Witness Lee Theatrics

[awareness]

I remember a conference where Witness Lee went into a rant saying something like : "This is not about me. This is not even about the Bible."

Then he proceeded to tear up the Bible in his hand, and threw it on the stage, and stomped on it, to make his point. It was very theatrical.

Once also, don't remember his point, but he claimed that it wasn't easy to push him down, and had a young brother come upon the stage to try to push him down ... and after many attempts he couldn't.

So was theatrics used by Lee to push his message? Was Lee not just a lay preacher, but a performer as well? Anyone else remember any of Lee's theatrics?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I remember a conference where Witness Lee went into a rant saying something like : "This is not about me. This is not even about the Bible."

Then he proceeded to tear up the Bible in his hand, and threw it on the stage, and stomped on it, to make his point. It was very theatrical.

Do you remember the location and approximate time of this event?

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by awareness

I remember a conference where Witness Lee went into a rant saying something like : "This is not about me. This is not even about the Bible."

Then he proceeded to tear up the Bible in his hand, and threw it on the stage, and stomped on it, to make his point. It was very theatrical.

Once also, don't remember his point, but he claimed that it wasn't easy to push him down, and had a young brother come upon the stage to try to push him down ... and after many attempts he couldn't.

So was theatrics used by Lee to push his message? Was Lee not just a lay preacher, but a performer as well? Anyone else remember any of Lee's theatrics?

I remember someone telling me about that incident as well.

Ohio wrote:Do you remember the location and approximate time of this event?

I am guessing Anaheim Anaheim, Ohio.

What I want to know is what translation he tore up. Did Lee ever refer to the RcV as the "Bible" or simply the 'RcV' ? I find it very hard for him to tear up the RcV but not hard to believe he tore up the KJ or NASB which were the two translations used in the 60s/70s.

Does anyone know ?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Do you remember the location and approximate time of this event?

It was a L.A. conference, before Anaheim. Date? Gosh ... prolly around 74 or 75 ... maybe 73 ... somewhere around then.

I'll tell you that at the time it blew my mind ... but growing up in the Southern Baptist, who would never do such a thing, I liked it.

But it was clearly theatrics ... Lee liked to be flamboyant at times. It was part of his charm ....

[awareness]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I remember someone telling me about that incident as well.

I am guessing Anaheim Anaheim, Ohio.

What I want to know is what translation he tore up. Did Lee ever refer to the RcV as the "Bible" or simply the 'RcV' ? I find it very hard for him to tear up the RcV but not hard to believe he tore up the KJ or NASB which were the two translations used in the 60s/70s.

Does anyone know ?

It wasn't an RcV. It was before the RcV. Prolly KJV .. but don't know for sure ... the translation wasn't the point. Lee meant the Bible, all translations.

And nice to hear from you CMW .... hope all is well with you. Hope & pray yer RA is under control ...

[zeek]

I remember the second incident where WL told the brother to push him down. I remember him going on at length about his walking and Tai Chi regimen and boasting how strong he was. I also recall that he would get very angry sometimes and turn red. What about the Lord's Table Meeting in Ohio? Remember that?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I remember the second incident where WL told the brother to push him down. I remember him going on at length about his walking and Tai Chi regimen and boasting how strong he was. I also recall that he would get very angry sometimes and turn red. What about the Lord's Table Meeting in Ohio? Remember that?

Yes I remember that wild Lord's table.

Saints brought bongos and cymbals and Congo drums. The meetings were rockin.

This Lord's table started the normal way. With a table in the center of the meeting where bread and wine was placed.

Before it got started, a brother jumped up and said something like, "We're not religious," and went up and turned the table upside down, and put the bread and wine on it.

And songs were called, and with all the instruments the place started rockin.

I remember it got so carried away that we all formed a train line, and were praising the Lord in dance. I remember the bread and wine being passed around during the dance, down the train line. I remember seeing John Ingalls with a pitcher of wine, and because of the dancing the wine was sloshing around out of the pitcher. And saints were drinking right out of the pitcher.

It was a great time.

But when report went back to Witness Lee, he put the kibosh on it all, and ordered the bongos, cymbals, and Congo drums out of the meetings. It was such a letdown.

I remember after that, standing outside the meetings, on a balcony, with great disappointment thinking : why can't we enjoy the Lord in song and dance? What was so bad about it?

Witness Lee could be theatrical, but we couldn't....

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

I remember the second incident where WL told the brother to push him down. I remember him going on at length about his walking and Tai Chi regimen and boasting how strong he was. I also recall that he would get very angry sometimes and turn red.

So, zeek, what would you guys think when he would behave this way? Surely the spell wasn't quite that strong, I mean, this made a lot of folks uncomfortable, right?

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by awareness

It wasn't an RcV. It was before the RcV. Prolly KJV .. but don't know for sure ... the translation wasn't the point. Lee meant the Bible, all translations.

And nice to hear from you CMW .... hope all is well with you. Hope & pray yer RA is under control ...

Oh Yeah...it's coming back to me now. I came into the LC in '75. I remember hearing about that meeting. LA _Eldon Hall_ I believe was it's headquarters then. Anaheim came a year or 2 later I think. However, it seems to me I remember going to the basement of a bank for a meeting in LA. Is that my imagination? I do recall the elders saying "We can know the bible forward & backward, inside & out, quote the scriptures' and not know "Life" for the letter kills but the Spirit gives Life...which is true but Lee never should have done what he did.

He truly disrespected God because EL SHADDAI is revealed in the Scriptures by the Spirit. The problem w/the world, thanks to the 'church' is the people of God have stopped reading/studying the Holy Bible for themselves. They have stopped, praying/asking the Lord to help them understand His Word, to Shine His Light on what they/we are reading.

It's much simpler to let a Lee or a pulpit teacher/preacher explain it. Sit back & 'enjoy' the Lord...uh, rather the show.

Thanks for asking about me "A". I am doing exceedingly well !! I am on a monthly infusion for the RA and I feel absolutely GREAT! It took it long enough to kick in though ! But now I feel, walk & look normal again 99 percent of the time!!!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

The problem w/the world, thanks to the 'church' is the people of God have stopped reading/studying the Holy Bible for themselves. They have stopped, praying/asking the Lord to help them understand His Word . . . .

Don't anyone think that I am just speaking to CMW. I know her situation enough to realize there is more to her walk than "me and my Bible." But I think this specific quote is still a major thinking in many of us.

I think we forget that until only fairly recently, most of the average population couldn't read anything. There was a reason that Jesus called a group, and singled out 12 of those as they all followed along. In the end, a few were given to regular study and teaching while the rest learned and lived by what they learned. It was part of that first church in which they devoted themselves to certain things, one of which the apostles' teaching in the temple.

Even Paul did not write to the various churches to point out to them the truths that they had gleaned from their personal studies. It was always in reference to what he or others taught them. Or to be on the watch for people teaching different/inconsistent from/with what they first learned. This "self feeding" idea is only partly sound. There is always a need for those who have learned from those who have learned from . . . . You get the picture. While the RCC's claim of a direct link to Peter is a contrived thing much like the doctrine of dirt, there really is a link to the original.

But now that virtually everyone can read the Bible, we think that we should be primarily responsible for figuring it out for ourselves. We are so enamored with this notion that we can get along without teachers/preachers. But we can't. We wouldn't agree enough to meet with anyone but ourselves if we were left to our own devices. And based on some comments that come through occasionally, some of us are barely tolerating that evil clergy-laity system that rules even the congregation we are sort of a part of (kind of rhymes).

Surely we should be reading the word if we are capable of it. But it should mostly be within a framework of teaching that comes from someone(s) else. I think that Paul's discussions with various churches, most notably Corinth, sort of underscores this. In 1 Corinthians 3 he intentionally separates the teachers (workers/builders) from the farm/building. That does not make us not workers at any level. But we work according to what the Workers teach us. Stated another way, there are some apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers for the perfecting of the saints. In other words, the saints are not self-teaching.

I do not say that we should not "self-feed" but that it is within the framework of what we are taught. It is not the source of our teaching, but the support of it.

Despite the kind of mentality that we got from the LRC to be self-feeding toward our own perfection, note that even there it was targeted to underscore the "ministry" of Lee. We were told one thing in clear words but a different thing in many veiled words that made us just like everyone else. Even they are reading to strengthen the teaching they are given.

Their problem is not that they do not read/study in the right way. It is that they are learning from some whose work will not stand the test of fire. I do not say that they do not suffer for it. But the main one(s) to suffer will be those that teach it. No matter how "off the mark" we think Lee and the LRC are, they are Christian and most of them are diligently obedient to their leadership. They just didn't realize that their leaders came into the sheep pen "over the fence." Not through the gate. And they managed to steal a few sheep. Some of those are earthly family to me.

Most of us should be reading and "self-feeding" based on an underpinning of someone else's teaching. Even those who would be teachers are taught by others before them. There really is a link to the start. And it doesn't have funny names like "recovery" or "apostolic succession."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes I remember that wild Lord's table.

Saints brought bongos and cymbals and Congo drums. The meetings were rockin.

This Lord's table started the normal way. With a table in the center of the meeting where bread and wine was placed.

Before it got started, a brother jumped up and said something like, "We're not religious," and went up and turned the table upside down, and put the bread and wine on it.

And songs were called, and with all the instruments the place started rockin.

I remember it got so carried away that we all formed a train line, and were praising the Lord in dance. I remember the bread and wine being passed around during the dance, down the train line. I remember seeing John Ingalls with a pitcher of wine, and because of the dancing the wine was sloshing around out of the pitcher. And saints were drinking right out of the pitcher.

It was a great time.

But when report went back to Witness Lee, he put the kibosh on it all, and ordered the bongos, cymbals, and Congo drums out of the meetings. It was such a letdown.

I remember after that, standing outside the meetings, on a balcony, with great disappointment thinking : why can't we enjoy the Lord in song and dance? What was so bad about it?

Witness Lee could be theatrical, but we couldn't....

As I recall everyone was chanting "Wecaneatcha yeah yeah wecaneatcha!"

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

So, zeek, what would you guys think when he would behave this way? Surely the spell wasn't quite that strong, I mean, this made a lot of folks uncomfortable, right?

The spell was strong. I didn't see the Bible ripping incident. When Lee performed his feats of strength, I was impressed with his fitness given his age. Sometimes when he expressed rage, I was bothered by what I perceived to be Lee's mean spiritedness from time to time. Jimmy Swaggert had a similar effect on me. It didn't seem to make anyone else uncomfortable because we were not allowed to critique Lee's sermons afterward so I don't know what others thought. When people did speak up it was invariably supportive of whatever Lee did or said. I'm pretty sure no one knew how I felt either.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

As I recall everyone was chanting "Wecaneatcha yeah yeah wecaneatcha!"

And that's very funny. Eating the deity? That's certainly not a Jewish/Torah thing. But it does fit squarely into the pagan practices/ideology.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And that's very funny. Eating the deity? That's certainly not a Jewish/Torah thing. But it does fit squarely into the pagan practices/ideology.

Oh puleeease, read John chapter 6.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oh puleeease, read John chapter 6.

Oh puleeease yer self. The anonymous book attributed to John was written long after the apostle Paul had established his gentile deity eating churches, that had to influence/impress the gospels writers later, and shaped their opinion of deity eating. You can be sure, the Hebrews would have nothing to do with deity eating....they didn't even turn Moses into a deity. Deity eating did not come from Jewish heritage. It comes from the mystery religions ... it's pagan for sure....

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh puleeease yer self. The anonymous book attributed to John was written long after the apostle Paul had established his gentile deity eating churches, that had to influence/impress the gospels writers later, and shaped their opinion of deity eating. You can be sure, the Hebrews would have nothing to do with deity eating....they didn't even turn Moses into a deity. Deity eating did not come from Jewish heritage. It comes from the mystery religions ... it's pagan for sure....

He was the bread that came down from heaven, in the OT God gave them manna, in the NT God sent his son as the bread of life.

The rock that followed them was Christ.

Within the ark of the covenant they stored some manna.

Their was a shewbread table in the temple.

I think the eating and drinking of Christ is firmly embedded in the OT stories. Perhaps allegorical, maybe not.

And it was in Matthew that Jesus said that man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh puleeease yer self. The anonymous book attributed to John was written long after the apostle Paul had established his gentile deity eating churches, that had to influence/impress the gospels writers later, and shaped their opinion of deity eating. You can be sure, the Hebrews would have nothing to do with deity eating....they didn't even turn Moses into a deity. Deity eating did not come from Jewish heritage. It comes from the mystery religions ... it's pagan for sure....

Dear brother awareness, I do believe you would be hard pressed to find a single evangelical Christian or Christian scholar who would deny the authenticity of the Gospel of John, its authorship, or its divine inspiration.

Brother awareness, I just don't see how all your extra-Biblical research after leaving the LC has helped your faith. I'm not just saying this to get on your case. Yes, I agree that LC craziness can be deceptive and has little value, but you follow these atheists, doubters, and skeptics way too far.

The Lord Jesus Himself told us, (6.57) "so he who eats Me shall also live because of Me." Sure, some disciples were stumbled by this phrase, and later the Lord said, "It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing, the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

[UntoHim]

What we are dealing with is a metaphor. Jesus used them a lot. Metaphors should be taken as metaphors and not as "literals". Taking a metaphor as a literal can be dangerous. Take for example Martin Luther and his views regarding transubstantiation. "Take eat this is my body" was not meant to be taken literally anymore then "pluck out your eye and throw it from you". Yet we see a very wise and educated Luther siting before others repeating this metaphor over and over, as if this could prove that it was to be taken as a literal.

Witness Lee took this one step further and fell into another kind of error - he made a metaphor out of a metaphor. "Hallelujah eating Jesus is the way!". Jesus never said this and neither was this taught by the early apostles. Jesus said "I am the Way" - NOT "eating me is the way". So we all kind of bypassed "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" and went straight to "We have found the way to live by Christ, pray his Word and call his Name!" Of course many of us now know that this is not the way to live by Christ at all. (but this is an argument for another day)

In my view, taking a metaphor literally (Luther and transubstantiation) can be dangerous and so can making a metaphor out of a metaphor (eating Jesus is the way).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

He was the bread that came down from heaven, in the OT God gave them manna, in the NT God sent his son as the bread of life.
The rock that followed them was Christ.
Within the ark of the covenant they stored some manna.
Their was a shewbread table in the temple.
I think the eating and drinking of Christ is firmly embedded in the OT stories. Perhaps allegorical, maybe not.
And it was in Matthew that Jesus said that man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God.

This business of an alter with little pieces of bread and little cups of grape juice is one of the funniest things established in Christianity.

My reaction : 'You've got to be kidding me.'

Transubstantiation? You've got to me kidding me.

Not to mention the cannibalism and vampire implications.

Eating the deity? Only man could invent such a thing....and did ... long before Jesus.

Even the Aztecs, that had nothing to do with the Jews, the Bible, or Jesus believed in eating their deities.

It's called "Theophagy" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophagy

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oh puleeease, read John chapter 6.

The book of John is part of the Torah? :huh:

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

The book of John is part of the Torah? :huh:

The Torah is the OT. The ark of the covenant is a type of Christ, and it contains the manna.

The shewbread and the offerings were performed by the priesthood. These offerings are also a type of Christ. Jesus is the Lamb of God, Jesus is a sin offering, a peace offering, etc.

So the idea that the concept of eating Christ was unique to the gospel of John and completely absent from the Jewish Torah is not accurate.

I find it very difficult to believe that any Christian would have an issue with referring to Jesus as our sin offering. The sin offering according to the Torah, was to be eaten.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The Torah is the OT. The ark of the covenant is a type of Christ, and it contains the manna.

The shewbread and the offerings were performed by the priesthood. These offerings are also a type of Christ. Jesus is the Lamb of God, Jesus is a sin offering, a peace offering, etc.

So the idea that the concept of eating Christ was unique to the gospel of John and completely absent from the Jewish Torah is not accurate.

I find it very difficult to believe that any Christian would have an issue with referring to Jesus as our sin offering. The sin offering according to the Torah, was to be eaten.

What's the Jews' attitude toward allegorizing?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

What's the Jews' attitude toward allegorizing?

The OT uses the allegory that God is a husband and his people are his bride. The Song of Songs is very allegorical. The OT is rich with figurative language and speech. Read the Talmud and you can see that Rabbinical teaching loves to use allegories to explain a concept. The expression "fiddler on a roof" is figurative language.

Surely you are not suggesting that figurative language is the domain of Christians! I am sure that the Jews would be highly offended at that suggestion.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Surely you are not suggesting that figurative language is the domain of Christians! I am sure that the Jews would be highly offended at that suggestion.

And the Christians would be highly offended that their territory has been violated.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by OBW

Don't anyone think that I am just speaking to CMW. I know her situation enough to realize there is more to her walk than "me and my Bible." But I think this specific quote is still a major thinking in many of us.

Hi OBW,
There are a few comments on your post I want to address. Some of which I'm not sure I understand completely your thoughts or observations. Your comment of 'me & my bible' for instance. Not that this particular comment ruffled any of my feathers, but for the purpose of clarification, I do glean a lot from preachers/teachers I hold in high regard for their faithfullness to the Word. Many have traveled to Israel many, many times over as well as throughout the world and their experiences have enlightened me immensely. Others are truly gifted speakers who clearly explain the meaning of the scriptures. I hold many in high esteem.

Lee, to my knowledge, for all that is worth, to my recollection did not travel even once to Israel but considered himself and by his followers an expert on the bible. The 'shoulders' he stood on did not include any who brought thousands, if not millions to Christ such as Billy Graham and others who did not have the vision of 'the church' or the 'Lord's Recovery'.

I think we forget that until only fairly recently, most of the average population couldn't read anything.

I'm not sure what you mean by recently. Most of us here were born in the 40s/50s. I don't consider those years recently unless we are comparing them to the years of the 1800s or before. We were taught to read and encouraged to read for ourselves and to discuss what we read via book reports, class discussions, book clubs. Thus I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to.

There was a reason that Jesus called a group, and singled out 12 of those as they all followed along.

Don't forget even among the 12, Jesus singled out 3 of them to witness the Transfiguration where He is seen speaking to Moses & Elijah. It was not the 12 that had this privelege. Only 3 of them: Peter, John & James. In the end, when each of us stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, it will be only 'you' & God period. None of us are going to take along a spouse, friend, son, daughter, parent, sibling. It's one & One.

But now that virtually everyone can read the Bible, we think that we should be primarily responsible for figuring it out for ourselves. We are so enamored with this notion that we can get along without teachers/preachers. But we can't.

OBW. I disagree ! Not only do I believe what is written in 1 Corinthians 3:5-7, I've seen the application at work. So have most of us here!

Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

I have never said don't need preachers/teachers. I have always acknowledged I have learned a lot from different preachers/teachers, some of whom you yourself have criticized. As I stated previously, many have gone to Israel and various parts of the world, places I have never been to. I am thankful they can explain to me the significance of things I don't understand.

We wouldn't agree enough to meet with anyone but ourselves if we were left to our own devices.

Yeah...we have a long ways before we attain perfection!

And based on some comments that come through occasionally, some of us are barely tolerating that evil clergy-laity system that rules even the congregation we are sort of a part of (kind of rhymes).

It's not that we are barely tolerating the "evil" clergy-laity system OBW, it's the division that bothers me. I don't know how many times I hear 'Oh. THAT preacher is a wolf in sheep's clothing!' It was that kind of verbage that put a wall up between Christians. The LC of course, under Lee's leadership was where I first learned to put up a wall of division. Slowly but surely, the Lord is granting me a spirit of discernment. And where I have been guilty of unjust criticism, His Light Shines on me to repent.

While there are wolves in sheep's clothing, the closer we are to God through His Word, by His Holy Spirit Who gives us understanding and clarity, we are learning to be discerning.

This forum has given us the freedom to criticize as well as to openly appreciate what we learned from Lee & his teachings.

Surely we should be reading the word if we are capable of it.

Hmmm.. so there are people who are not 'capable' of the reading the Scriptures? Let's see...they are capable of reading smut, reading history, computer books, novels but wow...they are not capable of reading the Word. I believe if people are not capable of reading the Word it is simply because they have no LIGHT to understand it. For the letter kills, but the HolySpirit gives Life. God, the Holy Spirit is the One Who gives us Light & Understanding. The reason we are often times greatly helped by preachers/teachers is because they prayerfully seek for understanding of the Word of God & the Holy Spirit reveals Jesus to them. This is what we all should be striving for.

Stated another way, there are some apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers for the perfecting of the saints.

True. But back in that day, the RCC had not been instituted. There were no denominations. There were not bible colleges/schools where people paid to become ordained pastors. The church was not a 'business' with IRS tax exemptions.

I believe there were divisions and I believe it is likely because of divisions, apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers came about.

Despite the kind of mentality that we got from the LRC to be self-feeding toward our own perfection, note that even there it was targeted to underscore the "ministry" of Lee.

Precisely ! And it is not only there this happened. Get involved in any organized church denomination, the same thing happens. You'll go to a 'bible study' and it underscores the ministry of that pastor. In my neck of the woods, there is a strong emphasis on being 'baptized in the Holy Spirit' which equates to speaking in 'tongues'. I have heard people say that 'Pastor so & so' is so 'anointed' because he spends at least 4 hours praying in tongues a day. I would rather him-her spend 4 hrs praying /reading/searching the scriptures than 4 hrs praying in tongues! That's my opinion. In my day in the LC, people were in awe that Lee read the bible at least 50 times ! (As if no one else had ever done that and couldn't be done by anyone else.

We were told one thing in clear words but a different thing in many veiled words that made us just like everyone else. Even they are reading to strengthen the teaching they are given.Their problem is not that they do not read/study in the right way. It is that they are learning from some whose work will not stand the test of fire.

Yup. Speaking for myself, every time I think I know something from the Word of God, I myself am tested by God on that very thing! So a lot of things I have shared here on this forum is because I myself have been tested on what I think I know. I try not to share or 'teach' anything I have not been tested on by God. I remember even being tested when I was in the LC !! I remember sharing things I had read in the life studies to someone who was not in the LC & they'd have comebacks I had no answer for!

The main one(s) to suffer will be those that teach it.

That is exactly right OBW ! Not only will the ordained pastors be accountable, each of us are going to be held accountable with what we ourselves teach/share w/others. So we better be in good standing w/the Lord. Right?

No matter how "off the mark" we think Lee and the LRC are, they are Christian and most of them are diligently obedient to their leadership.

No different than any other church organization. That said, we all know among the deficits Lee's teachings had, one of its' biggest was his criticism of the other church organizations. And it's come back to bite the LSM.

Good post OBM!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I do glean a lot from preachers/teachers I hold in high regard for their faithfullness to the Word. Many have traveled to Israel many, many times over as well as throughout the world and their experiences have enlightened me immensely. Others are truly gifted speakers who clearly explain the meaning of the scriptures. I hold many in high esteem.

Lee, to my knowledge, for all that is worth, to my recollection did not travel even once to Israel but considered himself and by his followers an expert on the bible.

I really didn't have any intention of indicating that anyone needs to go to Israel. And I believe that Lee spoke of going at least two times. (Maybe it was someone else, but I thought it was Lee.) He mentioned visiting the Mosque in Jerusalem both times and noting that the second time there was a rock inside of it that wasn't there the first time, but was referred to as if always there. And it was roped off so you couldn't tell if it was even a real rock.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I'm not sure what you mean by recently. Most of us here were born in the 40s/50s. I don't consider those years recently unless we are comparing them to the years of the 1800s or before.

In terms of the history of the church, the 1700s are really quite recent. In fact, for the majority of the time that there have been churches, a significant number could not read if they wanted to.

My comment is meant to indicate that what we are able to do cannot be presumed as the standard by which everyone in Christian history is gaged because they were totally incapable of it.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

OBW. I disagree ! Not only do I believe what is written in 1 Corinthians 3:5-7, I've seen the application at work. So have most of us here!

Not sure what you are disagreeing with. That we can figure it out for ourselves or that we can't.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I have never said don't need preachers/teachers. I have always acknowledged I have learned a lot from different preachers/teachers, some of whom you yourself have criticized.

And that is the reason that I started off the post by saying it was not simply a response to you. It was not intended to be read as if you were standing in for others and that it all applied to you. You don't need to excuse yourself from what you think is my aim at you. No one particular is in the cross-hairs. Your general comment brought more than a simple response to mind and it went well beyond that comment and therefore beyond saying anything to or about you. Agree or disagree with the point I make. You don't need to defend yourself in the process.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

It's not that we are barely tolerating the "evil" clergy-laity system OBW, it's the division that bothers me. . . .

For some it is the case. I hear it all the time. And for others it is not. It is not so simple. I've read the posts where some speak as if they are just coming close to going through the motions so that they are not in violation of the command to assemble together.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Hmmm.. so there are people who are not 'capable' of the reading the Scriptures? Let's see...they are capable of reading smut, reading history, computer books, novels but wow...they are not capable of reading the Word.

You miss the point. It is about the capability to read at all. And there are still some who cannot. Maybe not very many in America. But some places it is quite common. Do we simply give them over to Satan for their inability to read?

That is the point.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

True. But back in that day, the RCC had not been instituted. There were no denominations. There were not bible colleges/schools where people paid to become ordained pastors. The church was not a 'business' with IRS tax exemptions.

I believe there were divisions and I believe it is likely because of divisions, apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers came about.

Huh? Because of division those things came about? I thought the apostles were preaching from the beginning. Before Corinth had its first convert looking for convert number two so they could divide.

Actually, pointing to the RCC, denominations, bible colleges, and "pay for an ordination" regimes does not address what Paul was talking about in Ephesians. I might get in trouble with some, but I would suggest that overall there is more sound understanding of Christ and His mission for us through the various methods of transferring existing knowledge from person to person, even within the RCC, than there is in a "me and my bible" world. I can't prove it. But it might be true.

I am becoming more and more convinced that one of the things we learned from the LRC and so often still cling to is a sense of superior knowledge concerning anything organized in Christianity, from seminaries (bad) to clergy (bad) to liturgies (bad) and the RCC (whore of Babylon bad). And I'm not sure that it is doing us any good. Especially that last one. Yes, there are some things that I have a problem with in the RCC's practices. But if we try to argue that the RCC is one of those seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3, then they are a church, not the whore of Babylon.

It still is a conflict in my being. It sticks in my craw at times. But I'm not sure that we were taught correctly. Yet we (and sometimes, still even I) speak as if it is a certainty.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Get involved in any organized church denomination, the same thing happens. You'll go to a 'bible study' and it underscores the ministry of that pastor.

I was not very clear in the portion that you were referring to here. I actually admitted that their way was not entirely wrong. That being said, because the LRC/LSM/Lee ministry is such a narrow ministry that openly despises almost all others, there is a cry from within me that says even if the way was technically correct, the application was not.

Learning from those who learn from others, etc., back to the beginning is not bad. In fact, it would seem to be expected. Think of the references to the "customs" and ways of the church recorded in scripture. Not a lot of them, but they are there. And that "apostles' teaching" thing was from the very beginning. Anything else was a different gospel.

But in the case of the LRC, there was a significant break in the progression of teaching. Both Nee and Lee took on isolated ways. Nee was not as arrogant as Lee, but he openly suggested that his writings were unique. Full of things that no one had seen before. In other words, teachings that were not from the apostles. That was the error. Not the format, but the content.

I won't comment on your pentecostal preachers demanding evidence of tongues. I was raised in one of those. There is a new breed of charismatic group that accepts the existence of those gifts but does not presume superiority on them or demand that they be everyone's gift. I am not part of that either, though I think I can live with that. I prefer to be apart from those things even though I am not simply a cessationist.

As I noted to KTS yesterday, I am not prone to flowery, spiritual speech. But I do not despise it unless I sense trickery in it. (Master is trixsy!!)

Continue in what you are learning. Be rich in love and good works. And I'm sure that you are as you are able.