularly when elsewhere the bible says to avoid or have nothing to do with such people.

I find this blog to be particularly insightful by an Associate Professor in the Humanities Division at York University in Toronto
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/20...corinth-nt-28/

Paul’s relations with various groups of Christians at Corinth had its ups and downs, but mostly downs it seems. In the time leading up to his writing of what we call 1 Corinthians (actually at least his second letter to them — see 1 Cor 5:9), there were divisions among different groups meeting in different homes, and there were also divisions between those who, in Paul’s view, thought they were superior either socially or spiritually. Some wealthier members with time for leisure were arriving early for the Lord’s supper and consuming all the better food and wine before the arrival of the lower class Christians who had to work for a living (11:17-34). Some Corinthians who felt they had a special connection with things spiritual were viewing their ability to receive divine messages in the form of seemingly nonsensical languages (“tongues”) as a sign of superiority over those who did not receive such messages (12-14). Some other Corinthians, like the woman Chloe, who was likely a leader, were concerned about the situation and communicated this to Paul by messenger (1:11).


This blog by this professor (who to my knowledge has nothing to do with Lee/Nee) seems to paint a picture like we believe - one church per city consisting of various groups who should not have de-name-iated themselves, and Paul writing to try and get them to all stay together (at least, the genuine ones, non-genuine ones ,say Gnostic groups, I doubt Paul would ask them to come together in unity).

As it implies Paul considered all of the believers in Corinth as part of the one church. No where does Paul address the various groups in a denominational way (the group of super apostle such and such). Paul was writing against divisions between different groups meeting in different homes. No one of those groups were said to be a particular denomination, they were simply different meetings of the one church in the city which did not consider themselves to be separate organizations and institutions like we see today (Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican etc).

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As it implies Paul considered all of the believers in Corinth as part of the one church. No where does Paul address the various groups in a denominational way (the group of super apostle such and such).

And if he were alive to today and wrote to the church in your city, he might address the letter in the same way. But in doing that, he would not be calling any particular group "the church" and the others "not the church." You say he did not address them in a denominational way. However you acknowledge that they were not all meeting together, yet were all part of the church in Corinth.

And what he described in terms of the divisions was something very acrimonious, not like the situation among the denominations today. In fact, it would appear that the group you hold so dear as the "one true church" is the one that displays the most acrimony concerning other groups, calling them harlots, mooing cows, and more. I admit that there have been individuals in years past who did things like that. But that is not the general state among churches today. It is your blindness to the forced division created by your own group as you denigrate everyone for merely "having a name."

He charged the Corinthians with having fights over which teacher each group was following. You won't find such in today's landscape. We admit that we do not see eye-to-eye on everything, but do not denigrate others for their honest stance before God.

Can you say the same about your group? The answer is "no." They not only demand that everyone follow their way (which precludes there being any other group within a city where they already are) but also that they get in line with their teachings and ways. If you say that last statement is false, then why are individuals and even entire churches excised from your numbers for such failure? While the status of the "lampstand" was threatened in a case or two, for all the failings of the churches in the cities written to in Revelation, none were referred to as "genuine," "not genuine," or "false." They were all churches.

Do you really think that the situation in the denominations today is worse than what was described in Thyatira? A place that was still represented as having a church.

In those pesky denominations, if someone is wanting to teach in a different way than what the group prefers, they don't excommunicate them. But they might suggest that they would be happier and freer to follow the Lord as they understand it if they joined group C or D. Harmony is maintained in both groups and all can follow Christ without interference. Not the same where you are. You would exile them from all fellowship (since you consider the "fellowship" of other groups to not be genuine church) for merely failing to teach your way or for writing materials not approved by your denominational headquarters.

And you cannot avoid the fact that the LRC is a denomination. Its leaders are chosen by a headquarters. They are required to have certain meetings that are directed as to all content, including which songs to sing, by that headquarters. If someone feels the urge to write something for the benefit of the people, it can only be published if that headquarters approves it. And they declare that if you are not part of them, you are effectively not in the church, but are cut off from the church.

If you want to say that denominations are all about the name, then why is the format of the name important? You claim you have no name, but there has been more than one lawsuit to retrieve the name from the existing group when they no longer followed the edicts from the headquarters. Those lawsuits cannot be claimed to be erroneous and done only by the locals because LSM and/or DCP supported their efforts. And in at least one case, when the group no longer followed the headquarters, a small minority split off and file suit to retrieve the very meeting hall property from the main group. Again, supported by the headquarters through LSM and/or DCP.

And you say it is not a denomination. Just fall on your sword and get it over with. The magical formula of the true church does not exist. The garlic room was never somewhere else, but within you own walls. It took years to get the stench off of my clothes.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't know why anyone would want to limit the building and edification of the church by restricting the prophesying.

In the Recovery, not only are there breaks and opportunities to speak, but we dedicate a whole hour or more to the prophesying meeting. Denominational services which last 2 hours are padded with various performances and entertainment. They usually do not have dedicated time for prophesying.

There definitely should be oversight by "responsible brothers" during prophesying. Key word should be edification. If any restrictions, it should be restricting non-edifying prophesying.
When you put other Christians down, to puff up the ministry you're receiving, that's not edifying. I've seen happen too often in prophesying meetings.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't know why anyone would want to limit the building and edification of the church by restricting the prophesying.

I cannot say that it is a bad thing to do that.

But it is not something prescribed in the scripture. So the fact that so many do not practice it is hardly unexpected. It is not the observed practice.

And it stands opposed to the limits that Paul actually put on the Corinthians concerning several practices, including "prophesying."

So, as Terry suggests, it needs oversight. And it is probably somewhat of a spiritual risk to make it such a regular and even major thing in your meetings. It is quite possible that the most significant "edifying" (meaning "building up") that is going on is the building up of personal emotions and sense of self worth (as opposed to worth in Christ) from engaging in the practice. In other words, the "edifying" may not be spiritual, but fleshly.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I do not think that Paul was writing to "all kinds of groups" including the "super apostles" just in the hope that it might reach one or two genuine believers in their midst.

Paul wrote to the church in a city. By definition that means he wrote to every Christian in a city.

Exactly what that meant--whether he was writing to some "proper church" subset which represented the church (the LCM view), or to the church at large (my view)--WE CANNOT KNOW. You don't know for sure, nor do I. I have my opinion, you have yours. But that's all we have--opinions.

And since we cannot know, your and the LCM's insistence on adhering to the stricter interpretation is unreasonable, and even irrational. When you don't know for sure you must give way to the more general denominator. Anything else is sectarian and divisive.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In Ephesians 4:11 the grammatical construction for the word describing pastors (shepherds) and teachers are one function - those who "teach and shepherd".

So there are really 4 kinds of persons:
Apostles
Prophets,
Evangelists,
Pastors (Shepherds/Teachers)

Christianity takes it heritage from Judaism that is why the terminology "elders" for presbuteros carried over from Old testament to New Testament.

Lee/Nee did not believe that "the Father's house" or the New Jerusalem is a physical city as in a building. It is a metaphor to describe God's people. Just like the metaphor "temple" is used to describe our bodies (we are temples of the Spirit etc).

Thanks for your comments first and foremost.
I have another question for you and everyone here. But since you specifically said Christianity takes it heritage from Judaism that is why the terminology "elders" for presbuteros carried over from Old testament to New Testament.

Do you consider the LC/LSM as part of Christianity? I ask because by and large the denominations don't have elders on the pulpit. The only religious organization that has elders is LDS. I don't know if the LC/LSM still consider the 'leading brothers' elders as they did back in the 70s but that is what the leading brothers were called: ELDERS. And yes it is taken from the OT which is curious because the LC/LSM strongly supported Paul's teachings. In Ephesians Paul does not mention Elders in describing what the Pentecostals call the '5 fold ministry'.

It is my opinion and that is all that it is, that Paul opened up a can of worms when he mentions them in 4:11

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

I don't understand why he had to give them titles if as you said (and I also believe btw) they are merely types of persons.

I know for sure in the 70s Lee was considered the apostle of the age.

So Lee was ok with calling himself or having others call him 'the apostle of the age' and he was ok for the leading brothers to be called 'elders' but he threw out the window the words 'pastors (shepherds), prophets, evangelists, teachers.

Food for thought. Food for thought.

Next.
If the Holy city New Jerusalem is simply a metaphor, then God sitting on a throne, a physical Kingly chair is also a metaphor. Streets of Gold is also then a metaphor. Fruit that people eat as seen in the book of Revelation are also a metaphor. The Tree of Life, the River of Life is also a metaphor by your definition. Is this correct?

On the one hand the Holy City New Jerusalem is a city with streets of gold (Revelation 21:21) and on the other hand she is the Bride of Christ.

Again.. simply food for thought.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Paul wrote to the church in a city. By definition that means he wrote to every Christian in a city.

Exactly what that meant--whether he was writing to some "proper church" subset which represented the church (the LCM view), or to the church at large (my view)--WE CANNOT KNOW. You don't know for sure, nor do I. I have my opinion, you have yours. But that's all we have--opinions.

And since we cannot know, your and the LCM's insistence on adhering to the stricter interpretation is unreasonable, and even irrational. When you don't know for sure you must give way to the more general denominator. Anything else is sectarian and divisive.

Romans
7To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:

This is clearly the church at large.

1Corinth
2To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:

Again, this is clearly the church at large.

2Corinth
To the church of God in Corinth, together with all his holy people throughout Achaia:

Perhaps this is closer to being written to some "proper church" while also being written to the "church at large".

Galatians
To the churches in Galatia:

This is the closest to being written to some "proper churches" but then it is also plural.

Ephesians
To God’s holy people in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus:

This is clearly written to the "church at large"

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Thanks for your comments first and foremost.
I have another question for you and everyone here. But since you specifically said Christianity takes it heritage from Judaism that is why the terminology "elders" for presbuteros carried over from Old testament to New Testament.

Do you consider the LC/LSM as part of Christianity? I ask because by and large the denominations don't have elders on the pulpit. The only religious organization that has elders is LDS. I don't know if the LC/LSM still consider the 'leading brothers' elders as they did back in the 70s but that is what the leading brothers were called: ELDERS. And yes it is taken from the OT which is curious because the LC/LSM strongly supported Paul's teachings. In Ephesians Paul does not mention Elders in describing what the Pentecostals call the '5 fold ministry'.

It is my opinion and that is all that it is, that Paul opened up a can of worms when he mentions them in 4:11
I don't understand why he had to give them titles if as you said (and I also believe btw) they are merely types of persons.

I know for sure in the 70s Lee was considered the apostle of the age.

So Lee was ok with calling himself or having others call him 'the apostle of the age' and he was ok for the leading brothers to be called 'elders' but he threw out the window the words 'pastors (shepherds), prophets, evangelists, teachers.

Food for thought. Food for thought.

At this point I should explain that the bible reveals a distinction between God's work and church administration. The '5 fold ministry' is related to God's spiritual work. A person who operates in one of the 5 fold gifts is equipped for doing God's spiritual work. Not one of those 5-fold gifts is for practical administration. That is, there is no such thing as a spiritual gift for managing finances or running a church bank account.

The role of an elder is for practical administration of the church, e.g. finances, parking spaces, helping people deal with personal problems etc. This role requires spiritual maturity - wisdom etc rather than a spiritual gift. A person may be a gifted evangelist and save many people but they may be terrible at managing finances or listening to people's problems, so they are unsuited to be an elder. 1 Tim 3:1-2 describes the requirements of an elder.

In the bible we find the apostles appointed elders in each church:
Acts 14:23 "Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church"

No where does the bible say that an apostle, pastor, prophet, evangelist or teacher was appointed in each church. This is where some "5-fold" churches which focus on appointing Apostles, Prophets etc (capital letters) as positions in the church have got it wrong.

It is possible for a person to be involved in church administration as an elder only, or God's work only (as one of the 5-fold), or both church administration and God's work. For example, Peter was an apostle and also an elder in Jerusalem. If Peter was travelling and spreading the Good Word, then he was doing God's work as an apostle/evangelist. If Peter was at home in Jerusalem, then he was dealing with the practical matters of church administration.

The "5 fold ministry" is related to God's spiritual work and the elders is related to the church administration. It is possible for a person to be involved in both, it is possible for an elder to function as a teacher "from the pulpit".

This distinction is also seen in the churhces which have both pastors adn elders - like presbyterians/baptists. Normally the elders perform church administration roles, and the pastor will perform God's Work by conducting church services, teaching, evangelism, etc. The pastor may also be an elder. Elders are normally spiritually mature and well-regarded members of the congregation, who may not have a pastoral degree or theological qualification. A pastor however must normally have a degree and qualification of some kind.

In the local churches, like the Brethren churches, we do not have pastors or pulpits, so we just have elders. If an elder teaches God's Word in the meeting, then they are functioning as teachers. If they travel and spread the gospel, they are functioning as evangelists.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Next.
If the Holy city New Jerusalem is simply a metaphor, then God sitting on a throne, a physical Kingly chair is also a metaphor. Streets of Gold is also then a metaphor. Fruit that people eat as seen in the book of Revelation are also a metaphor. The Tree of Life, the River of Life is also a metaphor by your definition. Is this correct?

On the one hand the Holy City New Jerusalem is a city with streets of gold (Revelation 21:21) and on the other hand she is the Bride of Christ.

Again.. simply food for thought.

I believe that the New Jerusalem is symbolic for the church. The bible refers to the church as the Bride of Christ (in preparation), and it says New Jerusalem comes down like a bride prepared for her husband. So if we put two and two together, we, the church, are the New Jerusalem. The alternative viewpoint is that God has prepared a very nice physical city for His people to live in, but I consider this unlikely.

I think it is unlikely to be a physical building when considering that God did not create a house for Adam and Eve or tell Adam and Eve to build houses and cities. The description of the New Earth parallels that of the old - with the tree of life, the river, etc. In the future, when there is no more death, sin, or violence, then houses or cities for comfort and protection will not be necessary. Wherever all the people of God are gathered together in the open air, that will be the New Jerusalem. Jesus feeding the crowd of 5000 people in the open air, paints a similar picture. Jesus himself also spent a lot of time in open air spaces, with his disciples. In the Old Testament, God himself preferred to dwell in a simple tent among his people rather than a grand building. In the future New Earth there will also be no need for privacy and security, so buildings will not be necessary.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Paul wrote to the church in a city. By definition that means he wrote to every Christian in a city.

Exactly what that meant--whether he was writing to some "proper church" subset which represented the church (the LCM view), or to the church at large (my view)--WE CANNOT KNOW. You don't know for sure, nor do I. I have my opinion, you have yours. But that's all we have--opinions.

And since we cannot know, your and the LCM's insistence on adhering to the stricter interpretation is unreasonable, and even irrational. When you don't know for sure you must give way to the more general denominator. Anything else is sectarian and divisive.

As Paul was an apostle called to minister to God's people then yes he wrote to every Christian in the city. But had he known of a particular false teacher for example, gnostic, or otherwise, I very much doubt he would have intended the letter for them or any group of such people (aka a wicked or pagan organization like the Roman Catholic church). I also very much doubt that Paul would have instructed a heretical sect of Christians to try and maintain unity with an orthodox sect. Paul would have followed his own advice which was to
1 Cor 5:13 "Purge the evil person from among you".

Paul's instruction to purge evil people from among them, proves that there must have been a genuine "true church" at the time. Also in John:

2 John 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Terry

There definitely should be oversight by "responsible brothers" during prophesying. Key word should be edification. If any restrictions, it should be restricting non-edifying prophesying.
When you put other Christians down, to puff up the ministry you're receiving, that's not edifying. I've seen happen too often in prophesying meetings.

There is oversight. Who said there wasn't? If someone is speaking too long or waffling then the leading brother will politely ask them to finish soon. If someone is speaking bad things then they will be corrected. I've seen some come to the defense of others in the meeting. Not everyone is speaking negative things.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

I cannot say that it is a bad thing to do that.

But it is not something prescribed in the scripture. So the fact that so many do not practice it is hardly unexpected. It is not the observed practice.

And it stands opposed to the limits that Paul actually put on the Corinthians concerning several practices, including "prophesying."

So, as Terry suggests, it needs oversight. And it is probably somewhat of a spiritual risk to make it such a regular and even major thing in your meetings. It is quite possible that the most significant "edifying" (meaning "building up") that is going on is the building up of personal emotions and sense of self worth (as opposed to worth in Christ) from engaging in the practice. In other words, the "edifying" may not be spiritual, but fleshly.

The oversight is provided by the leading brothers in many cases. Many a time a leading brother has stood up and requested that we prophesy in a certain way, or to clarify something someone has said.

Anything can be fleshly and not spiritual, I think we all know how much focus Lee put on one being in their spirit and not in their mind/flesh. So your concern is shared but also well understood and your concern sounds more like something Lee would say. If it should happen, I don't see anything wrong with building up one's emotions and sense of self-worth by sharing their experiences with others. God treasures us very highly and so I don't think self-abasement is necessarily a good thing. I still think this is a better situation than a church which muzzles its congregation. The solution to the problem of people speaking from their flesh is not to stop people from speaking. And sometimes it is not so cut and dry. For example, a person may speak something very much from Christ for 30 seconds and then at the end tell a funny joke which gets them back to the flesh. Or they may start in their flesh and then the Spirit takes over.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

And if he were alive to today and wrote to the church in your city, he might address the letter in the same way. But in doing that, he would not be calling any particular group "the church" and the others "not the church." You say he did not address them in a denominational way. However you acknowledge that they were not all meeting together, yet were all part of the church in Corinth.

And what he described in terms of the divisions was something very acrimonious, not like the situation among the denominations today. In fact, it would appear that the group you hold so dear as the "one true church" is the one that displays the most acrimony concerning other groups, calling them harlots, mooing cows, and more. I admit that there have been individuals in years past who did things like that. But that is not the general state among churches today. It is your blindness to the forced division created by your own group as you denigrate everyone for merely "having a name."

He charged the Corinthians with having fights over which teacher each group was following. You won't find such in today's landscape. We admit that we do not see eye-to-eye on everything, but do not denigrate others for their honest stance before God.

Can you say the same about your group? The answer is "no." They not only demand that everyone follow their way (which precludes there being any other group within a city where they already are) but also that they get in line with their teachings and ways. If you say that last statement is false, then why are individuals and even entire churches excised from your numbers for such failure? While the status of the "lampstand" was threatened in a case or two, for all the failings of the churches in the cities written to in Revelation, none were referred to as "genuine," "not genuine," or "false." They were all churches.

Do you really think that the situation in the denominations today is worse than what was described in Thyatira? A place that was still represented as having a church.

In those pesky denominations, if someone is wanting to teach in a different way than what the group prefers, they don't excommunicate them. But they might suggest that they would be happier and freer to follow the Lord as they understand it if they joined group C or D. Harmony is maintained in both groups and all can follow Christ without interference. Not the same where you are. You would exile them from all fellowship (since you consider the "fellowship" of other groups to not be genuine church) for merely failing to teach your way or for writing materials not approved by your denominational headquarters.

And you cannot avoid the fact that the LRC is a denomination. Its leaders are chosen by a headquarters. They are required to have certain meetings that are directed as to all content, including which songs to sing, by that headquarters. If someone feels the urge to write something for the benefit of the people, it can only be published if that headquarters approves it. And they declare that if you are not part of them, you are effectively not in the church, but are cut off from the church.

If you want to say that denominations are all about the name, then why is the format of the name important? You claim you have no name, but there has been more than one lawsuit to retrieve the name from the existing group when they no longer followed the edicts from the headquarters. Those lawsuits cannot be claimed to be erroneous and done only by the locals because LSM and/or DCP supported their efforts. And in at least one case, when the group no longer followed the headquarters, a small minority split off and file suit to retrieve the very meeting hall property from the main group. Again, supported by the headquarters through LSM and/or DCP.

And you say it is not a denomination. Just fall on your sword and get it over with. The magical formula of the true church does not exist. The garlic room was never somewhere else, but within you own walls. It took years to get the stench off of my clothes.

If there is no true church (batch of dough), then why does the bible warn against the leaven? (Galatians 5:9)

If there is no true church then why is Paul giving instructions to preserve it?:

1 Cor 5:13 "Purge the evil person from among you".

2 John 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them.

The denominations are like a dough which has already been leavened! We cannot remove the leaven once it is already permeated the dough! The only solution is to throw it out and start again.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If there is no true church (batch of dough), then why does the bible warn against the leaven? (Galatians 5:9)

If there is no true church then why is Paul giving instructions to preserve it?:

The subject of this thread is not whether not the church can become corrupted and may need to takes steps to purify itself.

The subject of this thread is whether or not one group should consider itself the "true church" while discrediting all others, and whether or not one movement should consider itself the "unique move of God" while discrediting all others.

Let's stick to the subject.

I maintain that the LCM is grossly in error by making the above claims. The Bible records gives us no ground to decide whether some group is or is not a church. And it certainly gives no ground for a movement to consider itself the unique representatives of the unique move of God.

Check church history and find one subset of the church which claimed the above and were proven by history to be right. No. Every group which made such self-serving claims ended up either dropping them or becoming irrelevant.

What you tend to do, Evangelical, is equivocate. You go back and forth between claiming a church has become corrupt to claiming it is not a church. But clearly the Bible shows that being a church does not mean practical perfection. Thyatira was in bad shape. Yet the Lord addressed it as church. This does not mean we should be apathetic about corruption. It just means, and I'll say it again, that we should be very careful about claiming to know what are churches and what aren't.

Make the call for holiness and purity all you want. I'll back you up on that. But stop the business of claiming to know which are churches and what aren't. You don't.

[Cal]

I maintain that LCM's standards of what is a church are not intended to achieve the goal of us all being one happy family on the ground of oneness. The LCM's standards are intended to reserve for themselves alone the status of "church."

The LCM claims to want all Christians in a city to meet together in oneness. But actually they would be terrified if that actually happened. Because if all the Christians in a city joined together, the tiny minority that wished to follow Witness Lee would be swallowed up by the majority.

If 95% of the Christians decided to drop all names and just meet together and follow a coalitions of leaders it would probably look like just a typical 21st-century community church, albeit a very large one. But they most likely would not follow Witness Lee or Watchman Nee. The certainly wouldn't follow the Blended Brothers.

The tiny Lee-loyal-LCM-faction would then find an excuse to break off from the majority, concocting some excuse as to why the much larger group was "off." And it would be business as usual for them, as they resumed their song-and-dance about being the unique, proper testimony, albeit their hypocrisy would be evident to all and their journey to irrelevancy would be complete.

No, the last thing the LCM really wants is for all the Christians in cites to meet as the church in those cities.

It would mean the end of the LCM.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The subject of this thread is not whether not the church can become corrupted and may need to takes steps to purify itself.

The subject of this thread is whether or not one group should consider itself the "true church" while discrediting all others, and whether or not one movement should consider itself the "unique move of God" while discrediting all others.

Let's stick to the subject.

I maintain that the LCM is grossly in error by making the above claims. The Bible records gives us no ground to decide whether some group is or is not a church. And it certainly gives no ground for a movement to consider itself the unique representatives of the unique move of God.

Check church history and find one subset of the church which claimed the above and were proven by history to be right. No. Every group which made such self-serving claims ended up either dropping them or becoming irrelevant.

What you tend to do, Evangelical, is equivocate. You go back and forth between claiming a church has become corrupt to claiming it is not a church. But clearly the Bible shows that being a church does not mean practical perfection. Thyatira was in bad shape. Yet the Lord addressed it as church. This does not mean we should be apathetic about corruption. It just means, and I'll say it again, that we should be very careful about claiming to know what are churches and what aren't.

Make the call for holiness and purity all you want. I'll back you up on that. But stop the business of claiming to know which are churches and what aren't. You don't.

OK back on topic. I wish to address the part you highlighted in bold about Thyatira. What you said is my point exactly. We do not distinguish between a genuine church and a false church based upon its level of perfection. We distinguish on the basis that the Lord addressed it as a single entity and not as a collection of churches/sects/sub-groups. This is what we mean by the genuine/true church. The church in Thyatira was a genuine church. No other group in Thyatira could claim to be "the church in Thyatira" while holding onto a denominational name. Any group which wishes to identify itself as merely a sub-group of "the church" in the city is clearly a division/sect, regardless of its condition.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OK back on topic. I wish to address the part you highlighted in bold about Thyatira. What you said is my point exactly. We do not distinguish between a genuine church and a false church based upon its level of perfection. We distinguish on the basis that the Lord addressed it as a single entity and not as a collection of churches. This is what we mean by the genuine/true church. Any group which wishes to identify itself as merely a sub-group of "the church" in the city is clearly a division/sect, regardless of its condition.

There is no such directive or clarity in the Bible about this matter, and there is legitimate evidence against it. Paul addressed churches in houses. Those could legitimately be viewed as subgroups of the larger church in the city.

Every practical church is a subset of the larger Church. It is not a matter of whether groups "wish" to identify themselves as subgroups, the fact is every practical group IS a subgroup, whether they wish it or not.

Your argument is circular. You begin with the assumption that the only legitimate churches are local, then proceed from there. But you don't have enough Biblical backing to even make that assumption, and so your argument collapses under its own weight. That is why no appreciable percentage of Christians take it seriously.

Simply put, reasonable doubt wrecks your case.

There is not a good enough Biblical argument for what you claim to be true. Therefore insisting on it works the opposite of what you claim to want. It works division.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OK back on topic. I wish to address the part you highlighted in bold about Thyatira. What you said is my point exactly. We do not distinguish between a genuine church and a false church based upon its level of perfection. We distinguish on the basis that the Lord addressed it as a single entity and not as a collection of churches/sects/sub-groups. This is what we mean by the genuine/true church. The church in Thyatira was a genuine church. No other group in Thyatira could claim to be "the church in Thyatira" while holding onto a denominational name. Any group which wishes to identify itself as merely a sub-group of "the church" in the city is clearly a division/sect, regardless of its condition.

We have repeatedly advised you of a church in Romans (16.19) and a church in Colosse (4.15) which Paul greeted in his letters, and obviously addressed in his letter as a 'sub-group" of the one church in that respective city.

Yet you either ignore these situations or claim they do not exist.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OK back on topic. I wish to address the part you highlighted in bold about Thyatira. What you said is my point exactly. We do not distinguish between a genuine church and a false church based upon its level of perfection. We distinguish on the basis that the Lord addressed it as a single entity and not as a collection of churches/sects/sub-groups. This is what we mean by the genuine/true church. The church in Thyatira was a genuine church. No other group in Thyatira could claim to be "the church in Thyatira" while holding onto a denominational name. Any group which wishes to identify itself as merely a sub-group of "the church" in the city is clearly a division/sect, regardless of its condition.

You say, "No other group in Thyatira could claim to be "the church in Thyatira" while holding onto a denominational name," but are these not two issues?

One is an unapproved name, at least by Anaheim's standards. The other is a denomination, which has the demands of a controlling headquarters.

Firstly, the Bible does not consistently use any specific name for the church, contrary to your formulae. Secondly, TLR is clearly the headquarters for every member LC around the globe. It is so disingenuous to condemn others as "illegitimate and divisive denominations" when you are no different.

[Cal]

Almost by definition, matters which we should be one on should be things that are obvious to most reasonable Christians.

Demonstrably the local ground does not meet that requirement, to say the least.

Ask yourself, if the local ground was so crucial to God's plan, why would this point be something so obscure that almost no Christians have agreed with it and something which they likely could never reach agreement on going forward?

This is one reason I say the LCM really doesn't want everyone to meet on the ground of the city. Because if they did the LCM would be over. They really just want to use the local ground as a way to claim legitimacy for themselves and deny it to others.

Imagine if a group said that to be the true church all members must wear green caps with purple and yellow slinkys hanging from them. All the members of that group wear such caps and claim that those groups that don't are not true churches.

But they have a dirty little secret. They really think that no one else will come to wear the caps, and so they will get to continue being the only ones doing things right and being the true church. Their "uniqueness" is secured, they believe.

But one day, to their shock, most of the other Christians in the city start wearing green caps with purple and yellow slinkys. The group didn't expect this, so they just up the ante. They declare that the others' caps don't have enough slinkys, or that the colors are not the right shade, or some other excuse to deny legitimacy to everyone else and reserve it for themselves.

And so it goes with the local ground, the "unique move" and the LCM. It's all just a gimmick of self-aggrandization. It's all just a game of self-delusion.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

There is no such directive or clarity in the Bible about this matter, and there is legitimate evidence against it. Paul addressed churches in houses. Those could legitimately be viewed as subgroups of the larger church in the city.

Every practical church is a subset of the larger Church. It is not a matter of whether groups "wish" to identify themselves as subgroups, the fact is every practical group IS a subgroup, whether they wish it or not.

Your argument is circular. You begin with the assumption that the only legitimate churches are local, then proceed from there. But you don't have enough Biblical backing to even make that assumption, and so your argument collapses under its own weight. That is why no appreciable percentage of Christians take it seriously.

Simply put, reasonable doubt wrecks your case.

There is not a good enough Biblical argument for what you claim to be true. Therefore insisting on it works the opposite of what you claim to want. It works division.

We both agree that there were sub-groups and different meeting places in each city. The difference is you see these sub-groups in a denominational way, and I see them as meetings of the one church.

The difference is a denominational church/organization is quite different from a house assembly in how and why it arranges itself.

Do you really believe that the churches in each house met because of some preference in doctrine or practice (as denominations do today)? For example, do you really believe Paul was writing to a house church of full immersion baptizers, a house of tongue-speakers, a Jewish house church, and a Gentile house church? It seems to me that he was trying to over look all and any distinctions (there is no Jew or Gentile etc, all are one in Christ), and to distinguish them by anything (names, practices, doctrines etc) would be to violate that oneness. I believe this is why Paul does not write this way:

"dear household of tongue speakers", "dear household of Jewish circumcisers", "dear household of gentiles", "dear household of Sabbath keepers"

as he would have if it was a situation like todays denominations.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We both agree that there were sub-groups and different meeting places in each city. The difference is you see these sub-groups in a denominational way, and I see them as meetings of the one church.

The difference is a denominational church/organization is quite different from a house assembly in how and why it arranges itself.

Do you really believe that the churches in each house met because of some preference in doctrine or practice (as denominations do today)? For example, do you really believe Paul was writing to a house church of full immersion baptizers, a house of tongue-speakers, a Jewish house church, and a Gentile house church? It seems to me that he was trying to over look all and any distinctions (there is no Jew or Gentile etc, all are one in Christ), and to distinguish them by anything (names, practices, doctrines etc) would be to violate that oneness. I believe this is why Paul does not write this way:

"dear household of tongue speakers", "dear household of Jewish circumcisers", "dear household of gentiles", "dear household of Sabbath keepers"

as he would have if it was a situation like todays denominations.

The problem is that you equate "the one church" with your group.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

The problem is that you equate "the one church" with your group.

OK so if not us, which group do you suggest we equate "the one church" with? Someone has to put their hand up and say "we are the one church". The alternatives are - there is no such thing as the "one church", or that every group that calls itself Christian is the"one church". I doubt that Catholics, Orthodox, and most protestants/evangelicals would like calling every group in their locality the "one church".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OK so if not us, which group do you suggest we equate "the one church" with? Someone has to put their hand up and say "we are the one church". The alternatives are - there is no such thing as the "one church", or that every group that calls itself Christian is the"one church". I doubt that Catholics, Orthodox, and most protestants/evangelicals would like calling every group in their locality the "one church".

Jesus put his hand up. This is why Paul wrote Romans to all who are loved by God. Corinthians is written to all who call on the name of the Lord. Ephesians is written to all the holy people who are faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Do you really believe that the churches in each house met because of some preference in doctrine or practice (as denominations do today)?

I don't know. And the fact is you don't either. And your insistence that you do is, again, evidence of a sectarian attitude.

Besides, the LCM meets the way they do because of doctrinal differences as well. And the fact that you consider yourselves the only legitimate expression of the church doesn't make it so.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OK so if not us, which group do you suggest we equate "the one church" with? Someone has to put their hand up and say "we are the one church". The alternatives are - there is no such thing as the "one church", or that every group that calls itself Christian is the"one church". I doubt that Catholics, Orthodox, and most protestants/evangelicals would like calling every group in their locality the "one church".

What you are is not negated by what you call yourself. And what you call yourself doesn't make you what you are.

It's simple, there is one church in the city which is comprised of smaller groups and churches, just like there is one church on earth comprised of smaller churches. On the one hand each group is "the church" and on the other they are just their group.

The LCM is "the church" but so are the community churches and other groups of Christians. On the one hand they can call themselves "the church," on the other they can can call themselves something else. There is no Biblical edict or warning that if you call yourself something else you lose your status as the church. Claiming otherwise is non-biblical.

For example, each year a family might celebrate the "Smith" reunion. But the Smiths have grown into other families by marriage. So the Joneses are there, the Johnsons are there, the Greens are there, etc. But they are all the Smith family as well.

The Church is like that. Every group is the church in the city, but on the other hand every group is only part of the church in the city. Just like every group is the universal church, but then again only part of it.

Size and name does not take away the status of being the church. We are what we are.

You seem to to think there must be one group in the city that has the overriding status of being the church over all others, or that by having some kind of name one's status as the church is diminished.

But the Bible gives us no such instruction. It is just an LCM construct. It carries no weight because it's not backed by the Bible. It's just human reasoning.

And please don't try to make the case that the LCM is more inclusive because they call themselves "the Church in ...." The LCM is more doctrinally divisive than most groups are. Any credit they might get by their naming conventions is more than eclipsed by their insistence on following Lee to a "T."

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I doubt that ..most protestants/evangelicals would like calling every group in their locality the "one church".

You don't get out much, do ya bro? Have you been secluded in the Local Church of Witness Lee cave for so long that you're that oblivious to what is happening outside the confines of your little sect? Do you really think the infinite God of the universe is restricting himself to your infinitesimal, insignificant religious organization? I know that you have been brainwashed to think that the vast Body of Christ is solely and completely represented by your group, and the only legitimate leaders are stationed their just off the 5 freeway on La Palma Ave, but I'm here to tell you that it just ain't so. Igzy and some others have done a good job of telling you that it just ain't so.

The title of this thread is "The Unique Move of God". So God's move is unique. Unique to what, or better yet unique to who? Is the move of God unique to any particular group of people who follow a particular man and his particular ministry? Even the apostle Paul did not claim such a privilege for himself. Neither did any of the original apostles, whose teachings we are to closely follow.

You keep insisting that "most protestants/evangelicals" are this or that, and teach this or that. You are clueless my friend. I guess I can't blame you too much, your guru was decidedly clueless and ignorant of what God was really doing to build his church. Witness Lee had zero trust in the Lord Jesus' declaration that "I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH". (Matt 16:18) Lee set out to build something alright, and unfortunately we see the results of his handiwork in your posts here on this forum.

Getting back to your quote I have cited above: Igzy has answered you well. Actually most evangelicals (even the dreaded denominations) consider every local church in their city/community as "the church" if they preach and teach the one true Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Secondary teachings and practices are just that...secondary. Those who clearly teach false doctrines that touch upon the primary, core, central teachings of the Christian faith are rightfully marked out and people are warned. I hate to break the bad news to you, Evangelical, but localism is NOT, and NEVER HAS BEEN one of the primary, core, central teachings of the Christian faith.
-

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I doubt that Catholics, Orthodox, and most protestants/evangelicals would like calling every group in their locality the "one church".

I don't think any group these days except perhaps some old-style Catholics and a few fringe oddballs like the LCM have a problem calling any group in a city "the church." And for that matter they don't have a problem calling any group out in the country "the church."

But they don't do it in the exclusive way you do it. When you call a group "the church" you mean they are part of the LCM movement. When anyone else does it they mean they are part of the universal church.

Times have changed a lot. Everyone now realizes we are all part of one church. Whether that one church is measured by the city or the whole earth, it matters little. In reality we are one. And because that reality is clearer than ever, churches are cooperating and joining forces more than ever. I visit different churches a lot. I have no problem viewing them as the church nor would I think people visiting our church would have a problem either, and we get visitors all the time.

As UntoHim said, you need to get out more.

But, I'll say it again: The pretzel-logic localism constructs of the LCM are not designed to achieve universal practical oneness among all Christians. They are designed to reserve to the LCM exclusively the status of "church."

It's a more clever and sophisticated way of proclaiming themselves to be the "true church" than has been done by other chest thumpers down through history. But in essence it's no different than when the RCC does it, the ICC does it, the LDS does it or the JWs do it. It's the same error.

[Evangelical]

Dear Igzy and UntoHim.

Regarding 'everyone now realizes...'...it is simply not true.

For example the orthodox fellow on here had a problem with calling other groups churches. I can quote our discussions if you like. Why do I need to get out more when you can't see the evidence right in front of you?

The views that you hold regarding the one true church including everyone who preaches the gospel is not shared by the majority of the body of Christ.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Dear Igzy and UntoHim.

Regarding 'everyone now realizes...'...it is simply not true.

For example the orthodox fellow on here had a problem with calling other groups churches. I can quote our discussions if you like. Why do I need to get out more when you can't see the evidence right in front of you?

The views that you hold regarding the one true church including everyone who preaches the gospel is not shared by the majority of the body of Christ.

When they used the term "everyone" I don't think they were speaking literally... But I'm sure you already knew that. This is a good example of how you are your own worst enemy on the forum.

During my time with the LSM denomination, I interacted with people like Evangelical, and it saddened me when they constantly spoke poorly of other churches, denominations, etc... these are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Not only that, but (as I have shared) I have been blessed to live, work, and play among a diverse set of Christians - the same people that many of those in the LSM denomination write off with such bold, broad strokes.

I don't think it matters how many people, from all different walks of life, different locations around the world that you hear this from - it doesn't fit your narrative - so it must be false.

May the Lord remind us all "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.'

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Dear Igzy and UntoHim.

Regarding 'everyone now realizes...'...it is simply not true.

For example the orthodox fellow on here had a problem with calling other groups churches. I can quote our discussions if you like. Why do I need to get out more when you can't see the evidence right in front of you?

The views that you hold regarding the one true church including everyone who preaches the gospel is not shared by the majority of the body of Christ.

I think I have a better feel for the attitudes and beliefs of the Church at large than the average LCMer. Your beliefs are basically in line with what Witness Lee taught 50 years ago.

Go to any Christian bookstore. Start reading the books and see how many you find where the writer advises people to join one particular denomination. It just doesn't happen that much anymore. Yes, people generally think their church preference is a good choice, that's why they go there. Duh. But I think the vast majority of serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you are remaining in the LCM because you believe it is right for you then that's fine.

If you are remaining in the LCM because you believe it is the "one true way on earth today" then you have validated most of the complaints on this board that you claim you don't recognize--because that belief leads to all the fear, manipulation, abuse and damage that those complaints testify of.

When any subset group of the Church holds the belief that it is "one true way," abuse within that subset group is unavoidable. History cites no exceptions that I know of.

Please pray about it.

Igzy,

Regardless of why I believe as I do, I still do not recognize the fesr, manioulation, abuse, and damage that you and others describe. It is just not my experience.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think I have a better feel for the attitudes and beliefs of the Church at large than the average LCMer. Your beliefs are basically in line with what Witness Lee taught 50 years ago.

Go to any Christian bookstore. Start reading the books and see how many you find where the writer advises people to join one particular denomination. It just doesn't happen that much anymore. Yes, people generally think their church preference is a good choice, that's why they go there. Duh. But I think the vast majority of serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore.

Christian bookstores ? what about a Catholic bookstore are they now advising people to join their nearest evangelical church?

So you dont think Orthodox people are serious christians because they advise joining the orthodox church?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Christian bookstores ? what about a Catholic bookstore are they now advising people to join their nearest evangelical church?

So you dont think Orthodox people are serious christians because they advise joining the orthodox church?

I'm sorry I don't get the joke.

Good grief, Evangelical. I said that people are going to recommend the church they prefer. But recommending is a far cry from telling people they will probably end up in outer darkness if they don't join your church, which is basically what the LCM does.

Please try to keep up.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy,

Regardless of why I believe as I do, I still do not recognize the fesr, manioulation, abuse, and damage that you and others describe. It is just not my experience.

Drake

Lucky you. But regardless this still shows you are either in denial or apathetic about the history of the movement you've given your life to. If I were you I do more homework instead putting all my chips on a bet I haven't researched.

[Cal]

Drake and Evangelical,

Please try to understand my essential point in this thread.

All the abuse in the LCM (and it did and does exist Drake) is rooted in the authoritarian nature of the movement. And the authoritarian nature of the movement is rooted in the idea that the movement is the unique move of God, the only legitimate place for Christians to experience church life. Which is a total lie.

This is why I focus my efforts on this point. Because I've lived the hell that comes with such indoctrination. It's one of the worst things a person can experience. It's he worst thing I've ever experienced. And it went on for years.

If you've ever wondered why those women in those extreme LDS groups stay there, when basically they are just sexual fodder for fanatical men that dominate them there, then you have viewed firsthand the mentality that holds a person in a group they really want to leave. It's not easy to overcome indoctrination that attaches the fear of God's punishment with leaving a group. That is Cult 101.

The Devil had a field day with many of us young ones. Remember what the Lord said about offending the little ones and about being better off drowned at the bottom of the sea with a millstone tied to your neck. He meant that. And you'd better start taking it seriously. Because somebody is going to pay for the damage that was done by this movement.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Lucky you. But regardless this still shows you are either in denial or apathetic about the history of the movement you've given your life to. If I were you I do more homework instead putting all my chips on a bet I haven't researched.

Igzy,

We are well beyond the research phase. I have been living this life for decades. Any new research to consider I find right here in this forum.

But, lets take these one by one. Your first one was fear. .. of God's punishment of leaving the group.

What other fear, if any? Yours. You went to bed and woke up fearing what?

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Romans
1Corinth
2Corinth
Galatians
Ephesians
- - - to the "church at large"

I realize that I did not include the nuances you admit might be there. But still essentially what you said.

And I agree.

The problem I find is that when people want to read things as exclusive, then terms like "beloved" or "called by God" suddenly do not mean what you and I think they mean. So to the LRC, it doesn't matter that the "obvious" reading is against them. They will insist on their convoluted understanding of the words as being only to special Christians, not to all Christians.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The oversight is provided by the leading brothers in many cases. Many a time a leading brother has stood up and requested that we prophesy in a certain way, or to clarify something someone has said.

Anything can be fleshly and not spiritual, I think we all know how much focus Lee put on one being in their spirit and not in their mind/flesh. So your concern is shared but also well understood and your concern sounds more like something Lee would say. If it should happen, I don't see anything wrong with building up one's emotions and sense of self-worth by sharing their experiences with others. God treasures us very highly and so I don't think self-abasement is necessarily a good thing. I still think this is a better situation than a church which muzzles its congregation. The solution to the problem of people speaking from their flesh is not to stop people from speaking. And sometimes it is not so cut and dry. For example, a person may speak something very much from Christ for 30 seconds and then at the end tell a funny joke which gets them back to the flesh. Or they may start in their flesh and then the Spirit takes over.

Actually, as Lee taught it, there is no reasonable resemblance to what Paul taught because the core statements that there is a gift of prophesy that not all have and that 2 or three should prophesy is wiped away by misapplication of "all" in chapter 14. "All" was within a defined subset, not without bounds. The fact of oversight by the elders does not correct this.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We both agree that there were sub-groups and different meeting places in each city. The difference is you see these sub-groups in a denominational way, and I see them as meetings of the one church.

The difference is a denominational church/organization is quite different from a house assembly in how and why it arranges itself.

Actually, the distinction of denominationalism is one that does not exist in the scripture because it is not a basis for exclusion. You define denominationalism as if a peculiar error that is different from simply meeting separately and even differently. 1 Corinthians was a hotbed of such activity. And they were acrimonious about it. Yet you admit that they are all the church in Corinth.

I doubt that any of these called themselves "the church in" anything. They just met. As Christians meeting. Now you want a name to create division that is worse than excluding others for anything that is not meeting with you and you call them the problem. This is not about names or separate assemblies. It is about assemblies that do not fall under the control of the elders of the LRC in your city (or in mine) and not under the control of the headquarters in Anaheim.

I can assure you that the Presbyterians do not think this way. They do not invalidate every other church for simply not being under their umbrella. Neither do the Methodists, the Pentecostals, the Baptists, the Bible churches (all independent), the Anglicans, and so on. There is some question about the RCC stance, but even that one does not declare the assemblies of Protestantism as invalid and therefore not churches.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I realize that I did not include the nuances you admit might be there. But still essentially what you said.

And I agree.

The problem I find is that when people want to read things as exclusive, then terms like "beloved" or "called by God" suddenly do not mean what you and I think they mean. So to the LRC, it doesn't matter that the "obvious" reading is against them. They will insist on their convoluted understanding of the words as being only to special Christians, not to all Christians.

But that feeds into Igzy's complaint that "unique" move of God means that you alone are the beloved of God.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy,

We are well beyond the research phase. I have been living this life for decades. Any new research to consider I find right here in this forum.

No offense, but you certainly are ignorant of a lot. Where are you, anyway? You couldn't be anywhere near Texas.

But, lets take these one by one. Your first one was fear. .. of God's punishment of leaving the group.

What other fear, if any? Yours. You went to bed and woke up fearing what?

That I might have to spend two weeks locked in a room with Evangelical.

Just kidding.

Can you clarify your point or question please?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But that feeds into Igzy's complaint that "unique" move of God means that you alone are the beloved of God.

I think you are getting lost in nuances or something like that. I am saying that church is church. It is not simply an assembly. Nor is it some special assembly or group of assemblies to the exclusion of others for any reason (other than not being an assembly of believers).

The church is the body of Christ. There are no qualifiers put on that other than to be "Christian," meaning those who believe in Jesus, the Son of God (within the meaning of "believe" as used in John 3:16). Whether they are the only assembly in town, or can't even quantify the number of assemblies is irrelevant. Whether all assemblies in a particular city are under a single unified set of elders is not written as a qualification.

All attempts to invalidate other assemblies is evidence of a sectarian mind that is seeking something other than Christ and should make their status as meeting as Christian suspect.

In that environment, "unique" would be an irrelevant word. God is unique. But he works in multifarious ways. To over-define, or over-restrict God's ways with terms like "unique" is evidence of a lack of knowledge of God. It surely does not evidence a special status with God. The most clear example of such a mindset was found in Revelation chapter 3 in the letter to Laodicea. The church that claimed the most while Christ was on the outside knocking to get in.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

In that environment, "unique" would be an irrelevant word. God is unique. But he works in multifarious ways. To over-define, or over-restrict God's ways with terms like "unique" is evidence of a lack of knowledge of God. It surely does not evidence a special status with God. The most clear example of such a mindset was found in Revelation chapter 3 in the letter to Laodicea. The church that claimed the most while Christ was on the outside knocking to get in.

We've seen the LCM reasoning about that over and over here.

I recall one poster asking "Shouldn't God be one in his move?" Meaning: Shouldn't God have a unified army of Christians throughout the earth who do everything in lockstep and identically.

Well, I guess you might think so if you were trained under the authoritarian Chinese mindset of Nee/Lee.

But if you see the way God operates in nature, no. If God were like the LCM concept there would be one kind of tree, one kind of bird, one kind of sunny day, one kind of cloud, one kind of wind, one kind of rainstorm, one kind of smile, one kind of pretty girl, etc, etc.

Oneness is not conformity; and division is not differences. Oneness is receiving all and seeking common ground; division is having an antagonistic attitude toward others.

Now, who do you think of when you consider those specifications?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

During my time with the LSM denomination, I interacted with people like Evangelical, and it saddened me when they constantly spoke poorly of other churches, denominations, etc... these are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Not only that, but (as I have shared) I have been blessed to live, work, and play among a diverse set of Christians - the same people that many of those in the LSM denomination write off with such bold, broad strokes.

I used to have that attitude as well until the Lord convicted me of it and I repented for it. It being practical is it worth damaging relationships with our brothers and sisters in Christ. How many prophesying meetings have I been in hearing the utterance, "we in the local churches have everything and Christianity has nothing"? Not very edifying. Instead of building up of the Body, it's building a wall.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think you are getting lost in nuances or something like that. I am saying that church is church. It is not simply an assembly. Nor is it some special assembly or group of assemblies to the exclusion of others for any reason (other than not being an assembly of believers).

The church is the body of Christ. There are no qualifiers put on that other than to be "Christian," meaning those who believe in Jesus, the Son of God (within the meaning of "believe" as used in John 3:16). Whether they are the only assembly in town, or can't even quantify the number of assemblies is irrelevant. Whether all assemblies in a particular city are under a single unified set of elders is not written as a qualification.

All attempts to invalidate other assemblies is evidence of a sectarian mind that is seeking something other than Christ and should make their status as meeting as Christian suspect.

In that environment, "unique" would be an irrelevant word. God is unique. But he works in multifarious ways. To over-define, or over-restrict God's ways with terms like "unique" is evidence of a lack of knowledge of God. It surely does not evidence a special status with God. The most clear example of such a mindset was found in Revelation chapter 3 in the letter to Laodicea. The church that claimed the most while Christ was on the outside knocking to get in.

Were do you put false teachers, and poisonous imitations like the darnel in Matt 13?

Your point would be fine if it were not for the fact that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No offense, but you certainly are ignorant of a lot. Where are you, anyway? You couldn't be anywhere near Texas.



That I might have to spend two weeks locked in a room with Evangelical.

Just kidding.

Can you clarify your point or question please?

Hi Igzy,

Sure. You said "that belief leads to all the fear, manipulation, abuse and damage that those complaints testify of. "

You mentioned one of your fears was of God's punishment by leaving the group.

What other fears did you have? What fears were on your mind when you went to bed and when you woke up?

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Were do you put false teachers, and poisonous imitations like the darnel in Matt 13?

Your point would be fine if it were not for the fact that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

Z,

You can't muddy every discussion with every other discussion. We are trying to parse out the coded message that the LRC sends when it makes reference to the "unique move of God," not take a different approach to ferretting out all the other problems in the church that might cause us to actually invalidate some particular group.

The LRC uses "unique move of God" to invalidate virtually everyone that is not them. The things you are pointing to are useful to eliminate the truly aberrant groups and leaders. While not a completely different subject, it is almost the polar opposite side of the discussion. But in between is a vast collection of assemblies that make up the church both as local assemblies and as part of the body of Christ universal. The goal of this discussion is not to find valid ways to invalidate any group (even if there is legitimately such an endeavor). It is to demonstrate that the LRC's rhetoric for invalidating most of Christianity, leaving only their little sect as the one that is in "God's unique move," is not a valid, scripture-supported position.

Further, there is nothing defined by the scripture as the "unique move of God" that would not encompass all that God is doing rather than just the little that one particular group is doing.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi Igzy,

Sure. You said "that belief leads to all the fear, manipulation, abuse and damage that those complaints testify of. "

You mentioned one of your fears was of God's punishment by leaving the group.

What other fears did you have? What fears were on your mind when you went to bed and when you woke up?

Drake

Fear of not being good enough, fear of not "making" the kingdom, fear of not pleasing "the brothers." In general fear of failure, of not being a "good brother."

This fear generally pushed me to try harder at toeing the LCM line. You know, the whole bit, going to all the trainings, reading all the Life-Studies and books, taking part in all the gospel outings, dressing like a dork, keeping completely clear of the world. Guilt, guilt, guilt. Fear and loathing. I was never good enough.

But it was a standard I could not keep nor that the Lord wanted me to keep.

I remember one time Titus Chu came to Texas. He gave messages directed at the young people. He got on us for going to McDonald's after the meetings. He said in his broken English, "You don't know how much McDonald's hurt church life." So now I had to feel guilty about wanting fast food after a meeting, or any other time, I guess. Really? Even a moment of escape into a small order of fries was bad? More guilt.

I remember Lee warning us to not play sports, or have dogs for pets, or drink coffee, or read the newspaper, or seek entertainment, or... the list goes on. More fear and loathing.

In one training, I think it was Colossians, Lee actually told us to flee "anything that makes you happy." No kidding. That's a quote. Any outlet of personal pleasure was frowned upon. I felt like a failure because I could not be this machine that just "enjoyed Christ."

What a bunch of BS that all was. Any sensible person would have just left right away. But fear and guilt kept me there. I had been indoctrinated by a bunch of fanatical jerks who are going to pay for it someday.

But the requirement was untenable. So finally I just left. Now, looking back I see how abused and manipulated I was. But that realization took time and the cost was a lot of suffering.

I was just a kid. They preyed on my naivete. They stole a big chunk of my life. So, yeah, I resent it. I pity the LCM now. I don't hate anyone. But I'm very serious about helping anyone I can avoid that place, including you.

[Cal]

And you know why I went through that, Drake?

So I could be right here, today, telling people to avoid places like the LCM.

God knew what he was doing. The Devil meant it for evil. But God meant it for good.

And it sure is fun being here right now knowing I know what I'm talking about.

But I still like you, and I know there is some good there. But there is a deposit of some dark history and some extremely dark remnants of that history, and someone needs to purge it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Z,

You can't muddy every discussion with every other discussion. We are trying to parse out the coded message that the LRC sends when it makes reference to the "unique move of God," not take a different approach to ferretting out all the other problems in the church that might cause us to actually invalidate some particular group.

The LRC uses "unique move of God" to invalidate virtually everyone that is not them. The things you are pointing to are useful to eliminate the truly aberrant groups and leaders. While not a completely different subject, it is almost the polar opposite side of the discussion. But in between is a vast collection of assemblies that make up the church both as local assemblies and as part of the body of Christ universal. The goal of this discussion is not to find valid ways to invalidate any group (even if there is legitimately such an endeavor). It is to demonstrate that the LRC's rhetoric for invalidating most of Christianity, leaving only their little sect as the one that is in "God's unique move," is not a valid, scripture-supported position.

Further, there is nothing defined by the scripture as the "unique move of God" that would not encompass all that God is doing rather than just the little that one particular group is doing.

Post #1 quotes Drake saying "Any group that does not filter out teachings that do not align with their calling or mission has no purpose for existing."

So perhaps you might want to rethink your lecture on this thread not being about filtering out teachings that don't align with the mission and purpose of the church.

This thread was started by Igzy as a response to Drake. Igzy feels the use of the term "unique move of God" is sectarian because he views the term "unique move of God" as referring to the "Lord's Recovery Church". Drake on the other hand feels that the term refers to the Lord building His church in this age, that many groups of Christians have not been faithful to that vision but as for him and his house he is going to embrace that vision.

Now if that is not what this thread is about then by all means help me see clearly.

As far as I can see both sides have valid points but they aren't listening to each other.

If I claim my little fellowship of 200 Christians in some city of millions is "the unique move of God" then, yes, that is sectarian. On the other hand if I identify Jesus word that "I will build my church" as "the unique move of God in this age" then that is not. If I claim that some Christian groups have "misaimed" or perhaps have aimed correctly but "missed the mark" then that is also a valid point. The point being not that they are not genuine Christians, not that they are not the beloved of the Lord, but that they are not fully matured and have not yet been perfected.

How could anyone be "perfected" or "fully matured" if they cannot identify the errors?

Claiming that they are all "the church" does not help anyone to "be perfect" or to let patience have its perfect work.

So if we are going to discuss "the unique move of God" surely it includes growing unto maturity, letting patience have its perfect work, expressing the Lord Jesus in His fullness.

Returning to Drake's quote, he is saying that there is a process that leads to maturity, and that is to "filter out teachings". If this thread is not about this process then this entire thread is off topic.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm sorry I don't get the joke.

Good grief, Evangelical. I said that people are going to recommend the church they prefer. But recommending is a far cry from telling people they will probably end up in outer darkness if they don't join your church, which is basically what the LCM does.

Please try to keep up.

This is the part I found amusing:

I think I have a better feel for the attitudes and beliefs of the Church at large than the average LCMer. ... Go to any Christian bookstore. Start reading the books ...

It reads as if you have a better feel for the attitudes and beliefs of the Church at large because you have read the books in Christian bookstores. I'm sure you did not mean that but that is how it reads to me.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, as Lee taught it, there is no reasonable resemblance to what Paul taught because the core statements that there is a gift of prophesy that not all have and that 2 or three should prophesy is wiped away by misapplication of "all" in chapter 14. "All" was within a defined subset, not without bounds. The fact of oversight by the elders does not correct this.

Prophesy is a gift but one does not need a gift to prophesy. It is the same with healing - there is a healing gift , but any believer may lay their hands on the sick and pray for healing.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is the part I found amusing:

I think I have a better feel for the attitudes and beliefs of the Church at large than the average LCMer. ... Go to any Christian bookstore. Start reading the books ...

It reads as if you have a better feel for the attitudes and beliefs of the Church at large because you have read the books in Christian bookstores. I'm sure you did not mean that but that is how it reads to me.

I thought it was amusing because of the incredible irony. The arrogance in saying you have a better feel for the attitudes and beliefs of the church at large is astounding, even more when it is that same attitude you are condemning in thousands of posts.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, as Lee taught it, there is no reasonable resemblance to what Paul taught because the core statements that there is a gift of prophesy that not all have and that 2 or three should prophesy is wiped away by misapplication of "all" in chapter 14. "All" was within a defined subset, not without bounds. The fact of oversight by the elders does not correct this.

Does this mean that "all" cannot preach the gospel because there is a gift of Evangelism?

Does this mean that "all" cannot shepherd because that is a gift?

Does this mean that "all" cannot give because giving is a gift?

This is a fantastic catch by you, please explain.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Prophesy is a gift but one does not need a gift to prophesy. It is the same with healing - there is a healing gift , but any believer may lay their hands on the sick and pray for healing.

When I was in the LC, no one ever laid hands on the sick. We prayed for the sick as for other needs.

Do you or anyone you know in the LSM lay hands on anyone who is sick? Did Lee ever lay hands on anyone who was sick?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

When I was in the LC, no one ever laid hands on the sick. We prayed for the sick as for other needs.

Do you or anyone you know in the LSM lay hands on anyone who is sick? Did Lee ever lay hands on anyone who was sick?

Yes, I knew someone. I was in Houston, a brother told me he had cancer, a Chinese brother laid hands on him and he was cured.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is the part I found amusing:

I think I have a better feel for the attitudes and beliefs of the Church at large than the average LCMer. ... Go to any Christian bookstore. Start reading the books ...

It reads as if you have a better feel for the attitudes and beliefs of the Church at large because you have read the books in Christian bookstores. I'm sure you did not mean that but that is how it reads to me.

Well, again this shows how ignorant you are. Because you can learn a lot about what's going on the in Church by reading what's in Christian bookstores.

You should try it sometime.

And again, I challenge you to find one book that says something like, "in order to be a truly faithful Christian you must join the [insert specific flavor] church."

You'll likely only find that sort of comment in LCM literature. That's ironic, but I'm sure the irony is lost on you.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Post #1 quotes Drake saying "Any group that does not filter out teachings that do not align with their calling or mission has no purpose for existing."

So perhaps you might want to rethink your lecture on this thread not being about filtering out teachings that don't align with the mission and purpose of the church.

That post was copied from another thread.

I created this thread because we were going off-topic in the original one and asked the moderator to copy some relevant posts over from it.

But the subject of the thread is the idea of the "Unique Move of God."

Knowing the usual LCM double-talk and equivocation, that term can mean several things. The purpose of this thread is to identify any legitimate meanings and expose self-serving and damaging meanings.

This thread was started by Igzy as a response to Drake. Igzy feels the use of the term "unique move of God" is sectarian because he views the term "unique move of God" as referring to the "Lord's Recovery Church". Drake on the other hand feels that the term refers to the Lord building His church in this age, that many groups of Christians have not been faithful to that vision but as for him and his house he is going to embrace that vision.

Now if that is not what this thread is about then by all means help me see clearly.

As far as I can see both sides have valid points but they aren't listening to each other.

Thanks for these comments because they give a chance to clarify.

I didn't exactly hear Drake say the things you said. I still hear him saying that the real work of God is only going on in the LCM.

Although I understand the impulse to be faithful to an overriding vision, the problem with the LCM vision is that the practical outworking of it always seems to be more than a little self-serving.

So they are focused on "the building of the church." How is that really different than any church being focused on the growth and condition of its members? What is different between the church being built and all the members growing in community? There shouldn't be any, really. So why the problem with 'Christianity'?

With the LCM it always comes down to their defining general ideas in such proprietary specifics that they effectively de-legitimize everyone but themselves. For example, there are surely many groups that meet as the church in the city. But the LCM recognizes only those associated with LSM.

What does "building the Church" really mean, anyway? I don't think any of us really know.

And the fact is the Lord did not commission us to build the church. He commissioned us to disciple the nations. He said HE would build the church. But he never told us to. At the very most he told us to build up "one another." But no place in the NT does he tell us to build the church.

Now I know there are OT types of temple and wall building. But there has to be a reason that the charge to us to build the church is not so direct. And I think the reason is because the Lord wanted us to focus on people and not an institution. One of the pitfalls of getting into "church building" is that it easily transmutes into an impersonal effort where people become subordinate to the cause, where they become means to an idealized but never quite realized end--in this case the awesome and terrible "Builded Church." This is exactly what has happened in the LCM. When it becomes about "the Church" in the way the LCM means, people become secondary. Huge mistake.

For what is the Church? It's just the people. The LCM seems to miss this, though. To them building the Church means furthering the cause of the LCM movement. It's about an abstract idealistic "purpose." It's not about helping the brother or sister sitting next to them. "Sorry, brother. I can't help you. I'm too busy building the Church."

The Jesus who left the flock to rescue one lost lamb is a Jesus the LCM is unfamiliar with. In the LCM Jesus would be more likely to dump the lamb for the sake of "the Church," which in their case is not people, but a MacGuffin
.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In general fear of failure, of not being a "good brother."

Being "a good brother" in my opinion is really arbitrary. What's the basis of being a good brother? One who submits unequivocally "to the brothers" and whose absoluteness to the ministry is without question. All the while to be "a good brother" doesn't require good character. Oh you could be anywhere. Let's take Oklahoma City for example. A brother leaves his wife to take up with another sister, but in the minds of the elders, "he's a good brother".
A brother can be physically abusive towards his wife, but as long as his actions and speaking doesn't betray what it means to be a good brother, his standing with the responsible ones is unhindered.
However a brother can find his standing as "a good brother" questionable if submission isn't unequivocal. When you begin questioning the responsible ones, that's when a brother seems to lose his standing.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How could anyone be "perfected" or "fully matured" if they cannot identify the errors?

Or are unwilling to address the errors.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is to demonstrate that the LRC's rhetoric for invalidating most of Christianity, leaving only their little sect as the one that is in "God's unique move," is not a valid, scripture-supported position.

Further, there is nothing defined by the scripture as the "unique move of God" that would not encompass all that God is doing rather than just the little that one particular group is doing.

This portion was well said OBW. Rhetoric to invalidate much of the Body of Christ. Only those in fellowship according to a Christian publishing company's publications are privy to God's unique move. What should be asked, what if? What if God isn't in that move? Still that's the rhetoric that will be maintained, "God's unique move". What it really comes down to is wanting to have distinctions from all other Christian believers and fellowships.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Thanks for these comments because they give a chance to clarify.

I didn't exactly hear Drake say the things you said. I still hear him saying that the real work of God is only going on in the LCM.

Although I understand the impulse to be faithful to an overriding vision, the problem with the LCM vision is that the practical outworking of it always seems to be more than a little self-serving.

Being self serving is an excellent example of not being fully matured. We all know that children are completely self centered and as we grow and mature we learn to care for and be empathetic for others.

Originally Posted by Igzy

So they are focused on "the building of the church." How is that really different than any church being focused on the growth and condition of its members? What is different between the church being built and all the members growing in community? There shouldn't be any, really. So why the problem with 'Christianity'?

Paul says if in anything you are otherwise minded the Spirit will make that known to you. As long as they are pursuing this avenue in a genuine spirit of oneness with the Lord they'll be adjusted if they have gone down a dead end.

Originally Posted by Igzy

With the LCM it always comes down to their defining general ideas in such proprietary specifics that they effectively de-legitimize everyone but themselves. For example, there are surely many groups that meet as the church in the city. But the LCM recognizes only those associated with LSM.

Ironically they act like they are in the barn, which WL shared was akin to religion, and that following Jesus led the sheep out of the barn and into the pasture. But this "failing" of theirs is hardly that different from many other Christian groups.

Originally Posted by Igzy

What does "building the Church" really mean, anyway? I don't think any of us really know.

And the fact is the Lord did not commission us to build the church. He commissioned us to disciple the nations. He said HE would build the church. But he never told us to. At the very most he told us to build up "one another." But no place in the NT does he tell us to build the church.

This is not how I read 1Cor which tells us to be careful how we build. It is also contrary to the concept of "edification" used by Paul in his epistles.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Now I know there are OT types of temple and wall building. But there has to be a reason that the charge to us to build the church is not so direct. And I think the reason is because the Lord wanted us to focus on people and not an institution. One of the pitfalls of getting into "church building" is that it easily transmutes into an impersonal effort where people become subordinate to the cause, where they become means to an idealized but never quite realized end--in this case the awesome and terrible "Builded Church." This is exactly what has happened in the LCM. When it becomes about "the Church" in the way the LCM means, people become secondary. Huge mistake.

That is one possible theory. Another is that during the gospels the Lord was speaking to those who had not been saved, were not part of the new creation and needed to pass through death and resurrection prior to "working". This is a pretty clear type with the matter of the Sabbath rest.

Originally Posted by Igzy

For what is the Church? It's just the people. The LCM seems to miss this, though. To them building the Church means furthering the cause of the LCM movement. It's about an abstract idealistic "purpose." It's not about helping the brother or sister sitting next to them. "Sorry, brother. I can't help you. I'm too busy building the Church."

That is a very valid point, according to James pure religion is to care for the brothers and sisters. I don't take issue with their doctrine of building the church, but I do take issue with their doctrines somehow bypassing Jame's word concerning caring for orphans and widows.

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Jesus who left the flock to rescue one lost lamb is a Jesus the LCM is unfamiliar with. In the LCM Jesus would be more likely to dump the lamb for the sake of "the Church," which in their case is not people, but a MacGuffin
.

I agree with this but think you have gone further astray from the thread. It seems contrived to attribute this to "building the church" or that "the church is the unique move of God in this age".

I would attribute this to a love of money. I knew many saints who were very concerned with charitable works, but it was clear that you had to not let the right hand know what the left hand was doing. Once again, the problem is with Judas who holds the money bag, he complains about how you are wasting your money instead of giving it to him. The reasons are just lies, the reality is the love of money and trying to make merchandise of the saints.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I thought it was amusing because of the incredible irony. The arrogance in saying you have a better feel for the attitudes and beliefs of the church at large is astounding, even more when it is that same attitude you are condemning in thousands of posts.

I did not say that I have a feel for the attitudes and beliefs of the church at large. Igzy doth saith so. Because he has read lots of books from Christian bookstores.

It is a strange piece of advice to give someone to know about the Church by reading all the books in a Christian bookstore.

Should I start with "Winning at Work and in Your Finances", by Creflo Dollar.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, again this shows how ignorant you are. Because you can learn a lot about what's going on the in Church by reading what's in Christian bookstores.

You should try it sometime.

And again, I challenge you to find one book that says something like, "in order to be a truly faithful Christian you must join the [insert specific flavor] church."

You'll likely only find that sort of comment in LCM literature. That's ironic, but I'm sure the irony is lost on you.

the joke is still going on because you don't realize what you are saying.

I might start with "Your Best Life Now" by Joel Olsteen, and then I might read how to improve my finances by Creflo Dollar.

Actually I agree with you - the total content of a Christian bookstore is fairly reflective of the true state of Christianity.

I might just "come out" of the prosperity teaching section, walk past the Catholic/Pope section and stroll over to the Witness Lee /Watchman Nee section and start reading there.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

the joke is still going on because you don't realize what you are saying.

I might start with "Your Best Life Now" by Joel Olsteen, and then I might read how to improve my finances by Creflo Dollar.

Actually I agree with you - the total content of a Christian bookstore is fairly reflective of the true state of Christianity.

I might just "come out" of the prosperity teaching section, walk past the Catholic/Pope section and stroll over to the Witness Lee /Watchman Nee section and start reading there.

As usual you succumb to the fallacy of the appeal to extremes. Not that I don't like Joel Osteen. I do.

But if you look at most of the bookstore content it will be solid, mainstream, fundamental and decidedly non-divisive.

Unlike the LCM wackadoo.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree with this but think you have gone further astray from the thread. It seems contrived to attribute this to "building the church" or that "the church is the unique move of God in this age".

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your perspective.

The reason it is relevant to this thread is because the "unique work of God" if it is about building the Church, is not about it in the way the LCM is about it.

My point is that it is easy to say "I am for God's true purpose." But if that purpose is not about helping people then however good it sounds it is off. And I mean "helping" in the way Jesus wants to help people--that is, he is concerned about spirit, soul, body, in that order. But he was concerned about people, not an abstract ideal or institution called "the Church."

"I'm for the building of the Church" sounds really, really good. But if you look closer at the LCM vision it is really about building an institution. It isn't about people. The Church is some separate entity from people to them. They don't admit it, but that's the way it is. People are a means to an end in their model. But in God's heart people ARE the end. Yes, he wants us "built up together." But that is because the highest blessing is living in cooperative community with God at the center, not because some ideal called "the Church" beckons us.

God is all about loving and blessing people. Besides himself, people are his highest ideal. Not the LCM's "Church" abstraction, which really turns out to be their movement in disguise.

[Drake]

Igzy) "Fear of not being good enough, fear of not "making" the kingdom, fear of not pleasing "the brothers." In general fear of failure, of not being a "good brother." "

Igzy,

From my perspective there is mixture described above..... healthy fear and perhaps some misplaced fear.

Healthy fear is toward God including a fear of not entering into His rest. A fear of being disapproved standing before the judgement seat of Christ (the Bema) and missing the reward of the kingdom are also very healthy fears.

The fear of not pleasing the brothers or failing to be a good brother was never a fear that I experienced. When the Lord brought me into His recovery I gained a heightened awareness of whether my actions or words might offend others but that never reached the level of fear. Doing well on training tests was concerning yet I wouldn't use fear to describe that. Neither did I always agree with everything said or go along with it. I always checked with the Lord and sometimes I held back when others went forward and other times I felt very alone in the front while others were holding back.. Yet, whether I was sidelined, or leading the charge, or in the middle of the pack or at the back, I had peace. I may have been puzzled at times but I was at peace before the Lord. Unless I was restful before the Lord I typically did not act. Still, I recall times when I had the peace to sit something out, yet the Lord encouraged me to get up. Or I felt to charge ahead on something and the Lord spoke to be still. Fear was not a factor.

What I am saying net net Igzy, is that fear of not pleasing others or not being a good brother ON THEIR OWN MERITS is misplaced fear. It sounds like law to me. Truth is, I cannot be a good brother unless Christ is the good brother in me. I can pretend to be a good brother but only His life reaches the good brother standard. If your fear was that you were not living the good brother life of the Lord through you then I would say that is healthy because we should be concerned about missing Him in every situation. Otherwise, a fear of not living up to some standard apart from His life is misplaced fear. It simply cannot be done so why fear it? Rather acknowledge and confess it to Him then allow Him to become that in you... e.g. the good brother.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

I appreciate your perspective. I am happy that this forum includes different perspectives and experiences.

In my own experience the fear was a mirage. Face it, go through the cross, experience the fellowship of the Lord's sufferings and you will also experience the outstanding resurrection.

I was threatened by elders, slandered by them, and had my hospitality manipulated by them to make my life miserable, but in the end all of those threats were impotent. Why, what prompted them to do this? I once told a brother in the book room that I preferred WN to WL because when I read WL's book's I didn't get anything from them.

But it didn't matter. I was able to fully function in the LRC standing on the word of God and I did not need to lift up WL. I worked on the construction site in Irving for 18 months, I was involved in the raising up of a church in Odessa for about 2 years, and I was in Taipei in the FTTT for 8 years.

[Drake]

ZNP) "In my own experience the fear was a mirage. Face it, go through the cross, experience the fellowship of the Lord's sufferings and you will also experience the outstanding resurrection."

At some point, probably around the Philippians training, my understanding flipped on this and I realized that my personal experience more closely aligned with that of Philippians 3:10. There the starting the point is the power of His resurrection then what follows is the fellowship of His sufferings and being conformed to His death. That helped me to struggle less and enjoy Him more. Less anxiety and more trust.

This footnote in the Recovery Version on that verse articulates my experience well:

"With Christ, the sufferings and death came first, followed by the resurrection. With us, the power of His resurrection comes first, followed by the participation in His sufferings and conformity to His death. We first receive the power of His resurrection; then by His power we are enabled to participate in His sufferings and live a crucified life in conformity to His death. Such sufferings are mainly for producing and building up the Body of Christ (Col 1:24)"

An example of this is what I meant in response to Igzy about living the "good brother" life of Christ.

Nevertheless ZNP, by whatever process or steps taken you must have also experienced His resurrection power in fellowship and in the joy of the Lord since you were there for another decade in spite of adverse circumstances.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

From my perspective there is mixture described above..... healthy fear and perhaps some misplaced fear.

Thanks for your insights. I generally agree. Actually I didn't fear the disapproval of others as much as my post might have indicated.

I really just feared the daily dread of not being good enough. The daily grind of the unreasonable expectations of the LCM. The tediously spartan lifestyle.

I realize things have softened some since the early days. But the fundamental problem remains. You talk about the Lord bringing you into "his recovery." This shows you've allowed yourself to be indoctrinated with the belief that the focal point of God's work on the earth is centered in a tiny group of Christians which hasn't appreciably increased in 60 years. That's simply irrational. I can't see how intelligent Christians still believe that. I mean, if there were some indication of superior results in that system I might be swayed. But every person I've encountered from the LCM who was there when I was show no more appreciable growth than I've had, for all I can tell. So I just see no real evidence of all the claims.

As far a I'm concerned, this belief--that the LCM or any other group, is so "special" that the members feel justified in placing fear in each of leaving it--is a doctrine of demons. Using the fear of God's judgment to hold members in one's group is one of the most craven and underhanded things a leader can do. It's abuse, plain and simple

That's what I fight against and that's what this thread is all about.

Here's a bet. I'd be willing to bet that if the leaders of the LCM finally announced, as in good conscience they should, that the members should feel the freedom to leave and meet where the Lord leads with no fear of judgment, the LCM would lose at least half its membership in short order.

They should do it anyway. Why would you want to hold people there that don't want to be there? The LCM would be better off with just willing participants.

But the leaders have a deep-seated fear, too, I think. The fear of losing a huge chunk of membership if they ever told their members the WHOLE truth.

I think everyone knows deep down that if the the leaders of the LCM didn't put the fear of leaving into its members, then eventually no one would stay.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

the joke is still going on because you don't realize what you are saying.

I might start with "Your Best Life Now" by Joel Olsteen, and then I might read how to improve my finances by Creflo Dollar.

Actually I agree with you - the total content of a Christian bookstore is fairly reflective of the true state of Christianity.

I might just "come out" of the prosperity teaching section, walk past the Catholic/Pope section and stroll over to the Witness Lee /Watchman Nee section and start reading there.

Evangelical's quote from a different thread. "As I was strolling through my local Christian bookstore the other day (tongue in cheek), I came across a book "Pagan Christianity" that said, "most of what we do in religious circles has no precedent in Scripture. This includes many of the activities within church services"."

This guy won't see the irony in his attempt at a "gotcha" statement. He won't see that this is what many have pointed out - he is clearly out of touch with Christianity. He thinks that the mindset described above (By Frank Viola) is somehow counter the the movement of Christ across the world and perfectly aligned only with the teachings of Witness Lee and the LSM denomination.

I've seen first hand the difficulties in breaking this bondage within the LCM and seeing Christianity for what it is today. It is difficult when you're living in a world organized by a fallen man (Lee) and orchestrated by Living Streams Ministry. Come back to the truth set out in Scripture, come back to the Author of Truth, and the Spirit of Truth. Other believers are not adversaries stuck in Babylon and will come along side you through your journey.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Come back to the truth set out in Scripture, come back to the Author of Truth, and the Spirit of Truth. Other believers are not adversaries stuck in Babylon and will come along side you through your journey.

Unfortunately, the need to feel unique and superior, and hence to discredit all others, seems to be a deep-seated one within LCMers.

In fact, it is almost as if their spiritual identity hinges on this need. LCMers seem to think "just being another group" is entirely unacceptable. Of course, we all want to be more than just a group, we all want to be the Church. And we are, thankfully. But for LCMers that is not good enough. They seem to feel that if anyone else is allowed to be the Church then they are denied something. Hence Evangelical's vitriol toward "Christianity."

It really is a form of greed. Although I'm sure they would deny that tooth and nail.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Unfortunately, the need to feel unique and superior, and hence to discredit all others, seems to be a deep-seated one within LCMers.

In all fairness, not everyone in the local churches feel that way. There are those who are expressive and do speak and come across as wanting to discredit all other fellowships, ministers, etc. Those in the local churches who disagree with that expression will remain silent and won't make an issue by speaking contrarily.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

LCMers seem to think "just being another group" is entirely unacceptable. Of course, we all want to be more than just a group, we all want to be the Church. And we are, thankfully. But for LCMers that is not good enough. They seem to feel that if anyone else is allowed to be the Church then they are denied something.

Very much so. To be just another group or fellowship, how would they be able to emphasize their distinction?
In the mind of a general LCer, to be meeting practically as the church you need to be in fellowship with LSM as the vehicle for the fellowship. Wherever you live, if you want to be meeting practically as the church, you must come to us where we meet. We won't go to where you're at. To meet practically as the church, in any given city the address is The Church in ______ 12345 Street. There are meeting times listed. Those who want to be there will show up at the appointed times.
Christians meeting with various assemblies in the same city are viewed as "illegitimate", "on the wrong ground", "missing the mark", "denominations".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Evangelical's quote from a different thread. "As I was strolling through my local Christian bookstore the other day (tongue in cheek), I came across a book "Pagan Christianity" that said, "most of what we do in religious circles has no precedent in Scripture. This includes many of the activities within church services"."

This guy won't see the irony in his attempt at a "gotcha" statement. He won't see that this is what many have pointed out - he is clearly out of touch with Christianity. He thinks that the mindset described above (By Frank Viola) is somehow counter the the movement of Christ across the world and perfectly aligned only with the teachings of Witness Lee and the LSM denomination.

I've seen first hand the difficulties in breaking this bondage within the LCM and seeing Christianity for what it is today. It is difficult when you're living in a world organized by a fallen man (Lee) and orchestrated by Living Streams Ministry. Come back to the truth set out in Scripture, come back to the Author of Truth, and the Spirit of Truth. Other believers are not adversaries stuck in Babylon and will come along side you through your journey.

I think I have a real "gotcha" there.

Igzy said I should read all the Christian books, that "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore".

Yet the book "Pagan Christianity" clearly prejudices against most churches today by declaring most of their practices to be pagan. According to Igzy they must not be serious Christians.

Or maybe you and others are just blind to the truth revealed by independent researchers and thinkers like Viola and Barna. Just like the majority of Christians in the time of Luther could not see the paganism of the Catholic church, and chose to remain there rather than come out with Luther.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think I have a real "gotcha" there.

Igzy said I should read all the Christian books, that "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore".

Yet the book "Pagan Christianity" clearly prejudices against most churches today by declaring most of their practices to be pagan. According to Igzy they must not be serious Christians.

Or maybe you and others are just blind to the truth revealed by independent researchers and thinkers like Viola and Barna. Just like the majority of Christians in the time of Luther could not see the paganism of the Catholic church, and chose to remain there rather than come out with Luther.

I've read this book, its actually on my bookshelf. I'm not the one that is blind to the truth. I'm happy to send you my copy.

You are your own worst enemy on this forum. The casual reader can see what you're attempting to do and sees right through it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think I have a real "gotcha" there.

Igzy said I should read all the Christian books, that "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore".

Yet the book "Pagan Christianity" clearly prejudices against most churches today by declaring most of their practices to be pagan. According to Igzy they must not be serious Christians.

Or maybe you and others are just blind to the truth revealed by independent researchers and thinkers like Viola and Barna. Just like the majority of Christians in the time of Luther could not see the paganism of the Catholic church, and chose to remain there rather than come out with Luther.

Evangelical, you have been distracted by shiny objects again.

The subject was division and denominations. I suggested you check in a Christian bookstore for evidence of Christian writers insisting membership in their denominations are requirements for pleasing God.

Instead, knowing you would find little such evidence, you decided to change the subject to paganism.

But we weren't talking about paganism, we were discussing the unique move of God. And my point is that the LCM abuse of that idea puts them as the leaders of the pack of divisive groups these days.

And you continue to find ways to avoid that point, while at the same time proving it.

Astounding.

[Drake]

Igzy) "Actually I didn't fear the disapproval of others as much as my post might have indicated.

I really just feared the daily dread of not being good enough. The daily grind of the unreasonable expectations of the LCM. The tediously spartan lifestyle. "

Igzy,

Ok, you did not fear the disapproval of others. Let's just take them out of your fear equation.

Therefore, you feared the dread, the daily dread. Expectations were unreasonable. Expectations set by "LCM". So a kind of group pressure to dress a certain way, to have morning watch, to not enjoy that Big Mac and fry, to live a life of deprivation from TV and movies, to be at all the meetings, to serve on clean up, or parking, or unpacking boxes at meetings and trainings. You were a young man so you may have had a love interest but that was discouraged too. No staring, no quality time alone, and definitely no dating. Rather, surrounded mostly by brothers 24X7 you had to read the ministry, share, pray, exercise your spirit, shine your shoes, iron your own clothes, and make sure your dirty socks did not end up in someone's drinking glass.

That sort of thing is what you feared. It wasn't just dread of that "spartan" life, you also had fear of the dread. Fear that you would slip, fall short, become disapproved and not be worthy of being a "good brother". Each day could be the day it became too much. The pressure was enormous.

Something like that?

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Therefore, you feared the dread, the daily dread. Expectations were unreasonable.

Well, dread is a kind of fear. I think it came down to that I began to question whether the expectations of the LCM were God's expectations. There was a conflict between what I'd been indoctrinated with and perhaps what God was really expecting of me.

In short, I did not experience the grace to fully take on the challenge of the LCM as if the requirement was from God. It became a religious exercise because, I believe now, that's what it was. That doesn't mean I didn't have good experiences. Just that God was not requiring me to accept and believe everything that was taught there, including and especially that their way was the only way to truly serve God, whether I saw "the vision" or not. I believe in obeying God, but the LCM "vision" is just one more interpretation of things and a flawed one I believe. It doesn't carry any weight in and of itself or because Lee taught it.

However, the indoctrination produced an inner conflict in the heart of a young person. Though my gut told me that I was doing the right thing by leaving, my mind argued back, because I did not have the intellectual backing to support my gut. All I knew was there was something not right with the whole situation and I was very unhappy.

Further since the LCM does not prepare a young person for life on their own outside the LCM (I joined when I was 18), I was not emotionally prepared for the challenges of life among non-LCMers. Also, my disposition and personality were quite naive and immature. So adjustment was very tough, which lent more fodder to the Devil's accusations.

But it all hinged on the edict which in my day was taught quite plainly: "You cannot leave 'the church' and if you do you are in rebellion against God." This I now know is a lie, but that doesn't stop the Devil from accusing. Martin Luther suffered terribly from the Devil's accusations after he left Catholicism, even though he was not wrong to do so.

But I don't know what you are getting at with these questions. Perhaps you are trying to help me? That's fine. I have nothing to hide, fear or prove now, and I don't mind answering questions. But I'd like the discussion to be relevant to the subject matter.

So I like for you to try to respond to my whole argument that telling people they can't leave your group is an abusive practice.

And also tell me: Who is responsible for my suffering? Just me? I accept some responsibility. I should have gotten Christian counseling. But I expect you are thinking that, well, if I hadn't had left I wouldn't have suffered.

But don't you see that to me that's just one more piece of the manipulation? It's also kind of calloused.

[Cal]

Or let me put it another way, Drake.

It is entirely possible that God does not expect people to remain the LCM. And it he does not expect it, who is responsible for the suffering of those who were taught that?

Are you so certain that God expects that? If so, explain your certainty.

And if not, explain why you are willing to risk God's displeasure at the abuse of his little ones.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I've read this book, its actually on my bookshelf. I'm not the one that is blind to the truth. I'm happy to send you my copy.

You are your own worst enemy on this forum. The casual reader can see what you're attempting to do and sees right through it.

I have copybtoo. So you've read that most of church service is pagan. Now are you just going to ignore it or do something about it?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Evangelical, you have been distracted by shiny objects again.

The subject was division and denominations. I suggested you check in a Christian bookstore for evidence of Christian writers insisting membership in their denominations are requirements for pleasing God.

Instead, knowing you would find little such evidence, you decided to change the subject to paganism.

But we weren't talking about paganism, we were discussing the unique move of God. And my point is that the LCM abuse of that idea puts them as the leaders of the pack of divisive groups these days.

And you continue to find ways to avoid that point, while at the same time proving it.

Astounding.

Leastofthese not me ,brought the topic of paganism to this thread in #185. In fact he had no business to do that. You should read posts more carefully. I was addressing that. But the two topics are related through Bablyon which is both division and worldly mixture.

I wonder if there is any book that says God is pleased with denomination.
I am sure there are many catholic or orthodox who would say or believe that membership with them will please God.

But we do not say membership with us will please God. Firstly we do not have membership. Secondly, what pleases God is to leave Babylon. We would never say that one can please God by joining a denomination which is in Babylon.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I have copybtoo. So you've read that most of church service is pagan. Now are you just going to ignore it or do something about it?

You are disingenuous. A number of things that Viola discusses in that book are practiced in the LC too.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

You are disingenuous. A number of things that Viola discusses in that book are practiced in the LC too.

Then you should be able to name them. Perhaps in another thread. This thread is not about paganism.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

This guy won't see the irony in his attempt at a "gotcha" statement. He won't see that this is what many have pointed out - he is clearly out of touch with Christianity. He thinks that the mindset described above (By Frank Viola) is somehow counter the the movement of Christ across the world and perfectly aligned only with the teachings of Witness Lee and the LSM denomination.

Here's another "gotcha" from the book, which is on topic, about denominations and divisions.

The early Christians did not divide themselves into various
denominations. They understood their oneness in Christ and
expressed it visibly in every city. To their minds, there was only
one church per city (even though it may have met in many
different homes throughout the locale). If you were a Christian
in the first century, you belonged to that one church. The unity
of the Spirit was well guarded. Denominating themselves ("I
am of Paul," "I am of Peter," "I am of Apollos") was regarded
as sectarian and divisive (see 1 Corinthians 1:12).

The church in the first century was an organic entity. It was a living, breathing organism that expressed itself far differently from the institutional church today. And that expression revealed Jesus Christ on this planet through His every-member functioning body


In short, this book demonstrates beyond dispute that those who have left the fold of institutional Christianity to become part of an organic church have a historical right to exist—since history demonstrates that many practices of the institutional church are not rooted in Scripture.


Remember I did not get this from Lee/Nee books. This is from a book in my local christian bookstore

Now I can rephrase my previous statements to be on topic to this thread:

Igzy said I should read all the Christian books, that "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore". (#144)

Yet the book "Pagan Christianity" clearly prejudices against most churches/denominations today by declaring their existence to be "not rooted in Scripture".

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Then you should be able to name them. Perhaps in another thread. This thread is not about paganism.

I can name them. And, it was you brought up Pagan Christianity.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Here's another "gotcha" from the book, which is on topic, about denominations and divisions.

Igzy said I should read all the Christian books, that "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore". (#144)

Yet the book "Pagan Christianity" clearly prejudices against most churches/denominations today by declaring their existence to be "not rooted in Scripture".

Both examples are exceptions to the rule. They are extreme minority opinions.

And as they say, the exception proves the rule.

I never said you wouldn't find any examples. My point was that the vast overall attitude in the Church today is not divisive. (You seem to have cornered the market on divisive attitudes.)

Evangelical, you are no longer discussing issues in good faith. It's one thing to have an opinion and disagreement. It's another to willfully ignore the clear point someone is trying to make and to twist into something else. That's trolling and that's what it seems you have come to.

Someone else may have mentioned Paganism first. I really don't care. But you directed a statement about it at ME as if it had something to do with MY argument. And you knew it didn't.

The fact is you haven't addressed any of my points in days and yet you are still posting on this thread. If you are not going to address the main point please take your comments elsewhere. Thank you.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now I can rephrase my previous statements to be on topic to this thread:

Igzy said I should read all the Christian books, that "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore". (#144)

Yet the book "Pagan Christianity" clearly prejudices against most churches/denominations today by declaring their existence to be "not rooted in Scripture".

That is not the spirit of the book at all. In the introduction he says, "we encourage healthy skepticism that leads to fact finding and truth" "Every Good author writes in order to bring about positive meaningful change" "Pagan Christianity? was not written to divide the body of Christ". "We believe that some pagan practices are neutral and can be redeemed for God's glory" "Also, we do not believe that just because a practice has pagan roots, it is wrong"

These don't sound like divisive prejudices - If you read the book, you already realized this.

This quote from "Pagan Christianity?" may help give you insight to Igzy's quote: "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore".

"Most readers, however, responded positively, saying things like, "This book articulated what I've been feeling about the church for many years. And it gave me biblical and historical merit for those feelings". Interestingly, George and I received countless letters from pastors saying the same thing"

I have never experienced more judgement and divisiveness then my time in the LSM denomination.

On a similar note: have you seen what Viola has to say about Witness Lee and his "Local Church movement"?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

That is not the spirit of the book at all. In the introduction he says, "we encourage healthy skepticism that leads to fact finding and truth" "Every Good author writes in order to bring about positive meaningful change" "Pagan Christianity? was not written to divide the body of Christ". "We believe that some pagan practices are neutral and can be redeemed for God's glory" "Also, we do not believe that just because a practice has pagan roots, it is wrong"

These don't sound like divisive prejudices - If you read the book, you already realized this.

This quote from "Pagan Christianity?" may help give you insight to Igzy's quote: "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore".

"Most readers, however, responded positively, saying things like, "This book articulated what I've been feeling about the church for many years. And it gave me biblical and historical merit for those feelings". Interestingly, George and I received countless letters from pastors saying the same thing"

I have never experienced more judgement and divisiveness then my time in the LSM denomination.

On a similar note: have you seen what Viola has to say about Witness Lee and his "Local Church movement"?

The book is saying the exact same things we say. That denominations are sectarian, divisive and unbiblical. I have written this many times on this forum. In fact the information in the book sounds like it was quoted from one of Watchman Nee's books in the first place.

This is the very definition of hypocrisy:

When we say it or Lee writes it, it is prejudiced and divisive, according to Igzy et al.

When they write it in a book, the same things, that denominations are sectarian and divisive and unbiblical, it is not prejudiced and divisive (as you are now saying).

You have highlighted a difference however in their view and ours. We may disagree on pagan practices being "redeemed for God's glory". I don't think any practice of another religion, Hindu, Muslim, whatever, can be "redeemed for God's glory".

The book is essentially highlighting all the problems with Christianity today, yet what is more concerning is the book offers no advice about what to do about it. Christianity is pagan, let's call some things "neutral" and declare they can be "used for God's glory".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I can name them. And, it was you brought up Pagan Christianity.

Moi? I can't see any reference to Pagan Christianity in this thread before leastofthese's post #185.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Someone else may have mentioned Paganism first. I really don't care. But you directed a statement about it at ME as if it had something to do with MY argument. And you knew it didn't.
.

If I did not respond it is because some of your arguments are very hard to refute or I would only be repeating myself. There is little more I could do to reply to your points and Drake as mostly picked up the ball on that one. Plus you would rather discuss with Drake than me anyway, and I'm fine with that.

I'm not trolling but addressing some factual errors. You replied to leastofthese's post #185 in #186. That means you stepped into this little side discussion about Pagan Christianity (the book).
It should be no surprise to anyone then that I was addressing both of you.

If someone quotes me from another thread and brings that into here, and then you comment or reply to that,
don't act surprised or "this is not the topic of the thread" when I address that. That is not trolling, that is clearing the air.

But thank you for acknowledging that Pagan Christianity is one example of such a book. Certain parts seem to be taken straight from Nee's books anyway. It's not really an independent source of information about the early church. The book is not a reliable theological resource -I can't point to it and say it proves Nee right, if they are just quoting him anyway.

To a limit I agree with you that most Christian books are not prejudiced or say negative things about each other. But I think that is because of the consequences of saying negative things rather than because they do not have anything negative to say. Most authors want to shy away from controversy. Viola and Barna have tried to stay away from controversy by the points that leastofthese raised, the "spirit of the book", yet have still received a certain amount of flak from Christianity.

Even though I may agree with the things in the book, there is a fundamental difference in the approach. The book declares most of Christianity to be pagan, and yet much is neutral and therefore okay.
The Recovery is not about rejecting denominations because they are pagan. It because of what we believe the bible reveals about one church per city. If the one church per city is true, then denominations are ruled out. Not, denominations are ruled out because they have pagan practices.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The book is essentially highlighting all the problems with Christianity today, yet what is more concerning is the book offers no advice about what to do about it. Christianity is pagan, let's call some things "neutral" and declare they can be "used for God's glory".

You didn't read it, obviously. He specifically addresses your comment in the book.

Then you say "When they write it in a book, the same things, that denominations are sectarian and divisive and unbiblical, it is not prejudiced and divisive (as you are now saying)"

What a joke... The same things? Viola wouldn't touch Post 1970 Lee with a ten foot pole. I'm officially done with you Evan-gelical. Either you're completely oblivious or feigning naivety for the sake of your "argument".

For the sake of those in the LSM denomination or those looking for more information - Please keep posting, they need to see your "logic" and "truth"

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

You didn't read it, obviously. He specifically addresses your comment in the book.

Then you say "When they write it in a book, the same things, that denominations are sectarian and divisive and unbiblical, it is not prejudiced and divisive (as you are now saying)"

What a joke... The same things? Viola wouldn't touch Post 1970 Lee with a ten foot pole. I'm officially done with you Evan-gelical. Either you're completely oblivious or feigning naivety for the sake of your "argument".

For the sake of those in the LSM denomination or those looking for more information - Please keep posting, they need to see your "logic" and "truth"

Yes they said the same things.I quoted them word for word, page 285,286 in the book.

Look I'll quote it again, where they say denominations are sectarian and divisive.

The early Christians did not divide themselves into various
denominations. They understood their oneness in Christ and
expressed it visibly in every city. To their minds, there was only
one church per city (even though it may have met in many
different homes throughout the locale). If you were a Christian
in the first century, you belonged to that one church. The unity
of the Spirit was well guarded. Denominating themselves ("I
am of Paul," "I am of Peter," "I am of Apollos") was regarded
as sectarian and divisive (see 1 Corinthians 1:12).

The book also has an endorsement of the one church per city model as contained in that paragraph I just quoted.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If I did not respond it is because some of your arguments are very hard to refute or I would only be repeating myself. There is little more I could do to reply to your points and Drake as mostly picked up the ball on that one. Plus you would rather discuss with Drake than me anyway, and I'm fine with that.

If my arguments are hard to refute you might consider asking yourself why. Hint: I don't do it with tricks and mirrors.

I have no personal preference for Drake. I have a preference for people who are reasonable, fair-minded and honest thinkers. But my observation is that even the most seemingly reasonable LCMers eventually succumb to irrationality. Why, because their values force them to.

If you guys have a corner on the truth you ought to be able to answer any question, any argument, any misgiving. But you can't and you really don't even try. You just keep repeating the same mantras as if they answer all the questions.

There are whole ministries out there devoted to the defense of the faith. Many of them are amazing in their research and insights. There is nothing like that in the LCM. All DCP does is find more ways to call everyone who disagrees with them stupid or evil. But they do not try to defend the LCM dogma with the kind of humble and loving sincerity you see in other faith defense ministries. They never admit to faults, and that is the calling card of phonies.

If I was leading the LCM (assuming I believed in it) I have my best and brightest on this board every day fighting the battle. After all, if what you believe can't stand up to argument, why believe it? But there's not a peep. Awfully strange if you ask me. Sounds to me they know they's lose so they just content themselves by netting the dupes who don't ask questions and do what they are told.

I know you try hard Evangelical, and I believe you and Drake want to be sincere. But you have your priorities screwed up. Truth comes first, faith second. Not the other way around. And the LCM insists having it the other way around.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If my arguments are hard to refute you might consider asking yourself why. Hint: I don't do it with tricks and mirrors.

I have no personal preference for Drake. I have a preference for people who are reasonable, fair-minded and honest thinkers. But my observation is that even the most seemingly reasonable LCMers eventually succumb to irrationality. Why, because their values force them to.

If you guys have a corner on the truth you ought to be able to answer any question, any argument, any misgiving. But you can't and you really don't even try. You just keep repeating the same mantras as if they answer all the questions.

There are whole ministries out there devoted to the defense of the faith. Many of them are amazing in their research and insights. There is nothing like that in the LCM. All DCP does is find more ways to call everyone who disagrees with them stupid or evil. But they do not try to defend the LCM dogma with the kind of humble and loving sincerity you see in other faith defense ministries. They never admit to faults, and that is the calling card of phonies.

If I was leading the LCM (assuming I believed in it) I have my best and brightest on this board every day fighting the battle. After all, if what you believe can't stand up to argument, why believe it? But there's not a peep. Awfully strange if you ask me. Sounds to me they know they's lose so they just content themselves by netting the dupes who don't ask questions and do what they are told.

I know you try hard Evangelical, and I believe you and Drake want to be sincere. But you have your priorities screwed up. Truth comes first, faith second. Not the other way around. And the LCM insists having it the other way around.

The DCP has many many articles available online that address all familiar concerns in a thoughtful, scriptural, and unoffensive way.

It's very hard for us to refute personal experiences and other matters relating to people and circumstances from 30 years ago. I don't think the ministries you mention can even do that.

But I can give my opinion about the question you posed to Drake - does God expect us to stay in the LCM. When I first joined the Recovery, I recall a brother telling us that we should follow the Lord, which seemed to extend to which fellowship we choose to belong to. But was he saying that to make me feel better and get me hooked? Or did he genuinely believe that the Lord may or may not lead one to the Recovery. There was a time when I attended a variety of denominations in addition to the Recovery. I seemed to be accepted in the Recovery as anyone who was "sold out". It was actually negative experiences in the denominations I attended which made the decision for me. One of those denominations cared that I attended other churches, they felt it was a kind of betrayal. The Recovery did not seem to care at all. A number of members had wives, parents, children, who attended denominations.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The DCP has many many articles available online that address all familiar concerns in a thoughtful, scriptural, and unoffensive way.

It's very hard for us to refute personal experiences and other matters relating to people and circumstances from 30 years ago. I don't think the ministries you mention can even do that.

Probably because most ministries do not have to explain systemic abuses going back 50 years. But if they did they would be forthright about the matter. They wouldn't try to sweep history under the rug and blame victims like the LCM does.

The fact is life is messy and church is messy. Jesus knew that, which is why he became a friend of sinners, healed lepers, made disciples of tax collectors and prostitutes, and walked around in public not afraid of answering any question that was put to him.

Genuine ministry means getting your hands dirty. It means putting yourself on the line, not being defensive and being willing to sacrifice and go the extra miles for people nobody else cares about and who probably can do nothing for you. It means giving everything from a heart of love, being willing to lose it all for one lamb.

Anyone can be a hero for the "New Jerusalem." But the real heroes are the ones who pour it out for those everyone else has written off, including those who have questions that cause our shiny but thin theology to buckle, and force us back to the drawing board.

Those who don't really care never go back to the drawing board. Why should they when they have everything figured out already? The only thing they have to do is brush off everyone who disagrees with them, and ignore that twinge in their consciences when they do it.

We have been entrusted with the Truth and the ministry of reconciliation. That means we should have nothing to fear from questions, doubts, confusion, challenges or even anger from "extra-grace-required" people. These are exactly the people Jesus died for. The Truth cannot be threatened by anything, so it hangs in there, it sticks it out and sacrifices. It doesn't hole up in a fortress and sneer at the poor fools who don't get it. It stays up all night to answer every question it can and when it can't answer any more it says "I'm sorry, I don't know. I'll work on it. Please come back tomorrow."

The LCM doesn't handle things that way. Its attitude is if you are not astute enough to know they are the best they don't really want you anyway. That's not the heart of God. Rather, it's an arrogant, elitist attitude that comes from believing you alone are "the unique move of God."

The true unique move of God is loving people like Jesus did. Nothing is harder than that, which is why it is the prize. Anything else, no matter how seemingly great, is a fake, and certainly not "the unique move."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think I have a real "gotcha" there.

Igzy said I should read all the Christian books, that "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore".

Yet the book "Pagan Christianity" clearly prejudices against most churches today by declaring most of their practices to be pagan. According to Igzy they must not be serious Christians.

Or maybe you and others are just blind to the truth revealed by independent researchers and thinkers like Viola and Barna. Just like the majority of Christians in the time of Luther could not see the paganism of the Catholic church, and chose to remain there rather than come out with Luther.

Actually, not a "gotcha."

You picked one of the few books that is picking the scab on some particular things and is using some rather extreme language to talk about it.

While it is a different conversation, it is like the critiques of Christian ways in general by the "emerging" and "emergent" movements of the recent past. While the "emergent" group eventually went off a cliff in many ways, the "emerging" group made many valid observations that are in the process of being continually discussed and even have caused changes in the landscape of Christianity as a whole. While I am not sold on the idea, there are some that think that even evangelicalism as we know it will look very different in just another 20 years or so. Not because we dumped our beliefs, but because we changed the thrust of our focus.

And even if Viola's book is the extreme thing you say it is, it is not what most of the books in the bookstore are saying.

So Igzy's comment about living at the extremes remains true. You want to insist upon an extreme group and are busy trying to paint every other group as a different kind of extreme that they just aren't. You found one book and think you have won.

You haven't. You just found one book. I could show you several books that are worse in the kind of extremes that they teach. The problem is that they are generally only found in the LRC bookrooms.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Here's another "gotcha" from the book, which is on topic, about denominations and divisions.

The early Christians did not divide themselves into various
denominations. They understood their oneness in Christ and
expressed it visibly in every city. To their minds, there was only
one church per city (even though it may have met in many
different homes throughout the locale). If you were a Christian
in the first century, you belonged to that one church. The unity
of the Spirit was well guarded. Denominating themselves ("I
am of Paul," "I am of Peter," "I am of Apollos") was regarded
as sectarian and divisive (see 1 Corinthians 1:12).

The church in the first century was an organic entity. It was a living, breathing organism that expressed itself far differently from the institutional church today. And that expression revealed Jesus Christ on this planet through His every-member functioning body


In short, this book demonstrates beyond dispute that those who have left the fold of institutional Christianity to become part of an organic church have a historical right to exist—since history demonstrates that many practices of the institutional church are not rooted in Scripture.


Remember I did not get this from Lee/Nee books. This is from a book in my local christian bookstore

Now I can rephrase my previous statements to be on topic to this thread:

Igzy said I should read all the Christian books, that "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore". (#144)

Yet the book "Pagan Christianity" clearly prejudices against most churches/denominations today by declaring their existence to be "not rooted in Scripture".

But the book did not endorse your version of oneness. It said that oneness was in Christ. You have actually done the same naming game issue as the Corinthians because you do not use the name of the city as a non-thing that unifies the Christians, but as a specific thing that separates them. Our oneness is in Christ. But saying "I am of Christ" which implies that others are not is still sectarian. So in the same way, to declare that "we are the church in [city]" and meaning that others are not is just as sectarian.

The problem with your logic about names and "denominations" is that even though they don't agree on everything, unlike those in Corinth, they actually are not putting up walls around their groups and declaring others to be wrong, and therefore "not church." Instead they just are honest up front that they, as a group, believe in certain things in a certain way. If you want to come anyway, that is fine. If you want to join with others who think more like you, that is also fine. But we are all agreed that we are the church and together we are reaching the world.

Everyone except the LRC and a very few other extremists.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The book is saying the exact same things we say. That denominations are sectarian, divisive and unbiblical. I have written this many times on this forum. In fact the information in the book sounds like it was quoted from one of Watchman Nee's books in the first place.

But it was not quoted from Nee or Lee. And if you really read more than a summary sentence, I think you will see that what they are seeing is not the same thing that Nee and Lee saw. They are not concluding that the answer is a better name. It is not that changing the name makes everything right. It is not that following someone who says that makes everything right.

Actually, it is a view expressed from the most superficial analysis of the Christian landscape. There is no hiding that this landscape is very complex and nuanced. But oversimplifying things in the way Viola did is not really that meaningful. Viola and Barna have both made their names trying to shake things up. And from what I have read of them in the past (I did not read this one) is that they have some points to make. But too much of the time their primary rhetoric is at least a little over the top. (Sometimes more so.)

The whole idea that certain things are pagan is probably more of a correlation between things than any clear evidence that it is contrary to scripture and instead a following of a pagan practice. And someone in the LRC should be quick to avoid that kind of thing because they have been accused of following many pagan practices just because of outward similarities without any evidence that the source was actually pagan.

And don't forget that lack of a clear word for is not the same as a clear word against. (Which is not that same as saying just because there is not a clear word against, it must be clearly for.)

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The DCP has many many articles available online that address all familiar concerns in a thoughtful, scriptural, and unoffensive way.

And I have read several of those articles and found them, while inoffensive, to be contrived and to generally misuse scripture. They did make reference to scriptures, but they could not be said to support their positions any more than you have managed to do here. They declare verses to have meanings based on the same kinds of work-arounds that you use to insist on one church per city with the "church in [city]" name. It is all based on repeats of the same faulty use of scripture that Nee and Lee did in the first place. I have yet to find anything in them that is new and worthy of serious consideration.

And if you think there is actually something worthy of consideration, then you need to supply it because it has not been done in the past. The DCP hasn't done it. Lee didn't do it before that. Nor did Nee before that.

If they have finally found the silver bullet, then you need to enlighten us. Don't pull a Lee and say that if you read all of scripture you will agree with him. That is a rhetorical trick to overwhelm the reader/listener into not asking for a reason to believe it is true. It seems to remove the burden of proof from the one making the claim and tries to shift it to those who can find no reason to accept it.

But it doesn't work.

It is backwards logic. Provide no real evidence, but when they cannot or will not dig everywhere to find something that clearly refutes it, you just claim to have won. "If you can't find why I am wrong, then I must be right despite no evidence. Why? Because I make the claim and I decided to make everyone else prove me wrong."

It doesn't work that way. If you make a positive claim, you must provide a reason to accept it, otherwise it is rejected due to lack of evidence.

And even if your idea is plausible, it cannot be made to be "THE" answer just because it could be plausible.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

If they have finally found the silver bullet, then you need to enlighten us. Don't pull a Lee and say that if you read all of scripture you will agree with him. That is a rhetorical trick to overwhelm the reader/listener into not asking for a reason to believe it is true. It seems to remove the burden of proof from the one making the claim and tries to shift it to those who can find no reason to accept it.

But it doesn't work.

It is backwards logic.

And this is why they have to hide in their fortress and throw bombs over the wall. Because they would lose the argument if they actually honestly engaged the public arena. Can you imagine Jesus doing things the way they do? I can't.

Today I thought of the way Lee would treat people in his trainings. He would get someone up in front of everybody to "prove a point." He would ask them a question and if they didn't answer in the way he liked he would be dismissive of them. He eventually would turn his back on them if he didn't get what he wanted.

This is the way the LCM acts. They declare what they think is true, if you don't get it they repeat themselves, if you don't get that they send the message that you aren't worth the trouble and are foolish for not listening. The whole idea is not to enlighten, but to play on your insecurities, to make you feel like you are on the outside looking in. But never do they honestly and opening address questions about what they expect everyone to believe. They just turn and walk away and hope you feel bad about it.

That's what they do here, too, eventually. Rather than admit they need to rethink some things, they just disappear.

But as far as I'm concerned, if you are going to go around claiming to be the "unique move of God," just darn sure better be prepared to do better than that.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, not a "gotcha."

You picked one of the few books that is picking the scab on some particular things and is using some rather extreme language to talk about it.

While it is a different conversation, it is like the critiques of Christian ways in general by the "emerging" and "emergent" movements of the recent past. While the "emergent" group eventually went off a cliff in many ways, the "emerging" group made many valid observations that are in the process of being continually discussed and even have caused changes in the landscape of Christianity as a whole. While I am not sold on the idea, there are some that think that even evangelicalism as we know it will look very different in just another 20 years or so. Not because we dumped our beliefs, but because we changed the thrust of our focus.

And even if Viola's book is the extreme thing you say it is, it is not what most of the books in the bookstore are saying.

So Igzy's comment about living at the extremes remains true. You want to insist upon an extreme group and are busy trying to paint every other group as a different kind of extreme that they just aren't. You found one book and think you have won.

You haven't. You just found one book. I could show you several books that are worse in the kind of extremes that they teach. The problem is that they are generally only found in the LRC bookrooms.

I am wondering why the double standards here. If I say that denominations are wrong, sectarian and divisive, why is the response "that is more divisive than the denominations". If denominations are sectarian that makes them sects. I have said this many times as well.

Yet Viola's book say the same thing. I have quoted the page which is word for word almost like I say - denominations are sectarian, divisive, and there was one church per city.

The only big difference I see is that Viola promotes the house church or free group movement, and Viola claims to be saying it in a "loving way". If denominations truly are sectarian, divisive, pagan, then they cannot be serious about what they write if they try to sugar coat it with pleasantries. Putting that out there with false niceties to temper the fact, to me is the definition of insincerity. Rather, our attitude should be like Jesus driving the money changes out of the temple, otherwise, it indicates we are not serious about God's temple, or don't really believe that sectarianism and paganism is a problem. I believe it was Nee who wrote - either support denominations, or tear them down. Don't sit on the fence because being hot or cold is better than lukewarmness. Viola's book does its fair share of fence sitting by presenting a rather serious matter but then trying to sugar coat it.

Only in LRC bookrooms? You can also buy Lee/Nee books in Christian bookstores these days too. Normal Christian Church life would be extreme as it puts forward the one city per church model and speaks against denominations.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am wondering why the double standards here. If I say that denominations are wrong, sectarian and divisive, why is the response "that is more divisive than the denominations". If denominations are sectarian that makes them sects. I have said this many times as well.

Yet Viola's book say the same thing. I have quoted the page which is word for word almost like I say - denominations are sectarian, divisive, and there was one church per city.

The only big difference I see is that Viola promotes the house church or free group movement, and Viola claims to be saying it in a "loving way". If denominations truly are sectarian, divisive, pagan, then they cannot be serious about what they write if they try to sugar coat it with pleasantries. Putting that out there with false niceties to temper the fact, to me is the definition of insincerity. Rather, our attitude should be like Jesus driving the money changes out of the temple, otherwise, it indicates we are not serious about God's temple, or don't really believe that sectarianism and paganism is a problem. I believe it was Nee who wrote - either support denominations, or tear them down. Don't sit on the fence because being hot or cold is better than lukewarmness. Viola's book does its fair share of fence sitting by presenting a rather serious matter but then trying to sugar coat it.

Only in LRC bookrooms? You can also buy Lee/Nee books in Christian bookstores these days too. Normal Christian Church life would be extreme as it puts forward the one city per church model and speaks against denominations.

The LCM is not hypocritical for pointing out the divisions in denominational Christianity, rather because they practice the same things, and worse. This is the part of the story that you refuse to acknowledge. As they say, "there is none that are so blind as those who refuse to see."

The LCM is a history of divisions, quarantines, excommunications, power struggles, etc. There is also a long history of corruptions and unrighteousness in their LSM leadership which they have never repented for, instead they condemn the ones who happen to point it out. Somehow all the irony has been lost on you.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The LCM is not hypocritical for pointing out the divisions in denominational Christianity, rather because they practice the same things, and worse. This is the part of the story that you refuse to acknowledge. As they say, "there is none that are so blind as those who refuse to see."

The LCM is a history of divisions, quarantines, excommunications, power struggles, etc. There is also a long history of corruptions and unrighteousness in their LSM leadership which they have never repented for, instead they condemn the ones who happen to point it out. Somehow all the irony has been lost on you.

This is why the idea that if you "meet on the local ground" you are okay with oneness and if you don't you are not is one of the dumbest ideas in church history.

Oneness is like love. You don't go around condemning people for not being loving. You love. Likewise, you don't go around condemning people for not being one. You be one. Oneness means you receive and accept other believers, in spite of differences. It means you go the extra mile to receive and to be a peacemaker.

It doesn't mean you squat on the local ground, condemn everyone else and tell them if they don't join you they are off.

That kind of naivete possibly could have been excused 50 years ago, when the idea of locality was new and untested in America. But half a century later the verdict is in. Locality as practiced by the LCM is just another way a group defines itself with a superficially scriptural idea and uses that idea to divide itself from others--like the 7th Day Adventists insisting they are better because they meet on Saturday instead of Sunday, or whatever.

Time to wake up and fess up, LCMers. It's time.

[Cal]

Here is an amazing message about oneness as it relates to marriage.

http://www.acfellowship.org/media/me...your-marriage/

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am wondering why the double standards here. If I say that denominations are wrong, sectarian and divisive, why is the response "that is more divisive than the denominations". If denominations are sectarian that makes them sects. I have said this many times as well.

No double standard on my part. I am fully aware that we are not completely one on every side issue. But you are so focused on the fact that we are not one on the side issues while ignoring that you are no different, and in some ways more so.

We do not declare others to be "non church" or "defective church." That is left to your group. You think that you can be both in disagreement and dismissive of all others, and yet claim the high road? Hard to do from the gutter.

The rest of your response is not worthy of a response. One book does not make your point. It only proves that there is a tendency in man to look for reasons to think more highly of their own thoughts than of anyone else's.

And house churches are not the answer to the problem. They are just a prone to following divisive ways as any other. The only difference is that they do not at least band together with other similars. Instead they just go it alone. And they cease to have a sufficient core of people with which to vet the latest idea. The craziest ideas of recent times came from people who were leaders of independent groups, not the denominations. The "Love Wins" dismissal of Hell was from an independent free group. No connection to others. No one to stand up and critique it. And that is not the only example.

Meanwhile, whether assemblies are completely independent, somewhat independent, or grouped together, they are only as divisive relative to others as they have tendency to declare others to be less than "church" or otherwise deficient for not being like them. That would be your group. Not he denominations. Not so many of those free groups or house churches.

But why are there house churches? Because they don't like larger groups? Because they want to have truly local control over all aspects of their belief? None of these are simply bad. But none of these are simply good.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Meanwhile, whether assemblies are completely independent, somewhat independent, or grouped together, they are only as divisive relative to others as they have tendency to declare others to be less than "church" or otherwise deficient for not being like them. That would be your group.

Well said and Amen.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Oneness is like love. You don't go around condemning people for not being loving. You love. Likewise, you don't go around condemning people for not being one. You be one. Oneness means you receive and accept other believers, in spite of differences. It means you go the extra mile to receive and to be a peacemaker.

Oneness is vague. What is the basis of oneness or what is oneness according to? Socialists can be one according to socialism. Same with Liberals with Liberalism and Conservatives with Conservatism. In the context of LCD, oneness in the Local Churches is not so clear. Verbally it is according to God's Word, but in practice it's according to Lee's ministry. Which is it?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

And this is why they have to hide in their fortress and throw bombs over the wall. Because they would lose the argument if they actually honestly engaged the public arena. Can you imagine Jesus doing things the way they do? I can't.

Privately and publicly I have said the same thing regarding DCP/LSM. It's easy to use the bi-annual training forum for a blended or blended brothers to go on the offensive. There's not going to be any immediate counter responses.
Say a brother with a contrary point of view offers to meet with DCP representatives face to face and they become conveniently unavailable, it gives the impression they're going into a defensive bunker mode.
(i.e. we're not going to entertain this brother nor give him any ground of dialogue.)
By comparison, I've met with a community church before you can go up to a pastor and critique his sermon; positive or negative without any repercussions.
No shunning. No exclusions.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Oneness is vague. What is the basis of oneness or what is oneness according to? Socialists can be one according to socialism. Same with Liberals with Liberalism and Conservatives with Conservatism. In the context of LCD, oneness in the Local Churches is not so clear. Verbally it is according to God's Word, but in practice it's according to Lee's ministry. Which is it?

Oneness, at least where I was, in the LC in the mid-70's had everything to do with your relationship with the Lord and the brothers/sisters next to you. (Now I understand that the changes and demands on LC leaders behind the scenes concerning "oneness" was changing rapidly.)

By the time I left, oneness came to mean one thing -- what was your relationship with W. Lee and LSM?!?

This was no accident. It was by design. It was Lee's design for his little kingdom. Those who resisted his "plans" were asked to leave. Those who refused to leave, had their reputations destroyed first, and then "they decided" it was best for them to leave.

According to their peddled brand of oneness, all other relationships in your life were insignificant, expendable, and secondary to your relationship with "the ministry."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

On a similar note: have you seen what Viola has to say about Witness Lee and his "Local Church movement"?

I don't know, but the book certainly sounds like it is Witness Lee flavored at times:

For example, under "THE REFORMATION" it says:

What the Reformers failed to do was to recover the corporate dimension of the believing priesthood.

In other words, the Reformers only recovered the priesthood of the believer


It even quotes LSM publications:

For more details, see The Normal Christian Church Life by Watchman Nee (Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1980).

God's Plan of Redemption (Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1999)

[Cal]

Well, it seems that the verdict is in and none of our dear LCM apologists have been able to or have really tried to defend the idea that "the Recovery" (aka the movement started by Nee and Lee) is the "unique move of God." Presumably they will continue to believe it even though they cannot or will not defend the idea publicly.

Again, this is typical of the most outrageous of Lee's teachings. LCMers just expect everyone to be smart enough to swallow such ideas whole, even though they wither under public scrutiny. I guess we're all too stupid to understand how true these indefensible ideas are.

So much for sarcasm. Yes, God has a unique move. After all, there is one unique God. The move is his. Only he really knows what he is doing. The LCM is not wrong to say God's goal is to build the Church. Where they go wrong is insisting "building the Church" equates to their definition of it and of the details of how it must be carried out.

For example, the LCM decided the Church cannot be built without local churches (just like theirs) where members are set free to "function" (meaning speak in meetings). The problem is after 50+ years of this exercise there is no evidence that it has lent to the "building of the Church" to any greater degree than the various other means of building each other that believers employ. There is no evidence of superior spiritual maturity in the LCM over what you see among groups of serious Christians in other congregations.

In short there is NO evidence that this movement is the "unique move of God." And they've had over 50 years to prove this grandiose and outrageous claim. So the mantra has grow quite tiresome, and the damage it has done had grown even more tiresome. They must be tired of it too, given the lethargic response in this thread.

I've always felt the LCM had something to offer. Imagine that instead of holing up and being greedy and proud about what the Lord had given them, they had, as it says in Ecclesiastes 11, "cast their bread upon water." Good and helpful ideas like calling on the Lord, pray-reading, the human spirit, simple Christian community, the priesthood of believers and so forth (before they became so stamped with LCM proprietary spin that they lost their general appeal) could have truly helped millions of believers.

But instead they became greedy. They wanted to build their kingdom more than they wanted to help strangers. They insisted that they and they alone were qualified to transport the Ark. And, because of their arrogance, they became irrelevant. Ideas which were so fresh and appealing in their general essence 50 years ago have found their way into the Christian mainstream by other paths. God will always find a way. But how different it could have been, if only for a little humility.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oneness, at least where I was, in the LC in the mid-70's had everything to do with your relationship with the Lord and the brothers/sisters next to you. (Now I understand that the changes and demands on LC leaders behind the scenes concerning "oneness" was changing rapidly.)

By the time I left, oneness came to mean one thing -- what was your relationship with W. Lee and LSM?!?

This was no accident. It was by design. It was Lee's design for his little kingdom. Those who resisted his "plans" were asked to leave. Those who refused to leave, had their reputations destroyed first, and then "they decided" it was best for them to leave.

According to their peddled brand of oneness, all other relationships in your life were insignificant, expendable, and secondary to your relationship with "the ministry."

In the late 1980's a Bellevue elder was reputed for saying at a LDM "If you're not here for Brother Lee and his ministry, you might as well not be here."
Politically incorrect as it may seem, the brother was speaking honestly. Many in the local churches echo the same sentiment, but would lack the boldness to utter it.
In LC speak, oneness is a word containing a double meaning. On one hand as Christians being one according to our lives as Christians in Christ, but in the local churches oneness being one with the blended co-workers, being one for Witness Lee's ministry, and to a lesser extent Watchman Nee's ministry.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

In the late 1980's a Bellevue elder was reputed for saying at a LDM "If you're not here for Brother Lee and his ministry, you might as well not be here."
Politically incorrect as it may seem, the brother was speaking honestly. Many in the local churches echo the same sentiment, but would lack the boldness to utter it.
In LC speak, oneness is a word containing a double meaning. On one hand as Christians being one according to our lives as Christians in Christ, but in the local churches oneness being one with the blended co-workers, being one for Witness Lee's ministry, and to a lesser extent Watchman Nee's ministry.

This is what Evangelical, Drake, and other LC adherents will never admit to -- their so-called "vision" really is an unwavering loyalty to Lee and his successors.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is what Evangelical, Drake, and other LC adherents will never admit to -- their so-called "vision" really is an unwavering loyalty to Lee and his successors.

Remember all the talk about "we will never leave this way!"?

I remember Titus talking about "you've broken our family tradition!"

"Way?" "Tradition?" What if God tells you to take another way, or leave the family tradition? Oops, that means you've left "the vision"

One man's vision is another's dogma, and who can tell the difference? Well, we may not be able to tell, but we can know when either becomes divisive and sectarian. And that's what the Lord tells us to avoid. That's why generality and receiving are the best path. I remember when the LCM once taught that... long, long ago.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I've always felt the LCM had something to offer. Imagine that instead of holing up and being greedy and proud about what the Lord had given them, they had, as it says in Ecclesiastes 11, "cast their bread upon water." Good and helpful ideas like calling on the Lord, pray-reading, the human spirit, simple Christian community, the priesthood of believers and so forth (before they became so stamped with LCM proprietary spin that they lost their general appeal) could have truly helped millions of believers.

But instead they became greedy. They wanted to build their kingdom more than they wanted to help strangers. They insisted that they and they alone were qualified to transport the Ark. And, because of their arrogance, they became irrelevant. Ideas which were so fresh and appealing in their general essence 50 years ago have found their way into the Christian mainstream by other paths. God will always find a way. But how different it could have been, if only for a little humility.

I agree that walling out fellowship with other Christian groups on LC side has been a shame. On the other hand slanderous attacks by some Christian leaders on the other side, and lawsuits instead of dialogue deprives many other Christians who could gain from the "unsearchable riches of Christ" that once was the main focus of the LC.

[Evangelical]

Who is ready to discuss the ultimate move of God? Do we have the ultimate move of God among us? Or are our efforts merely organizational ones, without much prayer or the Word of God?

Does God have a way to move ?

In my evangelistic efforts recently, we encountered a man who was told they could not do anything without the pastor's approval. Clearly, this is not a situation in which God has a way to move, because the organization and tradition stands in the way. However we presented to him the truth that God just wants all Christians to be priests, and the priesthood of all the believers. Now he is reconsidering staying with that church, and we have shown him a better way, in line with God's ultimate move which is simply to gain people for Christ.

There are not many Christian groups that just want to gain people for Christ and not for religion. Many wish to employ people in their organizational religious programs or to fill the seats and the pockets of the church.

I have noticed there are two categories of people
- evangelistic people, driven by the great Commission, who seek to gain individuals for Christ, but once converts are made, have no way to bring them to the church.
-People who seek to gain people for a particular denomination, organization, method or program - may bring many people to church, but no real conversion experience, not necessarily saved or spiritually growing.

[Drake]

Igzy) "But I don't know what you are getting at with these questions. Perhaps you are trying to help me? That's fine. I have nothing to hide, fear or prove now, and I don't mind answering questions. But I'd like the discussion to be relevant to the subject matter. "

HI Igzy,

Lets clear the air on that. I am not trying to help you, neither do I seek to hurt you. I am trying to understand why two brothers who were likely contemporaries, heard the same messages, experienced the same church life, perhaps similar corporate living arrangements, may have even broke bread together could have interpreted the whole affair 180 degrees differently. Eventually one leaving bitter and angry convinced that the Devil tricked him into wasting so many years while the other grateful as having received a great spiritual treasure as from the Lord Himself!

You describe vision like a doctrine or some interpretation of scripture . That is one major difference between our experiences as relates to vision. I can only describe my experience as a type of visitation from the Lord. That guided me in many times and ways as it still does.

Another difference in our experiences is I never felt I could live up to the standard that others around me were so I never tried, never got my hopes up and didn't get anyone else's hopes up. If it wasn't the Lord in me it wasn't going to happen. You describe a pressure to aspire to a good brother standard and dreaded the arduous life of trying to live up to it. In this we shared a common realization , that is, achieving that standard is not possible using our own efforts. You tried with great effort, I didnt so much.

Igzy)"So I like for you to try to respond to my whole argument that telling people they can't leave your group is an abusive practice.

And also tell me: Who is responsible for my suffering? Just me? I accept some responsibility. I should have gotten Christian counseling. But I expect you are thinking that, well, if I hadn't had left I wouldn't have suffered.

I have never heard anyone at anytime ever tell anyone else that they can't leave the church life. Holding people, verbally or physically, against their will would be an abusive practice. People came and went all the time, sometimes several times.

Also, I would not tell you that your suffering would have been alleviated had you stayed. On the contrary, from your description you would've continued to suffer. If we ever had had the opportunity to fellowship back then I would have pleaded with you to forget trying to live up to that standard no matter who established it, you or someone else, and rather to just pray and enjoy the Lord together. Under the circumstances, you might have misunderstood my intentions even at that.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by JJ

I agree that walling out fellowship with other Christian groups on LC side has been a shame. On the other hand slanderous attacks by some Christian leaders on the other side, and lawsuits instead of dialogue deprives many other Christians who could gain from the "unsearchable riches of Christ" that once was the main focus of the LC.

The walling came first, then the response. The LCM basically asked for trouble by accusing other groups of being "Babylon, "incenstuous Moabites," etc, etc.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Who is ready to discuss the ultimate move of God? Do we have the ultimate move of God among us? Or are our efforts merely organizational ones, without much prayer or the Word of God?

Another artificial segmenting of God's move into layers of levels of preference.

Did you think that saying "ultimate" meant the only move of God? It means one of his moves that is more than any other. And that would mean that God segments his move into marginal moves, OK moves, pretty good moves, really good moves, and ultimate moves.

Or it is a ruse dreamed up by people like you, Drake, Benson, Ray, Ron, Kerry, etc., for the purpose of creating the presumption of one move that invalidates all others as having anything to do with God.

Since I don't see evidence that there is such a thing, and I don't see God as going around stratifying his "moves" in the manner I stated earlier, this can only be described as a sectarian non-starter.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Does God have a way to move?

The answer is "yes." He moves through his people in the many and multifarious ways that they take their calling and move through life and society.

And occasionally he might do something miraculous and grand, like open up a hole in the earth and swallow up a bunch of idol worshippers. But we haven't seen much of that in a few centuries. Not saying he can't. Or that he hasn't, even if on a less grand and recorded scale. But it hasn't been clearly his direct doing for such a purpose.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

I am trying to understand why two brothers who were likely contemporaries, heard the same messages, experienced the same church life, perhaps similar corporate living arrangements, may have even broke bread together could have interpreted the whole affair 180 degrees differently. Eventually one leaving bitter and angry convinced that the Devil tricked him into wasting so many years while the other grateful as having received a great spiritual treasure as from the Lord Himself!

You won't like the answer. But you can't just refute it because you don't like it.

The answer could be that one had his eyes and nose opened to the fog and garlic in which he had been befuddled for years, and realizing how others who had gone through the same awakening were treated by the leadership, could only be angry for at least some period of time. You can reply with some kind of psychological mumbo jumbo about how anger is your own fault, or fear is not real therefore should be ignored. But when you have been lead to believe that your eternal existence hinges on remaining true to something you are not completely sold on, what do you expect? And when it is discovered that it was a lie, what do you expect?

At least no one has gone postal over it yet. Not condoning such a thing. But the kind of chicanery that has gone on to fool God-fearing people into remaining in bondage to lies could be problematic if the right (or rather wrong) person suddenly wakes up to this kind of shenanigans.

As for the ones staying behind being "grateful as having received a great spiritual treasure as from the Lord Himself," I can only say that if they believe it is from the Lord, that is how they would describe it. Doesn't make it actually from the Lord.

Funny how the things that are treasured as from the Lord are things that make the LRC faithful be special Christians with special favor bestowed on them by God. Still looking for any evidence that there is such a thing. But it is part of the arsenal that keeps people from taking a second look at the problems. It is human nature to not want to accept that you can be wrong, and also to become snared in anything that grants special status — no matter how insignificant or even illusory that status is.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy)[B] I am trying to understand why two brothers who were likely contemporaries, heard the same messages, experienced the same church life, perhaps similar corporate living arrangements, may have even broke bread together could have interpreted the whole affair 180 degrees differently
...
I have never heard anyone at anytime ever tell anyone else that they can't leave the church life. Holding people, verbally or physically, against their will would be an abusive practice.

Well, I think you are missing the forest for the trees. My pain and resentment were caused by the LCM indoctrinating me with the belief that there was no legitimate way to go on with the Lord outside the LCM. Period. That's it. Thus the subject of this thread. If the problem had simply been that I didn't like the difficult LCM culture or wasn't up to it, then I just would have left and not looked back. But I was brainwashed into believing I was offending God by leaving. This caused me much pain.

That is the point that is relevant to this thread, not any other difficulty I had with the LCM.

I really don't know what to make of your claims that you never heard anyone say that leaving the LCM was wrong. That is like a long-time conservative claiming he didn't know conservatives wanted to cut taxes. Your naivete, if that's what it really is, is off the charts.

Let's be clear that I hear this taught time and time again, from the top to the bottom of the group. There can be no mistaking. Others here can bear witness to this too.

I heard Lee teach it. I heard him say that no one who has left the movement has been able to go on with the Lord. He said no one who left has become a "prevailing Christian," whatever that is. Like he would know. Did he have a magic mirror back in the 1970s so he could look into everyone's life and see what happened to them?

I heard Benson teach it. He said there was no way to go on with the Lord and nothing of value outside the movement.

To leave the LCM was to leave "God's best." That was the mantra. How would we know what was God's best anyway?

I heard it taught by our elders. One said, "If any of us had a way to leave, we would. But the Lord won't let us." His statement was meant to drive home the idea that though the movement was hard, there was no legitimate way to leave. This was the mentality that was drilled into us and this was the mentality we lived with.

When I told an elder I was close to I was leaving he accused me of going against my conscience.

Stories were told about people that left the movement and who died or suffered horrible tragedies, and the meaning was clear: Leave at the risk to your body and soul.

And I heard it many other ways.

There can be no mistaking about it. I don't know what planet you've been on for the last 40 years, but either you are in denial or incredibly ignorant. I don't know how else to say it. But your claim that the LCM did not teach that leaving the movement was effectively rebellion against God is about as ignorant a statement as I've ever heard by someone who claimed to know what he is talking about.

It was this indoctrination that caused me to suffer while I was in and after I left. It was wrong and it was abusive, as you have already acknowledged. The LCM needs to officially and publicly repent from this idea and offer to pay for counseling and other reparations for anyone hurt by it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Who is ready to discuss the ultimate move of God? Do we have the ultimate move of God among us? Or are our efforts merely organizational ones, without much prayer or the Word of God?

Originally Posted by OBW

Another artificial segmenting of God's move into layers of levels of preference.

Did you think that saying "ultimate" meant the only move of God? It means one of his moves that is more than any other. And that would mean that God segments his move into marginal moves, OK moves, pretty good moves, really good moves, and ultimate moves.

Some young person gives a glowing rehearsal of W. Lee's training message in front of hundreds of excited fans, and then we hear about the ultimate move of God?

Some lost sheep gets saved after class with no one around other than her classmate, and it gets treated as nothing because the classmate is in "them denominations."

But what does the scripture say? "There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner repenting, than over the 99 righteous ones at the training who have no need of repentance."

.

[Ohio]

Igzy: "So I like for you to try to respond to my whole argument that telling people they can't leave your group is an abusive practice.

And also tell me: Who is responsible for my suffering? Just me? I accept some responsibility. I should have gotten Christian counseling. But I expect you are thinking that, well, if I hadn't had left I wouldn't have suffered.

Originally Posted by Drake

I have never heard anyone at anytime ever tell anyone else that they can't leave the church life. Holding people, verbally or physically, against their will would be an abusive practice. People came and went all the time, sometimes several times.

Also, I would not tell you that your suffering would have been alleviated had you stayed. On the contrary, from your description you would've continued to suffer. If we ever had had the opportunity to fellowship back then I would have pleaded with you to forget trying to live up to that standard no matter who established it, you or someone else, and rather to just pray and enjoy the Lord together. Under the circumstances, you might have misunderstood my intentions even at that.

Drake

So ... I can also say this, "I have never heard anyone at anytime ever tell anyone else that they can't leave the church life."

Duh! Things were a little more subtle than that, don't you think? Aren't you just lawyering here? LC equivocations really make me nauseous.

Have you never heard the awful stories about those who left the LC? Got cancer of the throat for objecting to WL's ground of locality? Warnings about never going on with the Lord after leaving? Unable to be sanctified outside the recovery? Miss the Lord's blessings?

Sure you did!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So ... I can also say this, "I have never heard anyone at anytime ever tell anyone else that they can't leave the church life."

The funny thing is I did hear a leading brother say those very words.

"You can't leave the church!"


Beam me up, Mr. Mota!

[Drake]

Igzy) "I really don't know what to make of your claims that you never heard anyone say that leaving the LCM was wrong"

Hi Igzy.

There is a difference between telling someone they can't leave a group and telling them they are wrong to leave a group. One could be abuse, the other could just be concern for your soul.

In this thread I have sincerely tried to understand your view and how you might interpret things differently than I do. What were the differences in our experience, was it something we did differently, events, our circumstances, our backgrounds, or something neither of us have realized? At this point, I think we experienced pretty much the same things. You heard them one way, I heard them differently. You interpret them as someone brainwashing you, I interpret them as someone's caring and sharing the convictions of their beliefs. Same speaking, different interpretation.

In summary, we will likely never gain a full understanding of this matter or each other beyond what we have shared here. Still, I do not recognize the "dreadful" church life you describe, the abuse you claim, the brainwashing, etc. Rather, in my experience, through all these decades the church life has been a sweet visitation from the Lord. The brothers and sisters really are family in the richest sense. The leading brothers are servants dedicated to ministering Christ into others. In their speaking the Word has never been clearer, more open, or invigorating to me. The Spirit is guiding and directing and collaborating with a governing vision. Truth and Life are prevailing. Struggles? Certainly. Grace to overcome? Abundantly.

Is that unique? In my experience it is... absolutely. To you, it is not.

Thanks for the dialogue.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The funny thing is I did hear a leading brother say those very words.

"You can't leave the church!"


Beam me up, Mr. Mota!

For me the constant drumbeat of divine retribution, spiced up with tall tales and horror stories of the supernatural, had a far more gripping and insidious effect on me.

As I was researching Brethren history in the years before my exodus, I discovered from the historian Wm. B. Neatby how Brethren Exclusives regularly used British "Bug Bears" to manipulate their members. That helped to expose the whole scheme to me.

Then I read all the sordid details, long hidden from LC membership, about Philip Lee at LSM, and worse, what his Dad did to destroy the reputations of those who spoke their conscience on behalf of God's children.

That completely released me from the Chinese "Boogey Man."

This is one area of Lee history that Drake refuses to address.

.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So ... I can also say this, "I have never heard anyone at anytime ever tell anyone else that they can't leave the church life."

Duh! Things were a little more subtle than that, don't you think? Aren't you just lawyering here? LC equivocations really make me nauseous.

Have you never heard the awful stories about those who left the LC? Got cancer of the throat for objecting to WL's ground of locality? Warnings about never going on with the Lord after leaving? Unable to be sanctified outside the recovery? Miss the Lord's blessings?

Sure you did!

Ohio,

there is a big difference between telling someone, say your child, "you can't leave the house", versus "don't go onto the road because you might get hit by a car". I am yet to see anyone be restrained or verbally or physically told they cannot leave church.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Ohio,

there is a big difference between telling someone, say your child, "you can't leave the house", versus "don't go onto the road because you might get hit by a car". I am yet to see anyone be restrained or verbally or physically told they cannot leave church.

You never get it Evangelical. You're clueless about LC life in the USA, especially 30-40 years ago.

Control and manipulation also goes both ways, telling members what to do and what not to do.

Reminds me of Lee speaking from the podium, "What me, I never control anyone, I can't even control a mosquito." Typical LC doublespeak.

I was only in the LC a short time, when the "Young Galilean" movement swept thru the LC's. What chaos! I can't imagine how many young people were ruined in that nonsense. One older brother told me directly, "You are in the Lord's army now, you will be told where you will move to." Forget about praying, seeking the Lord, or other such spirituality from "fallen Christianity."

[Evangelical]

I wasn't in the LC 30-40 years ago. But I don't think things are like that now.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

There is a difference between telling someone they can't leave a group and telling them they are wrong to leave a group. One could be abuse, the other could just be concern for your soul.

When we stand before the Lord, do you think he is going to buy that excuse, that "can't leave" and "wrong to leave" mean different things? I sure don't want to be the one copping that lame plea at the judgement seat. So knock yourself out with that one.

Good intentions only take one so far. By now the evidence has been in for years and the LCM is conveniently ignoring it. So there is no longer any excuse. At this point it's a matter of being in denial.

I doubt any objective witnesses buy your story either. So I guess you can continue kidding yourselves if you want to. What bothers me is that it just sets up another innocent who hasn't read this board to be damaged. That should bother you too. And I can't imagine why it doesn't.

Let me reiterate. God cares about people: not systems, not institutions, not moves. He's the one who left the flock to save one lamb. And I'm glad he did so to save this one. And you know what he said he would do to those of us who hurt one of his "little ones" (Matt 18:6). That's a warning we ALL need to take seriously.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

there is a big difference between telling someone, say your child, "you can't leave the house", versus "don't go onto the road because you might get hit by a car".

That's a rationalization. There was no evidence that leaving the LCM was dangerous or displeasing to God. It was a false fear created by ignorant fanatics. Oh, maybe they believed it. But eventually ignorance is not an excuse. Certainly by now it isn't. Mormons believe it's bad to leave the Mormon church. Does that make it okay for them to teach it?

A better analogy would be telling your kids they can't leave the house because the boogy-man will eat them alive once they step off the front porch. That's the "care" of a parent who has no business being a parent.

And as I said, by now the LCM should know better. They should make a public apology, a promise to change policy and other reparations.

At this point you guys are just in denial. Time to fess up. You'll feel better, trust me.

[Drake]

Igzy)"When we stand before the Lord..."

We agree on that and we also agree that there will be some unexpected surprises. Everything will be judged in His light.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy)"When we stand before the Lord..."

We agree on that and we also agree that there will be some unexpected surprises. Everything will be judged in His light.

Drake

His light is already here.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

His light is already here.

Yes.

Then, we will be judged in His light...openly...... every post, every word, every action.

[UntoHim]

Right, and the light we will be judged by is the light revealed in the Word of God, and NOT the "ministry" of any man, or the religious jargon of the movement produced from the person and work of any man. Remember, the Lord Jesus proclaimed "My reward is with ME". (Rev 22:12) Our reward is solely and firmly in the hands of the One who died for us and saved us from our sins, and NOT in the filthy, unrighteous hands of any self-proclaimed "one apostle with the one ministry for the age", or any of his followers who believe and propagate such myths.
-

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes.

Then, we will be judged in His light...openly...... every post, every word, every action.

every McDonald's french fry...

[Drake]

-1

Right.

...... every post, every word, every action.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

There is a difference between telling someone they can't leave a group and telling them they are wrong to leave a group. One could be abuse, the other could just be concern for your soul.

So a blood washed, born again believer has to worry about his soul if he leaves the Local Church of Witness Lee? And you guys wonder why anyone would call your little group a cult. Your statement here does reflect the misplaced, insidious fear that was instilled into the followers of Lee. This also reflects the cult-like attitude expressed by the president of the Living Stream Ministry, Mr. Benson Phillips, who boldly proclaimed:
“In any case, do not leave the Lord’s recovery. I can assure you that if you go away from the Lord’s recovery, you will have no way for the process of sanctification to go forward within you. Instead, you will just enter into a bankrupt situation. I know of no one who has left the Lord’s recovery and today is a great spiritual person on the earth. The sanctification process is carried out in the Lord’s recovery”
(The Ministry Magazine Vol. 8, No. 1 Page 189, first paragraph)

Yes, I do have this quote on speed dial, and yes it really comes in handy when some Local Churcher says something like you have...and then tries to walk it back with a blitzkrieg of Local Church "yeah, buts" and "out of context"s and "but not in the godhead" laughable garbage. According to brother Phillips the ONLY PLACE ON EARTH for the "process of sanctification" to "go forward" is in the Local Church of Lee movement. I know Benson. He said this because he means it. He means it because he believes it. He believes it because he sat at the feet of Witness Lee for decades. And what Benson has stated here reflects this notion that if you leave the Local Church of Witness Lee, at the very least, your spiritual life is over, and at worst you better be watching for that Steinway to fall on your head...or if you're really lucky it will only be a Wurlitzer

Yes, Witness Lee believed and taught that his ministry and his movement were "the Unique Move of God". He said it in soooo many words, and there is a very good reason why most former LC members will admit that they were afraid to leave because of fear....not fear of God but fear of man.
-

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Right.

...... every post, every word, every action.

Alright. We get it. Thank you.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by BensonPhillips

“In any case, do not leave the Lord’s recovery. I can assure you that if you go away from the Lord’s recovery, you will have no way for the process of sanctification to go forward within you. Instead, you will just enter into a bankrupt situation. I know of no one who has left the Lord’s recovery and today is a great spiritual person on the earth. The sanctification process is carried out in the Lord’s recovery”
Benson Phillips (The Ministry Magazine Vol. 8, No. 1 Page 189, first paragraph)

Like you said, Drake. Every word. Above is an example of about 73 such words.

[Drake]

-2 Apparently not, Igzy.

-3 Untohim, so that is the underlying problem. You do not fear the judgement seat of Christ. Anything you say has no consequences because you are blood-washed.

What a tragedy.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

-2 Apparently not, Igzy.

-3 Untohim, so that is the underlying problem. You do not fear the judgement seat of Christ. Anything you say has no consequences because you are blood-washed.

What a tragedy.

Drake

Drake, now you are starting to troll. Please stop. You are only hurting yourself and your cause.

[Evangelical]

I think every genuine Christian would be concerned if a person wants to leave their church. Whether Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Presbyterian, Mormon, JW, or the Recovery. I think Catholic and Orthodox believe if a person leaves their church they are in danger of going to hell because it is "falling away from the faith", and they associate the church with the faith. Leaving the church is leaving "the faith".

Unlike them we do not consider "the church" and "the faith" to be the same thing, because "the faith" is not built upon this idea that we must hold to a certain apostolic tradition, so it is possible for a person to leave the church and still be saved. That is one point of difference.

I think some members here who have not been with the Recovery for "30 or 40 years" are not taking what current members (Drake, myself) are saying seriously. Which really proves they are arguing from perceptions and encounters they had in the past, rather than how things are today.

If I was to characterize the attitude of the church today I would say it leaned towards the side of indifference rather than the side of forcing me to stay against my will.

Before I joined the Recovery I could come and go as I pleased and no one said anything. It is still the same today. A number of people come and go, even people who have been with the Recovery longer than I.

The general attitude of most people is one of "where are you?" and "how are you doing?" rather than "you must not leave us, if you leave us something bad will happen to you". I have never encountered that attitude personally.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Drake, now you are starting to troll. Please stop. You are only hurting yourself and your cause.

Igzy,

I am not trolling. I have no interest in that,

But seriously, you accuse me of being naive, ignorant, and in denial in a single post, lambast evangelical saying demeaning things and then when we push back you accuse him and I of trolling. Sorry Igzy, trolling is attacking people, that is what the group thinkers here do on a daily basis. That is what you and many others here engaged in.

UntoHim uses the precious blood of Christ to justify his berating and belittling of other christians as if all is well.. He is clean. That is how read it. I am challenging his idea but berating him as he does so frequently to others.

That thinking on UntoHims part, my friend, is a tragedy.... and it is not trolling to challenge it.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Like you said, Drake. Every word. Above is an example of about 73 such words.

No exceptions Igzy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Right.

...... every post, every word, every action.

Yes, along with man-pleasing, endorsing unrighteousness, judging others.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy,

I am not trolling. I have no interest in that,

But seriously, you accuse me of being naive, ignorant, and in denial in a single post, lambast evangelical saying demeaning things and then when we push back you accuse him and I of trolling. Sorry Igzy, trolling is attacking people, that is what the group thinkers here do on a daily basis. That is what you and many others here engaged in.

UntoHim uses the precious blood of Christ to justify his berating and belittling of other christians as if all is well.. He is clean. That is how read it. I am challenging his idea but berating him as he does so frequently to others.

That thinking on UntoHims part, my friend, is a tragedy.... and it is not trolling to challenge it.

Drake

Drake, we are not berating other Christians, but exposing bad teachings from bad shepherds, evil leaders, and those who usurp authority from God and damage His little ones. That is what you do not get. Benson Philips is held to a much higher standard, is he not?

And you are in denial like Igzy said, because you have witnessed many rotten things done by your leadership over the years, and yet you keep your head buried in the sand, as if pretending not to know the truth somehow justifies you.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy,

I am not trolling. I have no interest in that,

But seriously, you accuse me of being naive, ignorant, and in denial in a single post, lambast evangelical saying demeaning things and then when we push back you accuse him and I of trolling. Sorry Igzy, trolling is attacking people, that is what the group thinkers here do on a daily basis. That is what you and many others here engaged in.

UntoHim uses the precious blood of Christ to justify his berating and belittling of other christians as if all is well.. He is clean. That is how read it. I am challenging his idea but berating him as he does so frequently to others.

Trolling is twisting someone's words to say something other that what he or she clearly said.

And UntoHim plainly was not saying what you accused him of. What UntoHim said was that no membership in any church or lack thereof trumps the blood of Christ. There is absolutely no teaching or hint of teaching in the NT that suggests that a Christian need fear because he doesn't belong to a church founded by a person who claims that membership in his churches is required for sanctification.

That's what Lee taught and that's what Benson taught and it is a doctrine of demons. Period.

Drake, when I challenge you to be better I'm paying you a compliment, not putting you down.

You guys can do better. Life is too short to defend Benson's transparently indefensible BS. Find a better role model than that nut. Seriously.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think every genuine Christian would be concerned if a person wants to leave their church. Whether Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Presbyterian, Mormon, JW, or the Recovery. I think Catholic and Orthodox believe if a person leaves their church they are in danger of going to hell because it is "falling away from the faith", and they associate the church with the faith. Leaving the church is leaving "the faith".

The general attitude of most people is one of "where are you?" and "how are you doing?" rather than "you must not leave us, if you leave us something bad will happen to you". I have never encountered that attitude personally.

I agree that most would be concerned if someone left their church and went into the world. But not if they just moved on to an another church. Not these days anyway.

Perhaps the general attitude of LCM believers is more tolerant today. But that just makes the point that the previous attitude, which has been witnessed to by example after example, was wrong and should be publicly denounced.

And I don't believe the LCM leadership has really repented from this attitude. Clearly Benson hasn't. And why a clearly crazy person like him is still allowed to be in leadership of that movement is beyond me.

It reminds me of the Catholic church. When I was a kid the attitude of Catholics was that you had to be a Catholic to "go to heaven." Most Catholics don't believe that any more, but the leadership has yet to fully denounce that attitude.

Why? I'm sure the reasons aren't noble. They probably fear a rash of lawsuits. Which I'm sure the LCM leaders do as well.

LCM leaders were plain wrong to pressure people to stay there, and if they don't realize that then they are plain stupid.

Not an attractive choice for them, but unfortunately the only viable ones.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Unlike them we do not consider "the church" and "the faith" to be the same thing, because "the faith" is not built upon this idea that we must hold to a certain apostolic tradition, so it is possible for a person to leave the church and still be saved. That is one point of difference.

I think some members here who have not been with the Recovery for "30 or 40 years" are not taking what current members (Drake, myself) are saying seriously. Which really proves they are arguing from perceptions and encounters they had in the past, rather than how things are today.

If I was to characterize the attitude of the church today I would say it leaned towards the side of indifference rather than the side of forcing me to stay against my will.

Evangelical, may be many members have not been with the Recovery for quite some years, but I am currently with the Recovery (though not a registered member of this forum). I know no other Christians who badmouth other denominations (or whatever you call it) like the way LCM does.

When you say the "attitude of the church today", I believe you are talking about the Recovery. If it is, let me remind you of the outlines in the training for elders and responsible ones in Fall 2015, just in case you weren't paying attention. No, it is not forcing people to stay for argument sake. But the attitude of the Recovery hasn't change a bit, if not getting worse.

(For other members here, sorry that I have to pollute this space with some of the LCM outlines)

C. For Paul, the present evil age was Judaism; for us today, the present evil age is deformed and degraded Christianity—1:4; Matt. 13:31-33, 44-46:
1. We need to realize how much we need to be delivered from the influence of religion in the present evil age.
2. The church is the living Body of Christ, but what surrounds us today is a religion—deformed and degraded Christianity—full of traditions, organizations, performances, and falsehoods; the Lord cannot accomplish His purpose in this situation.
3. We all need to be delivered from religion, from Christianity as the present evil age; we must come out of Babylon, and Babylon must come out of us—Ezra 1; Rev. 18:4; Zech. 3:1-4.
4. The history among us in the Lord’s recovery has been a history of coming out of Christianity—a history of coming out of and being outside of the present evil age—Gal. 1:4; Heb. 13:12-13.
5. Because the Lord’s recovery is different from today’s religion—deformed and degraded Christianity—it is impossible for there to be reconciliation between the recovery and Christianity—Matt. 13:31-33, 44-46; Rev. 18:4; 19:1-3, 7-9.
6. We need to maintain the gap between the Lord’s recovery and Christianity; the wider this gap is, the better, because it is a gap between us and the present evil age—Gal. 1:4.

[Evangelical]

Thankyou for your input brother. I hope others here (Ohio!) note what you said about not forcing people to stay.

Ohio's over-the-top post here:

LSM's "oneness" is no different than Rome's use of force during its power days. It's the oneness enforced by the edge of a sword.

Personally I see nothing offensive in the outline posts. When I was in denominations I was not offended by those statements either, because there was an element of truth in them. They are stock standard beliefs in the Recovery and reading material.

The far majority of material in the LSM outlines, 99%, is not about badmouthing denominations at all. It is very much focused on Christ and revelation. Statements about denominations are used to show and contrast the difference between the religious Christianity and genuine Christianity. There is often a positive focus, for example, we would not say "what this denomination does is wrong" for the sake of it, we might say "isn't it a shame this denomination does not preach the gospel more or use the Bible more". In my mind it is balanced. There is also positive things said about denominations too. I have been involved in a number of discussions where what some denominations are doing is regarded positively, or one aspect of them is said to be "very good".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Thankyou for your input brother. I hope others here (Ohio!) note what you said about not forcing people to stay.

Personally I see nothing offensive in the outline posts. When I was in denominations I was not offended by those statements either, because there was an element of truth in them. They are stock standard beliefs in the Recovery and reading material.

The far majority of material in the LSM outlines, 99%, is not about badmouthing denominations at all.

You like to interpret things literally, don't you? It makes me wonder why you didn't notice the omission of "deformed" or "degraded" on Christianity in the last point of the outlines. Literally, "Christianity" covers both religious and genuine Christianity, right?

And thank you for admitting 1% of the LSM outlines can be about badmouthing. That could be a good start for you. I am quite sure you are familiar with 1Cor 5:6 "...Do you not know that a little leaven (1%?) leavens the whole lump? "

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is also positive things said about denominations too. I have been involved in a number of discussions where what some denominations are doing is regarded positively, or one aspect of them is said to be "very good".

Do you have some specific examples to share?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think some members here who have not been with the Recovery for "30 or 40 years" are not taking what current members (Drake, myself) are saying seriously. Which really proves they are arguing from perceptions and encounters they had in the past, rather than how things are today.

I think some members here who live in isolated LC 's, knowing the LSM leadership only from long distance videos and highly edited books, really are arguing from grossly mistaken perceptions, rather than real life encounters with these men.

Ten years ago in the Great Lakes Area we watched them operate and saw their true colors. Their teachings on the oneness of the body were merely a farsical ruse to deceive the simple-minded. I watched them come into many LC's with their legal operatives, create wedges between the saints, instructing them to rebel against local eldership, work with dissidemts to file lawsuits, and in the end destroy the building work of God. Hundreds of godly men can attest to this.

One day LSM's wood, hay, and stubble works will be burnt.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by A little brother

6. We need to maintain the gap between the Lord’s recovery and Christianity; the wider this gap is, the better, because it is a gap between us and the present evil age—Gal. 1:4.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Personally I see nothing offensive in the outline posts. When I was in denominations I was not offended by those statements either, because there was an element of truth in them. They are stock standard beliefs in the Recovery and reading material.

The far majority of material in the LSM outlines, 99%, is not about badmouthing denominations at all. It is very much focused on Christ and revelation. Statements about denominations are used to show and contrast the difference between the religious Christianity and genuine Christianity. There is often a positive focus, for example, we would not say "what this denomination does is wrong" for the sake of it, we might say "isn't it a shame this denomination does not preach the gospel more or use the Bible more". In my mind it is balanced. There is also positive things said about denominations too. I have been involved in a number of discussions where what some denominations are doing is regarded positively, or one aspect of them is said to be "very good".

The problem is that the LCM hammers the failings of Christianity and white-washes its own failings. This is exactly the opposite of what the Bible tells us to do.

If the LCM was half as interested in rooting out its own corruption as it was with pointing out "Christianity's" corruption there would be no need for this board. It's a classic example on a movement-wide scale of having a log in one's own eye and pointing out the splinter in everyone else's eyes.

I realized this can work both ways. Some of us are pretty demanding of the LCM. (But they should be able to take it. After all, they are "God's best," so they should have high standards. ) But I can testify that I pray seriously to the Lord to guide what I write and to point out any hypocrisy in me. Having been in the LCM, I doubt they have the same care toward those they accuse with their "stock standard" condemnations.

What's most irksome is the way the LCM conveniently contrasts themselves with everyone else. They are the good guys, everyone else are the bad guys. Way, way too easy and nowhere near accurate. That outline that little brother posted could be paraphrased by this parable of Jesus's:

"The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.....'

LCM Version: "The LCM stood by themselves and prayed: 'God we thank you that we are not like the rest of Christianity: Deformed, degraded, false--or even like this free group over there. We follow the 'one ministry' and the 'unique vision', we... blah, blah....'"

[And Jesus concluded]
"For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."

Matt 18:11-12,14

[Cal]

The whole problem with the LCM can be summarized as mistaking self-righteousness for holiness. It's the same disease that afflicted the Pharisees.

The Pharisees were absolutely strict in their interpretation of Scripture, and from one view you have to say they were "accurate." The problem is their spirit was all wrong. They missed the whole point.

The same thing can be said about the LCM. They pride themselves on their strict interpretation of the Scriptures and, like the Pharisees, from one point of view they can be said to be "accurate."

But their self-righteousness gives away that they are missing some important points.

Perhaps if they focused on that corruption they would have less time or even inclination to condemn everyone else.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by A little brother

(For other members here, sorry that I have to pollute this space with some of the LCM outlines)

C. For Paul, the present evil age was Judaism; for us today, the present evil age is deformed and degraded Christianity—1:4; Matt. 13:31-33, 44-46:
1. We need to realize how much we need to be delivered from the influence of religion in the present evil age.
2. The church is the living Body of Christ, but what surrounds us today is a religion—deformed and degraded Christianity—full of traditions, organizations, performances, and falsehoods; the Lord cannot accomplish His purpose in this situation.
3. We all need to be delivered from religion, from Christianity as the present evil age; we must come out of Babylon, and Babylon must come out of us—Ezra 1; Rev. 18:4; Zech. 3:1-4.
4. The history among us in the Lord’s recovery has been a history of coming out of Christianity—a history of coming out of and being outside of the present evil age—Gal. 1:4; Heb. 13:12-13.
5. Because the Lord’s recovery is different from today’s religion—deformed and degraded Christianity—it is impossible for there to be reconciliation between the recovery and Christianity—Matt. 13:31-33, 44-46; Rev. 18:4; 19:1-3, 7-9.
6. We need to maintain the gap between the Lord’s recovery and Christianity; the wider this gap is, the better, because it is a gap between us and the present evil age—Gal. 1:4.

This outline is absolutely pathetic! What a sloppy use of scriptures!

Have they not read the scripture, "with what judgment you judge you will be judged." (Matt 7.2)???

The writers of this outline have become blind and proud Laodiceans, having not a clue that the leadership in the Recovery itself is far worse than those they judge. They are the present evil age!!!

• Where else could church leaders boondoggle their followers into investing into Daystar Motorhomes? (But, hey "investors," consider it an offering to God! Tennis "racket" anyone?)
• Where else could a ministry regularly sue other publishers and justify their course of action by "appealing to Caesar?" (Sounds like the Pharisees, "we have no king but Caesar.)
• Where else could a ministry be run by unsaved profligate family members, who have a history of molesting the interns. (And once again W. Lee assured us, "I'll handle this.")
• Where else could a ministry have its own legal defense team to sue all member LC's who become too "independent?" (Yet advertise a system which alone maintains autonomous LC's, not like those evil denominations.)
• Where else could leaders publicly slander and libel ex-co-workers like Ingalls, Mallon, Chu, Dong, So, etc. etc. yet it is they alone who are godly enough to bear the cross, and not sue in return. (Teflon LSM has escaped criminal and civil litigations for decades.)

Many of us left because LSM had become this "present evil age," and they have the nerve to condemn every other Christian in the body of Christ for far worse crimes than they have committed. (Romans 2.1-4)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many of us left because LSM had become this "present evil age," and they have the nerve to condemn every other Christian in the body of Christ for far worse crimes than they have committed. (Romans 2.1-4)

Careful, Ohio. My dear friend Drake will accuse you of "slander."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

You like to interpret things literally, don't you? It makes me wonder why you didn't notice the omission of "deformed" or "degraded" on Christianity in the last point of the outlines. Literally, "Christianity" covers both religious and genuine Christianity, right?

And thank you for admitting 1% of the LSM outlines can be about badmouthing. That could be a good start for you. I am quite sure you are familiar with 1Cor 5:6 "...Do you not know that a little leaven (1%?) leavens the whole lump? "



Do you have some specific examples to share?

To me they are statements of fact, so the criticism is warranted. Christianity indeed is full of full of traditions, organizations, performances, and falsehoods. We only need to look at the number of denominations that support or accept gay marriage and female pastors/priests.

There are plenty of times when Jesus badmouthed the religionists. In fact a number of the parables are thinly veiled slights and mockeries of them, to the amusement of his lowly audience.

I don't think we can get through genuine Christianity without exposing and saying something about the false. But in Witness Lee's ministry this is always in view of something more positive. "these things are dark, but here is light". Rather than criticizing for the sake of criticizing.

I think the topic outline is not about criticizing or badmouthing but about our deliverance, note the second point in the outline - "We need to realize how much we need to be delivered from the influence of religion in the present evil age."

If you don't think there's a need to be delivered from the "present evil age" or that this age is evil, then you may have been deceived by the anti-Christ spirit. I would encourage you to get back into fellowship with your brothers and sisters in the Recovery who are pursuing Christ.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Careful, Ohio. My dear friend Drake will accuse you of "slander."

Huh? I got some of this news from the Orange County Register.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To me they are statements of fact, so the criticism is warranted. Christianity indeed is full of full of traditions, organizations, performances, and falsehoods. We only need to look at the number of denominations that support or accept gay marriage and female pastors/priests.

Have you any idea how many "traditions, organizations, performances, and falsehoods" exist in the LC's? I have watched these multiply exponentially over the last 40 years. Give them as much time as some other denomination, and they will be just as bad or worse.

I don't think we can get through genuine Christianity without exposing and saying something about the false. But in Witness Lee's ministry this is always in view of something more positive. "these things are dark, but here is light". Rather than criticizing for the sake of criticizing.

That's the goal of this forum, we are not criticizing for the sake of criticizing, but we want to help both the leaders and the members in TLR.

I think the topic outline is not about criticizing or badmouthing but about our deliverance, note the second point in the outline - "We need to realize how much we need to be delivered from the influence of religion in the present evil age."

Witness Lee made "religion" the boogeyman, but religion is totally benign. James defines religion in 1.27: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained." How is that evil? James' definition exactly matches the teachings of the Gospels.

If you don't think there's a need to be delivered from the "present evil age" or that this age is evil, then you may have been deceived by the anti-Christ spirit. I would encourage you to get back into fellowship with your brothers and sisters in the Recovery who are pursuing Christ.

Of course we need to be delivered from this present evil age. Why do you think I left TLR? It had become part of this evil age! Have you not read any of the posts on this forum? Do you think we made these stories up?

Are they really pursuing Christ? Or are they pursuing Lee's teachings and practices?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To me they are statements of fact, so the criticism is warranted. Ct.

Here are more statements of fact:

The LCM has a history of corruption, duplicity, abuse, finagling, cover-ups, hiding history, bullying, plotting, lying, double-talk, financial hanky-panky, even lawbreaking and various other nauseating instances of hypocrisy that would cause the paint to peel on Watchman Nee's coffin.

So in the interest of "balance" and "fairness," where is the LCM training outline on that fact, Mr. Fair and Balanced?

Good Lord, you must think we are idiots.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Have you any idea how many "traditions, organizations, performances, and falsehoods" exist in the LC's? I have watched these multiply exponentially over the last 40 years. Give them as much time as some other denomination, and they will be just as bad or worse.


That's the goal of this forum, we are not criticizing for the sake of criticizing, but we want to help both the leaders and the members in TLR.


Witness Lee made "religion" the boogeyman, but religion is totally benign. James defines religion in 1.27: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained." How is that evil? James' definition exactly matches the teachings of the Gospels.


Of course we need to be delivered from this present evil age. Why do you think I left TLR? It had become part of this evil age! Have you not read any of the posts on this forum? Do you think we made these stories up?

Are they really pursuing Christ? Or are they pursuing Lee's teachings and practices?

I think you know that the term "religious" has nothing to do with that verse in James. Different contexts. Religion as opposed to personal relationship.

I'm glad you agree about deliverance from this present evil age. The next question is where is it to be found. The answer to that is, in the denominations. I don't think joining the denominations will help anyone escape from the evil age. If the TRL is part of it also, then where should we go? A good community church or house church?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think you know that the term "religious" has nothing to do with that verse in James. Different contexts. Religion as opposed to personal relationship.

I'm glad you agree about deliverance from this present evil age. The next question is where is it to be found. The answer to that is, in the denominations. I don't think joining the denominations will help anyone escape from the evil age. If the TRL is part of it also, then where should we go? A good community church or house church?

If the Bible's definition of religion is not good enough for me, then why should I accept Lee's definition of religion.

Read Revelations.

The Lord calls overcomers in all seven churches.

The rest of Revelations also speaks of escaping the evil age.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If the Bible's definition of religion is not good enough for me, then why should I accept Lee's definition of religion.

Read Revelations.

The Lord calls overcomers in all seven churches.

The rest of Revelations also speaks of escaping the evil age.

That's not Lee's definition.

This concept of religion versus personal relationship is well known in Christianity. Even Catholics have adopted this idea of personal relationship versus religion.

For example see here:

https://www.gotquestions.org/Christi...ationship.html

practically speaking, Christianity has a key difference that separates it from other belief systems that are considered religions. That difference is relationship.

Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship that God

Christianity is not about signing up for a religion.

It is just generally accepted that Christianity is about a relationship with God not a religion. It has nothing to do with the verse in James, that's taken out of context. In fact, it's a good one for Catholics to use as it indicates that pure religion is to adopt a works-based theology. We can add to it that "faith without works is dead". And there we can construct what is essentially the Catholic view.

If you want further proof that your interpretation is out of context, consider Ellicotts bible commentary on this verse:

Pure religion . . .—It will be observed that by religion here is meant religious service. No one word can express this obvious interpretation of the original, taken as it must be in completion of the verse before; and certainly “religion” in its ordinary sense will not convey the right idea.


In other words, the verse is about religious service, and not a black and white definition of religion. You seem to have misinterpreted the word "religion" to mean religion in general, and so you do not have "the right idea".

So the verse should be interpreted as:

"pure religious service is....."

not as you have "religion is..."

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is just generally accepted that Christianity is about a relationship with God not a religion.

Exactly! Then why would the Recovery want to distance itself with Christianity as in "6. We need to maintain the gap between the Lord’s recovery and Christianity; the wider this gap is, the better, because it is a gap between us and the present evil age"?

Don't you see the hypocrisy there?
"Dear brothers in Christianity, we do love you. We are slapping at your face just to wake you up and let you know you are living in the present evil age. Oh, you need some help? Sorry, I am busy widening the gap between you and us."

Never forget why Jesus became a man and went among sinners in the first place.

Dear Evangelical, I think you can do better than using stock answers and tweaking terminology. Think hard, pray hard. Open your heart, turn to your spirit. Aim not at winning an argument. Aim at knowing our Lord and winning life. Care less about whether the teachings offend you, care about whether they offend God.

P.S. Be careful when you say the outlines are just "stock standard beliefs". The leading brothers say they are not just cut and paste from old standard messages. They are supposed to shed new light in every training. You might hurt their feelings.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Exactly! Then why would the Recovery want to distance itself with Christianity as in "6. We need to maintain the gap between the Lord’s recovery and Christianity; the wider this gap is, the better, because it is a gap between us and the present evil age"?

Don't you see the hypocrisy there?
"Dear brothers in Christianity, we do love you. We are slapping at your face just to wake you up and let you know you are living in the present evil age. Oh, you need some help? Sorry, I am busy widening the gap between you and us."

Never forget why Jesus became a man and went among sinners in the first place.

Dear Evengelical, I think you can do better than using stock answers and tweaking terminology. Think hard, pray hard. Open your heart, turn to your spirit. Aim not at winning an argument. Aim at knowing our Lord and winning life. Care less about whether the teachings offend you, care about whether they offend God.

P.S. Be careful when you say the outlines are just "stock standard beliefs". The leading brothers say they are not just cut and paste from old standard messages. They are supposed to shed new light in every training. You might hurt their feelings.

I don't really get your point regarding hypocrisy.

For example, in preaching the gospel, we wish to save sinners in the world, and we also wish to distance ourself from the world as much as possible. It is not hypocrisy to want to distance ourself from the world the sinners live in, while wishing to save them. I don't see that as hypocrisy. That's how it's meant to be.

So, in regards to the Church, we wish to distance ourselves from the evil system utilized by Satan, yet we wish to save the people in the denominations.

I think it is fairly clear that when we speak of the evil we are not referring to the genuine believers but the evil system, as this quote shows:

"In every denomination, including the Roman Catholic Church, there are real, saved Christians. They are God's people belonging to the Lord. But the organization of the denominations in which they are is not of God. The denominational organizations have been utilized by Satan to set up his satanic system to destroy God's economy of the proper church life."

Witness Lee, "Message Thirty-Four" in The Life-Study of Genesis
(Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1987), Vol. 1, p. 464

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For example, in preaching the gospel, we wish to save sinners in the world, and we also wish to distance ourself from the world as much as possible. It is not hypocrisy to want to distance ourself from the world the sinners live in, while wishing to save them. I don't see that as hypocrisy. That's how it's meant to be.

May be you are too deep into the Recovery Version Bible to notice the obvious difference between in and conforming to this world.

John 17:15 (RcV) I do not ask that You would take them out of the world, but that You would keep them out of the hands of the evil one.

Romans 12:2 (RcV) And do not be fashioned according to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of the mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and well pleasing and perfect.

Romans 12:2 (NIV) Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

May be you are too deep into the Recovery Version Bible to notice the obvious difference between in and conforming to this world.

John 17:15 (RcV) I do not ask that You would take them out of the world, but that You would keep them out of the hands of the evil one.

Romans 12:2 (RcV) And do not be fashioned according to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of the mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and well pleasing and perfect.

Romans 12:2 (NIV) Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

I'm not sure what your point is. Those reasons are precisely the reasons why we don't participate in the religious activities of the denominations.

For example, on the one hand, we wish to save Catholics, and we may meet Catholics at any occasion, which is being "in the world", but on the other hand, that doesn't mean we should join their mass, that would be "conforming to the world". We would not wish to close the gap between our Lord's Table meeting and the Catholic mass, for example, we would want to widen that gap. We would also want to widen the gap between their practice of praying to idols.

Similarly, to save sinners, we do not participate in their sin, so as to save them, yet we happily meet with them otherwise.

In the whole history of the Reformation, Luther et al, sought to "widen the gap" with the Catholic church. So most protestant denominations today are already "gap wideners". In fact it could be said that the Lutheran and Anglican churches are closer to the Catholic than say a baptist church, because they retain the liturgical nature and structure of the Catholics. And over history, the "gap widening" has continued as more and more denominations developed, with the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the brethren, the community and house churches etc.

This is my issue with the ecumenical movement - I think it is sort of hypocritical for individuals in free groups or baptist churches who wish to "close the gap" with Catholics, when the very church they are in exists to keep that gap as wide as possible. If we want to "close the gap" with Catholics then why not just join them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's not Lee's definition.

This concept of religion versus personal relationship is well known in Christianity. Even Catholics have adopted this idea of personal relationship versus religion.

You are changing the subject ... again ... to save yourself.

W. Lee made his ministry out of the attack on RELIGION. Read his book Christ v. Religion. He clearly states that religion has been the enemy of God for ... ever. He claims that religion killed the Lord Jesus. But the Bible never says that. The Bible identifies characteristics of the heart such as unbelief, hypocrisy, stubbornness, hardness of heart, un-repentance, man-pleasing, loving the glory of men, idolatry, etc. as the ingredients that oppose God and His people. The Bible has long lists of these evils in verses like Mark 7.20-23 or Galatians 5.19-21.

Religion is never mentioned in one of these lists. That is Lee's construct. He widened the Biblical definitions of evil to include all those outside of his little club. He called them all religion, claiming that all religion was against God and Christ. But the Bible never claims this. In fact James defines religion in 1.27: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained."

In other words, James defines religion as keeping one's self from evil and devoting one's life to good works. I could list a thousand verses in the Bible which support James' definition of religion as positive. Religion is not our faith, but is the Christian's proper living in response to a healthy faith. Religion is not our personal relationship with the Lord, but is the fruit of our personal relationship with the Lord. Religion describes the daily living of a child of God walking in newness of life. There is nothing about religion which is evil of itself, as the Lord told the Pharisees, the brood of vipers, "The good man out of the good treasure brings forth good things, and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things." (Mt 12.35)

It is Lee's pitifully poor exposition of scripture which makes religion evil, not the Bible. Lee used this self-serving construct to isolate his movement from the Body of Christ. Perhaps it's now time for you to reconsider your views about religion in general and about the greater body of Christ.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is just generally accepted that Christianity is about a relationship with God not a religion. It has nothing to do with the verse in James, that's taken out of context. In fact, it's a good one for Catholics to use as it indicates that pure religion is to adopt a works-based theology. We can add to it that "faith without works is dead". And there we can construct what is essentially the Catholic view.

If you want further proof that your interpretation is out of context, consider Ellicotts bible commentary on this verse:

Pure religion . . .—It will be observed that by religion here is meant religious service. No one word can express this obvious interpretation of the original, taken as it must be in completion of the verse before; and certainly “religion” in its ordinary sense will not convey the right idea.

In other words, the verse is about religious service, and not a black and white definition of religion. You seem to have misinterpreted the word "religion" to mean religion in general, and so you do not have "the right idea".

So the verse should be interpreted as: "pure religious service is....." not as you have "religion is..."

Funny how you decided not to quote Lee's generally accepted definition of "religion" for scrutiny, but dig up Charles Ellicott's, who btw was a Bishop in the Anglican Church, which you have blasted endlessly since you have begun posting here. Setting the obvious irony aside, there are a few issues here ...

(1) How is my definition of "religion" from James 1.27 taken out of context?

(2) How does "religion" differ from "religious service?"

A. If religious service is interpreted as a meeting or church service,
then I would disagree, citing the context of James words.

B. If religious service is interpreted as our service to God in our daily life,
then I see no difference between James and Ellicott.

(3) How does Ellicot's comments about this verse alter our discussion? He cites the prior verse concerning "not bridling his tongue and deceiving his own heart." Couldn't we say that this verse (1.26) characterizes James entire epistle concerning the hypocrisies of a double-souled man?

In his footnote for this verse, Lee says "religious is from the Greek word threskos meaning ceremonial service and worship to God (implying the fear of God.)" We could thus rightly translate this verse to be, "If anyone considers himself a worshiper of God." I think that captures the sense of the original. So James is here addressing the attitudes of religious people who worship God, especially those religious folks whose version of religion conflicts with God's love and holy nature.

James provides spiritual feedback for those who have gone off course. He provides a sober warning to every child of God. His "faith tests" are sorely needed in TLR. Sadly the message of the epistle of James has been grossly dismissed by the leadership at LSM, who need it most.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In the whole history of the Reformation, Luther et al, sought to "widen the gap" with the Catholic church. So most protestant denominations today are already "gap wideners". In fact it could be said that the Lutheran and Anglican churches are closer to the Catholic than say a baptist church, because they retain the liturgical nature and structure of the Catholics. And over history, the "gap widening" has continued as more and more denominations developed, with the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the brethren, the community and house churches etc.

Interesting you bring this up. You are actually equating "gap widening" with divisions in the body of Christ. If this is what you see, you should find that the LC is no difference from all the other denominations you mentioned. It is just part of the downward spiral of divisions. And it is not the last as proven from the divisions within the LC in the last few decades.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So, in regards to the Church, we wish to distance ourselves from the evil system utilized by Satan, yet we wish to save the people in the denominations.

As I've said before, it's hypocritical for you to distance yourself from the "evil system" of other groups while ignoring and excusing the evil system that exists within your own.

Like I said, if you guys were half as interested in rooting out the evil in your own group as you were in pointing out the evil elsewhere this board would be unnecessary.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Interesting you bring this up. You are actually equating "gap widening" with divisions in the body of Christ. If this is what you see, you should find that the LC is no difference from all the other denominations you mentioned. It is just part of the downward spiral of divisions. And it is not the last as proven from the divisions within the LC in the last few decades.

There are right divisions and wrong divisions. A right division would be separating from the evil system. Do you think it is wrong to widen the gap between Catholicism, for example? I think it was Watchman Nee who wrote about being absolute for or against denominations, not sitting on the fence about the issue. We can only really aim to close the gap or widen the gap. If you are in the Recovery and want to close the gap with Catholicism then I think you're sitting on the fence about this and not being absolute. You have one foot in widening the gap yet on the other hand have one foot in closing the gap. So you're on the fence.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are changing the subject ... again ... to save yourself.

W. Lee made his ministry out of the attack on RELIGION. Read his book Christ v. Religion. He clearly states that religion has been the enemy of God for ... ever. He claims that religion killed the Lord Jesus. But the Bible never says that. The Bible identifies characteristics of the heart such as unbelief, hypocrisy, stubbornness, hardness of heart, un-repentance, man-pleasing, loving the glory of men, idolatry, etc. as the ingredients that oppose God and His people. The Bible has long lists of these evils in verses like Mark 7.20-23 or Galatians 5.19-21.

Religion is never mentioned in one of these lists. That is Lee's construct. He widened the Biblical definitions of evil to include all those outside of his little club. He called them all religion, claiming that all religion was against God and Christ. But the Bible never claims this. In fact James defines religion in 1.27: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained."

In other words, James defines religion as keeping one's self from evil and devoting one's life to good works. I could list a thousand verses in the Bible which support James' definition of religion as positive. Religion is not our faith, but is the Christian's proper living in response to a healthy faith. Religion is not our personal relationship with the Lord, but is the fruit of our personal relationship with the Lord. Religion describes the daily living of a child of God walking in newness of life. There is nothing about religion which is evil of itself, as the Lord told the Pharisees, the brood of vipers, "The good man out of the good treasure brings forth good things, and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things." (Mt 12.35)

It is Lee's pitifully poor exposition of scripture which makes religion evil, not the Bible. Lee used this self-serving construct to isolate his movement from the Body of Christ. Perhaps it's now time for you to reconsider your views about religion in general and about the greater body of Christ.

As I said before, this idea of Christ versus religion, that Lee wrote about, is a common one in Christianity. See the gotquestions article I posted.
I don't think the authors of that apologetic ministry would agree with your views on religion not being a problem:
Most religion, theistic or otherwise, is man-centered. Any relationship with God is based on man’s works.

If you disagree with this then clearly you don't believe that Christianity is a personal relationship with God and is not a religion. We cannot get to heaven by belonging or following to a religion, even the very best Christianity can't save us.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Funny how you decided not to quote Lee's generally accepted definition of "religion" for scrutiny, but dig up Charles Ellicott's, who btw was a Bishop in the Anglican Church, which you have blasted endlessly since you have begun posting here. Setting the obvious irony aside, there are a few issues here ...

That's because you/others don't like me quoting Lee/Nee alone, so I go to outside, theological sources which prove you wrong. Just like on other discussions I consulted the works of NT Greek experts and theologians and proved people wrong about the role of women in the church.

Originally Posted by Ohio

(1) How is my definition of "religion" from James 1.27 taken out of context?

(2) How does "religion" differ from "religious service?"

A. If religious service is interpreted as a meeting or church service,
then I would disagree, citing the context of James words.

B. If religious service is interpreted as our service to God in our daily life,
then I see no difference between James and Ellicott.

It's out of context because you're talking about "Lee's definition of religion", and then quoting James to counter Lee's definition (which is really not his alone - see gotquestions article).

But James is not defining religion, he is talking about proper religious service. Let me remind you, that unless you are a Catholic, the gospel and Christian story is based upon the 4 gospels and Paul's writings, not James. The Catholic gospel revolves around the book of James, concerning good works for getting us to heaven, and practical service.

Originally Posted by Ohio

(3) How does Ellicot's comments about this verse alter our discussion? He cites the prior verse concerning "not bridling his tongue and deceiving his own heart." Couldn't we say that this verse (1.26) characterizes James entire epistle concerning the hypocrisies of a double-souled man?

In his footnote for this verse, Lee says "religious is from the Greek word threskos meaning ceremonial service and worship to God (implying the fear of God.)" We could thus rightly translate this verse to be, "If anyone considers himself a worshiper of God." I think that captures the sense of the original. So James is here addressing the attitudes of religious people who worship God, especially those religious folks whose version of religion conflicts with God's love and holy nature.

The verse in James is about practical service. It does not negate all that Lee and the gotquestions article says about Christ versus religion, because they are different matters.

Originally Posted by Ohio

James provides spiritual feedback for those who have gone off course. He provides a sober warning to every child of God. His "faith tests" are sorely needed in TLR. Sadly the message of the epistle of James has been grossly dismissed by the leadership at LSM, who need it most.

Witness Lee wrote that the religious service James talks about is very good and helpful for practical Christian perfection. But Paul wrote about God's New Testament economy concerning Christ living in us. There's no need for you to try and portray James as being opposed to "Christ versus religion" - it's not. Christ is versus religion and at the same time, the lessons in James for practical Christian perfection are very important.

[Evangelical]

Just to make clear that Lee and Christianity in general say more or less the same thing:

Lee's book overview 'The calling of every believer is to come to the living person of Christ, leaving behind all religious forms and dead doctrines.'

Gotquestions says:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Christi...ationship.html

Religion is “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” In that respect, Christianity can be classified as a religion. However, practically speaking, Christianity has a key difference that separates it from other belief systems that are considered religions. That difference is relationship.

In that regard, Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship that God has established with His children.

Recommended Resource: Checklist Jesus: A Journey from Religion to Relationship by Jeremy Walker

In Christian bookstores, I'm sure we will find a number of books emphasizing relationship over religion.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are right divisions and wrong divisions. A right division would be separating from the evil system. Do you think it is wrong to widen the gap between Catholicism, for example?

No, there is no right divisions because there is only one body of Christ.

1 Cor 12:12 For even as the body is one and has many members, yet all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ.

What you said was like the eye saying it have no need of the hand.

1 Cor 12:20 But now the members are many, but the body one.
1 Cor 12:21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of you; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
1 Cor 12:22 But much rather the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think it was Watchman Nee who wrote about being absolute for or against denominations, not sitting on the fence about the issue. We can only really aim to close the gap or widen the gap. If you are in the Recovery and want to close the gap with Catholicism then I think you're sitting on the fence about this and not being absolute. You have one foot in widening the gap yet on the other hand have one foot in closing the gap. So you're on the fence.

Lee was not always right and Nee was not always right. Seems in your mindset Catholicism is the absolute evil given you resolute to compare with it all the time. Frankly, I don't know which is more evil in the eyes of God, external idolatry or secret idolatry.

Let me share with you some verses from Ezekiel 8. (BTW, don't waste time searching for explanation from RcV footnotes. There is not a single footnote from Lee. Not difficult to understand why.)

6 And He said to me, Son of man, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel is committing here, that I should be far from My sanctuary? But you will yet see greater abominations.
7 Then He brought me to the entrance of the court; and I looked, and there was a hole in the wall.
8 And He said to me, Son of man, dig now through the wall. So I dug through the wall, and there was now an entrance.
9 And He said to me, Go and see the wicked abominations that they are committing here.
10 Thus I entered and looked, and there were every form of creeping thing and detestable beast and all the idols of the house of Israel, engraved on the wall all around.
11 And standing before them were seventy men of the elders of the house of Israel, with Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan standing among them, each with his censer in his hand and the smell of the incense cloud went up.
12 And He said to me, Do you see, son of man, what the elders of the house of Israel do in the dark, each in the room of his engraved images? For they say, Jehovah does not see us; Jehovah has forsaken the land.

Brother, dig deep into the wall of the Recovery.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are right divisions and wrong divisions. A right division would be separating from the evil system. Do you think it is wrong to widen the gap between Catholicism, for example? I think it was Watchman Nee who wrote about being absolute for or against denominations, not sitting on the fence about the issue. We can only really aim to close the gap or widen the gap. If you are in the Recovery and want to close the gap with Catholicism then I think you're sitting on the fence about this and not being absolute. You have one foot in widening the gap yet on the other hand have one foot in closing the gap. So you're on the fence.

Such an extremist point of view, like many things both W. Nee and Evangelical have written. Wasn't Nee the one that got restored to the ministry without publicly repenting, and then immediately decided that all "absolute" members must hand over everything they owned to the ministry. Nee here was even more extreme than Karl Marx who felt that having all things common was more than adequate.

Some ex-members on this forum feel the same about the LC's as Nee did about denominations -- either build them up or tear them all down! Sounds great until one thinks about some of God's children who happen to live and serve there. (It's always easier to tear down some one else's house, isn't it?)

LSM operatives happened to take that same attitude about the GLA LC's about ten years ago, deciding on their own that these LC's were all filled with leprosy, and conveniently discovered some verses in Leviticus which supposedly justified tearing them down and replastering these GLA LC's. It was really just religious zeal run amok. Thank God we are a nation of laws.

Sometimes "sitting on the fence" is just another way of saying that one happens to love those on both sides. Unfortunately love is too often missing from the LSM vocabulary and leadership.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As I said before, this idea of Christ versus religion, that Lee wrote about, is a common one in Christianity. See the gotquestions article I posted.
I don't think the authors of that apologetic ministry would agree with your views on religion not being a problem:
Most religion, theistic or otherwise, is man-centered. Any relationship with God is based on man’s works.

If you disagree with this then clearly you don't believe that Christianity is a personal relationship with God and is not a religion. We cannot get to heaven by belonging or following to a religion, even the very best Christianity can't save us.

Clearly a nonsensical conclusion.

How do they say it? A fallacy of extremes?

Has anyone else told you how difficult it is to have a conversation with you?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Clearly a nonsensical conclusion.

How do they say it? A fallacy of extremes?

Has anyone else told you how difficult it is to have a conversation with you?

It might be nice to discuss about how we can be half for a relationship with Christ and half for religion, but that mixture is not good in my view.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

No, there is no right divisions because there is only one body of Christ.

1 Cor 12:12 For even as the body is one and has many members, yet all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ.

What you said was like the eye saying it have no need of the hand.

1 Cor 12:20 But now the members are many, but the body one.
1 Cor 12:21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of you; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
1 Cor 12:22 But much rather the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary.

No right divisions? How would you characterize the Reformation then? Was Luther wrong to divide from Catholicism?

We cannot discuss this further unless you believe the Reformation was a "right division". If you believe it was a wrong division then we would be arguing for rejoining the Catholics wouldn't we?

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No right divisions? How would you characterize the Reformation then? Was Luther wrong to divide from Catholicism?

We cannot discuss this further unless you believe the Reformation was a "right division". If you believe it was a wrong division then we would be arguing for rejoining the Catholics wouldn't we?

Are you so sure that Luther was right? Surely he didn't stand on the ground of locality of the church.

What is your authoritative source of truth? Lee, Nee, Reformation or the Bible? Where did the Bible say division of the body of Christ is right?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Are you so sure that Luther was right? Surely he didn't stand on the ground of locality of the church.

What is your authoritative source of truth? Lee, Nee, Reformation or the Bible? Where did the Bible say division of the body of Christ is right?

I believe Luther was a genuine move of God in the Lord's Recovery. Yes, the Lutheran churches becoming state churches was disappointing in regards to the locality.

bible verses supporting division can be found here:

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

This describes a group of God's people coming out of Babylon.


This verse describes separation from evil brethren:

1 Corinthians 5:9-13

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It might be nice to discuss about how we can be half for a relationship with Christ and half for religion, but that mixture is not good in my view.

Did you read my posts or the Bible?

According to you, the Lord's instruction to love God and love your neighbor is a horrible "mixture not good in your view."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I believe Luther was a genuine move of God in the Lord's Recovery. Yes, the Lutheran churches becoming state churches was disappointing in regards to the locality.

bible verses supporting division can be found here:

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

This describes a group of God's people coming out of Babylon.


This verse describes separation from evil brethren:

1 Corinthians 5:9-13

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

Evangelical your "stand" conflicts with scripture.

The Catholic church represented the one body of Christ. In Revelations the Catholic oneness church was typified by Thyatira, the fourth local church, one of the seven golden lampstands.

Jesus Himself called for overcomers in that church, and promised to reward them. He never instructed them to start a new division. How can you declare that a "right division."

Is it then not entirely hypocritical to condemn and quarantine Titus Chu for attempting to reform the local churches in his region, while extolling Martin Luther as the Minister of the Age for doing the same? Titus Chu was only "accused" of violating Recovery traditions established by Witness Lee, and not the scripture itself. At the Whistler Kangaroo Court, witnesses on behalf of LSM never presented any evidence that he should be "purged" according to your verses.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evangelical your "stand" conflicts with scripture.

The Catholic church represented the one body of Christ. In Revelations the Catholic oneness church was typified by Thyatira, the fourth local church, one of the seven golden lampstands.

Jesus Himself called for overcomers in that church, and promised to reward them. He never instructed them to start a new division. How can you declare that a "right division."

Is it then not entirely hypocritical to condemn and quarantine Titus Chu for attempting to reform the local churches in his region, while extolling Martin Luther as the Minister of the Age for doing the same? Titus Chu was only "accused" of violating Recovery traditions established by Witness Lee, and not the scripture itself. At the Whistler Kangaroo Court, witnesses on behalf of LSM never presented any evidence that he should be "purged" according to your verses.

The Catholic church, as a religion, has never represented the one body of Christ. It has always been a worldly mixture since Constantine. And I don't subscribe to any idea that the churches mentioned in the bible were all Catholic and headed up by Pope Peter. In previous discussions I recall you writing something about other Christians existing at the same time (anabaptists?) who were the genuine local church at the time and were persecuted by the Catholics. So I doubt you believe that either, so perhaps are just saying that for the purpose of making a point.

Anyhow, not seeming to agree with the Reformation puts you at odds with the majority of protestant evangelicals.

It's one thing to point out the wrong things with leadership, it's quite another to doubt the validity of the Reformation. Not that I have anything against Catholic people, we were even meeting together with some at one stage, they didn't really know how to read the bible as we would. The problem is the mixture, and they don't really believe in a personal relationship with God - not in the way a born again Christian would.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Catholic church, as a religion, has never represented the one body of Christ. It has always been a worldly mixture since Constantine. And I don't subscribe to any idea that the churches mentioned in the bible were all Catholic and headed up by Pope Peter.

Apparently you have no idea how similar you have become to the Catholic Church. They have always stood for the oneness of the body of Christ, just like LSM always claims to stand for the one body. Catholic means oneness. For the LSM publishing house to direct its member churches, is little different than the Vatican to direct its parishes. They both mandate that their member churches be the same in communion liturgy, reading material purchased from their approved bookstore, appearance, teachings, worship music, ministers/priests trained at their own seminaries, etc.

You may not like Peter as your first pope, but you have little problem with Paul as your first MOTA. Both the Catholics and the Recovery love to trace their lineage of leaders back to the 1st century.

Anyhow, not seeming to agree with the Reformation puts you at odds with the majority of protestant evangelicals.

This sounds kind of funny coming from you. Have you not read these published statements from LSM?

4. The history among us in the Lord’s recovery has been a history of coming out of Christianity—a history of coming out of and being outside of the present evil age
5. Because the Lord’s recovery is different from today’s religion—deformed and degraded Christianity—it is impossible for there to be reconciliation between the recovery and Christianity
6. We need to maintain the gap between the Lord’s recovery and Christianity; the wider this gap is, the better, because it is a gap between us and the present evil age

Evangelical, it's your leaders that wants lots of distance between them and the majority of protestant evangelicals, I guess, including yourself.

[Cal]

Evangelical,

No offense, but the more you go on and on about things on this board the more I realize something went very, very wrong with the LCM. I will simply say that your attitude does not reflect the hearts of the men and women who started this movement in this country. I knew many of them and lived with some of them. Those people only cared for Christ. They really did. They did not express the spirit you do.

But over time, Lee took everything over and through his henchman molded the movement into his image instead of the Lord's. Many of those good brothers and sisters left, and some adapted. But sadly with many that simple pure love for the Lord and his Church was replaced by attitudes such as yours, minds and hearts so thick with knowledge and so puffed up by it that they don't even realize that their love for the Lord has been replaced by a love for their religion.

I think it's very, very sad. I don't think we will every get through to you. Only God can. I just pray he does.

But I would ask to you to try to focus a little less on doctrine and a little more on your love for the Lord and his people. You talk about oneness, but you don't seem like the type of person who could really be one with anyone, except someone who agrees with you on everything.

Sorry, just the testimony is all wrong if you ask me. I don't get it. I don't understand your values or what you are trying to accomplish with your life. Seems so empty, so clinical, so lacking in love and life. So pointless.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Apparently you have no idea how similar you have become to the Catholic Church. They have always stood for the oneness of the body of Christ, just like LSM always claims to stand for the one body. Catholic means oneness. For the LSM publishing house to direct its member churches, is little different than the Vatican to direct its parishes. They both mandate that their member churches be the same in communion liturgy, reading material purchased from their approved bookstore, appearance, teachings, worship music, ministers/priests trained at their own seminaries, etc.

I think the bible teaches order in the church, not chaos, and a certain level of organization. But the church is not "an organization" like the Catholic church. There are things that the Catholic church gets right and it's very good that it stands for the oneness of the body. But then there's the issue of worldly mixture and human manufactured oneness.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You may not like Peter as your first pope, but you have little problem with Paul as your first MOTA. Both the Catholics and the Recovery love to trace their lineage of leaders back to the 1st century.

Every Christian can trace their lineage back to the apostles/disciples of the Bible. For Gentiles, that person would be mostly the apostle Paul who commenced the ministry to the Gentiles.

Originally Posted by Ohio

This sounds kind of funny coming from you. Have you not read these published statements from LSM?

Evangelical, it's your leaders that wants lots of distance between them and the majority of protestant evangelicals, I guess, including yourself.

Yes you've declared it to be hypocrisy but I still don't get why that means the Reformation should not have happened or was not God's move as you seem to be suggesting.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Evangelical,

No offense, but the more you go on and on about things on this board the more I realize something went very, very wrong with the LCM. I will simply say that your attitude does not reflect the hearts of the men and women who started this movement in this country. I knew many of them and lived with some of them. Those people only cared for Christ. They really did. They did not express the spirit you do.

But over time, Lee took everything over and through his henchman molded the movement into his image instead of the Lord's. Many of those good brothers and sisters left, and some adapted. But sadly with many that simple pure love for the Lord and his Church was replaced by attitudes such as yours, minds and hearts so thick with knowledge and so puffed up by it that they don't even realize that their love for the Lord has been replaced by a love for their religion.

I think it's very, very sad. I don't think we will every get through to you. Only God can. I just pray he does.

But I would ask to you to try to focus a little less on doctrine and a little more on your love for the Lord and his people. You talk about oneness, but you don't seem like the type of person who could really be one with anyone, except someone who agrees with you on everything.

Sorry, just the testimony is all wrong if you ask me. I don't get it. I don't understand your values or what you are trying to accomplish with your life. Seems so empty, so clinical, so lacking in love and life. So pointless.

Sorry I missed that history - you are saying that the Recovery in the USA was started by people other than W. Lee ? That these people wanted to close the gap with Catholic church? they were ecumenical?

[A little brother]

Evangelical, I am grateful that we can start to go back to the Bible to dig out some truth together.

I would like to share one viewpoint first. In the Bible, there are different types of "languages". Some are plain descriptive ones on events and opinions as in Acts and the epistles. The other uses lots of symbols and types as in Revelation. Understanding the later is more difficult because it depends on how we interpret the symbols and types. Hope you agree that there is an element of guessing so we oftenly cannot be 100% sure.

So I started to first put away those preconceptions we learned from others on what the symbols and types mean, and go back to the texts themselves. Sometimes I find the messages are actually plain clear even without interpreting the symbols. May be there are further spiritual depths hidden in the symbols, but we should not ignore what is there in the plain text.

So let's try this with your verses...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

This describes a group of God's people coming out of Babylon.

Let's firstly not care about what Babylon means. In Rev 18:4, who did the voice from heaven call upon? It was calling "my people", God's people. (Have to admit that I have interpreted the voice from heaven as God's voice though) The voice was calling all God's people not to be partaker of Babylon's sins. It did not intend to have any God's people being left behind. So this is not a call for division of God's people or the body of Christ. It is instead a call for oneness to walk away from the sins of Babylon, whatever it represents. If somehow because of that Babylon we part with our fellow brothers and sisters, then probably we are failing God's call.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This verse describes separation from evil brethren:

1 Corinthians 5:9-13

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

Who were the evil persons that Paul mentioned? They are "anyone who bears the name of brother" but "is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler".

Firstly, He might not be talking about true brothers - could be just people who claimed to be a brother. I think we have no issue purging false brothers and definitely this is not a division of the body of Christ.

And even in the very unlikely case some true brothers had sinned (and probably refused to repent after fellowship), Paul named the sins very specifically. The evil persons were to be purged, isolated, or even quarantined if you like this word. There was no mention of splitting up the Corinthian Church. He was definitely not asking the true brothers who had not sinned to walk away to set up a new Church. And there is no mention of having different opinions of what a Church should be as a sin and reason for the purging.

Brother, those two verses did not convince me there are right divisions. They told me the importance of oneness. Please continue to seek.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Sorry I missed that history - you are saying that the Recovery in the USA was started by people other than W. Lee ?

There were many seekers back then. Lee did no gospel work here. He just held forth the hope of a way to go on with the Lord in love and oneness. People were attracted to that. For the first 12-15 years it was very positive and general, not so much about Lee and his stuff.

But in the late 1970s he started to assert his power and influence more and more. People like Benson and Graver took over in Texas and ran off every "dissenter," meaning everyone who was not blindly for Lee. A friend of mine was an elder and simply asked that we not follow Lee exclusively, but be more open and general as we were taught by Lee himself in the beginning. The response was to force him out.

It really was like that book "Animal Farm." The leaders in the beginning promised a 'brave new world,' but in the end they treacherously terminated anyone they saw as a threat. Brothers were accused, tried in kangaroo courts and shipped out, like Boxer to the glue factory.

That was the end of the dream.

After the 70s the shell of being for oneness remained, but the reality of truly being for oneness was gone. All the talk about oneness just became a way, ironically, to justify separating from everyone else.

I never said anything about the Catholics or ecumenicism.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes you've declared it to be hypocrisy but I still don't get why that means the Reformation should not have happened or was not God's move as you seem to be suggesting.

You have missed my points. It's almost impossible to converse with you. I address some of your false conclusions, and you create more.

For example, I ask how can you espouse a lineage of MOTA's from Luther to Lee, and yet denounce the papal lineage of the Catholic church? Then you interpret that as me endorsing Catholicism and rejecting Protestantism, when the point is that the N.T. allows for no lineages. The thought of blood lineages is completely O.T. with the failed Aaronic and Davidic lines. They really only served to point us to Christ.

To equate the Recovery with the Reformation has many self-serving elements for Lee. Why choose Luther as the first MOTA? Because Lee's movement was decidedly The Unique Move of God. But was Martin Luther God's unique move? Was not God working in many areas? In fact, Luther was merely elevated to prominence because of German nobility. Nearly all the other reformers, lacking secular military might, were martyred. Did that make Luther more spiritual? The first MOTA? I think not.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Brother, those two verses did not convince me there are right divisions. They told me the importance of oneness. Please continue to seek.

Well, again it depends on what you mean by "division." Division to me means animosity and unwillingness to fellowship, not the idea that one brother might feel led to do one thing and one another.

Where did we get the idea that one group of brothers in a city hold absolute authority over the rest of the Christians there about how they all should serve the Lord? Where do we get the idea that the Lord gives such wisdom and power so narrowly?

So let's say some Christians are meeting together in a city and several of the members feel to move to the other side of the city and start a new congregation. What could be the problem with that, and who has the power and authority to try to stop them?

So just because Christians feel to meet and serve in different ways does not mean they are divided by animosity. Animosity comes in, ironically, when one group tries to dictate to everyone else.

Again who has the authority to object and say that believers don't have the right to follow the Lord as they feel? This is the arrogance of the LCM. They think they have that right. So whenever someone doesn't go along with them, they cook up some way of calling that person divisive. But actually it is the LCM that is showing animosity and divisiveness by insisting that things be done their way.

So again, always question the premises and the definitions. What the LCM defines as "divisive" is simply anything they don't like and can't control. But it's a bogus definition and one that no one is obligated to recognize. They can live in their fantasy all they want. You don't have to listen to them and the unreasonableness they display makes my point.

The only thing that troubles me about them is they victimize the naive. Other than that they are simply annoying.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You have missed my points. It's almost impossible to converse with you. I address some of your false conclusions, and you create more.

Luther initiated the Reformation, and can be considered the person God raised up to release the vision of the age. Just like God raised up the apostle Paul, and the Recovery started with Paul. All of the reformers with Luther would be considered part of the Recovery as well.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, again it depends on what you mean by "division." Division to me means animosity and unwillingness to fellowship, not the idea that one brother might feel led to do one thing and one another.

Igzy, how do you propose that we have fellowship with Catholics?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Igzy, how do you propose that we have fellowship with Catholics?

Easy, find common ground and stick to that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Luther initiated the Reformation, and can be considered the person God raised up to release the vision of the age. Just like God raised up the apostle Paul, and the Recovery started with Paul. All of the reformers with Luther would be considered part of the Recovery as well.

And that French sister Jeanne Guyon was the next MOTA after Luther? Yeah right!

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, again it depends on what you mean by "division." Division to me means animosity and unwillingness to fellowship, not the idea that one brother might feel led to do one thing and one another.

I think we are on common ground. When I say there is no right divisions in the body of Christ, divisions to me are things like what 1 Cor 12 and Eph 4 mentioned:

• The eye saying it doesn't need the hand
• Viewing more feeble memebers of the body as dispensable
• Not having Christ as the bond of peace

Originally Posted by Igzy

The only thing that troubles me about them is they victimize the naive. Other than that they are simply annoying.

I share the exact same feeling too. But one thing I did learn during this discussion with Evangelical is that when we accuse the LC leaders, we have to be careful not to fall into the same trap like how the LC accuses Catholics. We know that we are only accusing the wrong leadership but LC members may feel otherwise, especially when they don't see the problems as we do.

It is difficult. And that is why we need to turn to our Lord for help all the time.

I am very new to this forum, but I strongly believe this is a proof that ex-LC members still want to fellowship with existing members because of love. Although sometimes our emotion may take over and spark some flames.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I think we are on common ground. When I say there is no right divisions in the body of Christ, divisions to me are things like what 1 Cor 12 and Eph 4 mentioned:

• The eye saying it doesn't need the hand
• Viewing more feeable memebers of the body as dispensable
• Not having Christ as the bond of peace

A Little Brother, I believe you intended to say feeble members of the Body are indispensable.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I am very new to this forum, but I strongly believe this is a proof that ex-LC members still want to fellowship with existing members because of love. Although sometimes our emotion may take over and spark some flames.

Yes, for some that is the case. For myself, it's the matter of quarantines I've tended to become emotional about. For all the turmoil that's existed in the local churches especially since the late 80's, with love and grace it could have been avoided. I've seen through a local community church how love any grace is disarming to potential problems.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Terry

A Little Brother, I believe you intended to say feeble members of the Body are indispensable.

Terry, thank you. I have corrected my typo.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Easy, find common ground and stick to that.

And what aspect of the locality is not a common ground we have with the Catholics in our city ?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Evangelical, I am grateful that we can start to go back to the Bible to dig out some truth together.

I would like to share one viewpoint first. In the Bible, there are different types of "languages". Some are plain descriptive ones on events and opinions as in Acts and the epistles. The other uses lots of symbols and types as in Revelation. Understanding the later is more difficult because it depends on how we interpret the symbols and types. Hope you agree that there is an element of guessing so we oftenly cannot be 100% sure.

Well I believe the bible interprets the bible. But agree that we cannot be 100% sure of anything.

Originally Posted by A little brother

So I started to first put away those preconceptions we learned from others on what the symbols and types mean, and go back to the texts themselves. Sometimes I find the messages are actually plain clear even without interpreting the symbols. May be there are further spiritual depths hidden in the symbols, but we should not ignore what is there in the plain text.

ok

Originally Posted by A little brother

So let's try this with your verses...



Let's firstly not care about what Babylon means. In Rev 18:4, who did the voice from heaven call upon? It was calling "my people", God's people. (Have to admit that I have interpreted the voice from heaven as God's voice though) The voice was calling all God's people not to be partaker of Babylon's sins. It did not intend to have any God's people being left behind. So this is not a call for division of God's people or the body of Christ. It is instead a call for oneness to walk away from the sins of Babylon, whatever it represents. If somehow because of that Babylon we part with our fellow brothers and sisters, then probably we are failing God's call.

I have a point to discuss in response. Firstly, I think it's a mistake to interpret this verse without considering what Babylon means, and will lead to wrong conclusions. It's like trying to interpret why the Israelites came out of Egypt without considering who Pharaoh or Egypt was.

Now my point:

Point 1: Coming out of Babylon (or anything) usually means physical separation, division.

Biblical insights: The Israelite's physically came out of Egypt and Babylon, Lot physically came out of Sodom, The early Christians physically left Jerusalem on heeding Christ's words. They all divided from something to obey God's voice.

For the sake of discussion, as you say, let's suppose it means walking away from the sins of Babylon, whatever that means. The next question is how do we walk away from the sins of Babylon and yet retain oneness with brothers and sisters in Christ who do not walk away from the sins of Babylon?

Example: In the case of the Catholic church, the false brothers could be the leaders, the rulers, and we cannot get away from them unless we physically leave. There may be a great many true brothers who decide to stay. So we must separate from them too, physically, though not spiritually.

I think it is obvious that not all true believers left the Catholic church with Luther. They chose to stay. But many left and joined Luther. So there is a division, but it is a right division because it is leaving a situation which cannot be fixed.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Who were the evil persons that Paul mentioned? They are "anyone who bears the name of brother" but "is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler".

Firstly, He might not be talking about true brothers - could be just people who claimed to be a brother. I think we have no issue purging false brothers and definitely this is not a division of the body of Christ.

And even in the very unlikely case some true brothers had sinned (and probably refused to repent after fellowship), Paul named the sins very specifically. The evil persons were to be purged, isolated, or even quarantined if you like this word. There was no mention of splitting up the Corinthian Church. He was definitely not asking the true brothers who had not sinned to walk away to set up a new Church. And there is no mention of having different opinions of what a Church should be as a sin and reason for the purging.

Brother, those two verses did not convince me there are right divisions. They told me the importance of oneness. Please continue to seek.

Let's see what the bible says about false brothers. Here is one verse:

Galatians 2:4
4 And this, because of the false brothers, brought in secretly, who stole in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into Slavery under the law.

This is in no doubt in reference to Judaizers, or Christians who follow the law. Is this not Catholicism which follows good works to get to heaven?

Yet here, the churches in Galatia were genuine churches, with some false brothers in their midst.

Suppose a false brother established Roman Catholicism in the same city, and was named as Pope. Then, we have an entirely different situation, where it is a majority of false brothers and a lesser number of true brothers in their midst. We cannot say that the few true brothers should remain, to preserve a "oneness of the body" that does not really exist between the true and the false.

If 90% of the Catholic church are false brothers, including the leaders, then it makes no sense to ask the true brothers to remain to preserve a false unity with false brothers. In the case of Luther, he had no choice but to oppose it. He had to separate himself from it. Catholicism, is not part of the body of Christ.

In summary, I believe it is right to divide from the false, and wrong to divide from the true.

The issue with denominations is that they were or are often divisions between the true (e.g. baptist and presbyterian people being divided over opinions regarding baptism or salvation), whereas the reformation was division between the true (Bible followers, Luther, et al.) and the false (papal system).

But in reality, the first divisions came about when people decided to start denominations rather than going back to the common ground upon which all Christians can fellowship - the locality. Any two or more Christians can come together and fellowship if they live in the same place.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And that French sister Jeanne Guyon was the next MOTA after Luther?

It can hardly be over-emphasised that Watchman Nee's great influence was not brother JN Darby but sister J Penn-Lewis. Think of his book 'Spiritual Man'; a re-write of Penn-Lewis' 'War on the Saints'. How can a sister who can't give Sunday-morning lecture in a "normal local church" be the MOTA of God's recovery efforts?

And have a look at Wesley v/v Edwards v/v Whitefield. Who was MOTA? Or was there another, hidden, "work of recovery" going on while these three were a smokescreen, or even a deviation?

Is God not capable of chewing gum while walking down the street? Peter went to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. Later John wrote his epistles and apocalypse. Who says one of them slavishly imitated the other? Or was abjectly servile to another's ministry?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

And what aspect of the locality is not a common ground we have with the Catholics in our city ?

At the end of his ministry, Witness Lee told his closest followers, "We were wrong in the matter of receiving the brothers... not receiving them according to God." Our common ground is not geography but faith in Jesus Christ.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Point 1: Coming out of Babylon (or anything) usually means physical separation, division.

Biblical insights: The Israelite's physically came out of Egypt and Babylon, Lot physically came out of Sodom, The early Christians physically left Jerusalem on heeding Christ's words. They all divided from something to obey God's voice.

In your examples, ALL Israelites came out of Egypt (I am not sure about Babylon's case though). Lot's whole family came out of Sodom. That's what I referred previously as "all God's people" and why I said it is not division.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think it is obvious that not all true believers left the Catholic church with Luther. They chose to stay. But many left and joined Luther. So there is a division, but it is a right division because it is leaving a situation which cannot be fixed.

I think you have forgotten “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Anyway, I think your point on physical versus spiritual division is valid. I have been focusing more on the spiritual side (division in the body of Christ) along this discussion thread. I don't know enough about the reformation history. If Luther was still spiritually connected with the fellow true believers in the Catholic Church, that was not division in the body of Christ at all. If they were cutting out fellowship with the believers staying behind, than it would be wrong.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Let's see what the bible says about false brothers. Here is one verse:

Galatians 2:4
4 And this, because of the false brothers, brought in secretly, who stole in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into Slavery under the law.

This is in no doubt in reference to Judaizers, or Christians who follow the law. Is this not Catholicism which follows good works to get to heaven?

Is this what Catholicism follows? Good works to get to heaven? I may not know enough about it. I did some searching and seems they say good works are result of grace by God and some believers will not become perfect in this life so they will have to go through purgatory.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yet here, the churches in Galatia were genuine churches, with some false brothers in their midst.

Suppose a false brother established Roman Catholicism in the same city, and was named as Pope. Then, we have an entirely different situation, where it is a majority of false brothers and a lesser number of true brothers in their midst. We cannot say that the few true brothers should remain, to preserve a "oneness of the body" that does not really exist between the true and the false.

Then it was the "false brother" causing a wrong division in the first place if he did manage to deceive true brothers to join him.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If 90% of the Catholic church are false brothers, including the leaders, then it makes no sense to ask the true brothers to remain to preserve a false unity with false brothers. In the case of Luther, he had no choice but to oppose it. He had to separate himself from it. Catholicism, is not part of the body of Christ.

Again, don't mix up division in the body of Christ with division with false brothers.

I won't jump into that conclusion of Catholic Church not being part of the body of Christ. If it is not part of the body, then who are the overcomers in Thyatira according to Lee's interpretation of the seven churches in Revelation?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In summary, I believe it is right to divide from the false, and wrong to divide from the true.

The danger here is that we could have replaced God in judging right and wrong. You know what, if you subsitute "Catholicism" in your arguments with "LC" and "Luther/Reformation" with the members who separated with LC in the past few decades, you will see what they were thinking.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The issue with denominations is that they were or are often divisions between the true (e.g. baptist and presbyterian people being divided over opinions regarding baptism or salvation), whereas the reformation was division between the true (Bible followers, Luther, et al.) and the false (papal system).

But in reality, the first divisions came about when people decided to start denominations rather than going back to the common ground upon which all Christians can fellowship - the locality. Any two or more Christians can come together and fellowship if they live in the same place.

You may find LC is not that different from all other denominations. In fact, I think there are more fellowship between different denominations these days than those between LC and all others.

And LC didn't break up with denominations because they were evil false brothers. The reason was just that they had a different view on locality.

Aron has it right - our common ground is not geography but the faith in Jesus Christ.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

And what aspect of the locality is not a common ground we have with the Catholics in our city ?

Your contentiousness about it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Luther initiated the Reformation, and can be considered the person God raised up to release the vision of the age. Just like God raised up the apostle Paul, and the Recovery started with Paul. All of the reformers with Luther would be considered part of the Recovery as well.

If LC'ers continue to espouse this idea, then they must admit that the Reformation was as much a socio-political coup d'etat as a spiritual "Unique Move of God." (I suppose similar things could be said of the decree by Cyrus the King of Persia to return to Jerusalem.) Were it not for the secular longings of the German nobility to be liberated from the bondage of Rome, there would not be the so-called Recovery with Martin Luther established as the first MOTA.

Truth is that church history tell us for centuries there had always been urgent reformers inside the RCC and genuine Christian communities outside the RCC. Papal emissaries had always been able to squash these "leperous rebels" either by excommunication, inquisition, deceit, open murder, or merely show of force. The collective cry of western humanity moved God to finally provide necessary military might to limit the Pope's reach.

It's so ironic how the Recovery loves to exalt Luther, their founding MOTA, and blame all his followers for "messing things up" and forming that first dreaded Lutheran church denomination, the so-called "daughter of the harlot." For many years in the LC's, I heard the same mantra about Witness Lee, the consummate MOTA -- how every one of his endless "moves" and "flows" emanated from the throne of God, but how his many followers constantly "messed things up."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To me they are statements of fact, so the criticism is warranted. Christianity indeed is full of full of traditions, organizations, performances. . . .

We will leave out the "falsehoods" because you are too.

So how is it that the statement that "Christianity is full of traditions" is evidence of anything diminished, degraded, unspiritual, etc.? I would suggest that the LRC is full of traditions. And not all of them are bad. Your Lord's table meeting is a decent tradition. It is observed according to a rather precise format, down to the bread made with bleached white flour. I realize that Ohio has made some real noise about that fact. But ignoring the hypocrisy surrounding the rhetoric and the fact of bleached white flour, it is not a problem. But for all that it is, it is not the formula proclaimed in the Bible. None of them are. Each method of doing it is simply a tradition.

So how is it that the statement that "Christianity is full of organizations" is evidence of anything diminished, degraded, unspiritual, etc.? All groups have organization. And when you break things down to finer levels, it is often seen that each has its own organization. Same for the LRC. There is nothing particularly in error with there being organization. And waving "holy water" over your organization by calling it a living organism does not change anything. Anyone can claim their organization is a living organism. There is nothing special about yours that is spoken positively of in the Bible to gain such special status or spoken negatively about anyone else to deny them similar status.

So how is it that the statement that "Christianity is full of performances" is evidence of anything diminished, degraded, unspiritual, etc.? By definition, if you do something, you perform. Just because you don't like someone else's actions, traditions, etc., does not transform their actions into something negative called "performance" while the actions, traditions, etc., that you like are not performances. The fact that you denigrate others over their ways, traditions, organization, etc. — all things that are not matters of the core of the faith — is evidence of a sectarian mind. The Methodists like their ways. The Baptists like their ways. The Anglicans like their ways. But to the best of my knowledge, none of the ways of any of these is definitionally void of truth, meaning, spirituality, etc. just because I don't like it. And the fact that I don't like it does not make it un-Christian, degraded, poor, "low gospel," etc.

Answer even one of those without reference to your preference of ways to do things. Do it strictly by reference to the scripture as defining either a set way that is being cast aside, or defining practices that are not acceptable. I daresay you cannot actually do either. You may think you can, but only by reference to your false teachings found in your third testament — the Collected Works of Witness Lee, along with the footnotes to your private Bible translation.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

At the end of his ministry, Witness Lee told his closest followers, "We were wrong in the matter of receiving the brothers... not receiving them according to God." Our common ground is not geography but faith in Jesus Christ.

That's stating the obvious, we are talking about Christians meeting together, of course they all have faith in Christ if they are Christian. Yet, that hasn't stopped multitudes of denominations forming has it?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

At the end of his ministry, Witness Lee told his closest followers, "We were wrong in the matter of receiving the brothers... not receiving them according to God." Our common ground is not geography but faith in Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's stating the obvious, we are talking about Christians meeting together, of course they all have faith in Christ if they are Christian. Yet, that hasn't stopped multitudes of denominations forming has it?

So ... let me get this straight bro ... Witness Lee's repentance was not really a repentance because only "the obvious was stated." And if Witness Lee's repentance was truly a repentance, then we all would have to examine what he might have repented for concerning his treatment of other Christians, and all LCers know that that is impossible because all LCers know that Witness Lee's repentance could not really be a repentance, because he was today's MOTA, and everyone else had to repent to him for their failures in not receiving his ministry and submitting to his leadership.

Did I get that right Evangelical? Huh?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

In your examples, ALL Israelites came out of Egypt (I am not sure about Babylon's case though). Lot's whole family came out of Sodom. That's what I referred previously as "all God's people" and why I said it is not division.

For the sake of this discussion, I will assume you are right.

But I found that scholars, mostly Jewish I guess, believe not all came out of Egypt.

See this article for example:
http://www.torahmusings.com/2012/01/...-out-of-egypt/

This is an interesting discussion in itself.

Originally Posted by A little brother

I think you have forgotten “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Anyway, I think your point on physical versus spiritual division is valid. I have been focusing more on the spiritual side (division in the body of Christ) along this discussion thread. I don't know enough about the reformation history. If Luther was still spiritually connected with the fellow true believers in the Catholic Church, that was not division in the body of Christ at all. If they were cutting out fellowship with the believers staying behind, than it would be wrong.

I have not researched this myself, but I'm guessing that Luther was not refusing Catholics, but Catholics may have refused him and other protestants. Over history, protestants have been more accepting of all believers, than the Roman Catholic etc who equate "the faith" with the structure and traditions of the church. But then I recall protestants may have fought and killed Catholics, so I could be wrong about this.

In regards to physical vs spiritual, many Christians are content to meet physically apart and believe in spiritual oneness. However Watchman Nee/Lee rejected the idea of visible/practical separation yet invisible unity. Nee wrote it was impractical, or an idealistic view of things. I believe that because of our invisible unity, we should meet in unity practically.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Is this what Catholicism follows? Good works to get to heaven? I may not know enough about it. I did some searching and seems they say good works are result of grace by God and some believers will not become perfect in this life so they will have to go through purgatory.

They don't believe in salvation by grace through faith alone in the same sense as Protestants. It is more faith with good works.

Originally Posted by A little brother

I won't jump into that conclusion of Catholic Church not being part of the body of Christ. If it is not part of the body, then who are the overcomers in Thyatira according to Lee's interpretation of the seven churches in Revelation?

I think only people are part of the body of Christ. People in the Catholic Church are part of the body of Christ. But the Catholic church as an organization or institution, I can't see how it can be considered to be part of the body.

The overcomers in Thyatira would be those in the Catholic church who have stood fast in her midst, or even come out of her (like Luther did). Nee/Lee recognized many genuine believers in the Catholic church.

Originally Posted by A little brother

You may find LC is not that different from all other denominations. In fact, I think there are more fellowship between different denominations these days than those between LC and all others.

Babylon is called "the great". It's large and very big. So, no surprise there.

Originally Posted by A little brother

And LC didn't break up with denominations because they were evil false brothers. The reason was just that they had a different view on locality.

Aron has it right - our common ground is not geography but the faith in Jesus Christ.

The faith in Christ is the spiritual aspect. The geography aspect is the physical aspect. Strangely, despite you and Aron saying that, the common ground is our faith in Jesus Christ, it seems odd that you might support denominations as well. Most denominations are based upon the faith in Jesus Christ, plus, plus, plus, plus.... and some very particular reasons why they have not merged together. Baptist and Presbyterian for example, very similar, yet remain content to retain individual identities.

LC didn't "break up" with anyone. It is a group of people that came out of denominations, to practice the church life. It is equivalent to the Israelites coming out of Egypt, the place of bondage. More of an escape than a breakup.

[Cal]

Evangelical,

I want to thank you. Because the more you post the more I feel good about being out of the LCM. And the more you post the more the testimony of what's wrong with the LCM is demonstrated.

God is good. Thank you, Lord, for exposing this ridiculous parody of a movement through this well-meaning, but over-talkative and ultimately cluelessly tone-deaf brother. Amen.

I don't mean to be cruel, Ev. But it is like watching a train wreck over and over in slow motion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Evangelical,

I want to thank you. Because the more you post the more I feel good about being out of the LCM. And the more you post the more the testimony of what's wrong with the LCM is demonstrated.

God is good. Thank you, Lord, for exposing this ridiculous parody of a movement through this well-meaning, but over-talkative and ultimately cluelessly tone-deaf brother. Amen.

I don't mean to be cruel, Ev. But it is like watching a train wreck over and over in slow motion.

Yes, right, amen, so be it, and I agree.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Evangelical,

I want to thank you. Because the more you post the more I feel good about being out of the LCM. And the more you post the more the testimony of what's wrong with the LCM is demonstrated.

God is good. Thank you, Lord, for exposing this ridiculous parody of a movement through this well-meaning, but over-talkative and ultimately cluelessly tone-deaf brother. Amen.

I don't mean to be cruel, Ev. But it is like watching a train wreck over and over in slow motion.

Now you're sounding like the Pharisee here.. "dear God, thank you that i'm not like Evangelical".

I don't know why you deny that our geography, or proximity to each other is a common ground for meeting.

I guess when people are blinded by religion and denominationalism, the concept of meeting with Christians because they are near them is a strange concept.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now you're sounding like the Pharisee here.. "dear God, thank you that i'm not like Evangelical".

I don't know why you deny that our geography, or proximity to each other is a common ground for meeting.

I guess when people are blinded by religion and denominationalism, the concept of meeting with Christians because they are near them is a strange concept.

Evangelical, your question was:

Igzy, how do you propose that we have fellowship with Catholics?

Now you have conflated fellowship with meetings and implied that you are only able to have fellowship with someone who attends your meetings.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, your question was:



Now you have conflated fellowship with meetings and implied that you are only able to have fellowship with someone who attends your meetings.

Hi Koinonia,

No, I am not using the word meeting in the sense of "the Lord's table meeting", but in general.

But on that point, I believe that meeting and fellowship are the same thing.

It is the denominations /organizations of man that believe a meeting or church service is one thing, and fellowship is what happens after over a cup of coffee. Of course no fellowship happens during the service, because everyone's gaze is fixed on the pastor who is doing all the functioning.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now you're sounding like the Pharisee here.. "dear God, thank you that i'm not like Evangelical".

I don't know why you deny that our geography, or proximity to each other is a common ground for meeting.

I guess when people are blinded by religion and denominationalism, the concept of meeting with Christians because they are near them is a strange concept.

Don't other donominations also have groups meeting by geographical locations? So you say that is not locality and only LC is on the ground of locality? What about the fellowship/meetings/trainings at Anaheim in which saints from different locality join? Is that violation of locality?

Be careful being too sure about what you see. I think all of us should be reminded by Jesus' words...

John 9:41 Jesus said to them, If you were blind, you would not have sin; but now that you say, We see; your sin remains.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

LC didn't "break up" with anyone. It is a group of people that came out of denominations, to practice the church life. It is equivalent to the Israelites coming out of Egypt, the place of bondage. More of an escape than a breakup.

Now you have confused youself between Egypt and Babylon. They are supposed to be different in Lee's interpretation.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hi Koinonia,
But on that point, I believe that meeting and fellowship are the same thing.

How sad...

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Don't other donominations also have groups meeting by geographical locations? So you say that is not locality and only LC is on the ground of locality? What about the fellowship/meetings/trainings at Anaheim in which saints from different locality join? Is that violation of locality?

Be careful being too sure about what you see. I think all of us should be reminded by Jesus' words...

John 9:41 Jesus said to them, If you were blind, you would not have sin; but now that you say, We see; your sin remains.

Yes they do, but the locality is not the only ground, but the denomination they are part of. That's why a baptist church for example, won't join with a presbyterian church next door to it.

Saints from different localities can join together. Everyone is part of the one church. There's no law that says we cannot join together from different localities. In fact, that is encouraged.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Now you have confused youself between Egypt and Babylon. They are supposed to be different in Lee's interpretation.

I'm not confused at all. In both Egypt and Babylon, the people of God came out , to go into Jerusalem. Maybe you need to brush up on your Jewish history.
Remember that before the Israelites came out of Babylon, they first had to come out of Egypt. They are different in some aspects. But both examples of God's people coming out, to go into Jerusalem. Both examples suffice for the purpose of this discussion.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

How sad...

How is the Lord's Table meeting not fellowship?

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes they do, but the locality is not the only ground, but the denomination they are part of. That's why a baptist church for example, won't join with a presbyterian church next door to it.

Saints from different localities can join together. Everyone is part of the one church. There's no law that says we cannot join together from different localities. In fact, that is encouraged.

Neither will an LC brother join with a Baptist church next door to it. And you say it is locaility. What is the actual difference?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'm not confused at all. In both Egypt and Babylon, the people of God came out , to go into Jerusalem. Maybe you need to brush up on your Jewish history.
Remember that before the Israelites came out of Babylon, they first had to come out of Egypt. They are different in some aspects. But both examples of God's people coming out, to go into Jerusalem. Both examples suffice for the purpose of this discussion.

Oh sorry, you were talking about history? Jerusalem did not exist at all when the Israelites left Egypt.

I suggest you brush up (or better not) on Lee's teachings. According to him, Egypt is the world and Babylon is religion. There is a difference between coming out of the world and religion.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Neither will an LC brother join with a Baptist church next door to it. And you say it is locaility. What is the actual difference?

It's a denomination. We are just Christians. And before you say they are "just Christians too". Then I ask you, why do they call themselves Baptists or Baptist Christians.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Oh sorry, you were talking about history? Jerusalem did not exist at all when the Israelites left Egypt.

I would not say "at all". Jerusalem was a Canaanite city, inhabited by Jebusites, a Canaanite tribe, though it was called by a different name. So it definitely existed.

Jerusalem is mentioned in the Old Testament as far back as Malchizedek the king of Shalem (pre-Jerusalem), who met Abraham. Abraham renamed Shalem to Yireh, which became known as Yirehshalem (in Hebrew), or Jerusalem. But you'd have to know something about Jewish history and word origins to know this. What's it mean ? I forget, great city, or great city of peace.

Originally Posted by A little brother

I suggest you brush up (or better not) on Lee's teachings. According to him, Egypt is the world and Babylon is religion. There is a difference between coming out of the world and religion.

Umm, not quite "world versus religion". Lee portrays them both as examples of the world. Both are examples of the world. Lee says Egypt signified the world of enjoyment. Babylon the world of rebellion and idol worship.

The church in Pergamos was the worldly church, the church in Egypt. ~ Life-study of Revelation, message 16.

Lee writes "in God's view, the world is first Egyptian and then Babylonian."
Life-study of Jeremiah - message 38.

They are both examples of God's people coming out of the world. They are both places where God's people were enslaved. The religious world is afflicted by both worldly enjoyments and rebellion and idol worship. So a bit of both Egypt and Babylon I would say.

Moses and the Israelites came out of Egypt into the land of Canaan where the city of Jerusalem was (though called by a different name at the time).
Jerusalem was once a pagan city, before it became "Israelite" or "Jewish".

Since we are discussing this, should I mention Assyria as well?

Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, symbolize three things God's people had to come out of.

God's people were carried away into captivity into those three. Those three symbolize different types of churches/denominations - ones with worldly enjoyment, ones with idol worship. All three had to return, or be "recovered" back to Jerusalem.

Anyway, I appreciate some discussion about Lee's teachings. But you're only covering one aspect of Lee's teaching. I know that the message to "come out" applies equally to Egypt as it does to Babylon. When you've been through as many life studies as I have, you tend to pick up on things others may not have.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's a denomination. We are just Christians. And before you say they are "just Christians too". Then I ask you, why do they call themselves Baptists or Baptist Christians.

Really? The Christians in the denominations I know just call themselves Christians. It is only when they were asked which Church do they come from that they provide more details. Probably only outsiders with a denominational mind will call them that by default.

May be this is not much different from the LC saints saying they are in the Lord's Recovery.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Umm, not quite "world versus religion". Lee portrays them... both as examples of the world. Both are examples of the world. Lee says Egypt signified the world of enjoyment. Babylon the world of rebellion and idol worship.

It is really not my intent to discuss Lee's teaching here. But couldn't help to ask just one more question. What do you mean by world of enjoyment? World of all sorts of enjoyment? Does enjoyment of Christ count? Or you are saying worldly enjoyment? So Egypt means world of wordly enjoyment? Doesn't it sound weird?

Have to say I am quite tired of Lee's terminology system.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Really? The Christians in the denominations I know just call themselves Christians. It is only when they were asked which Church do they come from that they provide more details. Probably only outsiders with a denominational mind will call them that by default.

May be this is not much different from the LC saints saying they are in the Lord's Recovery.

But the church, the group of people that meet in the baptist church, does not just call itself Christian. It's called the Baptist church, for example. Not the Christian church, or just "the church". God's church has no name. Man's church has names.

Originally Posted by A little brother

It is really not my intent to discuss Lee's teaching here. But couldn't help to ask just one more question. What do you mean by world of enjoyment? World of all sorts of enjoyment? Does enjoyment of Christ count? Or you are saying worldly enjoyment? So Egypt means world of wordly enjoyment? Doesn't it sound weird?

Have to say I am quite tired of Lee's terminology system.

Worldly enjoyment would be enjoyment in worldly things other than Christ. The Israelites desired to go back to Egypt to eat lots of bread and meat when they were in the desert.

So , bringing this back to topic. The Israelites leaving Egypt was God's unique move. There was no such thing as different groups within the Israelites doing their own move. If they were all demonationalized (pun intended), we can imagine each group would have their own Moses. The baptist Moses, the Catholic Moses, etc. Each would have come out of Egypt in their own way and own time.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now you're sounding like the Pharisee here.. "dear God, thank you that i'm not like Evangelical".

I don't know why you deny that our geography, or proximity to each other is a common ground for meeting.

I guess when people are blinded by religion and denominationalism, the concept of meeting with Christians because they are near them is a strange concept.

In the Recovery, the only "common ground" for meeting is the books and teachings of LSM.

Oh you can quote me dozens of niceties from WL's vast online resources, but having lived through their quarantines, I know better how agents from LSM operate.

It was worse than hypocritical.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In the Recovery, the only "common ground" for meeting is the books and teachings of LSM.

Oh you can quote me dozens of niceties from WL's vast online resources, but having lived through their quarantines, I know better how agents from LSM operate.

It was worse than hypocritical.

You're like Martin Luther, who went through so much with the Catholic Church.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So , bringing this back to topic. The Israelites leaving Egypt was God's unique move. There was no such thing as different groups within the Israelites doing their own move. If they were all demonationalized (pun intended), we can imagine each group would have their own Moses. The baptist Moses, the Catholic Moses, etc. Each would have come out of Egypt in their own way and own time.

After all these discussions, you came back saying there is no such thing as different groups. So I assume you agree with my earlier point that all God's people should act together and there is no right division.

I think you are confronting with too many different conversations in this thread. So probably it is time to end ours given each of us has expressed enough viewpoints already.

It would leave you some time to think more deeply before reponding to the other members' posts.

Thanks and hope we both got something out of this discussion.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

After all these discussions, you came back saying there is no such thing as different groups. So I assume you agree with my earlier point that all God's people should act together and there is no right division.

I think you are confronting with too many different conversations in this thread. So probably it is time to end ours given each of us has expressed enough viewpoints already.

It would leave you some time to think more deeply before reponding to the other members' posts.

Thanks and hope we both got something out of this discussion.

I think there's no right division between true believers. But there is a right division between true and false. So, we can agree on something.

Anyway, thanks for the consideration, and if you need a hand with any discussion, let me know. Discussion about Lee/Nee or anything gives me a chance to dust off the old book shelf.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now you're sounding like the Pharisee here.. "dear God, thank you that i'm not like Evangelical".

I don't know why you deny that our geography, or proximity to each other is a common ground for meeting.

I guess when people are blinded by religion and denominationalism, the concept of meeting with Christians because they are near them is a strange concept.

I'm just trying to help you. You represent a tiny minority of opinion, yet you insist you are right and brush aside every reasonable objection to your claims. That is not rational or sober.

And please don't put words in my mouth. I never denied geography plays a part in who we meet with. I just said you don't have a right to enforce it on others according to your interpretation of it.

It's flat crazy, Evangelical, for you to think you and only you and your little band are doing things right. That's the kind of things nutty cults believe. It's you who are out of whack with the Body of Christ.

I simply do not believe that 2000 years after Christ was here on earth, that at this late date God finally was able to raise up a little crew who finally after all these years see what church is supposed to be and are the only ones doing it right, and that his command to them is to stay away from everyone else and tell them how wrong they are.

I really do not believe that is what God is telling you guys to do. Like I said, your way of rationalizing your exclusivism is the same way nutty us-only cults have done it down through history. It makes sense in your tightly-spinning world, but not to more sober minds.

Rational objection after rational objection to your arguments have been given from all quarters here. Your response is not to honestly engage most of them, but to either brush them aside, mischaracterize them or engage in other sophistry. Any reasonable person here sees it, but you seem oblivious to it.

Are you really expecting people to believe that a person who reasons as carelessly as you do holds the keys to light and truth? Dream on. You are wasting your time.

If you like the LCM, fine. Tell us all about how you like it. But please cease with the crappy arguments for it. They don't hold water. This has been show again and again, ad nauseum.

[Cal]

Here is the choice before you, Evangelical. You can join the community of grown-ups who have the humility and sobriety to admit they don't have all the answers, that there is good and bad in most every Christian work, that all of us need God's mercy, and we all should work together and help each other.

Or you can remain in the nutty fringe who claims to have the secrets keys to all insight, who have a corner on truth and light, and who are qualified to sit in judgment of everyone else, who despite their history of minuscule numbers and feeble growth believe they are the vanguard of a brave new world God is building with them at his right hand.

Groups in the latter category have come and gone down through history. They never amount to much. The LCM is just another instance. This is doesn't mean the LCM doesn't have some good things. Like I said, there is good in most all Christian works. But you are not all that you think you are and you are certainly not qualified to demand the rest of the Church do things you way. And it's really getting old listening to you assume you are.

And it's getting old hearing you repeat arguments that have been refuted over and over here. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing expecting different results. I don't think you are insane but sometimes it's hard to tell.

Why not let your pet beliefs go and try to find common ground here? That would go a lot farther toward softening people to the LCM than any of your, let us say, shaky arguments and stubborn opinions will.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How is the Lord's Table meeting not fellowship?

I did not say such a thing.

You said that "meeting and fellowship are the same thing." Do you actually believe this? It is not bad by any means to have meetings, but they are a construct just as much as the "services" you decry. Same concept; different words, different format.

Fellowship is communion with God and with His people. Meetings may or may not have anything to do with it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I did not say such a thing.

You said that "meeting and fellowship are the same thing." Do you actually believe this? It is not bad by any means to have meetings, but they are a construct just as much as the "services" you decry. Same concept; different words, different format.

Fellowship is communion with God and with His people. Meetings may or may not have anything to do with it.

All meetings in the local church whether home meeting or group meeting involve fellowship with God and His people.

Only if a meeting had no prayer or singing or interaction could you say a meeting is not fellowship.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Only if a meeting had no prayer or singing or interaction could you say a meeting is not fellowship.

And on that point we can generally agree. But whether or not the fellowship is really about "church" and therefore we are talking about when the church meets (assembles), or is just about a get together to chit-chat, watch a baseball game, eat bar-b-q, or any other activity, then that is the difference.

Now I am quick to point out that everything about the life of a Christian should be spiritual. That does not mean that it is all about prayer, "fellowship" with other believers, learning from the word, etc. It means that our life is ordered around Christ in all that we do. We are the best doctors, nurses, accountants, programmers, engineers, short-order cooks, truck drivers, trash haulers, farmers, day laborers, etc., that we can be because we serve our employers (masters) as serving Christ. We are the most honest customers and vendors in the marketplace. We are quick to help those in need, and slow to say anything bad about anyone (outside of any truth that must be said — and that is not license to lay down biblical truth on everyone who is a sinner).

That is our life. And when we get together to meet as Christians, we are quick to admit our own faults and pray for forgiveness (not just assume that we have grace and move on). We focus on God in our worship, not on ourselves.

So while there is always "fellowship" in a meeting of Christians, it is still rational to assume that when someone says "fellowship" in the context of a meeting of Christians, it is intended to refer to their Christ-facing thoughts, actions, talk, and issues, and not just everything simply because everything is "fellowship."

I also would agree that a meeting without interaction is not fellowship. But that is a rather unique (if it has ever actually happened) situation to be making a comment about. What were you really trying to say? Just to be at odds on yet another point? That seems to be your MO.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm just trying to help you. You represent a tiny minority of opinion, yet you insist you are right and brush aside every reasonable objection to your claims. That is not rational or sober.

And please don't put words in my mouth. I never denied geography plays a part in who we meet with. I just said you don't have a right to enforce it on others according to your interpretation of it.

It's flat crazy, Evangelical, for you to think you and only you and your little band are doing things right. That's the kind of things nutty cults believe. It's you who are out of whack with the Body of Christ.

I simply do not believe that 2000 years after Christ was here on earth, that at this late date God finally was able to raise up a little crew who finally after all these years see what church is supposed to be and are the only ones doing it right, and that his command to them is to stay away from everyone else and tell them how wrong they are.

I really do not believe that is what God is telling you guys to do. Like I said, your way of rationalizing your exclusivism is the same way nutty us-only cults have done it down through history. It makes sense in your tightly-spinning world, but not to more sober minds.

Rational objection after rational objection to your arguments have been given from all quarters here. Your response is not to honestly engage most of them, but to either brush them aside, mischaracterize them or engage in other sophistry. Any reasonable person here sees it, but you seem oblivious to it.

Are you really expecting people to believe that a person who reasons as carelessly as you do holds the keys to light and truth? Dream on. You are wasting your time.

If you like the LCM, fine. Tell us all about how you like it. But please cease with the crappy arguments for it. They don't hold water. This has been show again and again, ad nauseum.

Your post is more persuasive than your others, and you don't have to remind me that we are a tiny minority of opinion, as if that really mattered anyway. You seem worried that God really is telling us to do these things, and you might be wrong. But don't worry, remember Lee's messages about the peaks of Jerusalem and the higher peaks? We try to be the higher peak, but it doesn't mean people in other churches aren't peaks.

I think that God works purposefully with one group at a time, as He so often has according to the Bible (whether Old Testament or New). I don't think God raised up thousands of denominations in a scatter gun approach.

In the history of the Bible, we should consider which of these two propositions are more likely:

1) God raising up a group of people, even a minority to do His will, in these last days - I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and say this may not be us, and we fall into category 2) as many here believe.
2) God raising up thousands of groups, who all do different things in different ways and call themselves by different names - hopefully we can agree on this.

Someone has to be Babylon the Great, and someone has to be the genuine church. I mean, we can't all be the genuine church now can we, otherwise Revelation would be wrong. How can Revelation tell us to "come out of her" if the "her" does not even exist. But I think we can see that "her" every time we see a statue of Mary or a TV evangelists promise of quadruple financial blessing.

I think we need to try to be the people in category 1). The minority who do His will. Normally that will put us at odds with our church, as typically they are comprised of people settled and comfortable in the status quo.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

And on that point we can generally agree. But whether or not the fellowship is really about "church" and therefore we are talking about when the church meets (assembles), or is just about a get together to chit-chat, watch a baseball game, eat bar-b-q, or any other activity, then that is the difference.

Now I am quick to point out that everything about the life of a Christian should be spiritual. That does not mean that it is all about prayer, "fellowship" with other believers, learning from the word, etc. It means that our life is ordered around Christ in all that we do. We are the best doctors, nurses, accountants, programmers, engineers, short-order cooks, truck drivers, trash haulers, farmers, day laborers, etc., that we can be because we serve our employers (masters) as serving Christ. We are the most honest customers and vendors in the marketplace. We are quick to help those in need, and slow to say anything bad about anyone (outside of any truth that must be said — and that is not license to lay down biblical truth on everyone who is a sinner).

That is our life. And when we get together to meet as Christians, we are quick to admit our own faults and pray for forgiveness (not just assume that we have grace and move on). We focus on God in our worship, not on ourselves.

So while there is always "fellowship" in a meeting of Christians, it is still rational to assume that when someone says "fellowship" in the context of a meeting of Christians, it is intended to refer to their Christ-facing thoughts, actions, talk, and issues, and not just everything simply because everything is "fellowship."

I also would agree that a meeting without interaction is not fellowship. But that is a rather unique (if it has ever actually happened) situation to be making a comment about. What were you really trying to say? Just to be at odds on yet another point? That seems to be your MO.

I recall attending liturgical church services when I was young, I didn't have much to do, it was quite boring, no one really to talk to. Just because I heard a pastor's sermon or went to church does not mean I had fellowship. I had some fellowship with God, but I could have done that at home. That's the difference between a service and a meeting I guess. A service is like going to the dentist.You sit on the chair and the dentist does things with you. But fellowship would be like going for a coffee. The Lord's table meeting is a kind of a feast, a meal, where everyone participates and enjoys. The denominational church services, the masses and communions, are like going to the dentist for a spiritual checkup, scale and clean.

In fact, things are so bad in the denominations, that the good ones will schedule small group meetings during the week to make up for the fellowship they did not have on Sunday. The Sunday service is the ritualistic "must do", and the small groups are where the real fellowship is said to happen. They've taken a page out of the "home church" groups on that one, keeping the Sunday service but adding some house meetings as well. Many denominations don't really do the house meetings at all. The Recovery is basically built on home meetings, rather than church services, it puts fellowship number 1, over ritualistic church services.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your post is more persuasive than your others, and you don't have to remind me that we are a tiny minority of opinion, as if that really mattered anyway. You seem worried that God really is telling us to do these things, and you might be wrong. But don't worry, remember Lee's messages about the peaks of Jerusalem and the higher peaks? We try to be the higher peak, but it doesn't mean people in other churches aren't peaks.

I think that God works purposefully with one group at a time, as He so often has according to the Bible (whether Old Testament or New). I don't think God raised up thousands of denominations in a scatter gun approach.

God does't raise up denominations. He raises up people and those people eventually coalesce into something he can more or less use, or not use, as the case may be. It's simply human nature to arrange ourselves along the lines of what makes the most sense to us, which gives us all the different flavors of groups.

Where we go wrong is when we start deciding to the extreme that what makes sense for us has to make sense for everyone else. That's why the whole idea behind the generality of the "unity of the faith" exists. Our unity is not in the details. It's in the general faith. And the faith does not include things like the local ground, or someone's proprietary idea of unity.

The LCM would be a good idea if it weren't such a bad idea. By that I mean in abstract theory it sounds good. But in application the flaws in the theory become apparent, as when you resort to invalid reasoning techniques to try to "prove" you are right. If you were right you wouldn't have to do that. But you do it over and over and I think you know it. Everyone else here does.

You are like Lee in that you think there is a practical mental construct, a theory of how to do church life, that can be applied to everyone. The problem is it's too specific and you eventually succumb to forcing unreasonable ideas on people in the name of "oneness," like expecting everyone to join the Recovery. In short, your theory doesn't work. And I definitely do not think God intended it to work because the end result really is something like Catholicism, where one organization presumes to speak for God to everyone. That always results when an elite few feel they have all the answers, which always issues in corruption and abuse, which is exactly what happened in Catholicism and in the LCM.

So what does God do? He continues to raise up people, who continue to coalesce into groups which he can use to one extent or another, or not use, as the case may be. Some of these fade away, some thrive and serve him well, others turn into religious institutions, or worse. But of none of them does he say, this is my unique place, better than all the rest. And even if he did think that, he'd never let us know, because it would go to our heads and make us presumptuous about what we could dictate to others, as it did with Catholicism and the LCM.

And the cycle repeats, over and over. History shows that. So in a sense God does scatter shoot. Absolutely he does. That's what the picture of the seed sower shows us. We never know where he is going to appear next, or who he is going to anoint next, or even exactly how we fit in. We just follow him and try to be faithful while we are here. And we let out a long and relieved sigh of humility and admit we don't have the perfect theory of anything.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

All meetings in the local church whether home meeting or group meeting involve fellowship with God and His people.

Even if that were true, it does not mean that "meetings = fellowship."

Only if a meeting had no prayer or singing or interaction could you say a meeting is not fellowship.

I never said "a meeting is not fellowship." The whole concept is silly in the first place. Saying meetings are fellowship because we have fellowship in meetings is like saying the meeting hall is the church because we experience church in the meeting hall.

You are exposing yourself as believing the same things for which you criticize others.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

God does't raise up denominations. He raises up people and those people eventually coalesce into something he can more or less use, or not use, as the case may be. It's simply human nature to arrange ourselves along the lines of what makes the most sense to us, which gives us all the different flavors of groups.

Where we go wrong is when we start deciding to the extreme that what makes sense for us has to make sense for everyone else. That's why the whole idea behind the generality of the "unity of the faith" exists. Our unity is not in the details. It's in the general faith. And the faith does not include things like the local ground, or someone's proprietary idea of unity.

The LCM would be a good idea if it weren't such a bad idea. By that I mean in abstract theory it sounds good. But in application the flaws in the theory become apparent, as when you resort to invalid reasoning techniques to try to "prove" you are right. If you were right you wouldn't have to do that. But you do it over and over and I think you know it. Everyone else here does.

You are like Lee in that you think there is a practical mental construct, a theory of how to do church life, that can be applied to everyone. The problem is it's too specific and you eventually succumb to forcing unreasonable ideas on people in the name of "oneness," like expecting everyone to join the Recovery. In short, your theory doesn't work. And I definitely do not think God intended it to work because the end result really is something like Catholicism, where one organization presumes to speak for God to everyone. That always results when an elite few feel they are in control, which always results in corruption and abuse, which is exactly what happened in Catholicism and in the LCM.

So what does God do? He continues to raise up people, who continue to coalesce into groups which he can either use to one extent or another, or not use. Some of these fade away, some thrive and serve him well, others turn into religious institutions, or worse. But of none of them does he say, this is my unique place, better than all the rest. And even if he did think that, he'd never let us know, because it would go to our heads and make us presumptuous about what we could dictate to others, as it did in Catholicism and the LCM.

And the cycle repeats, over and over. History shows that. So in a sense God does scatter shoot. Absolutely he does. We never know where he is going to appear next, or who he is going to anoint next, or even exactly how we fit in. We just follow him and try to be faithful while we are here, and admit we don't have the perfect theory of anything.

I think what you say is true of every revival in history that has ever happened. So if we want to be in God's current move, we really need to be looking for that. What do you think? Should we stay where we are and wait for God's move, or should we seek God's move in other groups?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think what you say is true of every revival in history that has ever happened. So if we want to be in God's current move, we really need to be looking for that. What do you think? Should we stay where we are and wait for God's move, or should we seek God's move in other groups?

God is moving in all kinds of venues. Like I said, once you start believing you are exclusively in the one unique current move of God you've erred. The unique move of God is to bring people to himself through Jesus and build them up together in his kingdom by the Holy Spirit. That can happen in a lot of ways and that's what you need to look for. It could be happening in your living room tomorrow if you wanted it to be. That's the beauty of it.

God's Spirit will eventually produce the oneness you are looking for. Paul predicted that when he said "until we all arrive at the unity of the faith." But you can't force it. You can't expect people to conform to your definition of it. You have to take oneness where you can get it, and look for it to grow and spread.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think what you say is true of every revival in history that has ever happened. So if we want to be in God's current move, we really need to be looking for that. What do you think? Should we stay where we are and wait for God's move, or should we seek God's move in other groups?

Evangelical, I couldn't help jump in again given this is touching a new topic.

"Current move" or "divine stream" whatever you like to call, it is not limited to a single group (unless that single group is the body of Christ as a whole). God holds the seven stars in His right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. He can certainly multitask beyond human imagination.

Some churches may be more pleasing to God and some less, but all are blessed with promises to the overcomers. God didn't tell members of the seven churches to move to somewhere else so this is probably not the best formula to become an overcomer.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Evangelical, I couldn't help jump in again given this is touching a new topic.

"Current move" or "divine stream" whatever you like to call, it is not limited to a single group (unless that single group is the body of Christ as a whole). God holds the seven stars in His right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. He can certainly multitask beyond human imagination.

Some churches may be more pleasing to God and some less, but all are blessed with promises to the overcomers. God didn't tell members of the seven churches to move to somewhere else so this is probably not the best formula to become an overcomer.

Each church mentioned covered a whole city. So presumably each group Jesus spoke to was a "denomination". Most likely the way the people overcame, was to leave one denomination and join the local church in the city.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Each church mentioned covered a whole city. So presumably each group Jesus spoke to was a "denomination". Most likely the way the people overcame, was to leave one denomination and join the local church in the city.

Sheer speculation. You can't leave the one local church in the city, just like you can't leave the universal church. There is no teaching that says anyone in the NT "met as the church in the city." This is not a biblical teaching. There is no teaching that says those who meet in other groups, even with names, were not a part of the church in the city.

The church in the city exists. But the Bible never says if you don't meet as the church in the city you have separated yourself from it. Just as the Bible never says that if you don't meet as the universal church you have separated yourself from it.

There is no place in the NT where a group of Christians are identified as not being part of the church. John mentions people leaving, but it's pretty clear he is speaking about people that tried to join the church and weren't true believers to begin with.

Again, for you to insist on your interpretation of oneness, to call others divisive for not conforming to such a speculative model is a worse kind of division than what you imagine they are committing.

You need to understand the the LCM model of locality was specifically designed so that the Nee/Lee group could declare that they were the church and that other groups were not the church. It was not designed to produce oneness. It was designed so that they could say they were for oneness while conveniently feeling justified to exclude who they wanted to exclude. But the justification they use for their model is extremely speculative, which is precisely why the model has been rejected by the larger Body of Christ over and over and over.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Each church mentioned covered a whole city. So presumably each group Jesus spoke to was a "denomination". Most likely the way the people overcame, was to leave one denomination and join the local church in the city.

This is reckless speculation. And it doesn't even make sense. If the church in Sardis was a "denomination," then why did the Lord refer to it as "the church in Sardis"?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I recall attending liturgical church services when I was young, I didn't have much to do, it was quite boring, no one really to talk to. Just because I heard a pastor's sermon or went to church does not mean I had fellowship. I had some fellowship with God, but I could have done that at home. That's the difference between a service and a meeting I guess. A service is like going to the dentist.You sit on the chair and the dentist does things with you. But fellowship would be like going for a coffee. The Lord's table meeting is a kind of a feast, a meal, where everyone participates and enjoys. The denominational church services, the masses and communions, are like going to the dentist for a spiritual checkup, scale and clean.

In fact, things are so bad in the denominations, that the good ones will schedule small group meetings during the week to make up for the fellowship they did not have on Sunday. The Sunday service is the ritualistic "must do", and the small groups are where the real fellowship is said to happen. They've taken a page out of the "home church" groups on that one, keeping the Sunday service but adding some house meetings as well. Many denominations don't really do the house meetings at all. The Recovery is basically built on home meetings, rather than church services, it puts fellowship number 1, over ritualistic church services.

Actually, the things about the liturgical service that you didn't like are the main reasons that we gather together as the church in the larger sense. It is not to have lively conversation among ourselves. It is not to have anyone "really to talk to." That is for sometime else. You want to denigrate small groups? Then don't you ever go over to another Christian's house for anything that resembles Christian fellowship.

The larger meeting is not for the kind of fellowship that you so mournfully sought in that liturgical service. But that is the kind of fellowship that would get a stern eye from an elder (even in the LRC) for disturbing the meeting.

To suggest that fellowship is #1 is probably a mistake. If you look at Acts, you find that they "continued" in the temple for teaching of the apostles, then from house to house in breaking of bread, etc. Without the teaching of the apostles, there is nothing to fellowship in the houses. It becomes an opportunity for the uninformed to discuss what they know little or nothing about.

The larger meetings are prime. They are the gathering.

But if you don't think the larger meetings are so important, then you probably don't think that the formulaic church is really that important. You don't actually meet that way. At least not as the main thing (according to you). So if that is just a side thing, or the lesser thing, then why is it so important?

Besides, if you think that other groups (not the LRC) have home meetings because "things are so bad," then why do you say that the LRC is mainly centered around home groups? Based on your analysis, the reason must be that things are so bad in the larger group.

As for "ritualistic church services," are you blind to the fact that each of your "services" is just as ritualistic? There is even a printed order of service for many of them. And the primary one that does not have one (that would be the Lord's table meeting) is so well orchestrated that if someone suggests a song from the wrong grouping at the wrong time, someone immediately jumps up to change it to a proper one. You herald the joy in this meeting. I will admit that there is a kind of joy in it. But it is, at its best, a way to do it. And the presumption of joy being required is a preference of style. And to some, it may seem to be inconsistent with the kind of reverence and praise that "remembering" the death of Christ and what that means to us should entail. Some would suggest that while it is definitely a benefit to us, to be so outward in joy is to think of it more in terms of me than in terms of the sacrifice that it was. The God of the universe died in my place. That should be sobering. We should constantly have a realization of the weight of guilt that should still be ours but is not. Yes, there is joy in that fact. But if it is too great, it suggests that we have little appreciation for the death we are supposed to remember, and too much appreciation for our freedom from whatever that was.

Moving on.

For many of your meetings, there is no longer any choice of song. It has been preordained in writing from Anaheim. After that, the content of the meeting is similarly preordained — in writing.

You have a rather complex liturgy. May not seem like one when you compare it to the kind that is well thought out by real theologians, but it is liturgy. And it is just a regimented as all the others. The only thing it does not control is what comes out of the mouth of someone who "prophesies" in one of the meetings. But if that gets too far off, there are ways that it is dealt with. In the LRC I've seen everything from groaning and bowed heads, to stern looks by elders, to even one standing and shooing the person back into their seat.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The church in the city exists. But the Bible never says if you don't meet as the church in the city you have separated yourself from it. Just as the Bible never says that if you don't meet as the universal church you have separated yourself from it.

If the word church means 'ekklesia' or assembly, which it does. Then technically, if one does not join the assembly in their city, they have separated themselves from the church in their city.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, the things about the liturgical service that you didn't like are the main reasons that we gather together as the church in the larger sense. It is not to have lively conversation among ourselves. It is not to have anyone "really to talk to." That is for sometime else. You want to denigrate small groups? Then don't you ever go over to another Christian's house for anything that resembles Christian fellowship.

The larger meeting is not for the kind of fellowship that you so mournfully sought in that liturgical service. But that is the kind of fellowship that would get a stern eye from an elder (even in the LRC) for disturbing the meeting.

To suggest that fellowship is #1 is probably a mistake. If you look at Acts, you find that they "continued" in the temple for teaching of the apostles, then from house to house in breaking of bread, etc. Without the teaching of the apostles, there is nothing to fellowship in the houses. It becomes an opportunity for the uninformed to discuss what they know little or nothing about.

The larger meetings are prime. They are the gathering.

But if you don't think the larger meetings are so important, then you probably don't think that the formulaic church is really that important. You don't actually meet that way. At least not as the main thing (according to you). So if that is just a side thing, or the lesser thing, then why is it so important?

Besides, if you think that other groups (not the LRC) have home meetings because "things are so bad," then why do you say that the LRC is mainly centered around home groups? Based on your analysis, the reason must be that things are so bad in the larger group.

As for "ritualistic church services," are you blind to the fact that each of your "services" is just as ritualistic? There is even a printed order of service for many of them. And the primary one that does not have one (that would be the Lord's table meeting) is so well orchestrated that if someone suggests a song from the wrong grouping at the wrong time, someone immediately jumps up to change it to a proper one. You herald the joy in this meeting. I will admit that there is a kind of joy in it. But it is, at its best, a way to do it. And the presumption of joy being required is a preference of style. And to some, it may seem to be inconsistent with the kind of reverence and praise that "remembering" the death of Christ and what that means to us should entail. Some would suggest that while it is definitely a benefit to us, to be so outward in joy is to think of it more in terms of me than in terms of the sacrifice that it was. The God of the universe died in my place. That should be sobering. We should constantly have a realization of the weight of guilt that should still be ours but is not. Yes, there is joy in that fact. But if it is too great, it suggests that we have little appreciation for the death we are supposed to remember, and too much appreciation for our freedom from whatever that was.

Moving on.

For many of your meetings, there is no longer any choice of song. It has been preordained in writing from Anaheim. After that, the content of the meeting is similarly preordained — in writing.

You have a rather complex liturgy. May not seem like one when you compare it to the kind that is well thought out by real theologians, but it is liturgy. And it is just a regimented as all the others. The only thing it does not control is what comes out of the mouth of someone who "prophesies" in one of the meetings. But if that gets too far off, there are ways that it is dealt with. In the LRC I've seen everything from groaning and bowed heads, to stern looks by elders, to even one standing and shooing the person back into their seat.

Don't confuse what I'm saying to mean there should be a total lack of order. We do things in an orderly way. But I don't think anyone in their right mind would try to equate our type of meeting with a Catholic or Orthodox or Lutheran liturgy.

A lot of what you say is untrue. Typically the choice of song is decided on the spur of the moment by anyone in the meeting. Most things are not prepared beforehand, except what morning revival we are doing that week.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If the word church means 'ekklesia' or assembly, which it does. Then technically, if one does not join the assembly in their city, they have separated themselves from the church in their city.

The Bible never says we need to "join" the church in the city. We are the church in the city. And we certainly don't need to join the LCM just because it calls itself the church in the city. That is completely specious logic.

As I said the whole LCM model is a trick designed to coerce people into considering the LCM the church in the city. The point is not to produce oneness, the point is to empower the LCM. But we all are the church in the city, just like we are all the universal church. You don't have to call yourself the universal church or join it to be it.

There is no evidence from the NT that all the Christians in a city met together, considered themselves all part of the same "practical church" or were all under the same group of leaders. It is just not specified that way.

Again this is why most everyone rejects the LCM locality model. There is no biblical foundation for it. It borne from trying to create a rigid binding model from vague non-binding verses.

You simply have no ground or right to try to hold people to it. And the ground you give to the devil in people by making them feel guilty about it you will be accountable for.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Each church mentioned covered a whole city. So presumably each group Jesus spoke to was a "denomination". Most likely the way the people overcame, was to leave one denomination and join the local church in the city.

Don't you find it a bit too convenient? When it comes to justifying locality, Jesus was addressing the whole church in the city. When it comes to blames, Jesus spoke only to "denomination"?

One of the most dangerous attitudes in studying God's Word is believing "I" am saved so the blessings are for "ME" and the blames/curses are for "OTHERS".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Don't you find it a bit too convenient? When it comes to justifying locality, Jesus was addressing the whole church in the city. When it comes to blames, Jesus spoke only to "denomination"?

One of the most dangerous attitudes in studying God's Word is believing "I" am saved so the blessings are for "ME" and the blames/curses are for "OTHERS".

I think that's called a self-righteous judgmental attitude.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Don't you find it a bit too convenient? When it comes to justifying locality, Jesus was addressing the whole church in the city. When it comes to blames, Jesus spoke only to "denomination"?

One of the most dangerous attitudes in studying God's Word is believing "I" am saved so the blessings are for "ME" and the blames/curses are for "OTHERS".

I can show you a few examples.

For example, this verse:

which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."

One church per city.

Can you count to seven? Only 7 churches. I can almost guarantee that If you were to ask any pastor of any denomination today, how many churches there are in their city, they would not say "one". They would say the Catholic, the Lutheran, the baptist.. at least 3, 5, 10 or 20 churches in my city. I will show in a minute how the bible says a Catholic church is not a real church.

This verse indicates a denomination in that city:

Rev 2:15 "Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans."

This is obviously the denominations in that city with priest-clergy distinctions. As Nico-laitan means ruler over the people.

Here Jesus said he's coming to their city, to fight against those in the Nicolaitan denomination in their city:

Rev 2:16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.


Here is another:

Rev 2:20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

In this city, there was a Catholic church, that's who Jezebel represents.

A good theologian like Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible makes this clear:

By her is meant the apostate church of Rome, comparable to Jezebel, the wife of Ahab; as she was the daughter of an Heathen, so is Rome Papal the daughter of Rome Pagan; and as she was the wife of Ahab, and therefore a queen, so the whore of Babylon calls herself; and as Jezebel was famous for her paintings, so the church of Rome for her pretensions to religion and holiness, and for the gaudiness of her worship; and as she was remarkable for her idolatry, whoredoms, witchcrafts, and cruel persecution of the prophets of the Lord, and for murder, and innocent blood she shed; so the church of Rome, for her idolatrous worship of images, for her whoredoms, both in a literal and spiritual sense, and for the witchcrafts, magic, and devilish arts many of her popes have been addicted to, and especially for her barbarities and cruelties exercised upon the true professors of Christ

So it means that if our city is like Thyatira with a Catholic church in it, Jesus is against that Catholic church in our city. So we better avoid that one.

Having dealt with the Catholics, Jesus then talks about the "rest of you in Thyatira", These would be the ones who just meet on the ground of locality and not because they are Roman Catholic:

Rev 2:24

Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan's so-called deep secrets, 'I will not impose any other burden on you,

We can see that Jesus is treating the whole city as a church. He never talks about multiple churches in the city, nor does he say "churches of Thyatira". There is only one church, and that can be only one true group of followers in any city. Not the denominations that follow Nicolai, Judaism, or Jezebel.


Someone on here before was saying how they believe that all churches in a city are a true expression of the body of Christ.

This is a false idea because Jesus is clear he is only happy with a small group of people in Sardis:

Revelation 3:4 Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy.

These few people in Sardis are the true expression of the body of Christ. The others are not. These are the true church.

In the city of Philadelphia, there is a denomination of Judaizing Christians. Jesus never treats them as just another church in the city:

Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you.

Presumably, the ones that were right in His eyes were the ones that did not divide into a denomination of Rome or a denomination of Judaizers.

In Summary

The churches that Jesus addressed were city wide, comprising all believers in each city.
There were some groups within those cities who departed from Christ - the Nicolaitans, the Judaizers, the Jezebels (Catholics, by any good bible commentator's reckoning), etc.
Jesus nowhere talks about "true believers" in the midst of the Nicolaitans or the Judaizers or the Jezebels. He will deliver some kind of punishment to these, and that is why the bible says "come out" (Revelation 18:4).

So if we think that when God sends an angel to deal with the Catholic church, he is going to skip over the "true believers" in her midst ? No, it will be like Lot, or the angel of Death in Egypt, or like the Christians fleeing the Romans in Jerusalem. For any who do not leave, and heed the call, they suffer the punishment.

As someone said before.. all of God's people came out. It is not a possible for a true believer to stay in the Catholic church for very long, for example.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In Summary

The churches that Jesus addressed were city wide, comprising all believers in each city.
There were some groups within those cities who departed from Christ - the Nicolaitans, the Judaizers, the Jezebels (Catholics, by any good bible commentator's reckoning), etc.
Jesus nowhere talks about "true believers" in the midst of the Nicolaitans or the Judaizers or the Jezebels. He will deliver some kind of punishment to these, and that is why the bible says "come out" (Revelation 18:4).

So if we think that when God sends an angel to deal with the Catholic church, he is going to skip over the "true believers" in her midst ? No, it will be like Lot, or the angel of Death in Egypt, or like the Christians fleeing the Romans in Jerusalem. For any who do not leave, and heed the call, they suffer the punishment.

As someone said before.. all of God's people came out. It is not a possible for a true believer to stay in the Catholic church for very long, for example.

Don't want to make this discussion too lenghy so I'll try keep it short.

I think you have confused the tares with the wheat and you are trying to burn the whole field because you see tares.

Jesus didn't seem to consider Jezebel a member of the Church in Thyatira. The letter was to addressed to the believers ("you") who tolerated Jezebel ("her"). So I would not hastily say Jezebel equals the whole Catholic Church or "denominations".

Every church which received the letter was already a called-out assembly by definition of "church". Some of their members were being deceived by false believers who sneaked into the assembly.

In the letters, Jesus was focusing on His people and warned them, especially the deceived ones, according to their deeds.

In the letters Jesus asked His people to repent, to be faithful and to hold fast (didn't find any "come out" here). Probably this is what we should focus more too.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Bible never says we need to "join" the church in the city. We are the church in the city. And we certainly don't need to join the LCM just because it calls itself the church in the city. That is completely specious logic.

As I said the whole LCM model is a trick designed to coerce people into considering the LCM the church in the city. The point is not to produce oneness, the point is to empower the LCM. But we all are the church in the city, just like we are all the universal church. You don't have to call yourself the universal church or join it to be it.

There is no evidence from the NT that all the Christians in a city met together, considered themselves all part of the same "practical church" or were all under the same group of leaders. It is just not specified that way.

Again this is why most everyone rejects the LCM locality model. There is no biblical foundation for it. It borne from trying to create a rigid binding model from vague non-binding verses.

You simply have no ground or right to try to hold people to it. And the ground you give to the devil in people by making them feel guilty about it you will be accountable for.

I think you're speaking from the point of view of the universal church, not the practical local church. In that sense you are right. It is like we believe that all believers are the church in the city.

But practically suppose there are 100 believers in the city who never meet each other. We cannot call that a practical local church. This idea is not practical. A local church only exists when the ekklesia is present, the assembly. If there is no assembly, there's no local church in a practical sense.

I think we are not the church in the city, unless we meet as the church in the city. For example, if 100 Christians get together to watch a game, that is not a church, that is a group of people gathering for sport. If 100 Christians get together to celebrate the Catholic mass, technically that is not a church but a group of people gathering for the Catholic mass.

I think the early church history shows that each territory or city had elders or bishops, and the church administration was very much territorial in nature. Titus 1:5 says "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city". They were thinking about the territorial boundaries of the church. Not denominational boundaries or boundaries based upon teachings and doctrines.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think you're speaking from the point of view of the universal church, not the practical local church. In that sense you are right. It is like we believe that all believers are the church in the city.

But practically suppose there are 100 believers in the city who never meet each other. We cannot call that a practical local church. This idea is not practical. A local church only exists when the ekklesia is present, the assembly. If there is no assembly, there's no local church in a practical sense.

Again, this is not a teaching of the Bible. "Practical church" is an LCM invention. And the Bible never says there has to be a "practical assembly" for the church to be present. This is not a biblical idea but a product of human reasoning.

The idea is a Lee/LCM invention which though interesting is in the end not biblical or even "practical." And it never was intended to be. The idea was invented so that the LCM could claim to be the church to the exclusion of all others.

"Practical church" is just another LCM circular argument. They define the idea in such a way so that only they qualify to fulfill it. But the Bible doesn't mention it or require it. The Bible just says assemble together. It never states that all the members in the city have to assemble together or claim allegiance to the same organization, movement, apostle or leader.

Sorry, there is just not enough Biblical backing for you to insist others conform to this idea. Continuing to do so is itself contentious and divisive.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Don't confuse what I'm saying to mean there should be a total lack of order. We do things in an orderly way. But I don't think anyone in their right mind would try to equate our type of meeting with a Catholic or Orthodox or Lutheran liturgy.

No, they would not confuse the two. But only because the outward form is so different. But a closer look would reveal that you have a modern liturgy that you stick to is a serious way.

Please understand that I am not saying that you are brought down by it. But neither are you lifted up because you think your liturgy is better than theirs. Your liturgy doesn't eat Ken-L-Ration and is therefor better. It is just different.

To borrow from the words of God himself . . .

You search the scripture to find ways to separate yourself from my servants but you do not truly come to me, the only source of unity and oneness — oneness in which you do not seek to find separation.

This is the quest in which you are so seriously engaged as you seek to define a "unique move or God" that excludes others and leaves only yourselves within that move.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A lot of what you say is untrue. Typically the choice of song is decided on the spur of the moment by anyone in the meeting. Most things are not prepared beforehand, except what morning revival we are doing that week.

Actually, I have it on pretty good authority that outside of the Lord's table, the number of meetings that are not taken over as "ministry station meetings" has been decimated. And in those meetings they specify the song — generally only one — and the content of the meeting.

Yes, in the Table meeting you are free to call a song. But it is generally enforced as being according to a pattern of progress. I can no longer quote the whole of it, but it is fairly-well established. Deviate very far and it will be corrected. Deviate just a little and they might let it pass, but expect a lecture afterward on the "official" (even though the term will not be used) flow of the Table meeting. I spent many years there and have seen it all first hand. And I have a pretty close relationship with some who are still there and occasionally comment on things like this.

But having admitted that your "morning revival" is prepared beforehand, would you scoff at those who read each day's passages from a lectionary that is in a 2 or 3 year cycle? Would you declare that using suggested readings by the pastor from the Sunday sermon is something sub-par. That would seem to fit well with the notion of learning in the temple then fellowshipping through the week.

But the expectation that you would find reason to demean either as deficient and evidence that they are not participating in the body of Christ (your group, it would seem from your rhetoric) is pretty consistent with your MO.

[OBW]

Sorry, there is just not enough Biblical backing to for you to insist others conform to this idea. Continuing to do so is itself contentious and divisive.

Amen, Amen, and Amen.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

And the Bible never says there has to be a "practical assembly" for the church to be present. This is not a biblical idea but a product of human reasoning.

The idea is a Lee/LCM invention which though interesting is in the end not biblical or even "practical." And it never was intended to be. The idea was invented so that the LCM could claim to be the church to the exclusion of all others.

Church is about assembling together to do certain things (the lord's table, etc) , so if we don't have that, there is really no church to speak of.

This idea of a practical church was not invented by Lee, it's just common sense to most people I would say.

I don't think many in denominations who actually "plant churches" would agree with you - they wouldn't bother to "plant churches" if they thought that an area without practical assembly already had a church present.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

No, they would not confuse the two. But only because the outward form is so different. But a closer look would reveal that you have a modern liturgy that you stick to is a serious way.

Please understand that I am not saying that you are brought down by it. But neither are you lifted up because you think your liturgy is better than theirs. Your liturgy doesn't eat Ken-L-Ration and is therefor better. It is just different.

To borrow from the words of God himself . . .

You search the scripture to find ways to separate yourself from my servants but you do not truly come to me, the only source of unity and oneness — oneness in which you do not seek to find separation.

This is the quest in which you are so seriously engaged as you seek to define a "unique move or God" that excludes others and leaves only yourselves within that move.

If you want to define liturgy as anything we do every week that is routine or common, such as arriving at 9 am for the meeting every Sunday, then I guess it is a liturgy.

But I use the normal use of the term liturgy to refer to the churches which are known as conducting "liturgical church services".

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, I have it on pretty good authority that outside of the Lord's table, the number of meetings that are not taken over as "ministry station meetings" has been decimated. And in those meetings they specify the song — generally only one — and the content of the meeting.

Yes, in the Table meeting you are free to call a song. But it is generally enforced as being according to a pattern of progress. I can no longer quote the whole of it, but it is fairly-well established. Deviate very far and it will be corrected. Deviate just a little and they might let it pass, but expect a lecture afterward on the "official" (even though the term will not be used) flow of the Table meeting. I spent many years there and have seen it all first hand. And I have a pretty close relationship with some who are still there and occasionally comment on things like this.

But having admitted that your "morning revival" is prepared beforehand, would you scoff at those who read each day's passages from a lectionary that is in a 2 or 3 year cycle? Would you declare that using suggested readings by the pastor from the Sunday sermon is something sub-par. That would seem to fit well with the notion of learning in the temple then fellowshipping through the week.

But the expectation that you would find reason to demean either as deficient and evidence that they are not participating in the body of Christ (your group, it would seem from your rhetoric) is pretty consistent with your MO.

That sounds like a unique sort of church in the Recovery. Most churches I believe have any member calling the songs and piano players struggling to catch up or remember the tune...and when in doubt, leave the piano out!

I'm not sure what you mean by "admitting that our morning revival is prepared beforehand". This implies that I tried to hide that morning revivals are prepared beforehand because they form part of our liturgy, but I was not. This should be obvious, everyone knows they are prepared beforehand, so I was admitting nothing.

But where you err is by suggesting that the morning revivals are part of some liturgical service - they are not. We do not use the morning revival for the "church service". The morning revival is not a feature of the Lord's Table meeting and we do not read it off by rote in a service.

This is in contrast to denominations where liturgical churches have a specially crafted "order of service" that is prepared beforehand and even tells you what exact words to say when you pray in exactly the same order every week. The morning revival is just our devotional which is used during the prophesying meeting, but even though the outline is prepared and we may all read that together, people are free to express themselves, plus we have different morning revivals every few weeks, which as another thread no here indicates -is how LSM make their money.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Church is about assembling together to do certain things (the lord's table, etc) , so if we don't have that, there is really no church to speak of.

Every church I know of has communion of some sort.

This idea of a practical church was not invented by Lee, it's just common sense to most people I would say.

If it is common sense then why do the vast majority of Christians disagree with your version of "practical?"

Church life experiences of course are practical. But as per typical LCM equivocation, you define "practical" to mean what you want it to mean, when, of course, it could be defined a lot of ways.

This is such a common rhetorical tactic of the LCM that it makes one's head swim, which I suppose is the point. Here is how they do it:

1. Take a common term, like "practical."
2. Make note of the general definition.
3. Then make a proprietary definition.
4. Use the term in an acceptable way using the general definition. For example, say "the church must be practical." Most will nod in agreement.
5. Then pull out the proprietary definition. For example, say "because the church must be practical it must do A, B and C," (which are all according to the proprietary definition, not the general definition).
6. Then go for the kill and declare, "The LC is the only true church because it has A, B and C!"
7. Welcome dupes that fall for such specious logic into the fold of the faithful.

Do this over and over with various terms, like "church," "oneness," "Spirit," "division," "building," "function," "opinion," "gift," "move," "ministry," etc, and you have something that operates rhetorically like the LCM, e.g. in a deceptive and equivocating manner.

[Cal]

Some examples of LCM proprietary definitions serving their equivocation:

Division: Division means separating yourself from other Christians because of animosity and a desire to avoid having to deal with them. To the LCM division means not meeting on the "local ground" and/or taking a name. Neither of these definitions are common or biblical.

Ministry: Ministry means a spiritual gift which is used to build up others. Paul said in 1 Cor 12:5 that there are many ministries. To the LCM ministry refers to their concept of God's "one ministry from the throne," which eventually equates to Witness Lee's ministry and no other. There is no mention of such a thing in the Bible.

Opinion: Opinion is a personal and subjective point of view based on many cognitive factors. Everyone has opinions and the Bible never says they are by nature bad. To the LCM opinion is "the expression of the self," and hence fallen and evil. Actually this was Lee's definition to intimidate anyone who might dare disagree with him.

Feel free to add others.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But where you err is by suggesting that the morning revivals are part of some liturgical service - they are not. We do not use the morning revival for the "church service". The morning revival is not a feature of the Lord's Table meeting and we do not read it off by rote in a service.

Pray-reading the HWMR is not rote? I would think by this time it is very rote and non-spontaneous. If it isn't by now it eventually will be.

I suppose calling something "liturgy" is simply admitting that the service has become somewhat rote. Whereas the LCM of course lives in denial about that for the sake of never, ever having to admit they have anything that could be called liturgy, because that's what those fallen religious groups do. But not us, cuz we special.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Every church I know of has communion of some sort.



If it is common sense then why do the vast majority of Christians disagree with your version of "practical?"

Church life experiences of course are practical. But as per typical LCM equivocation, you define "practical" to mean what you want it to mean, when, of course, it could be defined a lot of ways.

This is such a common rhetorical tactic of the LCM that it makes one's head swim, which I suppose is the point. Here is how they do it:

1. Take a common term, like "practical."
2. Make note of the general definition.
3. Then make a proprietary definition.
4. Use the term in an acceptable way using the general definition. For example, say "the church must be practical." Most will nod in agreement.
5. Then pull out the proprietary definition. For example, say "because the church must be practical it must do A, B and C," (which are all according to the proprietary definition, not the general definition).
6. Then go for the kill and declare, "The LC is the only true church because it has A, B and C!"
7. Welcome dupes that fall for such specious logic into the fold of the faithful.

Do this over and over with various terms, like "church," "oneness," "Spirit," "division," "building," "function," "opinion," "gift," "move," "ministry," etc, and you have something that operates rhetorically like the LCM, e.g. in a deceptive and equivocating manner.

I was not really thinking of a propriety definition of the word practical. You seemed to confuse the difference between the universal and the local churches so I was addressing that.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Pray-reading the HWMR is not rote? I would think by this time it is very rote and non-spontaneous. If it isn't by now it eventually will be.

I suppose calling something "liturgy" is simply admitting that the service has become somewhat rote. Whereas the LCM of course lives in denial about that for the sake of never, ever having to admit they have anything that could be called liturgy, because that's what those fallen religious groups do. But not us, cuz we special.

We pray read the bible, never heard of praying reading the HWMR, that doesn't sound right does it? That's not something I would agree with.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We pray read the bible, never heard of praying reading the HWMR, that doesn't sound right does it? That's not something I would agree with.

So you reject PSRP?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I was not really thinking of a propriety definition of the word practical. You seemed to confuse the difference between the universal and the local churches so I was addressing that.

Your definition of local church is proprietary as well. You define it so that only groups in your movement qualify.

There are many groups meeting "as the church in the city." The International Church of Christ meets as one church per city. And there are others. But the LCM always manages to find a reason to invalidate them all and not recognize them as churches. The only local churches it recognizes are those loyal to LSM. Very convenient.

This is strong evidence that the locality doctrine does not produce oneness. It only produces an environment where groups fight over the "prize" of getting to be the "one church in the city." In other words it produces more division, while each presumptively "genuine local church" turn its nose up at the other "pretenders."

So it's really nothing more than another "our doctrines are better than yours" battle, just like with.... you guessed it.... "the denominations."

So the LCM really exists in a bubble of denial. They believe there must be a "practical church in the city" and they want to be it (understandably). But in order to achieve this status in their minds they must block out all the contradictions, absurdities and hypocrisies such a state creates, which again accounts for their being unable to debate with full rationality on boards like this or to honestly and openly defend themselves in the public arena. It also explains why they resort to lawsuits to shut people up, because they simply cannot defend their ideas in an open forum.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We pray read the bible, never heard of praying reading the HWMR, that doesn't sound right does it? That's not something I would agree with.

Really? Benson said he pray-read the entire "The Economy of God" book by Lee. Do you think he would have a problem with pray-reading the HWMR?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Really? Benson said he pray-read the entire "The Economy of God" book by Lee. Do you think he would have a problem with pray-reading the HWMR?

Pray-reading means pray-reading the Word.

But if this is about praying a prayer from the words of another man, then it's no different than praying the prayers in a prayer book or service book. Sometimes the words of a book inspires us to pray in a certain way.

And remember that if we pray read a bible verse technically we are praying the words of other men.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you want to define liturgy as anything we do every week that is routine or common, such as arriving at 9 am for the meeting every Sunday, then I guess it is a liturgy.

But I use the normal use of the term liturgy to refer to the churches which are known as conducting "liturgical church services".

Actually, you use the term "liturgy" in a pejorative way. It is designed to evoke a sense of inferiority because it is old, at least somewhat set, or both.

But you make that judgment without any actual understanding of the content of such a meeting, or the spiritual significance or impact it has on its participants.

And you make that judgment without actually understanding what a liturgy is and presuming that your meetings are not full of liturgy and even tradition. Yet you demean both in complete ignorance of what they actually bring to the participant.

And participate they do. You think that your form of meeting is the only participatory form of any consequence. Actually, yours is the effect of the Church in Corinth deciding that they know better than Paul and setting aside his limitations on how they should conduct their meetings.

But the most significant thing about your post is that (once again) you did not respond to my most significant charge that your analysis of scripture is undertaken with an eye for how to segregate Christians into us v them rather than to find our commonality in Christ. How you do your meetings, no matter how much I think that you have completely misconstrued the edicts Paul gave in 1 Cor. 14, is not the important thing. Neither is how others do their meetings. It is the common faith in the one Christ, one God and Father, on Spirit, one baptism, etc. It is not in who are the elders in our assembly, nor the identifier we place on our group so as to be findable, nor who our elders are, no who are the ones that we take our teachings from.

The most significant thing is that you are elevating items within each of those categories such that you have given yourself the right to dismiss everyone else as deficient. Yet you are blind to the fact that this is exactly what Paul was chastising the Corinthians for in the opening chapters of his first letter to them. Not for having names (and thus your constant blathering about denominations). But for taking their preference for certain teachers to the point that they split up over it.

And you like to point to the fact of certain theologians in the center of these various groups — like Luther — are included in the names of the groups that came to follow them. Yet you agree with the split from the RCC that surrounded those people. So you are happy for the separation from the RCC caused by Luther, but are unhappy that those who still follow his teachings are identified by his name in any way. But that identification is not about the person, but the teachings that he brought. And you are more than happy about those teachings.

So when Christ Redeemer Lutheran Church changes its name to "church in [city]" what do you have to say about that? Is it now qualified for inclusion in your group? Or will you start looking into something else as a disqualifier? (In other words, is the whole "church in [city]" think just a first line of attack?)

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

And remember that if we pray read a bible verse technically we are praying the words of other men.

Well this would be another good reason that the scriptures should be read, studied and meditated upon, and not mindlessly repeated. Yes, I understand very well that not all Local Churchers are mindlessly repeating at all times, but in my experience and observation over 40+ years, this particular practice has evolved into something very close to what the Lord Jesus called "vain repetition". (Matthew 6:7)
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Well this would be another good reason that the scriptures should be read, studied and meditated upon, and not mindlessly repeated. Yes, I understand very well that not all Local Churchers are mindlessly repeating at all times, but in my experience and observation over 40+ years, this particular practice has evolved into something very close to what the Lord Jesus called "vain repetition". (Matthew 6:7)
-

That's not good is it, that's a religious activity.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's not good is it, that's a religious activity.

You might just be playing word games with Unto. But so much of the time you are looking for reasons to throw out words like "religious" for the purpose of evoking some presumptively negative image planted there so many years ago by Lee. As if "religion" or "religious" is necessarily a bad thing. Just like almost every other thing you talk about, there is no evidence that "tradition" is simply bad — or "liturgy," or "religion." And, similarly, there is no evidence of a "unique move of God" that somehow excludes activities, actions, and so on of Christians other than those in the LRC, or excludes any "religious" activities because they are considered sub-par relative to the standard of a "unique move."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Pray-reading means pray-reading the Word.

But if this is about praying a prayer from the words of another man, then it's no different than praying the prayers in a prayer book or service book. Sometimes the words of a book inspires us to pray in a certain way.

And remember that if we pray read a bible verse technically we are praying the words of other men.

Pray-reading is a good discipline, but pray-reading an outline or RcV footnotes is not the same as pray-reading scripture. Remember all scripture is God-breathed.
Still with pray-reading if not careful, there's the trap of becoming too religious with it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Terry

Pray-reading is a good discipline, but pray-reading an outline or RcV footnotes is not the same as pray-reading scripture. Remember all scripture is God-breathed.
Still with pray-reading if not careful, there's the trap of becoming too religious with it.

Pray-reading non-scripture is probably self-brainwashing. That's what Benson did, I think. He basically inundated his brain with Witness Lee teaching until it succumbed.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Pray-reading non-scripture is probably self-brainwashing.

Pray-reading non-scripture is as effective as calling on the name of Abraham Lincoln.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Pray-reading non-scripture is probably self-brainwashing. That's what Benson did, I think. He basically inundated his brain with Witness Lee teaching until it succumbed.

I don't know why, but I found this terribly funny.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Pray-reading non-scripture is probably self-brainwashing. That's what Benson did, I think. He basically inundated his brain with Witness Lee teaching until it succumbed.

You may be right, Igzy. There is something else to consider along with your statement.

Before Benson encountered Lee, he may have even still been a college student at Baylor, he shared with some of the "brothers" that he had had a dream. He dreamed "something like" (this is not exact) he would one day be the leader of a large group of Christians (or Christian movement?). Maybe even that the Lord told him he would be the leader... . I believe that this dream has been a big influence on his life and walk with the Lord. It's even possible that he set out to make his dream come true...maybe even in a manner such as you have suggested.

Although, I'm not sure that becoming the CEO of an exclusive publishing house for Lee and Nee counts as becoming the leader of a large group of Christians.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

You might just be playing word games with Unto. But so much of the time you are looking for reasons to throw out words like "religious" for the purpose of evoking some presumptively negative image planted there so many years ago by Lee. As if "religion" or "religious" is necessarily a bad thing. Just like almost every other thing you talk about, there is no evidence that "tradition" is simply bad — or "liturgy," or "religion." And, similarly, there is no evidence of a "unique move of God" that somehow excludes activities, actions, and so on of Christians other than those in the LRC, or excludes any "religious" activities because they are considered sub-par relative to the standard of a "unique move."

Lee condemned vain repitition. But not all repitition is in vain. Paul prayed 3 times for his thorn.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Terry

Pray-reading is a good discipline, but pray-reading an outline or RcV footnotes is not the same as pray-reading scripture. Remember all scripture is God-breathed.
Still with pray-reading if not careful, there's the trap of becoming too religious with it.

Depends. Sometimes praying the right idea is better than praying the right words of scripture with the wrong idea.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee condemned vain repitition. But not all repitition is in vain. Paul prayed 3 times for his thorn.

Besides you, noone would describe Paul's three prayers here as "repetition."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee condemned vain repitition. But not all repitition is in vain. Paul prayed 3 times for his thorn.

Not sure how this responds to anything I said. Rather you jumped to a different topic with the hope that it would be seen as a proactive response.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not sure how this responds to anything I said. Rather you jumped to a different topic with the hope that it would be seen as a proactive response.

See post 386. My remark about religion that you replied to was focussed on vain repitition that untohim mentioned in his post. I did not jump to a different topic..you did. So I replied to you on the topic of vain repitition...not religion. I dont want to discuss the meaning of religion and religious activity again when gotquestions.org adequately descibes it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

See post 386. My remark about religion that you replied to was focussed on vain repitition that untohim mentioned in his post. I did not jump to a different topic..you did. So I replied to you on the topic of vain repitition...not religion. I dont want to discuss the meaning of religion and religious activity again when gotquestions.org adequately descibes it.

Did you actually read my post?

You failed to respond to my comment. I said that a "religious activity" is not, by definition, something that is bad or to be avoided. I also was not saying that vain repetition is good, or in any way defending that.

You are throwing the term "religious activity" around as if it is, by definition, only false, unspiritual, or inappropriate. I do not agree. "Religious activity" can refer to many quite acceptable, appropriate, and proper activities. It can also refer to those like Unto had commented on.

With a proper understanding of "religious activities" you actually said that vain repetition exists — without any comment on appropriateness. But you intended it to be an agreement that vain repetition is inappropriate. To say that, calling it a "religious activity" fails because it is not simply the collection of inappropriate activities. It is like saying that misreading the Bible is reading the Bible when you meant to say that misreading the Bible is a problem.

Get it now?

[Cal]

How To Succeed in Demagoguery

Step 1: Establish that "religious activity" is bad.

Step 2: Define whatever you want to as "religious activity." More specifically label what others do as "religious activity," but label what you do as "not religious activity."

Precede similarly with phrases like "of the natural man," " out of the flow," "being negative," "not aligned with the vision," "just your opinion," "having the right scent" (a personal favorite) and any others you can think of.

Repeat.

Congratulations! You are a demagogue!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

How To Succeed in Demagoguery

Step 1: Establish that "religious activity" is bad.

Step 2: Define whatever you want to as "religious activity." More specifically label what others do as "religious activity," but label what you do as "not religious activity."

Precede similarly with phrases like "of the natural man," " out of the flow," "being negative," "not aligned with the vision," "just your opinion," "having the right scent" (a personal favorite) and any others you can think of.

Repeat.

Congratulations! You are a demagogue!

Brilliant!

Now I have the tools to "prove" that all of LSM's lawsuits are organic!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Step 2: Define whatever you want to as "religious activity." More specifically label what others do as "religious activity," but label what you do as "not religious activity."

Several good illustrations would be door-knocking, SSOT/VBS and FTT/YWAM. When others do it it's a religious activity and a movement of man. When I do it, it's organic and not a religious activity.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Several good illustrations would be door-knocking, SSOT/VBS and FTT/YWAM. When others do it it's a religious activity and a movement of man. When I do it, it's organic and not a religious activity.

Terry, it's just incredible to think back that I basically believed for almost a quarter century that all Witness Lee had to do was rename an activity stolen from other Christians, and poof! like magic! it was transformed on the podium from dead, lifeless, organized, and misguided human efforts into totally organic, spiritual, holy, and God-ordained ways, direct from the throne of God!

Like I said pretty incredible!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Terry, it's just incredible to think back that I basically believed for almost a quarter century that all Witness Lee had to do was rename an activity stolen from other Christians, and poof! like magic! it was transformed on the podium from dead, lifeless, organized, and misguided human efforts into totally organic, spiritual, holy, and God-ordained ways, direct from the throne of God!

Like I said pretty incredible!

Two words Ohio, double standard.
Just as a brother spoke on hierarchy. When others do it, it's hierarchy. When we do it, it's not.
Yes it is incredible.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Terry, it's just incredible to think back that I basically believed for almost a quarter century that all Witness Lee had to do was rename an activity stolen from other Christians, and poof! like magic! it was transformed on the podium from dead, lifeless, organized, and misguided human efforts into totally organic, spiritual, holy, and God-ordained ways, direct from the throne of God!

Like I said pretty incredible!

No kidding. He stole door-knocking from the Mormons/JWs. And he even admitted as much!

Bottom line with the LCM: When they do it, it's anointed. When anyone else does it, it's dead. Doesn't matter what it is--establishing a seminary (or cemetery!), setting up a secular profit center, suing other Christians. Shoot, even allowing the leader's son to molest sisters in the movement headquarters is apparently part of the blessing, given how they all kissed up to Philip Lee and swept the sisters under the rug.

All joking aside it's a serious error, because they can use it to justify anything they do and condemn anything anyone else does. It's the ultimate consummation of "even when we're wrong we're right." This is dark corruption. This is the deep things of Satan.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Did you actually read my post?

You failed to respond to my comment. I said that a "religious activity" is not, by definition, something that is bad or to be avoided. I also was not saying that vain repetition is good, or in any way defending that.

You are throwing the term "religious activity" around as if it is, by definition, only false, unspiritual, or inappropriate. I do not agree. "Religious activity" can refer to many quite acceptable, appropriate, and proper activities. It can also refer to those like Unto had commented on.

With a proper understanding of "religious activities" you actually said that vain repetition exists — without any comment on appropriateness. But you intended it to be an agreement that vain repetition is inappropriate. To say that, calling it a "religious activity" fails because it is not simply the collection of inappropriate activities. It is like saying that misreading the Bible is reading the Bible when you meant to say that misreading the Bible is a problem.

Get it now?

When I said vain repetition is a religious activity, it is not rocket science to realize I would be using our definition of religious activity, not yours.
Religious activity always has negative connotations, because Christianity is not a religion but a relationship (see GotQuestions.org)

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When I said vain repetition is a religious activity, it is not rocket science to realize I would be using our definition of religious activity, not yours.
Religious activity always has negative connotations, because Christianity is not a religion but a relationship (see GotQuestions.org)

The insistence on changing the definitions of words and terms in the manner you do is a form of equivocation. By not using the standard meaning of the terms, you imply that what is covered by the term "religious activity" is definitionally deficient. When you admit that you use a different definition, then you admit that this is the game you play.

Maybe you would be better served by speaking directly to what is problematic. It is not that it is "religious activity" because there is no agreed upon definition for that term that gets you what you want. Instead, just state that vain repetition is not a spiritual activity. We would all agree upon that. But whether "religious activity" is not spiritual is not agreed upon.

The Bible itself does not agree with you that "religion" is bad. And it does not address "religious activity." And if religion is not bad, then the activities that are associated with it would not be bad.

So work with what is true rather than just what you want to be true.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee condemned vain repitition. But not all repitition is in vain. Paul prayed 3 times for his thorn.

For years, Lee encouraged people to chant "O Lord Jesus" over and over until it became vain repetition. Eventually even he got tired of it and chastised his followers for doing it. I was there.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

The insistence on changing the definitions of words and terms in the manner you do is a form of equivocation. By not using the standard meaning of the terms, you imply that what is covered by the term "religious activity" is definitionally deficient. When you admit that you use a different definition, then you admit that this is the game you play.

Maybe you would be better served by speaking directly to what is problematic. It is not that it is "religious activity" because there is no agreed upon definition for that term that gets you what you want. Instead, just state that vain repetition is not a spiritual activity. We would all agree upon that. But whether "religious activity" is not spiritual is not agreed upon.

The Bible itself does not agree with you that "religion" is bad. And it does not address "religious activity." And if religion is not bad, then the activities that are associated with it would not be bad.

So work with what is true rather than just what you want to be true.

Obw it is clear we have different definitions of religion. But my definition is the one held by most born again evangelical protestants ..i already posted got questions. Org.

The definition you subscribe to implies that christianity is a religion and not a relationship. It is more a catholic view.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Obw it is clear we have different definitions of religion. But my definition is the one held by most born again evangelical protestants ..i already posted got questions. Org.

The definition you subscribe to implies that christianity is a religion and not a relationship. It is more a catholic view.

Quoting any site that does not reveal its own sources is not very meaningful. I looked into a few items there and found it to have its own collection of particulars on issues for which the solution is not so simple. And they quote from authors that are strongly at odds with each other as if they are no the same page.

As for the statement "Christianity is not a religion but a relationship," even that is not a correct assessment of Christianity. The whole "it is a relationship" is to ignore that it is also a requirement. It is commands that are to be obeyed. Not just emotions and feelings flowing between persons in "a relationship." The simplistic "not religion" but "is relationship," as if that is all there is to it, is a denial of the requirement for action and obedience. It distills the Christian life down to "spiritual" activities of prayer and praise and "secular" activities like living in this world. It denies the commands of Christ and removes all burdens to do more than "learn more about Jesus." Get to know him better.

It needs lots of grace because we are constantly short of the glory of God since we don't even try. (And it despises the word "try.")

You love to find someone who sort-of-kinda-seems-to-agree-with-you and stick them out there as if that is the end of the search.

Try again. Find the real analysis that determines from the scripture that putting the label "religion" on the fullness of activities and life of the Christian is incorrect or is rejected by the scripture. You won't find it. It is only the ones who want to stuff things in a box so as to hide the truth about them and then declare that everything in the box is bad who say religion is just bad. Or people who have never really thought about what they are thinking or saying.

[Evangelical]

Even Rick Warren says Christianity is not a religion.

Let us agree to disagree on the meaning of the word religion and religious activity, and try to agree on what we mean. I or we (i.e. Rick Warren and I ) , might say that religious activity is anything we do for God without using our spirit. What doth thou sayest?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Even Rick Warren says Christianity is not a religion.

Rick Warren is just like so many others in this day. It is trendy to say that Christianity is not a religion. That is because they have bought into the overly narrowed definition of religion. In making those kinds of statements, they ignore that the Bible itself refers to the Christian life as religion. Therefore those comments are based on a rejection of what the Bible says and acceptance of the alternate meaning of "religion." This can only be understood as an effort by some to divide believers, and is obviously sucking otherwise good Christians into its net. Rather than standing for truth, people like you alter the meaning of words for the purpose of creating a separate religion that is solely yours and excludes others.

And yes, your is also a religion. But I am not sure how Christian it really is.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Even Rick Warren says Christianity is not a religion.

Let us agree to disagree on the meaning of the word religion and religious activity, and try to agree on what we mean. I or we (i.e. Rick Warren and I ) , might say that religious activity is anything we do for God without using our spirit. What doth thou sayest?

Denying that Christianity is a religion is an instance of exceptionalism. To admit that Christianity is a religion is to recognize that it has characteristics in common with other religions. The exceptionalist sees their ideology as absolutely unique. This is the way fanatics roll.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Rick Warren is just like so many others in this day. It is trendy to say that Christianity is not a religion. That is because they have bought into the overly narrowed definition of religion. In making those kinds of statements, they ignore that the Bible itself refers to the Christian life as religion. Therefore those comments are based on a rejection of what the Bible says and acceptance of the alternate meaning of "religion." This can only be understood as an effort by some to divide believers, and is obviously sucking otherwise good Christians into its net. Rather than standing for truth, people like you alter the meaning of words for the purpose of creating a separate religion that is solely yours and excludes others.

And yes, your is also a religion. But I am not sure how Christian it really is.

As I showed by quoting Rick Warren, gotquestions.org, and there are many others, the notion that Christianity is not a religion is borne of the reality and experience that it is a personal relationship with Christ. This idea has been around a lot time in evangelical Christianity, probably since the time of the great revivals and since people realized that being a Christian was not about going to church and doing so many things.

The bible never really defines religion, "religion is...". The verse in James is not meant to be a definition of religion but to explain what charitable activities are pleasing to God. If we think the verse in James is a definition of religion, then it means that Christianity is about taking care of orphans and widows, and not anything to do with the gospel, or Christ dying on the cross. Just take care of your widowed great grandmother and you are a Christian! which is absurd. It is clearly not meant to be a defining statement of what religion is.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

Denying that Christianity is a religion is an instance of exceptionalism. To admit that Christianity is a religion is to recognize that it has characteristics in common with other religions. The exceptionalist sees their ideology as absolutely unique. This is the way fanatics roll.

It is unique in that Christianity is about following the person of Christ, and not doing many things or trying to work our way into heaven. That's why people like Bill O'Reilly say it is more a philosophy not a religion.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As I showed by quoting Rick Warren, gotquestions.org, and there are many others, the notion that Christianity is not a religion is borne of the reality and experience that it is a personal relationship with Christ. This idea has been around a lot time in evangelical Christianity, probably since the time of the great revivals and since people realized that being a Christian was not about going to church and doing so many things.

The bible never really defines religion, "religion is...". The verse in James is not meant to be a definition of religion but to explain what charitable activities are pleasing to God. If we think the verse in James is a definition of religion, then it means that Christianity is about taking care of orphans and widows, and not anything to do with the gospel, or Christ dying on the cross. Just take care of your widowed great grandmother and you are a Christian! which is absurd. It is clearly not meant to be a defining statement of what religion is.

You are correct, the Bible dos not define religion. It just used it in a positive way.

As for the trendy "Christianity is not a religion" mantra, that is a modern fantasy. If there is anything to learn about this thing we call "the faith," it is that nothing about it is really different after all these years. The culture in which Christians find themselves changes. The ability of the average Christian to actually read, and own a Bible has changed. But the truth in it has not. It has been understood as religion positively by its adherents for centuries. It is only the modern need for avoiding "doing" anything that has turned against the truth in the Bible. And the need of some to label what we do with a different word than the one that is also placed upon other religions like Islam, Buddhism, etc. But if you turn to the dictionary, religion remains a perfectly good word to describe the positive aspects of what we as Christians are engaged in, and do, related to our "relationship" with God.

Lee liked to say that anything where man tries to reach or please God is "religion" and to be despised. Well, then you expect that there is nothing that we must do as Christians? Nothing that is required of you in a "doing way? if not, then I must presume that you constantly need grace to cover your lack of will to act according to what Christ said you were to be taught to obey. Obey, not just know about and appreciate. There is actually much that we must do. And if I call that religion, it does not suddenly become something to instead be avoided. If it was all about God coming to me — that I actually do nothing — then why is there anything that I should worry about? Why worry about living righteously. God will do it if that is his desire for me. Why worry about meeting with other Christians? Why would Paul write to so many different churches encouraging them to "do" differently in so many things, including rather secular-seeming things.

And why would Christ charge the disciples to teach others to "obey all that I have commanded"?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is unique in that Christianity is about following the person of Christ, and not doing many things or trying to work our way into heaven.

I agree that we cannot work our way into heaven. But I challenge you to actually follow Christ without doing anything, including a fair bit of work. Christ's sacrifice precedes everything else. But after that, if you aren't doing anything, you aren't much of a Christian.

Maybe one of those baby Christians that perpetually can only tolerate milk.

But not a mature Christian. Not arriving at a "full grown man."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

You are correct, the Bible dos not define religion. It just used it in a positive way.

As for the trendy "Christianity is not a religion" mantra, that is a modern fantasy. If there is anything to learn about this thing we call "the faith," it is that nothing about it is really different after all these years. The culture in which Christians find themselves changes. The ability of the average Christian to actually read, and own a Bible has changed. But the truth in it has not. It has been understood as religion positively by its adherents for centuries. It is only the modern need for avoiding "doing" anything that has turned against the truth in the Bible. And the need of some to label what we do with a different word than the one that is also placed upon other religions like Islam, Buddhism, etc. But if you turn to the dictionary, religion remains a perfectly good word to describe the positive aspects of what we as Christians are engaged in, and do, related to our "relationship" with God.

Lee liked to say that anything where man tries to reach or please God is "religion" and to be despised. Well, then you expect that there is nothing that we must do as Christians? Nothing that is required of you in a "doing way? if not, then I must presume that you constantly need grace to cover your lack of will to act according to what Christ said you were to be taught to obey. Obey, not just know about and appreciate. There is actually much that we must do. And if I call that religion, it does not suddenly become something to instead be avoided. If it was all about God coming to me — that I actually do nothing — then why is there anything that I should worry about? Why worry about living righteously. God will do it if that is his desire for me. Why worry about meeting with other Christians? Why would Paul write to so many different churches encouraging them to "do" differently in so many things, including rather secular-seeming things.

And why would Christ charge the disciples to teach others to "obey all that I have commanded"?

I think it is meant to emphasize our faith over our works, as we are saved by faith alone and not works. But the faith which saves is not without works. It is meant to emphasize that anything we do comes from faith. It means works are a result of our faith and not the other way around.

I think the Recovery is a good example of that. I don't think anyone could argue, that with all the meetings, trainings, door knocking and gospel outreach in the Recovery we are standing for doing nothing. One will usually find themselves much busier than they would in a denomination - including in the Lords table meeting when everyone is expected to prophesy and serve in some way. People who sit on a chair silently are normally asked to do something.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think the Recovery is a good example of that. I don't think anyone could argue, that with all the meetings, trainings, door knocking and gospel outreach in the Recovery we are standing for doing nothing. One will usually find themselves much busier than they would in a denomination . . . .

If that is the sum total of your works, then you have much to learn. Your "works" are all about meetings and specific efforts to preach the gospel. Without the "works" of the rest of your life, including common, run-of-the-mill things, and the generic command to "love your neighbor as yourself," your "religion" is not true. It is just "religious" in the truly negative sense. It is focused solely on the religious things that you do in the context of meetings and specifically evangelistic activities and excludes everything else. I think that you will find that Christ commanded much concerning your everyday life. So you don't have any "religion" there. And you despise it because you say those who do those things are poor and pathetic.

You mock other Christians for doing things other than those that you listed. Now there's some real evidence that you are one with all of the body of Christ; that you don't despise any of the members of that body.

Can't you just feel the sarcasm in that last sentence? It should burn. But you will declare that you are righteous to demean those things. Just like the ones that Jesus declared in Matt 5 to be last in the kingdom because they taught less that the whole law, even as expanded by Jesus just a few verses earlier.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

If that is the sum total of your works, then you have much to learn. Your "works" are all about meetings and specific efforts to preach the gospel.

How terrible that a group of Christians are so focused on fellowship and preaching the gospel. I hope you can sense the sarcasm.

What about all the ministries that mostly focus on preaching the gospel? Billy Graham? The great commission is about preaching the gospel primarily.

Originally Posted by OBW

Without the "works" of the rest of your life, including common, run-of-the-mill things, and the generic command to "love your neighbor as yourself," your "religion" is not true.

Oh, I forgot to add, that we do all the above, while taking care of a family, and working in a highly demanding professional job such as a lawyer or medical doctor, on top of being an elder and listening to everyone's problems and complaints. And unlike a pastor or priest, we don't get paid for "counselling" and we spend much of our Sunday in church-related things.

Sorry it's not enough "religious work" for you (sarcasm again). I forgot that we must be out on the street feeding soup to homeless people to be truly doing what God asks, and all these things are not enough (sarcasm again).

Originally Posted by OBW

It is just "religious" in the truly negative sense. It is focused solely on the religious things that you do in the context of meetings and specifically evangelistic activities and excludes everything else. I think that you will find that Christ commanded much concerning your everyday life. So you don't have any "religion" there. And you despise it because you say those who do those things are poor and pathetic.

I don't recall saying anything religious done is poor and pathetic. I could quote Witness Lee right now where he commends the good works done by religions.

The problem is when you focus on a works-based religion then no amount of works will ever be enough for you. Doing one's occupation to one's best ability is not enough, you have to be feeding soup to homeless people not just preaching the gospel. Then feeding soup will not be enough, one must travel to Africa and be a missionary.

Witness Lee said "all those who advocate religion will surely be persecutors of the church. " You are starting to sound like a persecutor because you advocate religion.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is unique in that Christianity is about following the person of Christ, and not doing many things or trying to work our way into heaven. That's why people like Bill O'Reilly say it is more a philosophy not a religion.

Do you mean following Christ as opposed to focusing on Buddha or Krishna and receiving their grace? Are you seriously quoting O'Reilly the serial harasser as an authority on this subject?

[Koinonia]

Oh, I forgot to add, that we do all the above, while taking care of a family, and working in a highly demanding professional job such as a lawyer or medical doctor, on top of being an elder and listening to everyone's problems and complaints. And unlike a pastor or priest, we don't get paid for "counselling" and we spend much of our Sunday in church-related things.

Sorry it's not enough "religious work" for you (sarcasm again). I forgot that we must be out on the street feeding soup to homeless people to be truly doing what God asks, and all these things are not enough (sarcasm again).

Evangelical, is this a joke? . . . Sometime I wonder if your posts are some kind of satire, and we are missing it . . .

And for the umpteenth time--who is we? Who are you referring to? You sound so presumptuous. You are high-powered professional (lawyer or medical doctor), "on top of being an elder," and you have to listen to everyone's problems and complaints. Yet, heaven forbid you help homeless people. You already do enough for the Lord. What an attitude.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, is this a joke? . . . Sometime I wonder if your posts are some kind of satire, and we are missing it . . .

And for the umpteenth time--who is we? Who are you referring to? You sound so presumptuous. You are high-powered professional (lawyer or medical doctor), "on top of being an elder," and you have to listen to everyone's problems and complaints. Yet, heaven forbid you help homeless people. You already do enough for the Lord. What an attitude.

You seem to think that while a person is faithful to their calling in such a way as I mentioned, you also expect them to be handing out soup.

Haven't you just presumed that because one is a lawyer or doctor or an elder they aren't helping people? I never used the word 'high powered", that is your strawman. Lawyers and doctors serve homeless and poor people too.

The apostle Paul said "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel".

Sorry Paul, but Koinonia thinks you don't do enough for God.

If Paul were here you would criticize him for only preaching the gospel and not doing much else! You would say, "Paul, why are you wasting time making tents why aren't you out feeding soup to the homeless"? He might say to you "Christ did not send me to feed soup but to preach the gospel".

Who is "we"? WE is me and others. Who is "you"?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You seem to think that while a person is faithful to their calling in such a way as I mentioned, you also expect them to be handing out soup.

"Strawman."

Haven't you just presumed that because one is a lawyer or doctor or an elder they aren't helping people? I never used the word 'high powered", that is your strawman. Lawyers and doctors serve homeless and poor people too.

"Strawman."

The apostle Paul said "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel".

Sorry Paul, but Koinonia thinks you don't do enough for God.

"Strawman."

If Paul were here you would criticize him for only preaching the gospel and not doing much else! You would say, "Paul, why are you wasting time making tents why aren't you out feeding soup to the homeless"? He might say to you "Christ did not send me to feed soup but to preach the gospel".

"Strawman."

Who is "we"? WE is me and others. Who is "you"?

Every time you use "we" in the way that you do, you effectively denominate yourself and the group you claim to speak for.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

"Strawman."

"Strawman."

"Strawman."

"Strawman."

Every time you use "we" in the way that you do, you effectively denominate yourself and the group you claim to speak for.

You think we are a denomination anyway so I dont think my use of the word we is denominating myself.

I have tried before to write as if everyone is in the same church as me but it doesn't work because people keep reminding me that we are a denomination. I dont think people here would want me to think of them as being part of the recovery.

Even if you were in the recovery in a certain locality I might use the word we to refer to my church.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You think we are a denomination anyway so I dont think my use of the word we is denominating myself.

I have tried before to write as if everyone is in the same church as me but it doesn't work because people keep reminding me that we are a denomination. I dont think people here would want me to think of them as being part of the recovery.

Even if you were in the recovery in a certain locality I might use the word we to refer to my church.

Evangelical, the reason people wouldn't want you to think of them as being "part of the recovery" is because there is no such thing. There is no "the recovery." There is no "we." There is just the church, the Body of Christ. You are part of it, and I am part of it. Every time you say "we, we, we," every time you say, "part of the Recovery," or "join the recovery," or "join the LSM," you make the church something smaller than it is.

The church is all the believers. Don't you want that?

[Koinonia]

Evangelical, it strikes me every time I see it. Your persistent sectarian use of the words "we" and "us" betrays your denominational mindset. You have created the denomination by your attitude.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, it strikes me every time I see it. Your persistent sectarian use of the words "we" and "us" betrays your denominational mindset. You have created the denomination by your attitude.

Many times I have said that God does not want us to denominate ourselves or name ourselves by different names See my many posts on this matter. Many times people here say that a name does not create a denomination and that it is silly to think that just having a different name means it is a denomination.

However now you have stated that simply by using the words "we" and "us" I have "created the denomination". That's just crazy talk and I hope others here can see that my idea of names causing divisions is much more sensible than your idea of simply using the word "we" as creating a division. I would not use the word "we" unless I knew that you are part of my local church.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, the reason people wouldn't want you to think of them as being "part of the recovery" is because there is no such thing. There is no "the recovery." There is no "we." There is just the church, the Body of Christ. You are part of it, and I am part of it. Every time you say "we, we, we," every time you say, "part of the Recovery," or "join the recovery," or "join the LSM," you make the church something smaller than it is.

The church is all the believers. Don't you want that?

You are confusing the universal church with the local one. The universal church is a given and many times the discussion on here is about the local church. If I am talking about the universal church I will say "us", if I am talking about my local church, I will say "we". If I asked you a question about your church , aren't you going to use the word "we" or "my church" also?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Many times I have said that God does not want us to denominate ourselves or name ourselves by different names See my many posts on this matter. Many times people here say that a name does not create a denomination and that it is silly to think that just having a different name means it is a denomination.

However now you have stated that simply by using the words "we" and "us" I have "created the denomination". That's just crazy talk and I hope others here can see that my idea of names causing divisions is much more sensible than your idea of simply using the word "we" as creating a division. I would not use the word "we" unless I knew that you are part of my local church.

Again, it is not the word. It is the attitude.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are confusing the universal church with the local one. The universal church is a given and many times the discussion on here is about the local church. If I am talking about the universal church I will say "us", if I am talking about my local church, I will say "we". If I asked you a question about your church , aren't you going to use the word "we" or "my church" also?

Evangelical, the concept of the local church is that the church in a city includes all the believers in that city. Every time you talk about "we" or "us" or "my church," you are--by definition--talking about something else.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, the concept of the local church is that the church in a city includes all the believers in that city. Every time you talk about "we" or "us" or "my church," you are--by definition--talking about something else.

But no one else here sees is that way. They say we are a denomination and denominations are okay. So as long as everyone else is content in calling us the LSM denomination or the LC (capital L and C) and refer to us as "LSM members", I am happy to oblige and say "you" and "we", because we have already had lengthy discussions about how the LSM is actually a denomination and my belief that a church includes everyone in the city is wrong.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But no one else here sees is that way. They say we are a denomination and denominations are okay. So as long as everyone else is content in calling us the LSM denomination or the LC (capital L and C) and refer to us as "LSM members", I am happy to oblige and say "you" and "we", because we have already had lengthy discussions about how the LSM is actually a denomination and my belief that a church includes everyone in the city is wrong.

No one here says denominations are "OK." They are just not nearly as bad as you say, and whether you will admit it or not, your denomination is as bad or worse than most. Think about all the lawsuits and threats of lawsuits by LSM. Is not not numerous "defeats" for you (I Cor 6.7), yet your leadership never seems to learn from failure. Why is that?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No one here says denominations are "OK." They are just not nearly as bad as you say, and whether you will admit it or not, your denomination is as bad or worse than most. Think about all the lawsuits and threats of lawsuits by LSM. Is not not numerous "defeats" for you (I Cor 6.7), yet your leadership never seems to learn from failure. Why is that?

It's all relative of course to your subjective perspective on which denomination is better or worse than others. Yet the fact is Jesus did not start any of them.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But no one else here sees is that way. They say we are a denomination and denominations are okay.

This is not my belief.

So as long as everyone else is content in calling us the LSM denomination or the LC (capital L and C) and refer to us as "LSM members", I am happy to oblige and say "you" and "we", because we have already had lengthy discussions about how the LSM is actually a denomination and my belief that a church includes everyone in the city is wrong.

Again, it betrays your attitude. You talk very easily about "we," "us," "the Recovery," "joining the LSM," etc. You, like many, many others in the LC, have traded one idea for another. You have given up the idea that we should simply "be the church" with everyone else who is a Christian, and you have replaced it with the idea that "we" are the best group--"we" have the best practice, "we" have the best ministry and the best teaching, etc., etc., etc.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's all relative of course to your subjective perspective on which denomination is better or worse than others. Yet the fact is Jesus did not start any of them.

Jesus also did not start:

• LSM
• FTTA
• BFA
• GTCA
• DCP
• Rhema
• MSW
• etc.
• etc.
• etc.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

This is not my belief.

Again, it betrays your attitude. You talk very easily about "we," "us," "the Recovery," "joining the LSM," etc. You, like many, many others in the LC, have traded one idea for another. You have given up the idea that we should simply "be the church" with everyone else who is a Christian, and you have replaced it with the idea that "we" are the best group--"we" have the best practice, "we" have the best ministry and the best teaching, etc., etc., etc.

Could you please quote me where I said "joining the LSM" or "join the LSM" ?

I don't recall writing that, because LSM is not something we join, I may have written join the Recovery or join the local church, which means something completely different. If I wrote that then I should correct it, but I would have wrote it for the sake of not getting into another argument about it. I've checked this thread and the other two that I have recently posted in, and I cannot find anywhere where I wrote about joining the LSM.

For example, if you scroll all the way down to post #364, it was Igzy who was using that language, not me. I was talking about "joining the local church". I made sure I use lower case l and c.

If you can't quote me, then you should realize and admit that you are claiming I said things I did not say. Furthermore, you are claiming I am denominating myself because of using the word "we". Yet as post #364 shows, and a few posts either side of it, I am indeed talking about the local church as all believers in the city, and it is others who are referring to us as a denomination and saying it means we "join the LCM" etc.

So please go through the posts, and check whether or not you might have gotten a little confused. It's called confirmation bias. You see things I did not write, and assume things I did not say. We are all guilty of it, because it's the way the human brain works, but if you insist I said things I did not say, then I must correct you.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Could you please quote me where I said "joining the LSM" or "join the LSM" ?

Evangelical, in this post you clearly wrote: "I think the experience of most who join the LSM from denominations is related somehow to the lack of sound bible teaching, or the lack of all members functioning, or just general dissatisfaction with the denomination."

Again, the fact you would say this (and other things) demonstrates your actual denominational mindset.

I don't recall writing that, because LSM is not something we join, I may have written join the Recovery or join the local church, which means something completely different.

Perhaps you can explain this phrase: "joining the Recovery." What is "the Recovery," and how does one join?

If I wrote that then I should correct it, but I would have wrote it for the sake of not getting into another argument about it. I've checked this thread and the other two that I have recently posted in, and I cannot find anywhere where I wrote about joining the LSM.

For example, if you scroll all the way down to post #364, it was Igzy who was using that language, not me. I was talking about "joining the local church". I made sure I use lower case l and c. If you can't quote me, then you should realize and admit that you are claiming I said things I did not say.

I have quoted you.

Furthermore, you are claiming I am denominating myself because of using the word "we". Yet as post #364 shows, and a few posts either side of it, I am indeed talking about the local church as all believers in the city, and it is others who are referring to us as a denomination and saying it means we "join the LCM" etc.

So please go through the posts, and check whether or not you might have gotten a little confused. It's called confirmation bias. You see things I did not write, and assume things I did not say. We are all guilty of it, because it's the way the human brain works, but if you insist I said things I did not say, then I must correct you.

Thank you, Evangelical.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's all relative of course to your subjective perspective on which denomination is better or worse than others. Yet the fact is Jesus did not start any of them.

Do you know that Witness Lee came to the USA because the church in Taipei expelled him for using church money to pay off his own personal debts?

Perhaps when you learn your own history, you will pause a bit before condemning all others.

[leastofthese]

Evangelical writes "I think the experience of most who join the LSM from denominations is related somehow to the lack of sound bible teaching, or the lack of all members functioning, or just general dissatisfaction with the denomination.

I think this explains a high number coming from traditional mainline denominations, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, and particularly those that reject biblical values and adopt pro-gay marriage stance etc.

I do not expect many coming from denominations which teach the bible and value members participating - baptist, presbyterian etc.

A number are non-denom Christians who go from house fellowship to house fellowship but want something more structured."

Then he writes "Could you please quote me where I said "joining the LSM" or "join the LSM" ?

I don't recall writing that, because LSM is not something we join, I may have written join the Recovery or join the local church, which means something completely different. If I wrote that then I should correct it, but I would have wrote it for the sake of not getting into another argument about it. I've checked this thread and the other two that I have recently posted in, and I cannot find anywhere where I wrote about joining the LSM.

For example, if you scroll all the way down to post #364, it was Igzy who was using that language, not me. I was talking about "joining the local church". I made sure I use lower case l and c.

If you can't quote me, then you should realize and admit that you are claiming I said things I did not say. Furthermore, you are claiming I am denominating myself because of using the word "we". Yet as post #364 shows, and a few posts either side of it, I am indeed talking about the local church as all believers in the city, and it is others who are referring to us as a denomination and saying it means we "join the LCM" etc.

So please go through the posts, and check whether or not you might have gotten a little confused. It's called confirmation bias. You see things I did not write, and assume things I did not say. We are all guilty of it, because it's the way the human brain works, but if you insist I said things I did not say, then I must correct you."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, in this post you clearly wrote: "I think the experience of most who join the LSM from denominations is related somehow to the lack of sound bible teaching, or the lack of all members functioning, or just general dissatisfaction with the denomination."

Again, the fact you would say this (and other things) demonstrates your actual denominational mindset.

Perhaps you can explain this phrase: "joining the Recovery." What is "the Recovery," and how does one join?

I have quoted you.

Thank you, Evangelical.

No it doesnt demonstrate my denominational mindset because
a) join the lsm is the language everyone else was using. I was being considerate and not wishing to defend the fact for the hundreth time that no one "joins the lsm" and lsm is the ministry not the church.
b) on countless occasions I have referred to the church as all believers.
c) even current members think it is a denomination like little brother. I have corrected them in another thread. But I dont see the point correcting most people here who have made their mind up that it is a denomination. Because it requires a degree of light and revelation to see that.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No it doesnt demonstrate my denominational mindset because
a) join the lsm is the language everyone else was using. I was being considerate and not wishing to defend the fact for the hundreth time that no one "joins the lsm" and lsm is the ministry not the church.
b) on countless occasions I have referred to the church as all believers.
c) even current members think it is a denomination like little brother. I have corrected them in another thread. But I dont see the point correcting most people here who have made their mind up that it is a denomination. Because it requires a degree of light and revelation to see that.

So, you are not going to retract your comment and apologize to me?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No it doesnt demonstrate my denominational mindset because
a) join the lsm is the language everyone else was using. I was being considerate and not wishing to defend the fact for the hundreth time that no one "joins the lsm" and lsm is the ministry not the church.

This does not make any sense. I would never use language with which I had a moral disagreement. And I dare say that most people wouldn't.

Also, now here you are saying that "LSM is the ministry." Would you like to define that? What does that mean?

b) on countless occasions I have referred to the church as all believers.

Good.

c) even current members think it is a denomination like little brother. I have corrected them in another thread. But I dont see the point correcting most people here who have made their mind up that it is a denomination. Because it requires a degree of light and revelation to see that.

It requires a degree of light and revelation to realize that just because you call yourself something does not mean anything about the reality of it. The Local Church is, in effect, a denomination. And you yourself demonstrate your own tacit acceptance of this every time you talk about "we" and "us" and "joining the LSM" and "joining the Recovery," etc.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Evangelical writes "I think the experience of most who join the LSM from denominations is related somehow to the lack of sound bible teaching, or the lack of all members functioning, or just general dissatisfaction with the denomination.

I think this explains a high number coming from traditional mainline denominations, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, and particularly those that reject biblical values and adopt pro-gay marriage stance etc.

I do not expect many coming from denominations which teach the bible and value members participating - baptist, presbyterian etc.

A number are non-denom Christians who go from house fellowship to house fellowship but want something more structured."

Then he writes "Could you please quote me where I said "joining the LSM" or "join the LSM" ?

I don't recall writing that, because LSM is not something we join, I may have written join the Recovery or join the local church, which means something completely different. If I wrote that then I should correct it, but I would have wrote it for the sake of not getting into another argument about it. I've checked this thread and the other two that I have recently posted in, and I cannot find anywhere where I wrote about joining the LSM.

For example, if you scroll all the way down to post #364, it was Igzy who was using that language, not me. I was talking about "joining the local church". I made sure I use lower case l and c.

If you can't quote me, then you should realize and admit that you are claiming I said things I did not say. Furthermore, you are claiming I am denominating myself because of using the word "we". Yet as post #364 shows, and a few posts either side of it, I am indeed talking about the local church as all believers in the city, and it is others who are referring to us as a denomination and saying it means we "join the LCM" etc.

So please go through the posts, and check whether or not you might have gotten a little confused. It's called confirmation bias. You see things I did not write, and assume things I did not say. We are all guilty of it, because it's the way the human brain works, but if you insist I said things I did not say, then I must correct you."

Thankyou, you found it!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

This does not make any sense. I would never use language with which I had a moral disagreement. And I dare say that most people wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Also, now here you are saying that "LSM is the ministry." Would you like to define that? What does that mean?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

It requires a degree of light and revelation to realize that just because you call yourself something does not mean anything about the reality of it. The Local Church is, in effect, a denomination. And you yourself demonstrate your own tacit acceptance of this every time you talk about "we" and "us" and "joining the LSM" and "joining the Recovery," etc.

Okay, having read the thread when I said "join the LSM", I now see the problem.

If you read my post carefully, I said:

I think the experience of most who join the LSM from denominations


Did you see how I said "from denominations"? So clearly I was not saying the LSM is a denomination. So I was being true to my nondenominational beliefs. It is your confirmation bias that read the "join the LSM" part and did not consider the "from denominations" part. You jumped to conclusion and thought I am betraying my beliefs and tacitly accepting it. And I realize that my confirmation bias has accused you of being denominational when I can see that you are not. For that I apologize.

Now, strictly speaking I should not have said LSM because that is a ministry.
To address your question about LSM being a ministry, well, we had lengthy discussions about that here:

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...&postcount=157

Why did I say "join the LSM". Well, if I always referred to us as the local church, then every time I said that people would point out that I'm actually in a denomination called LCM, LSM, or LC. In that thread everyone was referring to the LC/LSM interchangeably.

So rather than explain myself every time in a few paragraphs about how the LCM, LC is not a denomination or an organization and that LSM is a ministry and the difference between a church and a ministry, I would rather just go with the flow and address the topic at hand.

Many on here refer to the local churches as the LC or the Local Church.
Whether you call it that, or LCM, or LSM or LC, to me makes no difference, if we truly believed we are the local church in the city. It is all referring to us as a denomination or organization, which I disagree with, but I see no need to press the issue in every discussion.

I say "us" for your benefit, not mine. I still believe you to be part of the church in the city, despite your denominational or nondenominational affiliation. But if you are meeting in a denomination then clearly there is an "us" and a "you" point of difference. For example, I do not believe that a person can stay at home on a Sunday for example and claim to be "meeting with the local church", just because they are one of many Christians in the city. If you are a Jehovah Witness or Catholic why would I include you and pretend you are part of the same church (practically) as me ? To say that all believers in the city are the church, is not to say "let's pretend that every denomination is part of the church".

Names - names are important, to God, and biblically, names have a significant place in Scripture. Names are also important in families. A wife will take her husbands name. A husband would get upset if the wife took another mans name. Names, trademarks etc, are also important in the business and marketing world, companies spend a lot of money developing and protecting names. Given all that, consider, that names for God's church may be more important than you realize. I will give an extreme example, some churches call themselves LGBT church. I think that would be upsetting to God, even if all members were not actually LGBT, the name has meaning.

Here is the irony and the hypocrisy - many take issue with us calling ourselves the local church in the city, but have no issue with 100 churches in the city calling themselves whatever they like. That is the very definition of denominationalism. The word denomination comes from the word de-name-iate.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Many on here refer to the local churches as the LC or the Local Church.
Whether you call it that, or LCM, or LSM or LC, to me makes no difference, if we truly believed we are the local church in the city. It is all referring to us as a denomination or organization, which I disagree with, but I see no need to press the issue in every discussion.

Here is the irony and the hypocrisy - many take issue with us calling ourselves the local church in the city, but have no issue with 100 churches in the city calling themselves whatever they like. That is the very definition of denominationalism. The word denomination comes from the word de-name-iate.

EJellyz-

The Living Stream Ministry is an organization, you can disagree with this, but it is a fact, so you would be wrong. The Local Churches (at least in all of the cities that I am aware of in the US) are also organizations. For example the organization tax ID for the Church in Anaheim is 51-0179931 - registered organization. Interestingly enough, churches/religious organizations are not required to publicly file the 990 tax info - which I'm sure is a great relief for LSM/Local Churches. Many churches will post their financial information voluntarily, but I can't find a Local Church that has been willing to be this transparent (surprise surprise?).

You say that many take issue with "us calling ourselves the local church in the city, but have no issue with 100 churches in the city calling themselves whatever they like."

Who are the "many" you reference?

Many people don't take issue with your naming scheme. People take issue with your theology/beliefs/practices, there is a difference here. These same people may or may not take issue with the beliefs of other churches in the city.

Just think... what if non LSM affiliated church made the same claims that you make about your organization - one true church, recovering truth, the unique move of God, etc. Would you take issue? Or maybe just call the LSM attorneys?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

EJellyz-

The Living Stream Ministry is an organization, you can disagree with this, but it is a fact, so you would be wrong. The Local Churches (at least in all of the cities that I am aware of in the US) are also organizations. For example the organization tax ID for the Church in Anaheim is 51-0179931 - registered organization. Interestingly enough, churches/religious organizations are not required to publicly file the 990 tax info - which I'm sure is a great relief for LSM/Local Churches. Many churches will post their financial information voluntarily, but I can't find a Local Church that has been willing to be this transparent (surprise surprise?).

You say that many take issue with "us calling ourselves the local church in the city, but have no issue with 100 churches in the city calling themselves whatever they like."

Who are the "many" you reference?

Many people don't take issue with your naming scheme. People take issue with your theology/beliefs/practices, there is a difference here. These same people may or may not take issue with the beliefs of other churches in the city.

Just think... what if non LSM affiliated church made the same claims that you make about your organization - one true church, recovering truth, the unique move of God, etc. Would you take issue? Or maybe just call the LSM attorneys?

I think this is getting off topic. This has been discussed at length in other threads.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Okay, having read the thread when I said "join the LSM", I now see the problem.

If you read my post carefully, I said:

I think the experience of most who join the LSM from denominations


Did you see how I said "from denominations"? So clearly I was not saying the LSM is a denomination. So I was being true to my nondenominational beliefs. It is your confirmation bias that read the "join the LSM" part and did not consider the "from denominations" part. You jumped to conclusion and thought I am betraying my beliefs and tacitly accepting it. And I realize that my confirmation bias has accused you of being denominational when I can see that you are not. For that I apologize.

Now, strictly speaking I should not have said LSM because that is a ministry.
To address your question about LSM being a ministry, well, we had lengthy discussions about that here:

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...&postcount=157

Why did I say "join the LSM". Well, if I always referred to us as the local church, then every time I said that people would point out that I'm actually in a denomination called LCM, LSM, or LC. In that thread everyone was referring to the LC/LSM interchangeably.

So rather than explain myself every time in a few paragraphs about how the LCM, LC is not a denomination or an organization and that LSM is a ministry and the difference between a church and a ministry, I would rather just go with the flow and address the topic at hand.

Many on here refer to the local churches as the LC or the Local Church.
Whether you call it that, or LCM, or LSM or LC, to me makes no difference, if we truly believed we are the local church in the city. It is all referring to us as a denomination or organization, which I disagree with, but I see no need to press the issue in every discussion.

I say "us" for your benefit, not mine. I still believe you to be part of the church in the city, despite your denominational or nondenominational affiliation. But if you are meeting in a denomination then clearly there is an "us" and a "you" point of difference. For example, I do not believe that a person can stay at home on a Sunday for example and claim to be "meeting with the local church", just because they are one of many Christians in the city. If you are a Jehovah Witness or Catholic why would I include you and pretend you are part of the same church (practically) as me ? To say that all believers in the city are the church, is not to say "let's pretend that every denomination is part of the church".

Names - names are important, to God, and biblically, names have a significant place in Scripture. Names are also important in families. A wife will take her husbands name. A husband would get upset if the wife took another mans name. Names, trademarks etc, are also important in the business and marketing world, companies spend a lot of money developing and protecting names. Given all that, consider, that names for God's church may be more important than you realize. I will give an extreme example, some churches call themselves LGBT church. I think that would be upsetting to God, even if all members were not actually LGBT, the name has meaning.

Here is the irony and the hypocrisy - many take issue with us calling ourselves the local church in the city, but have no issue with 100 churches in the city calling themselves whatever they like. That is the very definition of denominationalism. The word denomination comes from the word de-name-iate.

So, you are not going to retract your statement and apologize to me?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

So, you are not going to retract your statement and apologize to me?

Which statement in particular and apologize for what exactly?

So far in the discussion you have not indicated that you have been offended and that is normally the first thing a person does before they request an apology.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Which statement in particular and apologize for what exactly?

So far in the discussion you have not indicated that you have been offended and that is normally the first thing a person does before they request an apology.

Here you go:

Could you please quote me where I said "joining the LSM" or "join the LSM" ?

I don't recall writing that, because LSM is not something we join, I may have written join the Recovery or join the local church, which means something completely different. If I wrote that then I should correct it, but I would have wrote it for the sake of not getting into another argument about it. I've checked this thread and the other two that I have recently posted in, and I cannot find anywhere where I wrote about joining the LSM.

For example, if you scroll all the way down to post #364, it was Igzy who was using that language, not me. I was talking about "joining the local church". I made sure I use lower case l and c.

If you can't quote me, then you should realize and admit that you are claiming I said things I did not say. Furthermore, you are claiming I am denominating myself because of using the word "we". Yet as post #364 shows, and a few posts either side of it, I am indeed talking about the local church as all believers in the city, and it is others who are referring to us as a denomination and saying it means we "join the LCM" etc.

So please go through the posts, and check whether or not you might have gotten a little confused. It's called confirmation bias. You see things I did not write, and assume things I did not say. We are all guilty of it, because it's the way the human brain works, but if you insist I said things I did not say, then I must correct you.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Here you go:

There was nothing offensive in that.

[Koinonia]

Evangelical, you wrote:

Could you please quote me where I said "joining the LSM" or "join the LSM" ?

I don't recall writing that, because LSM is not something we join, I may have written join the Recovery or join the local church, which means something completely different. If I wrote that then I should correct it, but I would have wrote it for the sake of not getting into another argument about it. I've checked this thread and the other two that I have recently posted in, and I cannot find anywhere where I wrote about joining the LSM.

For example, if you scroll all the way down to post #364, it was Igzy who was using that language, not me. I was talking about "joining the local church". I made sure I use lower case l and c.

If you can't quote me, then you should realize and admit that you are claiming I said things I did not say. Furthermore, you are claiming I am denominating myself because of using the word "we". Yet as post #364 shows, and a few posts either side of it, I am indeed talking about the local church as all believers in the city, and it is others who are referring to us as a denomination and saying it means we "join the LCM" etc.

So please go through the posts, and check whether or not you might have gotten a little confused. It's called confirmation bias. You see things I did not write, and assume things I did not say. We are all guilty of it, because it's the way the human brain works, but if you insist I said things I did not say, then I must correct you.

So, Evangelical, are you going to retract your comment about "joining the LSM"?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, you wrote:



So, Evangelical, are you going to retract your comment about "joining the LSM"?

In a way I already have because I explained why I used it and not for the reasons you assumed. I will try to be consistent from now on.

I already showed that you did jump to conclusions because although I used the word lsm lc or lcm it does not mean I believe they are denominations.

The full quote of what I said confirmed that, but you were too busy trying to prove me wrong than to realize that.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In a way I already have because I explained why I used it and not for the reasons you assumed. I will try to be consistent from now on.

I already showed that you did jump to conclusions because although I used the word lsm lc or lcm it does not mean I believe they are denominations.

The full quote of what I said confirmed that, but you were too busy trying to prove me wrong than to realize that.

I did not jump to conclusions. I quoted you; you appeared to deny it, and then I showed you the quote.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I did not jump to conclusions. I quoted you; you appeared to deny it, and then I showed you the quote.

I did not deny that I could have said that but doubted that was my intention. I asked you to produce the quote. You did, and then reading it again, I realized that reference to LSM must have been a typographical mistake, because LSM is the ministry and not something to be joined. I think I meant join the LCM. I was replying to Freedom who was using the abbreviation LCM.

But even the term LCM meaning Local Church Ministries that everyone is using is incorrect because such an entity does not exist.

It is jumping to conclusions when you implied that just because I said LSM it means I have a denominational mindset. But if I said local church in <city name> you or others would impose your definition of LSM/LC/LCM because you know of my affiliations with the ministry and deny that LSM/LC/LCM represents the local church in <city name>.

LC/LCM are terms that others use to refer to us, or should I say, the friendly local church in your city

But I think I know where all of this is coming from. You are still a little upset that I mistakenly called you a denominational person in the Spurgeon thread.

In that thread you seemed to say that you are not a denominational person because you are a FTTA graduate, or that you have acquired the non-denominational mindset from your time in the Recovery. I'm not a denominational person either for similar reasons.

I wonder if it has occurred to anyone, that perhaps the reason so many denominations exist today, is because people have convinced them they are a denomination, and so it is a kind of invisible wall clouding their judgement.

For example, I can imagine people in Luther's day, telling him that his newly founded church was a denomination worse than the Catholics. "Luther, you are in a sect, a denomination, not the real local church in the city, that is the Catholics. You are so divisive, you are even more divisive and worse than the Catholics because you claim to be the genuine church. Luther, how dare you say that the Papacy is degraded, that is slanderous and divisive".

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I did not deny that I could have said that but doubted that was my intention. I asked you to produce the quote. You did, and then reading it again, I realized that reference to LSM must have been a typographical mistake, because LSM is the ministry and not something to be joined. I think I meant join the LCM. I was replying to Freedom who was using the abbreviation LCM.

But even the term LCM meaning Local Church Ministries that everyone is using is incorrect because such an entity does not exist.

So, do you retract your comment?

It is jumping to conclusions when you implied that just because I said LSM it means I have a denominational mindset. But if I said local church in <city name> you or others would impose your definition of LSM/LC/LCM because you know of my affiliations with the ministry and deny that LSM/LC/LCM represents the local church in <city name>.

No, your sectarian/denominational mindset is betrayed by your repeated, habitual use of "we," "we," "we," "us," "us," "us," and phrases like "join the LSM," "join the Recovery," "part of the Recovery," etc.

LC/LCM are terms that others use to refer to us, or should I say, the friendly local church in your city

Again, "the local church in your city" is not "we" and "us," it is all the believers in that city. You cannot claim to be "the local church in your city." Each time you do that, you have created something different that is smaller than the church.

But I think I know where all of this is coming from. You are still a little upset that I mistakenly called you a denominational person in the Spurgeon thread.

I was never upset.

In that thread you seemed to say that you are not a denominational person because you are a FTTA graduate, or that you have acquired the non-denominational mindset from your time in the Recovery. I'm not a denominational person either for similar reasons.

Here we go again... what is "the Recovery"? And how does one spend time in it?

I wonder if it has occurred to anyone, that perhaps the reason so many denominations exist today, is because people have convinced them they are a denomination, and so it is a kind of invisible wall clouding their judgement.

Sounds like the LC... people have put up an invisible wall between themselves and all other believers. And they think it is okay because they keep calling themselves "the church."

For example, I can imagine people in Luther's day, telling him that his newly founded church was a denomination worse than the Catholics. "Luther, you are in a sect, a denomination, not the real local church in the city, that is the Catholics. You are so divisive, you are even more divisive and worse than the Catholics because you claim to be the genuine church. Luther, how dare you say that the Papacy is degraded, that is slanderous and divisive".

So, now the Lutherans used to be "the real local church in the city"?... You appear to make this stuff up as you go along.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Sounds like the LC... people have put up an invisible wall between themselves and all other believers. And they think it is okay because they keep calling themselves "the church."

Pretty much. Anything less would be termed as "shaking hands over the fence". That's why an attitude exists we'll fellowship with you on our terms, but we won't fellowship with you on your terms.
Every so often a local church member will meet with a non-LSM/LC where their relatives meet. It's one thing to go there, but will abstain from taking communion with them. It's part of the invisible wall that's been created by the ground doctrine.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

"we" are the best group--"we" have the best practice, "we" have the best ministry and the best teaching, etc., etc., etc.

Another I have heard "those in the denominations" in addition to your quotes above are all far too occurring in prophesying meetings. To address it is defended. I know not everyone in the local churches speak that way, but when it is spoken there's no correction.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

So, do you retract your comment?

I admit my use of the phrase "join the LSM" was a mistake. By the way I like this format you've made in how you quote me, it's easier to reply to.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

No, your sectarian/denominational mindset is betrayed by your repeated, habitual use of "we," "we," "we," "us," "us," "us," and phrases like "join the LSM," "join the Recovery," "part of the Recovery," etc.

Again, "the local church in your city" is not "we" and "us," it is all the believers in that city. You cannot claim to be "the local church in your city." Each time you do that, you have created something different that is smaller than the church.

When you say "it is all believers in that city", that also includes us. So how can you say we cannot claim to be "the local church in the city"? The word "the" is not to the exclusion of everyone else in the city. When we say that, we refer to something larger than ourselves, that includes all believers in the city. It includes "us" who are meeting as the local church in the city, and it includes "everyone else", who are not meeting as the local church in the city, but as a denomination. On this point, the difference of "us" and "them" is on the basis of who meets as the local church practically, and who doesn't. It does not mean, that every believer in the city is not part of the local church in reality. But in practicality, they are not.

Let's take this to an extreme example because it emphasizes the point. Suppose every believer in a city never went to church on Sunday but stayed at home. It is true they are all part of the one local church in the city. But practically and physically they are not unless they are meeting together.
Note that church means assembly. We cannot be the church practically unless we are assembling together. Hebrews 10:25 says "not giving up assembling together". No assembly = no church.

I address this further below in my reply to you about the invisible walls.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I was never upset.

Good because that is the only thing I recall possibly offending you about. But if there is anything, let me know.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Here we go again... what is "the Recovery"? And how does one spend time in it?

A good explanation is here
http://www.lordsrecovery.org/
http://www.local-church-movement.org/

Recovery means to bring something back to its original condition. To spend time in the recovery would be to spend time in the genuine experience of Christ and the genuine church life.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Sounds like the LC... people have put up an invisible wall between themselves and all other believers. And they think it is okay because they keep calling themselves "the church."

Obviously not every believer in the city is experiencing the genuine church life. A genuine believer in the JW church for example, would they be experiencing the genuine church life while they remain there? I don't think so.

Even though all believers in the city are part of the local church and the body of Christ, not all believers are experiencing the genuine church life in their denominations. It is in this sense that there is an "us" and a "them".

Originally Posted by Koinonia

So, now the Lutherans used to be "the real local church in the city"?... You appear to make this stuff up as you go along.

Luther and co. were a group of believers who left the Catholic system to experience Christ genuinely and the genuine church life. So in my mind they would have represented the real local church in the city, although they may not have seen themselves as such. They may have seen themselves as "reformed Catholics", I don't know. Luther originally only wanted to reform, or as I would say, recover, the Catholic church. But political religious pressures meant that became impossible, and the Lutheran church was born, which became a denomination.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When you say "it is all believers in that city", that also includes us. So how can you say we cannot claim to be "the local church in the city"?

Do you not understand the difference? On the one hand, you acknowledge that "the church in London" is all the believers in London. On the other hand, you say: "our group is the church in London" (and our group is registered with the government as "the church in London;" the leaders of our group are the legitimate elders for the city of London; the meeting hall of our group is the meeting hall for the church in London, etc., etc.). How absurd.

The word "the" is not to the exclusion of everyone else in the city. When we say that, we refer to something larger than ourselves, that includes all believers in the city. It includes "us" who are meeting as the local church in the city, and it includes "everyone else", who are not meeting as the local church in the city, but as a denomination. On this point, the difference of "us" and "them" is on the basis of who meets as the local church practically, and who doesn't. It does not mean, that every believer in the city is not part of the local church in reality. But in practicality, they are not.

Can you define this what this practicality entails? Is it possible to be a part of the practicality of the local church without being associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee?

Let's take this to an extreme example because it emphasizes the point. Suppose every believer in a city never went to church on Sunday but stayed at home. It is true they are all part of the one local church in the city. But practically and physically they are not unless they are meeting together.
Note that church means assembly. We cannot be the church practically unless we are assembling together. Hebrews 10:25 says "not giving up assembling together". No assembly = no church.

So, according to your definition here, the existence of the "practicality of the local church" is dependent on having meetings? In other words, the most proper expression of the practicality of the church would be everyone being in a enormous meeting together?

Obviously not every believer in the city is experiencing the genuine church life. A genuine believer in the JW church for example, would they be experiencing the genuine church life while they remain there? I don't think so.

Even though all believers in the city are part of the local church and the body of Christ, not all believers are experiencing the genuine church life in their denominations. It is in this sense that there is an "us" and a "them".

How do you define what is the "genuine church life"?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Do you not understand the difference? On the one hand, you acknowledge that "the church in London" is all the believers in London. On the other hand, you say: "our group is the church in London" (and our group is registered with the government as "the church in London;" the leaders of our group are the legitimate elders for the city of London; the meeting hall of our group is the meeting hall for the church in London, etc., etc.). How absurd.

If the church in London is not us who actually call ourselves the church in London, then who is it?

It is a strange view you hold, that we who call ourselves the church in London are not the church in London, and yet every denomination who does not call themselves the church in London, is the church in London.

Your view says that all the believers are the church in London, but in practicality there is no such thing as "the church in London"? How crazy is that?

If a person wanted to meet with "the church in London" in practice, a person would have to choose one of the denominations. So an idea of the church in London without anyone calling themselves "the church in London", is just an idea that does not exist in practicality.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Can you define this what this practicality entails? Is it possible to be a part of the practicality of the local church without being associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee?

Let's use an example. Suppose the only denominations in London were
Anglican
Catholic
Lutheran.

Which one of these do you suppose is practically the local church?

Or

Can we have the local church in practicality without being associated with any of these denominations?

To put this another way.. suppose you arrive in London as a Christian in London.. and you want to worship with the church in London - where do you go?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

So, according to your definition here, the existence of the "practicality of the local church" is dependent on having meetings? In other words, the most proper expression of the practicality of the church would be everyone being in a enormous meeting together?

It would be various meetings as the church in London. There is no requirement to have one enormous meeting. 10 meetings in London could all be meeting practically as the church in London. Rather than, one meeting as Anglican, one meeting as Catholic, one meeting as Lutheran etc.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

How do you define what is the "genuine church life"?

It's the life of Christ and Christ Himself in our midst.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If the church in London is not us who actually call ourselves the church in London, then who is it?

It is a strange view you hold, that we who call ourselves the church in London are not the church in London, and yet every denomination who does not call themselves the church in London, is the church in London.

Your view says that all the believers are the church in London, but in practicality there is no such thing as "the church in London"? How crazy is that?

We are not the church in London because we call ourselves "the church in London." We are the church in London because we are. The church in London is all the believers in London. How absurd to recognize this reality but then say, "Well, yes, that's true, but actually the church in London is this minuscule group of people who use the name 'church in London.'" Not even WL taught that.

If a person wanted to meet with "the church in London" in practice, a person would have to choose one of the denominations. So an idea of the church in London without anyone calling themselves "the church in London", is just an idea that does not exist in practicality.

Because "the church in London" is not a group. It's like saying "How do I know there's such a thing as the church?" Well, the church is all around you. Yet, it seems like everything with you comes down to words. Do you actually think that the words "the church in" convey spiritual reality?

It would be various meetings as the church in London. There is no requirement to have one enormous meeting. 10 meetings in London could all be meeting practically as the church in London. Rather than, one meeting as Anglican, one meeting as Catholic, one meeting as Lutheran etc.

What is your source for this? That 10 meetings in London could all be meeting practically as the church in London? Is this something that Witness Lee made up?

It's the life of Christ and Christ Himself in our midst.

No. According to Matthew 18:20--wherever two or three are gathered in the Lord's name, He is in the midst. According to Witness Lee, "two or three" is not a local church. So, "the life of Christ and Christ Himself in our midst" cannot be the definition of "the genuine church life." According to you, it's based on what the group calls itself.

Also, I would like to ask you again: Is it possible to be a part of the practicality of the local church without being associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee?

[Drake]

Koinonia "We are not the church in London because we call ourselves "the church in London." We are the church in London because we are. "

That is true. And if you recognize that is what you are, then you should call yourself that too.

That would be consistent too.

Drake

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia "We are not the church in London because we call ourselves "the church in London." We are the church in London because we are. "

That is true. And if you recognize that is what you are, then you should call yourself that too.

That would be consistent too.

Drake

The argument many people raise would be for a congregation of 100 or so to call themselves the Church in New York. A city of 8.5 million with how many different Christian assemblies yet only one can call themselves the church in New York at the exclusion of all others.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia "We are not the church in London because we call ourselves "the church in London." We are the church in London because we are. "

That is true. And if you recognize that is what you are, then you should call yourself that too.

That would be consistent too.

Drake

And I agree.

But I do not agree that using "the church in London" letterhead makes your group the "reality" or "practicality" of the church in London. That's just silly.

Drake, perhaps you would tell me: Is it possible to be a part of the practicality of the local church without being associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

And I agree.

But I do not agree that using "the church in London" letterhead makes your group the "reality" or "practicality" of the church in London. That's just silly.

Drake, perhaps you would tell me: Is it possible to be a part of the practicality of the local church without being associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee?

Yes, of course.

But your argument now favors semantics over substance.

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Oh, I forgot to add, that we do all the above, while taking care of a family, and working in a highly demanding professional job such as a lawyer or medical doctor, on top of being an elder and listening to everyone's problems and complaints. And unlike a pastor or priest, we don't get paid for "counselling" and we spend much of our Sunday in church-related things.

Going to work is not the call. Everyone does that. The question is what is your purpose there.

As for counselling, what are you talking about. Your group doesn't even provide the counselling its own people need. Just admonitions to read more Bible or ministry, and go to more meetings.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Sorry it's not enough "religious work" for you (sarcasm again). I forgot that we must be out on the street feeding soup to homeless people to be truly doing what God asks, and all these things are not enough (sarcasm again).

And when do you do this. Or when does your leadership encourage such things? In my years in the LRC, they mocked the very idea, and sent those in need to government agencies. Or they told the "saints" how they sent someone to some other church because "they do that kind of thing." Then he boasted to us how that was not what we were there for.

And that has been upheld ever since by the leadership.

No sarcasm needed. Your group refuses the real commands of Christ. They think the only efforts of value are about "preaching the gospel." I do not deny any command concerning that. But it is not the only command.

And when your whole focus is on your corporate spirituality, special standing, and gaining "good material" for the kingdom, you refuse the command of Christ in the name of superior, "unique" position with God. You can't be part of a group that is so opposed to the actual teachings of Christ and claim to be God's "unique" and "genuine" church to the exclusion of all others.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes, of course.

But your argument now favors semantics over substance.

Drake

The whole LC argument is semantics--that there is no "genuine local church" unless there is a group that calls itself "the church in," and when a group calls itself "the church in," that group is then the "practicality" of the "genuine church life."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, perhaps you would tell me: Is it possible to be a part of the practicality of the local church without being associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee?

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes, of course.

But your argument now favors semantics over substance.

Drake

But now Drake is crossing his fingers behind his back and is referring to the spirituality of the local church and not the practicality of the local church.

How truly ironic to see aged wordsmiths accuse others of "semantics over substance."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Terry

The argument many people raise would be for a congregation of 100 or so to call themselves the Church in New York. A city of 8.5 million with how many different Christian assemblies yet only one can call themselves the church in New York at the exclusion of all others.

HI Terry.

I'll answer your objection this way.

There are 23 million Jews in the world eligible for Israeli citizenship but only 6 million live in Israel. Why should the remaining 17 million, who live somewhere else, complain about the 6 million living in the promised land, for calling themselves the nation of Israel?

They wouldn't and they dont.

All 23 Million are Jews, but only 6 Million constitute the nation of Israel practically because they are living on the ground of the nation of Israel.

Likewise, 100 Christians in New York standing on the ground of the church does not exclude others.

And a Jew who prefers to stay in New York should not complain about a Jew who moves to Israel and calls himself a member of the nation of Israel.

And a Christian who chooses to remain in one of thousands of Christian assemblies in New York city should not complain about the 100 that choose to stand on the ground of the church in New York City.

But some do.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

The whole LC argument is semantics--that there is no "genuine local church" unless there is a group that calls itself "the church in," and when a group calls itself "the church in," that group is then the "practicality" of the "genuine church life."

No, you are still making an argument of semantics. Yours is not the "LC argument".

By analogy, there would be no nation of Israel if 23 million Jews lived somewhere other than Israel. Though all 23M are Jews only 6M are practically standing on the proper ground as the nation of Israel. Therefore, a nation exists practically.

When a Jew exercises the Law of Return they begin participating in fulfilling the mission of the nation of Israel. They call themselves an Israeli citizen because they are... they are not an Israeli citizen merely because they call themselves one. A Jew living in New York is not an Israeli citizen just because they call themselves as such.

Likewise, a group of Christians meeting as the church in a city on the ground of oneness in that city, expressing the universal Body of Christ are the church in that place and should call themselves as such. A name alone is insufficient. And like the Jew living in New York, a Christian can choose to live in a denomination but is not practically living on the ground of oneness of the church no matter how much they claim they are. Neither should they complain about those who actually meet on the ground of oneness of the church and call themselves as such because that is what they are, not just what they call themselves.

Drake

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

No, you are still making an argument of semantics. Yours is not the "LC argument".

By analogy, there would be no nation of Israel if 23 million Jews lived somewhere other than Israel. Though all 23M are Jews only 6M are practically standing on the proper ground as the nation of Israel. Therefore, a nation exists practically.

When a Jew exercises the Law of Return they begin participating in fulfilling the mission of the nation of Israel. They call themselves an Israeli citizen because they are... they are not an Israeli citizen merely because they call themselves one. A Jew living in New York is not an Israeli citizen just because they call themselves as such.

Likewise, a group of Christians meeting as the church in a city on the ground of oneness in that city, expressing the universal Body of Christ are the church in that place and should call themselves as such. A name alone is insufficient. And like the Jew living in New York, a Christian can choose to live in a denomination but is not practically living on the ground of oneness of the church no matter how much they claim they are. Neither should they complain about those who actually meet on the ground of oneness of the church and call themselves as such because that is what they are, not just what they call themselves.

Drake

By analogy, there would be no [church in London] if [believers in London] [met] somewhere other than [the practical expression of the church in London as defined by Witness Lee]. Though all [believers in London] are [Christians] only [those associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and who refer to themselves as "the church in London"] are practically standing on the proper ground as the [church in London]. Therefore, a [church] exists practically.

When a [Christian] [begins associating with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and begins to meet with those believers who refer to themselves as "the church in London] they begin participating in fulfilling the mission of the [church in London]. They call themselves [a member of the church in London] because they are... they are not [a member of the church in London] merely because they call themselves one. A [beliver] [not meeting with the group associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and who refer to themselves as "the church in London"] is not [a member of the church in London] just because they call themselves as such.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

By analogy, there would be no [church in London] if [believers in London] [met] somewhere other than [the practical expression of the church in London as defined by Witness Lee]. Though all [believers in London] are [Christians] only [those associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and who refer to themselves as "the church in London"] are practically standing on the proper ground as the [church in London]. Therefore, a [church] exists practically.

When a [Christian] [begins associating with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and begins to meet with those believers who refer to themselves as "the church in London] they begin participating in fulfilling the mission of the [church in London]. They call themselves [a member of the church in London] because they are... they are not [a member of the church in London] merely because they call themselves one. A [beliver] [not meeting with the group associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and who refer to themselves as "the church in London"] is not [a member of the church in London] just because they call themselves as such.

I went along with the Nee/Lee one church/one city on the "proper ground" for my best 30 years of my life until I learned of all the corruption behind the scenes at LSM.

Then I was forced to choose between (1) LSM's obscure "church naming rights" found only in John's Revelation and (2) all the hundreds of verses in every book of the N.T. concerning righteousness, not lording it over the elect, descriptions of healthy leaders, descriptions of false teachers, etc. all of which exposed LSM leadership for the past half century.

I still have much precious take away from my time in 3 LC's, but have little use for LSM and its books. Back in August of 2007, while I was debating what to do with my vast library of books from LSM, a sudden thunderstorm hit the neighborhood, flooded my basement, and all those boxes of books got soaked with backed up sewage. Problem solved.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

By analogy, there would be no [church in London] if [believers in London] [met] somewhere other than [the practical expression of the church in London as defined by Witness Lee]. Though all [believers in London] are [Christians] only [those associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and who refer to themselves as "the church in London"] are practically standing on the proper ground as the [church in London]. Therefore, a [church] exists practically.

When a [Christian] [begins associating with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and begins to meet with those believers who refer to themselves as "the church in London] they begin participating in fulfilling the mission of the [church in London]. They call themselves [a member of the church in London] because they are... they are not [a member of the church in London] merely because they call themselves one. A [beliver] [not meeting with the group associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and who refer to themselves as "the church in London"] is not [a member of the church in London] just because they call themselves as such.

Close.... but no cigar!

Here is where you err.

It is irrelevant whether Witness Lee's name is even mentioned or the Living Stream Ministry materials are used for edification or not. Throwing that up in a discussion about the truth revealed in the Scriptures concerning the church and the churches is ignorance at best or the enemy's craft at worst.

Now Koinonia, if you agree with the biblical revelation as I have attempted to explain it then say it. If you don't then it is doubtful you will ever transcend an argument of semantics and it is pointless to reason with a contentious man.

But if you agree with the biblical revelation but you just disagree with the execution of it then say that too. I get that. We can discuss it.

Yet, it does not contribute one iota to anyone's edification for you to take my words and then twist them to say something I did not say nor believe. Believe me, I will tell you exactly what I mean to say and you will have plenty of material to object to. Let's agree where we do and where we don't we can engage in a vigorous exchange.

Thanks,
Drake

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Close.... but no cigar!

Here is where you err.

It is irrelevant whether Witness Lee's name is even mentioned or the Living Stream Ministry materials are used for edification or not. Throwing that up in a discussion about the truth revealed in the Scriptures concerning the church and the churches is ignorance at best or the enemy's craft at worst.

Now Koinonia, if you agree with the biblical revelation as I have attempted to explain it then say it. If you don't then it is doubtful you will ever transcend an argument of semantics and it is pointless to reason with a contentious man.

But if you agree with the biblical revelation but you just disagree with the execution of it then say that too. I get that. We can discuss it.

Yet, it does not contribute one iota to anyone's edification for you to take my words and then twist them to say something I did not say nor believe. Believe me, I will tell you exactly what I mean to say and you will have plenty of material to object to. Let's agree where we do and where we don't we can engage in a vigorous exchange.

Thanks,
Drake

Drake, you have equated those not meeting with your group with Jews in New York who are not citizens of Israel. That is sectarian and ridiculous. "Citizenship" in the church is based upon belief into Christ, not participation in your group because you use the correct name.

[Drake]

Koinonia 'Drake, you have equated those not meeting with your group with Jews in New York who are not citizens of Israel'

No, I did not. Stop misrepresenting my position. Address my argument.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia: 'Drake, you have equated those not meeting with your group with Jews in New York who are not citizens of Israel'

No, I did not. Stop misrepresenting my position. Address my argument.

Drake, sure you did.

You equate Christians living in the denominations with Jews living in the nations.

You equate Jews in Israel with Christians who have the name "the church in ..."

Drake, your error is in wrongly believing that locality or geography is our ground of oneness, and not Christ Himself who is our real ground of oneness.

The same type of persuasive speech deluded the Colossians. We are rooted and grounded in Christ, not in some secular and worldly geographic boundaries, which can change with every passing war. (See 2.1-10)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Going to work is not the call. Everyone does that. The question is what is your purpose there.

Mankind's purpose was to work, ever since God told Adam to tend to the Garden of Eden.

Originally Posted by OBW

As for counselling, what are you talking about. Your group doesn't even provide the counselling its own people need. Just admonitions to read more Bible or ministry, and go to more meetings.

The bible, ministry, meetings, are not helpful in counselling?

Originally Posted by OBW

And when do you do this. Or when does your leadership encourage such things? In my years in the LRC, they mocked the very idea, and sent those in need to government agencies. Or they told the "saints" how they sent someone to some other church because "they do that kind of thing." Then he boasted to us how that was not what we were there for.

Depends what kind of counselling you are talking about. You think if someone needs a hospital we are going to try fix it ourselves with the Bible? We are not JW's.

Originally Posted by OBW

No sarcasm needed. Your group refuses the real commands of Christ. They think the only efforts of value are about "preaching the gospel." I do not deny any command concerning that. But it is not the only command.

It's the main command, that's what it's called the great commission, not the "one of many other commissions" and as far as I can tell, was the main ministry of the church in the book of Acts and the apostle Paul's main calling.

In all these discussions with you I feel like I am arguing with a Roman Catholic and not an Evangelical and perhaps not even a Protestant.
What other things do you think Jesus called us to do in comparison to the great commission? Foot washing? Preserving the holy relics such as the toenail clippings of St Thomas? Pilgrimages to the holy land?

Originally Posted by OBW

And when your whole focus is on your corporate spirituality, special standing, and gaining "good material" for the kingdom, you refuse the command of Christ in the name of superior, "unique" position with God. You can't be part of a group that is so opposed to the actual teachings of Christ and claim to be God's "unique" and "genuine" church to the exclusion of all others.

What "command of Christ" are you talking about? I thought you believed in more than just one command.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

We are not the church in London because we call ourselves "the church in London." We are the church in London because we are. The church in London is all the believers in London. How absurd to recognize this reality but then say, "Well, yes, that's true, but actually the church in London is this minuscule group of people who use the name 'church in London.'" Not even WL taught that.

We call ourselves the church in London because we are the church in London.

I don't really understand your point that we cannot call ourselves the church in London just because everyone else is the church in London as well. Then we end up with a situation where no one calls themselves the "church in London", and then the church does not exist practically.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Because "the church in London" is not a group. It's like saying "How do I know there's such a thing as the church?" Well, the church is all around you. Yet, it seems like everything with you comes down to words. Do you actually think that the words "the church in" convey spiritual reality?

"the church is all around you" indicates that you hold to an idea of a church which does not actually exist practically.

On a Sunday, how does one know where to attend a church which is "all around me"?

If such is the case, how can we apply the instructions of the bible to "tell it to the church" . Matt 18:17. There has to be some authority structure, which we know at the time was a plurality of elders appointed by the apostles.

It does not mean we can just tell our Christian friend or neighbor about our problem and we are satisfying Matt 18:17. There must be an entity in our city called "the church" which exists in practicality.

I think denominations such as the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican all recognized the need of a practical church administration in the city representing all believers in a city.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

What is your source for this? That 10 meetings in London could all be meeting practically as the church in London? Is this something that Witness Lee made up?

Why can't 10 meetings all be meeting practically as the church in London?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

No. According to Matthew 18:20--wherever two or three are gathered in the Lord's name, He is in the midst. According to Witness Lee, "two or three" is not a local church. So, "the life of Christ and Christ Himself in our midst" cannot be the definition of "the genuine church life." According to you, it's based on what the group calls itself.

Nice try but it's not saying that a church is only 2 or 3 people.

This verse is about taking 2 or 3 believers with you ,from the church, for the purpose of resolving some matter.

Here is the context:

Matt 18:15 If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you.

Here is when you need two or three:

16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c]


If the two or three don't make a difference, then you tell it to the church:

17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Logically, "the church" mentioned in verse 17 must be a larger entity than just two or three.

So it's talking about 2 or 3 believers coming together to pray about binding and loosing:

Matthew 18:19 Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

Matt 18:18

Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.


If a church was only 2 or 3, it does not even satisfy the requirements of a 5 fold ministry, at least one teacher, one prophet, one evangelist, one pastor, one apostle.

If a church has 2 or 3 elders only, where is the rest of the church?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Also, I would like to ask you again: Is it possible to be a part of the practicality of the local church without being associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee?

It depends, who started the local church in the city?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia 'Drake, you have equated those not meeting with your group with Jews in New York who are not citizens of Israel'

No, I did not. Stop misrepresenting my position. Address my argument.

I am. That is just what you said.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We call ourselves the church in London because we are the church in London.

I don't really understand your point that we cannot call ourselves the church in London just because everyone else is the church in London as well. Then we end up with a situation where no one calls themselves the "church in London", and then the church does not exist practically.

This is the height of exclusivity (and shallowness). You ask "we cannot call ourselves the church in London just because everyone else is the church in London as well." More us vs. them. The issue is with calling your group "the church in London." Because your group is something smaller than the church in London. At best, you can say that you are a part of the church in London (yes, just like "everyone else").

"the church is all around you" indicates that you hold to an idea of a church which does not actually exist practically.

On a Sunday, how does one know where to attend a church which is "all around me"?

If such is the case, how can we apply the instructions of the bible to "tell it to the church" . Matt 18:17. There has to be some authority structure, which we know at the time was a plurality of elders appointed by the apostles.

It does not mean we can just tell our Christian friend or neighbor about our problem and we are satisfying Matt 18:17. There must be an entity in our city called "the church" which exists in practicality.

I think denominations such as the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican all recognized the need of a practical church administration in the city representing all believers in a city.

This issue of "practicality" is a made up distinction that is never defined in the New Testament. "Tell it to the church" means just that: tell it to the church. Not "tell it to the group that refers to itself as "the church."

Why can't 10 meetings all be meeting practically as the church in London?

So, in a city like Toronto, where at least four different groups refer to themselves as "the church in Toronto," which one is "the genuine church life"? What is the real basis? Or are they all "the practicality of the church" because they use the right words?

Nice try but it's not saying that a church is only 2 or 3 people.

That is not what I said at all ("nice try"). You said that "the genuine church life" is defined by "the life of Christ and Christ Himself in the midst." According to this verse, I showed you that this in itself cannot be the basis because "2 or 3"--not a local church--is also defined by Christ in the midst.

It depends, who started the local church in the city?

Who has to start it?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I am. That is just what you said.

No.

Either you are unable or unwilling to engage in a meaningful dialogue.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy) "I really don't know what to make of your claims that you never heard anyone say that leaving the LCM was wrong"

Hi Igzy.

There is a difference between telling someone they can't leave a group and telling them they are wrong to leave a group. One could be abuse, the other could just be concern for your soul.

In this thread I have sincerely tried to understand your view and how you might interpret things differently than I do. What were the differences in our experience, was it something we did differently, events, our circumstances, our backgrounds, or something neither of us have realized? At this point, I think we experienced pretty much the same things. You heard them one way, I heard them differently. You interpret them as someone brainwashing you, I interpret them as someone's caring and sharing the convictions of their beliefs. Same speaking, different interpretation.

In summary, we will likely never gain a full understanding of this matter or each other beyond what we have shared here. Still, I do not recognize the "dreadful" church life you describe, the abuse you claim, the brainwashing, etc. Rather, in my experience, through all these decades the church life has been a sweet visitation from the Lord. The brothers and sisters really are family in the richest sense. The leading brothers are servants dedicated to ministering Christ into others. In their speaking the Word has never been clearer, more open, or invigorating to me. The Spirit is guiding and directing and collaborating with a governing vision. Truth and Life are prevailing. Struggles? Certainly. Grace to overcome? Abundantly.

Is that unique? In my experience it is... absolutely. To you, it is not.

Thanks for the dialogue.

Drake

I also have had some heated discussions over this with Igzy. I think the difference between us is that he was in Austin and I was in Houston. If you read the detailed testimonies of the Barber's kid it gives a very different view of being in the the LRC from ours.

You say you were a contemporary of Igzy and might have broken bread with him, therefore we are contemporaries as well and it is highly likely that we also broke bread together.

When you read UntoHim's testimonies (he was from Orange county) it is quite clear that a local church that close to Anaheim had a different view of WL than one further away like Houston.

Ultimately I have concluded that the Local Churches were strongly influenced by the elders in that locality and that made a big difference. I was influenced by Ray G and Benson P. That apparently is a big difference from Austin and also from some of the Orange County locales.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

No, you are still making an argument of semantics. Yours is not the "LC argument".

By analogy, there would be no nation of Israel if 23 million Jews lived somewhere other than Israel. Though all 23M are Jews only 6M are practically standing on the proper ground as the nation of Israel. Therefore, a nation exists practically.

When a Jew exercises the Law of Return they begin participating in fulfilling the mission of the nation of Israel. They call themselves an Israeli citizen because they are... they are not an Israeli citizen merely because they call themselves one. A Jew living in New York is not an Israeli citizen just because they call themselves as such.

Likewise, a group of Christians meeting as the church in a city on the ground of oneness in that city, expressing the universal Body of Christ are the church in that place and should call themselves as such. A name alone is insufficient. And like the Jew living in New York, a Christian can choose to live in a denomination but is not practically living on the ground of oneness of the church no matter how much they claim they are. Neither should they complain about those who actually meet on the ground of oneness of the church and call themselves as such because that is what they are, not just what they call themselves.

Drake

I am confused by this argument you are presenting. What is the ground of oneness?

Let's engage in a meaningful dialogue based on the Truth in the Scripture. You can quote WL or WN if you like, don't care as long as we are discussing the truth in the scripture.

I will begin with your analogy of Israel. It seems based on this analogy that there is no "Kingdom of Israel" without people willing to stand on this ground. That seems to me to make this a very important issue for the Church, which is the Kingdom. Therefore it seems to me the NT should be very explicit about this truth.

When I ask myself, what does the scripture say about such an incredibly important doctrine as "the ground of oneness" Ephesians 4 and John 17 are the first two references that immediately come to mind.

4 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,

2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;

3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

I think this portion clearly foresees that oneness will require lowliness, meekness and long-suffering. That to me suggests we will have to be one with all sorts of believers with different opinions, practices and concepts.

But the bond that holds us together is the peace that Jesus wrought on the cross. A name we call our group is not a bond that is going to hold all these different believers together.

Paul states it as a fact that there is one body, one spirit and one hope of our calling. What we call our fellowship doesn't change any of that. I have a hope of a coming kingdom and calling myself the "super spiritual vanguard of the Christian elite warriors" doesn't in any way change this one hope. (My point is not to mock the LRC but rather to point out how every single little Christian group generally gives them-self some positive name).

Again, there is one Lord for every Christian regardless of the name of their group, one faith, and one baptism. We are not immersing believers into the name of our group but into the person and work of the Triune God.

Likewise we are all one because there is one God and Father who is above all, over all and in you all.

I believe it is sovereign of God that a group like the LRC takes the stand they do because it causes us to examine this truth of the "ground of oneness". But I also believe it is sovereign that there are many other fellowships of Christians.

WL used to compare his ministry to graduate school. But I remember a book that came out years ago saying that everything important this person ever learned they learned in kindergarten. Graduate school is necessary, and perhaps WL is right to compare his "training day" to graduate school. By comparison some Christian gatherings are kindergarten. But God is sovereign and in the grand scheme of things Kindergarten is just as important and impactful on the population as graduate school.

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

It seems to me that the two most important things that Jesus is giving us to keep the oneness is the name of the Triune God and His word, which is truth.

I do not see anything in either of these sections that suggests there is any other name by which we would keep the oneness.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

No.

Either you are unable or unwilling to engage in a meaningful dialogue.

Drake, the fact that I disagree with you does not mean the dialogue is not meaningful. Sorry.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

And a Jew who prefers to stay in New York should not complain about a Jew who moves to Israel and calls himself a member of the nation of Israel.

And a Christian who chooses to remain in one of thousands of Christian assemblies in New York city should not complain about the 100 that choose to stand on the ground of the church in New York City.

But some do.

Drake

The issue is not whether 100 people can "stand as the church in New York."

The issue is those people's claim that doing so puts them in better stead with God than those who don't.

The nation of Israel argument sounds good until you realize that it doesn't map to any reality the Bible tells us to observe. Nowhere does the Bible tell us to meet as the church in the city nor to "stand" as the church in the city nor to compare either to the nation of Israel--let alone inform us that doing any of those things will put us in better stead with God.

So arguing about it is like arguing about things in the Star Wars universe. E.g.: Can an Acklay defeat a Gorog? It only matters if the Star Wars universe is real enough to you for it to matter. But it has no connection to actual reality except in the way in borrows from reality to create a fictional one. That's all the nation of Israel argument does.

The church in the city according to the LCM is a fictional reality. I'm sure fans of Gorogs have very logical arguments in defense of believing Gorogs can defeat Acklays. But in actual fact there are no Gorogs and there are no Acklays and the point is moot.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The issue is not whether 100 people can "stand as the church in New York."

The issue is those people's claim that doing so puts them in better stead with God than those who don't.

The nation of Israel argument sounds good until you realize that it doesn't map to any reality the Bible tells us to observe. Nowhere does the Bible tell us to meet as the church in the city nor to "stand" as the church in the city nor to compare either to the nation of Israel--let alone inform us that doing any of those things will put us in better stead with God.

So arguing about it is like arguing about things in the Star Wars universe. E.g.: Can an Acklay defeat a Gorog? It only matters if the Star Wars universe is real enough to you for it to matter. But it has no connection to actual reality except in the way in borrows from reality to create a fictional one. That's all the nation of Israel argument does.

The church in the city according to the LCM is a fictional reality. I'm sure fans of Gorogs have very logical arguments in defense of believing Gorogs can defeat Acklays. But in actual fact there are no Gorogs and there are no Acklays and the point is moot.

That was not his point. What he said was that if you are a Jew and you move to Israel, what is wrong with naming your country Israel? You are taking a stand as Israel, on the proper ground of Israel, why not call yourself Israel?

To be fair to many in the LRC they don't use terms like "better" but rather "proper" or "normal".

The NY analogy doesn't work because no one calls themselves "the church in NY". But if you are in Houston, you meet with Christians as the church, and you need a name so that you can have an address, a phone number, be incorporated, etc. In that case, why shouldn't you call yourself the church in Houston?

You are arguing about the name not putting you in better stead with God. But, if you name yourself the "Roman Catholic Church" it is certainly significant and will affiliate you with certain people, groups and Christians. It will denominate you from others. So then the question is not about putting yourself in better stead with God but rather putting yourself in a better position to be one with all believers. If you agree that a name like "Roman Catholic Church" puts you in a worse position to be one with all believers then certainly there is at least one name that puts you in a better position.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

This is the height of exclusivity (and shallowness). You ask "we cannot call ourselves the church in London just because everyone else is the church in London as well." More us vs. them. The issue is with calling your group "the church in London." Because your group is something smaller than the church in London. At best, you can say that you are a part of the church in London (yes, just like "everyone else").

We're not actually smaller, but quite big, because we include all the believers in London. That is, if we are part of the church in London then we are the church in London.

This is like we wouldn't say "part of my family".

If we have a large extended family that we only see once every 20 years or even not at all.. are we going to call our immediate family in our house "part of my family" just because we have a much larger family we never visit? Of course not. We will use the identifiers "my family" whether it is 3 members, 10 members, 100 members. Whether it is in one city or many cities, or over the whole world.

For example, if I go travelling with a wife and 1 child, and leave two older children at home, I am going to call my wife and child "my family". I am not going to call them "part of my family".

So I think because we are all in the one family it is okay to say we are the family, not just "part of the family". This is why we are not smaller, in fact.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

This issue of "practicality" is a made up distinction that is never defined in the New Testament. "Tell it to the church" means just that: tell it to the church. Not "tell it to the group that refers to itself as "the church."

So, in a city like Toronto, where at least four different groups refer to themselves as "the church in Toronto," which one is "the genuine church life"? What is the real basis? Or are they all "the practicality of the church" because they use the right words?

With 20 different denominations in a city, for example, which one of these constitutes "the church" that one should tell? They all have elders/bishops/pastors/priests.. which one is the right one to tell my problem?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

That is not what I said at all ("nice try"). You said that "the genuine church life" is defined by "the life of Christ and Christ Himself in the midst." According to this verse, I showed you that this in itself cannot be the basis because "2 or 3"--not a local church--is also defined by Christ in the midst.

Sorry I thought you were saying any gathering of 2-3 is a church in the city. I gave you a definition for the genuine church life. If we are talking about the practical church life, then I agree this cannot be just two or three with Christ in the midst, unless that is truly the number of saved people in the city. Now the "genuine and practical church life" (as Lee would say) must mean we have the genuine aspect which is Christ, and the practical aspect which is the local church administration in each city. We need both to be a genuine church. If we do not believe in denominations, we might believe that genuinely the church is something of Christ, but we may not see the need for a practical church administration in each city. Others might believe in the need for a local church administration, but don't see the need for this to be based on a genuine relationship with Christ.

In the New Testament times, they had both a genuine relationship with Christ, and a practical church administration in each city. It was neither merely an organized religion with a church administration as per Roman Catholicism, neither was it merely a group of believers with a relationship with Christ, and no administration or structure.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then the question is not about putting yourself in better stead with God but rather putting yourself in a better position to be one with all believers. If you agree that a name like "Roman Catholic Church" puts you in a worse position to be one with all believers then certainly there is at least one name that puts you in a better position.

The way to be in better position to be one with all believers is all about having a humble and receiving attitude. It's not about some "stand."

Again I don't think the LSM "stand" is about putting them in better position to be one with all believers. That's the line but that's not the real reason. The real reason is to make themselves the place to be, because the fruit of it is manifestly not oneness but exclusivity.

Idealists like Drake buy that line because they have good but naive hearts. The LCM takes advantage of people like them. I'm sure Lenin made good use of the idealists that followed him. But he had little in common with them. He just used them to empower himself.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The way to be in better in position to be one with all believers is all about having a humble and receiving attitude. It's not about some "stand."

Again I don't think the LSM "stand" is about putting them in better position to be one with all believers. That's the line but that's not the real reason. The real reason is to make themselves the place to be, because the fruit of it is manifestly not oneness but exclusivity.

Idealists like Drake buy that line because they have good but naive hearts. The LCM takes advantage of people like them. I'm sure Lenin made good use of the idealists that followed him. But he had little in common with them. He just used them to empower himself.

We can be one with all believers because of the Lord's redemption, because Jesus made peace on the cross, because we have all received one spirit, because the same God is in all of us and over all of us, because we have one faith, one Lord.

This is our stand.

The reason WL's teaching resonated with ones like Dr aKe is because not all Christians make this stand.

There is one name that does make us one, but it isn't our name, it is the name of Jesus. He is the rock that we are standing on. He is the ground of oneness.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Do you know that Witness Lee came to the USA because the church in Taipei expelled him for using church money to pay off his own personal debts?

Perhaps when you learn your own history, you will pause a bit before condemning all others.

Ohio---Great factoid. I notice this post was ignored by EVERYBODY. Ouch! What's your source?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, the fact that I disagree with you does not mean the dialogue is not meaningful. Sorry.

Koinomia,

I have no objection with disagreement..... even vigorous disagreement. Disagreement is not an issue.

Dialogue became meaningless when you misrepresented my position.

Drake

[Drake]

ZNP "What he said was that if you are a Jew and you move to Israel, what is wrong with naming your country Israel? You are taking a stand as Israel, on the proper ground of Israel, why not call yourself Israel?"

Yes ZNP, you said that more succinctly than I did.

I'll address the points of your post 484 in a separate note.

Drake

[Drake]

ZNP "I do not see anything in either of these sections that suggests there is any other name by which we would keep the oneness."

ZNP,

I don't either.

I believe all of this discussion about The church in such and such place "as a name" is a more recent artifact in church history. Specifically, because of the proliferation of the denominations in the last few hundred years. In the first century Christians just knew they were members of the church in a certain place. Paul's letters and revelation chapters 2 and 3 show clearly this was a basic assumption. Therefore, your explanation of the name would have been well understood.

Fast forward to the year 2017 . The basic assumption of the oneness of the believers in a certain place has been clouded over with a departure from that most basic understanding concerning the oneness of the believers that you articulated. Anticipating the church in degradation on this matter, I believe the Lord explicitly listed the names of the churches in Revelation 2 and 3 as the church in a city. And also elsewhere. So though every believer in a place is a member of the church in that place, it is necessary to articulate the ground of Oneness in the name of Jesus. Not to divide, but to unite.That is something that should be understood but in reality it is not.

As you said it's not a matter of thinking that we are better. Rather, it is a matter of being proper and according to the revelation of the practical oneness in the scripture. The Jews who live as the nation of Israel are not necessarily better than Jews who live in New York City. However, as to fulfilling the purpose of the nation of Israel and all that that implies the Jews in the land are practically fulfilling that mission. Yet, by distinguishing themselves as a member of the nation of Israel they are not excluding any of the other 17 million Jews who could take that position themselves. And who can fault the Jews who live as the nation of Israel from longing for and hoping that those 17 million Jews who live elsewhere will someday join them to accomplish the mission of the nation of Israel?

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

So then, it seems to me the burden that Jesus had was that we could keep this oneness, and the burden Paul had was that we could keep this oneness.

I don't see John having a different burden in Rev 2&3. Jesus was Lord and was speaking to all of his believers in each city. The word was for all of them. (In 1Corinthians we learn that christians were already grouping themselves by claiming they are of Peter, Paul, Apollos, Christ, etc. It is reasonable to think this included the cities referred to Revelation, yet the way it was written it was written to all of them regardless of which apostle they preferred). If you were to fast forward to the year 2017 and John was writing to all the believers in Houston would he address the letter to a small percentage of them meeting on Windswept lane? It seems to me the lesson from Revelation is not that "the church in Houston" is the proper name, but rather the burden to include all the believers is the burden.

If the name points to the fact that this group is very concerned with the Lord's burden in Jn 17, Paul's burden in Eph 4 and is aligned with Rev 2&3 that suggests to me they would completely deemphasize their name and focus instead on what unites them with all the christians in their city, the name of Jesus. However, this doctrine on "the ground of oneness" has been used instead to emphasize the importance of not taking a name, which ironically has emphasized that their formula for a generic name is the one true name. For example, look at Evangelical's posts. His understanding of this doctrine demonstrates the apparent two faced aspect of this doctrine. When confronted with the reality that emphasizing any name other than Jesus is sectarian and divisive those who "stand on this ground" will agree and say that is what they teach. Yet when listening to those who have been discipled with this teaching their understanding is that the name determines if your standing is right or wrong, and they aren't talking about the name of Jesus. They will even go so far as to imply the name of Jesus is also divisive.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, perhaps you would tell me: Is it possible to be a part of the practicality of the local church without being associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee?

Originally Posted by Drake

It is irrelevant whether Witness Lee's name is even mentioned or the Living Stream Ministry materials are used for edification or not.

Both of these brothers know about the giant elephant in the room...but only one of them wants to pretend that the humongous pachyderm doesn't exist.

So, if "it is irrelevant whether Witness Lee's name is even mentioned or the LSM materials are used", then why have longtime Local Church brothers, and even whole churches been excommunicated over the person and work of Witness Lee? In fact, the last 50-60 years of the LC movement has been so heavily scarred by vicious infighting and betrayal, so as to be unrecognizable to anyone who would read Watchman Nee, or even the earliest ministry of Lee.

Actually, there has been quite a bit of meaningful dialogue, from both sides of the aisle as far as I can see. But to address the "practicality of the church" or "the ground of the church" or any related issues, without addressing the person (authority) and work (ministry) of Witness Lee, I'm afraid that meaningful dialogue will eventually digress to something much less meaningful, and even less profitable to all concerned.
-

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Fast forward to the year 2017 . The basic assumption of the oneness of the believers in a certain place has been clouded over with a departure from that most basic understanding concerning the oneness of the believers that you articulated. Anticipating the church in degradation on this matter, I believe the Lord explicitly listed the names of the churches in Revelation 2 and 3 as the church in a city. And also elsewhere. So though every believer in a place is a member of the church in that place, it is necessary to articulate the ground of Oneness in the name of Jesus. Not to divide, but to unite.That is something that should be understood but in reality it is not.

As you said it's not a matter of thinking that we are better. Rather, it is a matter of being proper and according to the revelation of the practical oneness in the scripture. The Jews who live as the nation of Israel are not necessarily better than Jews who live in New York City. However, as to fulfilling the purpose of the nation of Israel and all that that implies the Jews in the land are practically fulfilling that mission. Yet, by distinguishing themselves as a member of the nation of Israel they are not excluding any of the other 17 million Jews who could take that position themselves. And who can fault the Jews who live as the nation of Israel from longing for and hoping that those 17 million Jews who live elsewhere will someday join them to accomplish the mission of the nation of Israel?

Drake

Drake,

"Explicitly?" If the Lord wanted to be "explicit" he would have explicitly commanded one church per city. If the oneness of the believers in a city on the ground of locality was so important to the Lord then why didn't he just say there should be one church in each city in plain English/Aramaic/Greek?

Obviously the Lord cares a lot about oneness. But he stopped short of commanding one church per city. I believe he did that because he knew that believers insisting on it would be more damaging than other alternatives. Proof? Just look at the history of the LCM.


The fact is your calling yourself "the church in <city>" in any sense that does not include all the believers in the city is exclusive. And we all know when LCMers talk about "the church in <city>" they are usually just talking about their little group, and almost never talking about everyone in the city, except when it suits them. The unavoidable implication, no matter how much you deny it, is that others are not the church in <city>.

My pastor sometimes refers to "the church in Austin." When he does it he is always talking about all the believers in Austin, never about a subset of the believers. He knows what "the church in Austin" really means.

The "church in <city>" was never used in the Bible to refer to a subset of believers in a city. So whenever you use the term in that sense you misuse it. And that's probably the way you mostly use it. Correct?

Here's another point to ponder. There is no case in the Bible where a group of believers refer to themselves as "the church in <city>." It is always an outside reference, either by the Lord or an apostle. So we certainly cannot determine from this that we are required to refer to ourselves as "the church in <city>." (I could say the Lord in order to make a point "explicitly" left out any self-references to "the church in <city>" by any groups. But I won't go there if you won't anymore either. )

So instead of calling yourselves "the church in <city>" perhaps you should call yourselves "a group of believers meeting as the church in <city>". This would be more accurate, humble, gracious and would not carry the unavoidable meaning that you are something others are not.

The nation of Israel analogy does not work here, because a church and a political nation are very different things, and it is the differences that make such an argument specious. The nation of Israel is a definite definable thing. The church, even a local church is less definable. Further the nation of Israel does not stop being it even if it calls itself something else. A longstanding nickname for the United States was "Columbia." But it was still the good ol' USA.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If the name points to the fact that this group is very concerned with the Lord's burden in Jn 17, Paul's burden in Eph 4 and is aligned with Rev 2&3 that suggests to me they would completely deemphasize their name and focus instead on what unites them with all the christians in their city, the name of Jesus. However, this doctrine on "the ground of oneness" has been used instead to emphasize the importance of not taking a name, which ironically has emphasized that their formula for a generic name is the one true name. For example, look at Evangelical's posts. His understanding of this doctrine demonstrates the apparent two faced aspect of this doctrine. When confronted with the reality that emphasizing any name other than Jesus is sectarian and divisive those who "stand on this ground" will agree and say that is what they teach. Yet when listening to those who have been discipled with this teaching their understanding is that the name determines if your standing is right or wrong, and they aren't talking about the name of Jesus. They will even go so far as to imply the name of Jesus is also divisive.

Very well stated ZNP.

This doctrine is just one example of the "two faced aspect" of many of the LSM doctrine. It is what keeps people from seeing the truth. There is the doctrine as stated by Witness Lee (and ONLY Witness Lee) - you can read it for yourself, I have posted the "ground of oneness" link on this site before. THEN, you can hear the watered down version or the rebuttal version from members of the LSM. This second version is more palatable until you continue to seek answers, ask questions, and search scripture. I believe this is one of the reasons there is a spirit of confusion among LSM members.

Paul never makes the charge of Witness Lee's version of "Ground of Oneness". I don't think that can be disputed. I guess someone could say that it is implied, but that would be a theory that could not be backed-up by scripture. What Paul DID make the charge of was "charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith".

I love my brothers and sisters in the LSM and feel for them deeply. I am saddened by much of what they are subject to with the LSM.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Both of these brothers know about the giant elephant in the room...but only one of them wants to pretend that the humongous pachyderm doesn't exist.

So, if "it is irrelevant whether Witness Lee's name is even mentioned or the LSM materials are used", then why have longtime Local Church brothers, and even whole churches been excommunicated over the person and work of Witness Lee? In fact, the last 50-60 years of the LC movement has been so heavily scarred by vicious infighting and betrayal, so as to be unrecognizable to anyone who would read Watchman Nee, or even the earliest ministry of Lee.

Actually, there has been quite a bit of meaningful dialogue, from both sides of the aisle as far as I can see. But to address the "practicality of the church" or "the ground of the church" or any related issues, without addressing the person (authority) and work (ministry) of Witness Lee, I'm afraid that meaningful dialogue will eventually digress to something much less meaningful, and even less profitable to all concerned.
-

Very good Unto. It's one thing for an assembly to meet according to "the ground of the church" or to "meet practically as the church" in whichever city it may be. It's another to meet according to "the ground of the church" or to "meet practically as the church", but not taking LSM publications as the basis for fellowship. This is precisely the denominating factor why one Local church (and it's members) can be received for fellowship and another cannot.

I am reminded of an example. A brother from the Church in Moses Lake (parted fellowship with LSM in 1986) sought to visit the Church in Euphrata, but was promptly shown the door. What is the issue? By all appearances it's fellowship according to a ministry. This must be what is implied when it's said to be meeting on the ground of oneness.

[Cal]

When a group like "Brookhollow Community Church" calls itself "Brookhollow Community Church," it is not saying that it is dividing itself from other Christians, neither is it saying that all of God's work in the city flows through them and them alone.

What it is saying is that the group, though part of the Church universal, is not the whole Church universal--and though part of the Church in the city, is not the whole Church in the city.

In other words, the group is making no claims of superiority nor inferiority nor preclusion over the rest of the Church. It is simply saying what it is--a part of the Church.

But when a group calls itself the Church in the city, but does not mean that "itself" includes all other Christians in the city, it is actually not calling itself what it is, because no subset of the Church in the city can say it is the Church in the city. It can only say it is part of the Church in the city.

In other words whenever you say "we are the church in <city>" and do not by "we" mean all Christians in the city, you are by definition expressing an exclusive attitude. In fact, you are expressing a falsehood.

But you can say "we are meeting as the Church in the city." That I think is okay. At least it's okay by me. But in no place does the Bible tell us that we must meet as the Church in the city nor that we cannot meet in any other way.

[Drake]

Igzy) "Explicitly?" If the Lord wanted to be "explicit" he would have explicitly commanded one church per city. If the oneness of the believers in a city on the ground of locality was so important to the Lord then why didn't he just say there should be one church in each city in plain English/Aramaic/Greek? "

Igzy,

In the New Testament age it is the Spirit that speaks to the churches.

In Revelation 2 & 3 it is the Spirit speaking to the churches. Which churches? The seven churches that are identified in each city. Not thousands of churches in seven cities. Not the universal church but rather seven churches in seven cities. "The" church in a mentioned city is a definite article. It does not get any more explicit than that in any language.

Drake