Local Church Discussions  

Go Back   Local Church Discussions > Introductions and Testimonies

Introductions and Testimonies Please tell everybody something about yourself. Tell us a little. Tell us a lot. Its up to you!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-27-2019, 07:00 AM   #1
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Any ex members in London?

Thank you : )
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2019, 01:39 PM   #2
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Any ex members in London?

Current member in London
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2019, 03:31 PM   #3
Truthseeker
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 75
Default Re: Any ex members in London?

In UK?? I've heard that there was so called turmoil in Blackpool. What's kind of "strom" in that locality?
Truthseeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2019, 01:00 PM   #4
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Any ex members in London?

Thanks for your replies.

Yes, UK. There is not turmoil that I know, Truthseeker.

To the current member, I have some questions I would like to share with you.

1. Do you believe this is the only genuine church and its members the only true believers? Isn't this division?
2. Why are female members treated as they were not relevant? What is your view about the role of women in the church?
3. Why are LSM books the only ones recommended to members?
4. Have you heard any members say "if x leave the Lord's recovery will be judged, sorry or die spiritually?
5. Why saints are told to forget about religion while following the most doctrinal teachings?

While the saints seem to be loving, diligent, caring and honest people it feels like some people get discourage and pull away from the movement by some group behaviours specially by the strong view about other fellow christians outside the local churches and the insistance on reading LSM - Witness Lee's books. Personally, I took these as red flags and currently growing apart from the church although I love the saints deeply and once thought this was my home.

I hope dear brother or sister that my words don't hurt you and perhaps we could find a way to discuss with respect and love, surely we both love the Lord above anything else.

Many thanks
Mary (for the purpose of this forum)
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2019, 01:17 AM   #5
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Any ex members in London?

These are good questions though I don’t see how they’re London specific.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2019, 08:11 AM   #6
Cal
Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,269
Default Re: Any ex members in London?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post

1. Do you believe this is the only genuine church and its members the only true believers? Isn't this division?
2. Why are female members treated as they were not relevant? What is your view about the role of women in the church?
3. Why are LSM books the only ones recommended to members?
4. Have you heard any members say "if x leave the Lord's recovery will be judged, sorry or die spiritually?
5. Why saints are told to forget about religion while following the most doctrinal teachings?
Hi Mary,

Your instincts are correct. All these subjects are red flags about the "Lord's Recovery."

I'm not a current member, but...

1. No. Yes, it is division.
2. The LR is reactionary in its treatment of women.
3. Because they are narrow and sectarian.
4. Yes.
5. Because the group is very confused.
Cal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2019, 11:19 AM   #7
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 963
Default Re: Any ex members in London?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy View Post
Hi Mary,

Your instincts are correct. All these subjects are red flags about the "Lord's Recovery."

I'm not a current member, but...

1. No. Yes, it is division.
2. The LR is reactionary in its treatment of women.
3. Because they are narrow and sectarian.
4. Yes.
5. Because the group is very confused.
Agree with each!

And I would add that while the LC thinks they are "IT," there are also numerous other Christian groups that think that as well! That's just what Adam does - gets an idea he thinks is more special revelation than what others have, then gets prideful about it, then causes a division over it. So in this respect, the LC not all that different than many other Christian groups . . .

BUT this all gets taken way too far with the LC, to the point of becoming quite exclusive and blinded - in essence Laodicia - they don't know that they have become poor and miserable, blind and naked. The doctrine they thought was the answer to oneness in the body, they have held tightly to in place of Christ. (anything apart from Him - even "good teaching" - is flesh and has, ironically, resulted in just more division.)
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2019, 11:10 PM   #8
treeoflife
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Any ex members in London?

Hi Mary,

I am currently a member of the LC and I would like to try and answer your questions the best that I can because I do feel that you are genuinely asking these questions without any animosity.

1. There are true believers outside of the LC...I am not sure where this idea comes from - that we are the only genuine church and that we are the only true believers. We stand on the Word of God - he who has the life of God is a child of God. That is a fact. We are open to have fellowship with all believers. We can learn a lot by fellowshipping with other believers.

2. What do you mean by "relevant?" I just want to make sure I understand correctly how you are using this term.

3. Many books by different Christian authors have been recommended to me by other members, but I can see why one would think that LSM books are the only ones that are recommended. Personally, I enjoy the writings of Witness Lee (and also Watchman Nee) because I do get nourished after reading them and has been a huge factor in my growth as a Christian.

4. I have never heard any members say those words.

5. When used in that way, religion here refers to teachings that distract us from the enjoyment of Christ. We need to know the doctrinal teachings, but those teachings should help us enter into the subjective experiences of Christ. For example, where my husband comes from, the culture there is widely Christian. And I say culture because although they may not be practicing their faith, they uphold certain Christian practices that have become incorporated into their every day life. One of them is observing the Sabbath on Sundays. So they literally go to church, eat lunch, and take a nap. Any activity is frowned upon. My husband's father likes to mow the grass on Sunday afternoons, and because of that, his neighbors perceive him to be "breaking the Sabbath" and are hesitate to have fellowship with him and his wife. They feel like they are 2nd-tier Christians because of this. This example may be elementary, but it's what I could think of to illustrate this matter of religion. They use the doctrinal teaching of observing the Sabbath to judge others and hold them to the law. This is religion. This is a small example, but this is the first one that came to my mind.

I know I may not have adequately answered your questions, but if you have more, please ask. Maybe someone else will have a better way of answering them. Hope this helps!
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2019, 06:18 AM   #9
aron
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 4,926
Default Re: Any ex members in London?

Quote:
Originally Posted by treeoflife View Post
Hi Mary,

2. What do you mean by "relevant?" I just want to make sure I understand correctly how you are using this term.
Relevant (re-le-vant) adjective, meaning “Having significance or bearing in the matter at hand; closely connected or appropriate to what's being done or considered”

At one point, women clearly were relevant in the Lord’s recovery movement in a way that they are no longer. If you read his biography of Watchman Nee, Witness Lee traveled to the cities of Canton, Swatow, Amoy, and Foochow in 1947 with two women, Sisters Peace Wang and Rachel Lee. (Chap 33) None others are named as Lee's companions. Then, when the church in Foochow requested a meeting in Watchman Nee’s home, asking for fellowship, “At first he wouldn't give his permission, but on further entreaty, he agreed for them to be present on the condition that they would sit a distance away from him in another section of his spacious living room. Only Peace Wang, Rachel Lee, and I [WL] sat together with him for fellowship.”

It seems that back then women were significant, or relevant, in a way that's no longer seen today. They had significance to the course of narrative, and their input affected the outcome. No one else was similarly named in these paragraphs covering a supposedly crucial conference and revival that followed. And in the biography of Nee, Witness Lee devotes the whole of Chapter 14 to four women who were important (relevant, significant) to Watchman Nee’s ministry.

Then there’s Jessie Penn-Lewis, who supplied much of the material for his first book, Spiritual Man. But women aren’t supposed to teach, right? Speaking of women not teaching, there's Mary McDonough, who seems to have been vital to the “recovery of the three parts of Man” to listen to them in the LC. But women can’t teach, right? No doctrinal truths allowed. Then why promote her book in the LC?

http://marymcdonough.ccws.org/redemption/index.html

Here is a book on Amazon: Listed authors are James Reetzke, D. M. Panton, Mary E. McDonough, Watchman Nee, Witness Lee. In the LC I would hear this: McDonough, Govett, Darby, etc. A female cited as an authoritative source.

https://www.amazon.com/Firstfruit-Ap...dp/B07NPVYHML/

Here's a page on the LSM website. Three authors are listed. (See if you can guess who they are?)

https://www.ministrybooks.org/alphabetical.cfm?s=G

Also, in Watchman Nee’s book The Overcoming Life he shows how he worked in close association with a Miss Fischbacher, who's presented as though a peer. “In Chefoo I learned a lesson. One day Miss Fischbacher and I were praying for definite gifts from God. I was praying for the gift of faith, while she was praying for the gift of healing. After we prayed for a quarter of an hour, both of us received the gifts.” If you read the story, you clearly see that Miss Fischbacher is relevant to Nee’s work in a way that no sister was to Witness Lee’s work. Nee writes about traveling with her, taking her to the boat, adjusting his travel plans, etc.

Her importance to the story (relevance) is confirmed by others who have her as his close traveling companion in the Keswick convention.

"In 1935 Nee became involved with Pentecostalism through Miss Elizabeth Fischbacher of the China Inland Mission. He had “overcome his reservations about women preachers sufficiently to attend her meetings,” and, in line with his Keswick continuationism, “acknowledged the Holy Spirit’s . . . gifts to the church of healing and of speaking with and interpretation of tongues.” Nee “found peace and spiritual blessing in her message and some experiences associated with her Pentecostal theology.” Miss Fischbacher, who translated various items for the Little Flock into English, accompanied Nee to the 1938 Keswick convention”

https://faithsaves.net/watchman-nee/

The question becomes, how did women have relevance in the Lord’s recovery and then lose it? I believe the answer's simple: they were useful, even essential, to the acquisition of power, but after power was gained they were expendable. Once holding power, Witness Lee was able to eliminate 50% of his potential rivals with one fell stroke -- "Hey, look here, Paul says that women can’t teach in church." (“But now let’s discuss the Three Parts of Man, a crucial 'truth' for today’s recovery….”)

I'm not the poster 'Mary', of course - perhaps she meant something different with the word ''relevant''. Nor do I care to stir up conflict over "women's place in the church today". I'm merely trying to point out what I see as blatant, two-faced hypocrisy. And I do apologize if that comes across as animosity to some of our readers. As Paul wrote in Galatians, "I wish I could change my tone".
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'
aron is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:17 AM.


3.8.9