OBW's Blog

[OBW]

I looked at this feature for the past week and wasn't sure what to do with it — if anything. But as I began to read through some of the articles on AFathfulWord.org, posting some comments on a couple of them on the other forum, I noticed something that I thought was worthy of speaking out about.

One of the Buntain/Sady/Towle articles referred back to Nigel’s comment about going beyond what is written, I believe concerning whether Minoru Chen had incorrectly claimed to say what Lee and/or Nee had said. (I don’t have the particular article in front of me, but I did comment on it in the other forum’s thread concerning that particular LSM site.) The thing that stuck out to me was not whether Chen had improperly extended Lee beyond what he had said, but that the standard being discussed was not scripture, but Lee. Even Nigel was doing it.

Now I will not say that there was no discussion in either related to scripture, but there were three paragraphs from "Practically Speaking, for Us the Body Today is Just the Lord's Recovery"—Did Minoru Chen "Go Beyond What Has Been Written"? near the end, starting with one from Nee, followed by two from Lee. In the last one, out of Further Consideration of the Eldership, the Region of Work, and the Care for the Body of Christ, pp. 14-15, Lee says the following: “You may have the thought that your local church has nothing to do with other churches and should not be in any connection with other churches. This thought isolates your local church, making it no longer a part of the Body of Christ.” Looking back at Nigel’s article and at this one, I note that no one has questioned Lee’s actual statements. But are they not themselves something “beyond what is written?” The verses that were mentioned say things like “the church which is His body.” They do not say “those churches which follow certain principles and meet for 7 feasts each year are His body.”

I will admit right from the beginning that I am no theologian in the strictest sense of the word. But I am a student of scripture and of logic and reason. I do not flatter myself to think that I have figured everything out and these others have not. But when I read the lengthy write-up on the charge against Titus Chu that included complaints about how he taught young ones in Taiwan to study the bible, I guess I expected better. What I am referring to is the time that Titus spent in Taiwan teaching the young ones to get out their bibles, dictionaries, commentaries, and after exhaustive studies read the ministry to see that it was correct. But despite his words and efforts, it would appear that almost no one has done that because to the extent that I have, I am finding that the ministry is not nearly so correct.

I challenge Nigel and the rest of those who consider themselves concerned to take a new approach to their disagreements with the LSM. Rather than presume that Lee was right (and even Nee was right) and that the LSM is now twisting those words, start fresh with the actual writings that we should not be going beyond ─ scripture. Intentionally reject Lee’s words and see if the scripture will return you to his teachings. Read the older books again and see whether he actually used scripture to support his premises, or used scripture to dress his own premises up with the appearance of support. I wrote somewhat extensively concerning the very foundational errors in the first chapter of The Economy of God on the other forum some months ago. 1 Timothy 1:3-4 does not say to teach God’s economy. The entire first chapter makes this leap. But the verses (paraphrased) say that wrong teachings result in questionings while correct teachings result in God’s economy. The wrong teachings were not questionings. They resulted in questionings because they were contrary to the right teachings. The right teachings resulted in the entirety of God’s administration, economy, plan, etc. happening. They were not themselves God’s economy.

And read the first chapter closely. Lee never provides a basis for his conclusion that God’s economy is “simply” God dispensed into man. He uses an oratorical trick to get everyone to accept it. He says that an exhaustive study of the entire bible will show it. But he provides not one single example. It is to be accepted without question.

Why do this in the blog instead of a public thread for others to discuss? First, because my goal is not necessarily to create more discussion here on this forum, but to challenge some who may read this, but are not otherwise participants. Second, I have found that as much as I like this kind of discussion, there are only a few others and they simply tend to agree (mostly) resulting in little discussion. I note that even on the other forum where there are more vocal opponents, they tend to snipe with blanks once or twice and then avoid acknowledging it is even there. So why bother? This way I can put in out there to view. If it moves anyone to start a discussion, that’s great. But greater would be that it starts some to rethink their positions.

[AndPeter]

Originally Posted by OBW

I challenge Nigel and the rest of those who consider themselves concerned to take a new approach to their disagreements with the LSM. Rather than presume that Lee was right (and even Nee was right) and that the LSM is now twisting those words, start fresh with the actual writings that we should not be going beyond ─ scripture. Intentionally reject Lee’s words and see if the scripture will return you to his teachings. Read the older books again

Mike, I beg to differ with you on this one because normally I find your posts extremely insightful and helpful.

I believe Nigel and others are re-evaluating Witness Lee and Watchman Nee. Consider his latest article about the Jerusalem and Roman city churches.

Even Undergrace on the other forum pointed out some inconsistency with Witness Lee regarding his view of the early universal church.

I think Nigel's and others intent is to re-evaluate based on the Word with help from writings (from many) that aid the understanding. Since we have been under such a strong Nee/Lee influence for many years I believe Nigel finds it appropriate to comment where he finds teachings of these two that no longer hold water.

Steve

[OBW]

Originally Posted by AndPeter

Mike, I beg to differ with you on this one because normally I find your posts extremely insightful and helpful.

You may be correct. But what I noted in the articles I read was the tendency to suggest that the LSM has made something out of Lee's teaching that was not actually there. In one case, the result was that the LSM guys claimed that it was what Lee said all along. And when I looked at the quotes they provided, I would tend to agree. That means that Lee was culpable.

You may be correct that Nigel is looking beyond Nee and Lee, but what I have read so far (and it is mostly the older posts from 2005 - 2007) it would seem to be more in the line of defending a different Lee than the one the LSM is propping up. I do not doubt that the BBs have made things out of Lee's teachings that weren't actually there. But too much of it was there. It was even there in the 60s and we bought it in our craving for something "new" in a sea of Christianity that was not yet awake to the groundswell of discontent within its ranks.

Now I have seen some of John Myer's thoughts in his book. And I note that there was concern that he was moving too fast for some. For those who have become accustomed to getting around in the dark, to suddenly switch on the light is brutal on the eyes and causes many to cover their eyes to avoid it.

I do think that Nigel's intent is good and honest. But the things I have seen so far tell me of some amount of blindness caused by starting from Lee rather than scripture. Once that is too ingrained, it is easy to read the verse and assume the meaning Lee gave even where it should be painfully obvious that is not correct.

My goal is not to shame anyone, or set myself up in some manner. I actually presume that this will be the ultimate course of action for them. But I know that it has sometimes taken someone else pointing out my errors to make me face them.

I do not expect them to comment back to me or to acknowledge my existence. I actually have no expectation. I only have a hope that what I say might be found worthy of consideration. I have another to post soon. It takes aim at something that I have even said as true within the past 4 months or so. I will not say more now.

[OBW]

For some time I have begun to look at the teaching that Lee put forward concerning “two-foldness of truth.” In Nigel’s article “LSM’s Eisegesis ─ How Not To Interpret The Bible!” he begins a section on two-foldness of divine truth. While there is nothing disturbing about the 10 “countervailing principles” mentioned, I do not find in these anything that is “two-folded” or potentially contradictory.

As a matter of history in the Local Churches, I was a member in the Dallas area for 14-1/2 years, leaving in August of 1987. During this time, I heard the term “two folded,” or “two sides of truth” many times. But as I look back at the clear statements of scripture that were touted as two sides of one thing, I begin to see something different. Instead of two sides of one thing, I have begun to see two things that easily coexist without any appearance of being different sides of one thing.

D.Q. McInerny writes a primer on logic, Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking (Random House, New York, 2004). In his chapter on Basic Principles, the fourth stated principle is the “Principle of Contradiction” which is stated as follows: “It is impossible for something both to be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.” (p.28) He admits that we sometimes hold contradictory ideas willingly because we either have not sorted out the truth from the fiction, or have not found the “respects” in which the two are different and therefore can coexist. But if we simply stop at accepting the contradiction and do not seek further to clarify or resolve, we have abandoned reason. “Don’t cloud the issue with facts. My mind is made up.” This is rationalization, which is “reason in the service of falsehood.” (p.29)

While only read this particular book about two weeks before writing this post, the underlying truth of this particular area had been in front of me for many years, although I did not see it fully. When I was in college in the mid 70s, I took a course in business law which was taught by a lawyer. In the class was an older man who was presumed to be a career Army man who had finally retired but was too young to stay home. On several occasions as we discussed one particular area of law after another, this man would begin to ask questions. He would say “what if” one particular fact was altered, then another, and so on until the answer was no longer the same. He would then lean back, fold his arms, smile, and nod in a small up and down motion being sure that he had found a hole in the law. But it was not true. After changing enough facts, he was now presenting something that was either on the opposite side of the same rule, or had wandered into a completely different area of law. No contradiction. No problem with the law. Only a problem in trying to say that the facts now presented should require the same result as the original facts.

Is this not a more honest observation about the “two sides of truth” or “two foldness or truth?” Are the pairs that Nigel presents truly contradictory? Or are they different because they are not talking about the same thing?

For example, in your second point, “the apostles teaching the same thing in every church vs. the different teachings to each church depending on its condition,” I cannot see anything that would be “two sided.” When I consider “teaching the same thing” the first thing that must be answered is “what is the ‘same thing?’” Since Paul’s writings were different to each church and to each individual, “the same thing” must not be a reference to the details, but to the foundation of speaking. In everything Paul spoke in any place, or in everything that he wrote to the various ones, the foundation was the existing scripture, and the accounts given to him by others of Jesus’ words and deeds. While it is not entirely clear how Paul came to all of his understanding of the events and words that had transpired prior to his conversion other than to note that he was “off the grid” for some period of time learning, he is ultimately “on the same page” with Peter and the others with respect to his understanding of the gospel. Unlike those who came to places like Galatia to bring Jewish laws and rituals, he spoke from the New Testament revelation. In that, he spoke the same wherever he went.

But that does not mean that he said the same words everywhere or covered all the same items (outside of the basics of faith). But even to the extent that he spoke different things, they were all consistent with the whole of the scripture and the gospel.

Deciding to call this kind of different speaking within a common frame work “two-foldness of truth” is not necessarily bad. But it is not necessarily good. Why? Because through the constant creation of these “dichotomies” that are not really dichotomies, we begin to look for them. We begin to expect that one thing must have another side. In the example I mentioned above, there is no contradiction unless there are no facts except for “speaking” as a singular, unambiguous word and the reference to “always the same” in one place and the obvious differences in the things written to each place. Are those the only facts? Are we certain that “same” was meant to convey that the same words were used? Or was it used to convey that all of the principles came from the same unwavering source — scripture and the words and deeds of Christ? I note that when we look at church discipline in Matthew 18, man is ultimately required to judge because he must decide to exclude someone from the circle of believers. Yet elsewhere Jesus said “judge not lest ye be judged.” Are these contradictory? Or are they in different contexts with different facts? Surely we are to judge and know error. But we are also supposed to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.

Witness Lee has been quoted as saying that the truth must have chaos. (I do not have the reference in front of me, but when I first heard this, I asked on one of these forums and Steve Isitt pretty quickly provided it.) This has been given as rationale for some of the wrongs that were occurring at that time within the Local Church leadership. But is this statement true? Or is it a fabrication created and accepted because we have become used to the very idea that “truth has two sides” and that contradictions are to be expected. With a clearer head, I now realize that there is only a contradiction when facts are missing, overlooked, or miss-analyzed. Once all facts are on the table there is only one clear truth. There may be other truths that relate to some of the facts or to a different context, which is itself a fact. But to expect that there will be a yen and yang sort of two sides to one thing is illogic and by definition false.

To make the statement that truth has two sides is to distort truth and to deny it. If one thing is true, its opposite is not also true. If we think that we have found two things that are contradictory yet both true, then we have not determined the differentiation between the two, or we have not taken the time nor energy to disprove one of them and label it as false. “Speaking the same thing” to everyone is not contradictory to speaking in a specific and different way different ones if “the same thing” is a reference to the whole source from which all the speakings are taken. If I teach law in a university (I do not), I speak from the whole of the law. But if I also sit as a judge in a court, I apply specific portions of that law to different facts based upon the existing rules of procedure and come to the conclusion that one defendant is guilty, while another is innocent. This is not “two sides of truth.” There is no contradiction. The law does not say that all are guilty or that all are innocent. It says a whole wealth of things from which separate and different results arise once facts are added and the applicable portions of law used to analyze those facts.

Even when we say that there are two sides of salvation, one that is by grace and one that is worked out with fear and trembling, there is not a contradiction. Rather than giving conflicting sides of the same thing, we have used one word to label two things that are different. While this may not be a theologically correct statement, I tend to view these as a kind of equivocation in which one use of the word is more like “redemption” while the other is more like “sanctification.”

I will concede that we do not understand the predestination of God in the context of a freedom of will to accept or reject. But even this may be more of our own limitation to linear thinking in a three-dimensional world of physics, biology, etc. and a lack of understanding of the spiritual world outside of even time as we know it. There are surely mysteries of even the physical universe that we cannot explain. Even more so are the mysteries of God that He has not revealed. But this need to find “two sides” seems more of a yen and yang view of the world than something revealed in scripture. And it leads to error. It leads us to accept the idea that there can be truly contradictory truths and then take ones supplied (such as by Lee) without questioning. That is reason in the service of falsehood.

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by OBW

For those who have become accustomed to getting around in the dark, to suddenly switch on the light is brutal on the eyes and causes many to cover their eyes to avoid it.

OBW That was quite a profound statement indeed! For months now I have been hunting down "pantry moths" in my home by means of a tactical LED flashlight and a (no-ammo) bb gun. As long as the flashlight's main beam does not directly hit them, they usually remain on the surface where they have been resting, until the full force of pneuma get's released. Works great on spiders too. I have found the pheromone sticky traps to be largely ineffective against these invaders. It's been rather satisfying to see their moth remains floating in the air. Not sure how that really relates to LC members but maybe somebody out there can benefit from this bonus information.

P.S.

[OBW]

Back on 05/02/2008, I posted my testimony in the "Introductions and Testimonies" section of the forum. So that I can make it more accessible, bring some additions together into one place, and correct a few errors in spelling and grammar, I have decided to copy them here. They follow below:

- - - -

While somewhat long, this is a sketch of my journey to, through, and beyond the LC.

My name is Mike (as can be seen in the signature at the bottom). I’ve lived virtually my whole life in the Dallas area, being born to parents who themselves were born in Dallas.

Until the middle of my senior year of high school, we attended an Assemblies of God church. During the last 2 or 3 years of that time, we had some contact with various inner-life teachers. During early high school, relatives in Florida introduced my parents to Watchman Nee. My Dad went out a bought a couple of his books and even began to try to use them as part of a Bible study he was involved in at the church. It did not receive the interest from his peers that he expected.

Then, in the fall of 1972, my brother ran into another student at our high school that went to the Church in Dallas. When my Dad found out about the link between Nee and Lee, he began to investigate. We began to go to a meeting now and then. By January 1973, we severed ties to the AOG and were fully “in the church.”

I will admit that from the very beginning, I was never going to be a “burning,” “ambitious to be an elder” type. (It turns out that was one of the reasons that my wife decided she might marry me.) Since our situation was a complete family joining up, the kind of extremes that often occurred in the corporate-living situations were only heard about and not experienced.

I think that before I was even out of college, I had a realization that there were spiritual and scriptural truths that I was learning from the LC, but that there were some aspects of the outward practices from which I seemed to want to stay just a little bit apart. (With this sentence you can also see that I have become somewhat of a grammatical stickler despite the fact that I was only an OK English student. I don’t hold others to my standards and also know that I do not do everything “by the book.”) Someone mentioned the Revelation (I think) training recently. I recall sitting in my chair, drawing pictures of battleships — “destroying the destroyers.” Yep. I wasn’t going to be an elder.

Graduated from college in 77 (four years straight through — didn’t seem that common among my LC peers). Spent about 10 months in Arlington, then moved back to Dallas. Married in 79. Moved to Irving at the end of 82. Left in about August of 87. Essentially went immediately to a Bible Church nearby and we are still there after over 20 years.

The road out probably came in stages. I was bothered a little by some of the turn-it-on and turn-it-off control. The first I saw was in 73 when the “Christ v Religion” fever went through. There was a conference in Dallas. Some from other cities were waving cheerleader’s pom-poms in the meetings. Green and white — my school. It bugged me. Suddenly in one meeting, either James Barber or John Ingalls (one of those two was in the conference but I can’t remember which) rose and said about two sentences and the pom-poms disappeared along with a lot of other over-the-top stuff that had been going on. I appreciated the sanity, but the degree of the immediate following was not missed. (This is an event that I have often considered and note that it is also mentioned in “The Thread of Gold.”)

Two or three years later, the first time Max R came through Dallas (no offense if you are reading this Max), my Dad commented that he knew my Dad’s name. There is nothing evil or unspiritual in finding out someone’s name, but it seemed odd to both my Dad and to me. Then came the ouster of Max and the beginning of the lawsuits. I followed the discussions with interest, but something always nagged at me about the whole business.

Also during this time, I had a couple of run-ins with Gene D. (I was never sure if he was actually an elder in Dallas, but I know he was afterward in a couple of other cities, so I feel comfortable in mentioning the name at least in part.) At least one of them was essentially a random rant about nothing of value. It moved him down my respect scale. I later learned that he had done even worse to my Dad. (I’ve since learned that two other elders who were present were quite taken back by the incident, but were under a fog that made them incapable of doing anything at the time. There has been an apology made by one of them which I was glad to accept.)

Then came Irving. This was the first time that I had the sense that where you were in terms of locality was somewhat at the “brothers’” discretion and not really yours. Nothing was ever said, but I got the sense that it was an accepted fact. I lived fairly East in Dallas, beyond the meeting hall but had changed jobs to a place in Irving, on the West side of the county, some 26 miles either through downtown or around the primary loop. With traffic, it was seldom less than a 45 min drive and was often much longer. (I know some will say “poor baby, 45 minutes” but when there was a church in Irving, there seemed to be no reason to put up with it.) I drove it for one month and put the house on the market and moved to Irving. We went from well-known nobodies to unknown and almost unnoticed nobodies.

At this point, we were among a group of people that we mostly only knew a little from regional conferences (remember when they were regional and not just national or international?). I began to note that there were people that I knew were there but I seldom saw. Ben M, even Ray G., and many others. They were all busy proofing, typesetting, printing, and binding for the LSM. Then one day I realized that I had not seen Ben for some time. There began to be whispers, but it was essentially that he had merely left.

As an aside, I note that about a year earlier we had spent a weekend in Houston to work on the presses there, so moving to Irving with the possibility of doing more was promising. I reached out to help with the publishing by proofreading a chapter in one of the books on which they were working. When I turned my work back in, I learned from the person in charge of that effort that I had made several grammatical errors according to the style handbook they were using. I later discovered that they were specifically using older rules of grammar and punctuation that had been out of vogue even in the versions used by university and professional publications for years. The smugness and certainty of this brother may not have risen to the level of an offense, but it really did bother me. After that, I decided that the printing was not for me.

We spent 4-1/2 years in the Church in Irving but I have few significant memories of meetings at the hall. I realize that part of this time we even had Sunday morning meetings in homes, but that was only the last few months or so.

I do recall a Saturday morning breakfast at Benson’s house with a large group of brothers. As it was ending and everyone was beginning to mill around and prepare to leave, I ended up near Benson. We exchanged a few words, and then he said something that remained in my mind for years, even after leaving the LC. He said something like “We’ve built really good fences, but the sheep are dying.” I don’t think I had necessarily identified something dying in me, but in hindsight, it was really true.

I also remember the last “sermon” series that Benson gave during our time there. It was in the early stages of the new door-knocking move. While everyone was encouraged to get involved, Benson’s messages were on the going on of the soldiers and the citizens. While never clearly stated, it seemed obvious that the soldiers were the ones going door to door or doing other “ministry” work while the citizens were the ones that did not, but were providing the support (prayer, money, toilet cleaning, etc.) for the soldiers. The emphasis seemed to be that no one should feel that they were a second-class member of the body of Christ. But the reality was that all of the energies were put to the publishing and to the door knocking. It was hard to consider yourself anything but a second-class citizen if you weren’t deep into whatever the “flow” was at the time. It had always been that way to some degree. Now it was even worse. (It is possible that the peculiarities of a city with a conference center and printing presses made it more extreme.)

By this time, my wife and I needed real friends, not just a bunch of “amen” friends. We needed real mentoring and shepherding. It was not to be found. You weren’t supposed to know anyone “in the flesh” so your personal problems were not welcome discussion. You were expected to call on the Lord more and go to more meetings. That would fix everything. If we had continued there, it would have fixed the date for the end of our marriage. It was not yet looming, but the early warning signs were there.

One day, my wife said, “We should go try out Irving Bible Church.” It was less than a mile away. While Lee always slammed seminaries, he generally spoke somewhat highly of Dallas Theological Seminary and we knew that Bible Church ministers in our area tended to be DTS graduates. We talked back and forth about it over a couple of weeks, then just did it. Roughly August of 87, we left the LC, never to return, and went to IBC.

IBC was in the midst of a transition. It had no preacher. We still were impressed by the leadership. About two months later they brought in a preacher who was (is) about 9 months younger than me. He was not quite 32.

The LC distress signals with their embedded messages are still being searched out and destroyed. I found one just a few months ago. But the marriage has healed. We’ve had real fellowship with real people rather than pseudo-spiritual fellowship with ministry clones. I do not mean to insult any of the people in the LC with that statement. I was one of them too. It was not about us as much as it was about the thing into which the “ministry” turned us.

The LC has remained the elephant in the room when I visit my parents, my brother, or sister (and their families). We did finally discuss it a little in the spring of 2006, but it got pushed aside for a while. I recall my sister recently saying something like “surely you believe that Bro Lee was right about [I don’t remember what now].” My response was essentially “No, I don’t.” They have essentially thought that it was the practices and not teaching that caused us to leave and stay away. The practices were probably the thing that drove us away, but it was the eyes opening to the teachings that kept us away.

I notice that there is never any will to defend the “ministry” other than in “broad-brush” terms. (This seems to be true on both the BARM forum and in the personal discussion I have had recently on a couple of issues.) When I was going through my recent “aha” about one of Lee’s teachings, I pointed to the particular scriptures for my sister to read through, telling her what I had noticed. I never heard back. But they will talk over and over about some general wonderfulness of the “church-life.”

I’ve only been to one LC meeting since mid-87. Unfortunately, it was my Mother’s funeral. The service was acceptable, but it was clear to me, and even somewhat clear to my sister and Dad (and probably my brother) that these people that she had been among for almost 35 years did not really know her. Even some of the almost exclusively “focus on the church-life” testimonies sounded like one of those mostly fictional movies that are loosely based on a real-life event. I probably wouldn’t have included this in my opening testimony except that this was only a little over 5 months ago and still fresh in my thoughts.

I’m seldom the one to see deep things in a truly original way. But I will go over what anyone tries to feed me. I’m a bit of a “shade-tree” student of logic and reasoning and will gladly take what passes muster, but shred hollow logical fallacies passed off as truth. I also have a tendency to bring out a certain level of sarcasm that sometimes comes off not exactly as intended. I recall in the first few weeks in the LC we were having dinner with another family and I made a reference to “our atheist friend in Austin.” The sister looked at me with really big eyes until she realized I was simply making a snide remark about Madeline Murray O’Hare.

For those that frequent the BARM, I am “Mike H” there. (For the newer participants, the BARM is an apologetics website out of the Philippines that for many years hosted a forum like this one that discussed many different sects and cults. The forum has long been shuttered, but there are many mentions to it in the earlier posts on this forum.) I’m not sure why I decided on a different pseudonym here, but I did. After I had set it up and it was accepted, I realized that it might be thought to mean Obi-Wan. (If I ever seem to get a lightsaber out, let me know and I will deal with it.) That was not my intention. Simply “older but wiser.” As I write this, I’m reminded of a line from “The Music Man.” The line was about the “sadder but wiser girl” — a bit odd for a guy, but the thought is accurate.

If I ever bring up a line from a song or movie that you don’t get, just ask. I tend to note where others have seen what I am seeing and put it into song or movie script. It may not be spiritual, but truth is still truth.

- - - -

Since the previous post was back in 2008, I have decided to give some updates. In about 2011, we changed to a different Bible Church for the purpose of being able to more often see our son, daughter-in-law, and soon-to-be-born grandson. In many ways the same as the first Bible Church, but not all.

Now, after 9 years of driving 15 miles one-way to church, and almost concurrent with the beginning of the pandemic, we decided that something close to home will be better. A new chapter in our spiritual lives begins.

[OBW]

I also included in the "testimonies" thread an explanation for my avatar and byline (which has actually morphed over the years since, though still rooted in the original, so I will leave it as is.)

originally posted 07/24/2008

- - - -

My avatar and byline are related. The avatar is the album cover of To Our Children’s Children’s Children by the Moody Blues (1969). The byline is the opening lines from their album On the Threshold of a Dream (also 1969).

I like the picture because it shows antiquity yet looks forward beyond the generations already alive. The byline is a reflection of myself. I think I have a good mind. I believe what I believe. But I am not deluded into thinking that I’m completely right and will not change. But for now, if I didn’t believe in my opinions, I would change them. Would you be willing to try? I will defend them, but not with a closed mind (at least as far as I am able to discern).

If you hadn’t guessed that I like the Moody Blues, you weren’t thinking about it too hard. It’s mostly about the music. But I do like some of the ideas they express. Not the ones about New Age sort of stuff, but they did do a lot of introspective things that I have found insightful.

The curtain rises on the scene
With someone shouting to be free
The play unfolds before my eyes
There stands the actor who is ... me

Ever feel that way? I know I do. It may not be "Christian" but it is true.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I challenge Nigel and the rest of those who consider themselves concerned to take a new approach to their disagreements with the LSM. Rather than presume that Lee was right (and even Nee was right) and that the LSM is now twisting those words, start fresh with the actual writings that we should not be going beyond ─ scripture. Intentionally reject Lee’s words and see if the scripture will return you to his teachings.

Mike, I agree with you in part. Funny ... you said the same thing to me somewhere recently. Anyways ...

We are not living in a vacuum. Some of us have a looooong context under one particular ministry. Some things have to be "unlearned" before progress can be made. For that matter, my wife and I are still "unlearning" ...

When I first consecrated myself in the church in Cleveburg, it was before the Revelations training in 1976. That ministry prompted me to examine everything of my religious upbringing. It also gave me a desire to research church history related to the RCC. Eventually, I attempted to purge myself of everything I learned in the RCC (including 12 years of education) except for two things -- and only two things -- Jesus was the Son of God and the Bible was the Word of God. Many times thereafter I thanked the Lord for placing me in a Catholic home that gave me these two great truths, even though I never heard of regeneration, but that's another story.

Nigel and his articles have been helpful in this regard.

[OBW]

Ohio,

I fully understand your position, and predicament. You know that there are problems, but they do not automatically jump out because we intend to take a different viewpoint.

And Nigel's articles are generally excellent. My comments to him at the others are not to stifle them, but to spur them on.

I can’t find the reference at the moment (maybe in one of the forums or in some book I’ve recently read) but it essentially suggested that we are, to some degree, trapped in our historical prejudices and biases. In other words, the colored glasses that we wear cannot just be taken off in an instant to allow for a pure, unfiltered look at objective facts. This source was effectively suggesting that the colored glasses were at least partly stuck to our heads via some sort of glue that is not easily removed.

Now I am not fatalistic enough to buy that notion in total. But there surely is some truth there. Yet at the same time, we do have ways to overcome these biases; tools that can help eliminate the tendency toward predisposed error.

As you know from my previous posts, I left the LC in August of 87. Yet I have testified here of several things concerning which I have only recently had my eyes opened. You may recall in approximately Aug or Sep of 2007 I raised a question concerning what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor. 3, especially the middle part concerning the wood, hay, stubble, gold, silver and precious stones. I had come across this while reading through 1 Cor. for reasons having nothing to do with any of the LC discussions. As I read, I realized that the portions about following the various teachers was a long section that started in 1:10 (or so) and continued through part of chapter 4. As I was reading chapter 3, I was not thinking in terms of Lee’s teaching, but was simply seeing the full context of the chapter. Suddenly the words of 3:9 jumped out at me. Paul said “we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.” So I decided to find out who was “we” and who was “you.” It became clear that “we” was Paul, Apollos, Cephas, etc. ─ the men that the Corinthians had been arguing about. And “you” was the Corinthians. So when you move to the next verses which talk about building, there is a continuity between “we” who was the workers, and “you” who was the building.

Now I acknowledge that we are unable to fully extricate ourselves from the truth of verses 10 through 15. But Paul was talking about the builders ─ the workers ─ not about the Corinthians who were what was being built.

The point is that I came to the words as presented in the scripture. I came seeing words with their own meaning, connected by grammar that, while not totally unambiguous, takes the meaning of separate words and turns it into more complex meaning. But if I had come while allowing tapes of those convoluted, high-sounding things that we so often repeated when pray-reading, like “thank you Lord that your are the processed Triune God that we can build with to make our works approved,” or something like that, it would have caused my thinking about who these verses we're talking about to be converted from the workers ─the teachers ─ and into me. By allowing Lee’s teachings to too often be where we start (and I was still doing it regularly for almost a year after my first visit to the Bereans forum) we ignore the actual words on the page and the actual grammar and the actual context, substituting whatever it was that Lee said.

It is for this reason that I feel compelled to vocally challenge the Concerned Brothers. While I do have confidence that they are headed in the right direction (and may even be further down that road than I am giving them credit), as long as the “writings” that we are concerned about going beyond continue to be Lee’s, we are misaiming.

While I do attribute some of my alleged “wisdom” to age and experience, which I will note that others, including you and Nigel and many others also may have, I realize that with age can also come a tendency to close one’s mind to change. I do not pretend that at my best I could ever come up with as clear and sound a theological position as someone like Nigel can. But unless he and the other stalwarts keep the focus on the source rather than some intermediary, it may end up to only be a shift within an existing dogma rather than a truly liberating experience into the fullness of the gospel of Christ.

It was in one of the Star Trek movies, The Wrath of Khan I believe, in which Lt. Saavik was chastised for quoting Starfleet regulations to Kirk. Later, after Kirk nearly got his head handed to him due to his ignoring those regulations, he said to Saavik something like “You keep right on quoting Starfleet regulations.” I probably have an even lesser position in these discussions, especially relative to the likes of Nigel and even some of the BBs and their technical resource people, but I am convinced from where the LC has gone that the quoting of Starfleet regulations (i.e., scripture and sound principles of using scripture) is too often necessary. When I do it and it is unnecessary, I can be ignored.

And you do the same. When you see me wandering in a field mooing like a cow, following some rustlers in a pickup truck with hay in the back, slap me in the face.

[OBW]

Interesting weekend. My nephew got married. Happened in the living room of my Dad’s house. (I was also married in the living room of my parent’s house ─ different house and almost 30 years ago.) We had my eldest son’s new fiancée with us and she had some interesting comments at dinner later.

But that is not the purpose of this post. While the flow of the meeting was somewhat expected, although not significantly enough scripted for anyone to know what to do next at a couple of points, there was something missing. As is typical for a LC wedding, it was about 95 percent about the metaphor of Christ and his bride, the Church, and not much about the young couple. But it was not among the more extreme LC weddings that I have seen in the past.

Well, when I said "not much about the young couple," that is not entirely true. There was an “open mic” time (without an actual microphone in that small space) and, with one exception, it was the relatives that spoke. They did mostly speak about the couple, or one or the other of them. But mixed in were the thoughts of their marriage being “for Christ and the church.”

Even the guy who did sort of “officiate” said some good things, although he seemed to get lost. I had expected to see Jerry McGill, but something came up and he could not be there. I did not know the man who spoke in his place. (And given the speed with which I forget names, his has already eluded me.) He even seemed to be on the verge of saying something to the effect that they should not over-spiritualize it all, but never quite said it. Do not take this as a criticism of him. He was kind of thrown into this on a moment's notice. I spoke with him briefly afterward and found him very likable, as is Jerry.

But given the tendency for LC traditions and teachings to lean toward a male dominated culture, I now wished I had taken the opportunity to say something. I know it would not be in the same way as the others, but I don’t think they would have openly objected. Given some time to think, here is what I am considering putting in a letter, or more likely, in an email, in the near future (with slight modifications to conceal the innocent).

-----

Life for the next few days, weeks, and even months will have some resemblance to being on a tropical island with everything you need there for you to take and enjoy. But while you are focused on that, real life will be creeping in. One day you will actually notice that it is there around you. The imperfections finally show up. You will begin to wonder if someone stole your spouse, or at least part of them, and substituted a slightly different clone. She will not seem so much like the Bride of Christ and he will not resemble Christ.

So what went wrong? Nothing. Scripture is correct when it says that we become “one flesh.” But that does not mean that we cease to be “two flesh.” It is not a contradiction, but is about different things. He is always who he is, and so is she. At the same time, there is a new entity that joins to be “married,” and do the things of marriage, including bearing and raising children.

But this joint life does not end your separate life. And you will discover how real and strong those two separate lives can be. It does not matter if one of you is prone to being passive. The very act of being passive is often a tool of defense of who you are. “They may boss me around, but they can’t get inside of me.”

Here is where notions of position and place collapse. If he wants to be the “head” he will fail. And as much as she wants to submit, it won’t happen. Instead, look at the whole of the verses in Ephesians 5. It begins in verse 21 with “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” This is the set-up verse. Then verse 22 begins with “wives, to your husbands,” and then verse 25 says “husbands, to your wives.” There are surely other words there, but these are the links to the primary command in verse 21. We have presumed that these verses create some sort of hierarchy between husband and wife. But instead they charge each to do the part that is theirs in submission to the other. I know it sounds funny, but consider that Jesus said that the true position of a disciple is as servant to all. That includes to your spouse.

But instead of relying on Paul’s words (acknowledging that they are also God’s words), let’s look at those of Jesus. As part of His answer concerning what is the greatest commandment, Jesus actually provides two which he joins as a unit upon which all the rest are built. That second commandment is in Matthew 22:39 and it says “Love your neighbor as yourself.” It does not say to love them more than yourself. It does not say to love them almost as much as yourself. It also does not suggest that you should love yourself less, then love them that much.

Now, the first thing that may come to mind is “since when is my spouse my neighbor?” When you look at the parallel account in Luke 10, we see that there was a follow-on question. It was “who is my neighbor?” The answer has resulted in a lot of different interpretations, but the best answer is that whoever you have contact with is your neighbor. Now who do you suppose a married person has a whole lot of contact with? If you say “my spouse” you have won the prize! So whether you want to say that Paul has simply said “love your neighbor who happens to be my spouse just like I love myself” in a different way, or you want to say that Jesus said to “submit to your spouse” in a different way, both are correct. And if you think that being a servant of all is only referring to serving the “saints” and not also referring to your spouse, and to all your neighbors, both those who live in proximity and those we come in contact with both physically and “virtually” in so many ways every day, then you have missed the meaning.

Do not understand this as criticism of anything. I hope that this can be found as wise advice that will serve you as you journey through life together. I pray that it will strengthen your marriage as trials come. And they will come. I’m sure that no one else has suggested differently.

Some may say that this is about equality in marriage. There is some truth to that. But it is much more. Marriage is a testing ground for living the Christian life. If I cannot raise my love for my spouse to be as great as I love myself, then how can I think that I love some other human at that level? If I cannot submit to the person that is right there at the first light of day and when the lights turn off at night, then how can I really be a servant to any others with whom I have even less connection?

I trust that your love for each other will blossom further and further. But I also know that there will be trials. The kind of love that makes you blind to other things is not the love that will see you through the trials. It is the love that raises the other to be your equal that will see you through. It is the love that is willing to serve the other, even in the midst of heartache and pain, that will bring you through. It is the love that you choose and not the love that grows in your emotions. Emotions are fickle. But the love that comes from Christ is a love that can be chosen when the emotions are strongly contrary. Chose that love. It is the love that does not clang on cymbals or parade around to the sound of trumpets.

Your uncle and your brother

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

But that is not the purpose of this post. While the flow of the meeting was somewhat expected, although not significantly enough scripted for anyone to know what to do next at a couple of points, there was something missing. As is typical for a LC wedding, it was about 95 percent about the metaphor of Christ and his bride, the Church, and not much about the young couple. But it was not among the more extreme LC weddings that I have seen in the past.

Well, when I said "not much about the young couple," that is not entirely true. There was an “open mic” time (without an actual microphone in that small space) and, with one exception, it was the relatives that spoke. They did mostly speak about the couple, or one or the other of them. But mixed in were the thoughts of their marriage being “for Christ and the church.”

Funny thing.

I went to a wedding this weekend as well.

Roman Catholic couple. Very devout, although each in very different ways.

Bride's brother was the officiating priest.

His comments, when rarely applicable to the couple themselves, were more or less condeming of the groom and his charismatic Catholic family and their "home church."

And he said an awful lot about "Christ and the Church."

It was all terribly offensive, really, especially the pretenses made to unity with others while so strongly maintaining an exclusive table.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

It was all terribly offensive, really, especially the pretenses made to unity with others while so strongly maintaining an exclusive table.

Funny how clear it seems when it is the RCC doing it, but not when it is your own group (obviously not actually your group).

I see a wedding as two things. First a public statement of a commitment to each other for life, then second, an invitation to join in celebrating that commitment with merriment. (Well, not as much merriment in a LC reception, but still the idea is there.)

Spending a lot of time talking about oneness and Christ and the Church seems to be using a wedding as pretense to preach to everyone else. It seems upside down. Instead they should take a little bit of oneness theology and some "Christ and the Church" as something instructional to the couple for their practical marriage.

Thanks for the comments.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Scripture is correct when it says that we become “one flesh.” But that does not mean that we cease to be “two flesh.” It is not a contradiction, but is about different things. He is always who he is, and so is she. At the same time, there is a new entity that joins to be “married,” and do the things of marriage, including bearing and raising children.

But this joint life does not end your separate life. And you will discover how real and strong those two separate lives can be. It does not matter if one of you is prone to being passive. The very act of being passive is often a tool of defense of who you are. “They may boss me around, but they can’t get inside of me.”

Here is where notions of position and place collapse. If he wants to be the “head” he will fail. And as much as she wants to submit, it won’t happen. Instead, look at the whole of the verses in Ephesians 5. It begins in verse 21 with “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” This is the set-up verse. Then verse 22 begins with “wives, to your husbands,” and then verse 25 says “husbands, to your wives.” There are surely other words there, but these are the links to the primary command in verse 21. We have presumed that these verses create some sort of hierarchy between husband and wife. But instead they charge each to do the part that is theirs in submission to the other. I know it sounds funny, but consider that Jesus said that the true position of a disciple is as servant to all. That includes to your spouse.

But instead of relying on Paul’s words (acknowledging that they are also God’s words), let’s look at those of Jesus. As part of His answer concerning what is the greatest commandment, Jesus actually provides two which he joins as a unit upon which all the rest are built. That second commandment is in Matthew 22:39 and it says “Love your neighbor as yourself.” It does not say to love them more than yourself. It does not say to love them almost as much as yourself. It also does not suggest that you should love yourself less, then love them that much.

Now, the first thing that may come to mind is “since when is my spouse my neighbor?” When you look at the parallel account in Luke 10, we see that there was a follow-on question. It was “who is my neighbor?” The answer has resulted in a lot of different interpretations, but the best answer is that whoever you have contact with is your neighbor. Now who do you suppose a married person has a whole lot of contact with? If you say “my spouse” you have won the prize! So whether you want to say that Paul has simply said “love your neighbor who happens to be my spouse just like I love myself” in a different way, or you want to say that Jesus said to “submit to your spouse” in a different way, both are correct. And if you think that being a servant of all is only referring to serving the “saints” and not also referring to your spouse, and to all your neighbors, both those who live in proximity and those we come in contact with both physically and “virtually” in so many ways every day, then you have missed the meaning.

So we have 2 separate entities, "joined to be one", yet still separate, with the command, to love the person next to you (your neighbor). Your spouse, your children, your parents, your cousins and your best friend from grade school. As well as the mundane, "people on the street" passers-by. The Samaritan had no compelling reason to recognize the wounded traveller, but somehow he realized that God had placed this dying creature in his path, and "God" within him rose up and moved.

I agree with you that the home and the marriage is the place to practice loving your neighbor as yourself, and to fortify us for the man-on-the-street contacts. Even though spouses do in fact remain separate and distinct, they can practice caring for another person's well-being as much as they care for their own.

I think it's very, very important to rest Paul's words upon the words of Jesus, as you have done. If we just examine Paul's words "in a vacuum" we can becom unbalanced (and yes, I do recognize Paul's words as from God).

[OBW]

I’ve been troubled for some time with the problem of exposing the errors that Lee introduced into the Local Church, and the serious acts of Lee and various of his underlings over the course of many years, without simply trashing the very existence of the Local Church as a group of assemblies.

Without discussing the nuances of organization v organism, I intend “Local Church” or “LC” to refer to the group of assemblies that have sprung up by whatever method and are followers of the teachings of both Nee and Lee. There are arguments to be made concerning whether the LC, or at least that portion that holds strongly to all the materials published by the LSM, is a denomination. But as I have argued recently elsewhere, I find little significance in the determination that a group is or is not a denomination. There is now a clear split in the whole of that group, however, there are still many characteristics and teachings from Nee and Lee that remain in all such assemblies. To the extent that any particular item discussed by me applies to the whole of the LCs, I do intend it as such. But to the extent that the result of the recent split(s) has been to remove some of the errors from some, those are not presumed to be included.

The problem with analyzing everything together as if it is a homogenous unit (Lee, Nee, other leaders, and the assemblies that comprise the LC) is that it is not entirely true. For example, I could I could analyze any particular LC assembly on several points and find many combinations of characteristics. Let’s consider The Church in ____. It is a composite of Christians, beliefs and practices as follows:

• The core of its faith is consistent with the basics that virtually all of Christianity accepts and believes.
• While the membership “enjoys” the elevated status of certain teachings like “Christ is the Spirit” they still strongly believe in the simultaneous existence of so-called “persons” of the Father, Son and Spirit.
• They have accepted the edict to have “ministry station meetings” and use HWMR as the basis for their PSRP.
• Despite the strong warnings about materials from other sources (especially from non LSM sources within the LCs) many of them read other Christian materials and find insight in them.
• Many of the members did not agree with the lawsuit against Harvest House and consider it a stupid undertaking of others who want to waste their money.
• While they would never consciously think that they accept everything Nee, Lee or the BBs say without a second thought, that is what they do.
• They may have heard that some persons somewhere else (or even in their city) were reprimanded for what would appear to be unscriptural reasons, but they acknowledge that each church, and each person, including the leadership, is different and that individuals do make mistakes. They may have even heard the rumors about why it was that John Ingalls left in the 80s, but rather than simply accepting that the “apostle of the age” can do no wrong, they have accepted the lie that it was a FALSE ACCUSATION and ignored it.

The list could go on and on. The point is that each assembly is a peculiar collection of individuals. Despite all the efforts of Lee and the LSM and the BBs to make everyone “say the same thing” and look and act almost like clones (and any outsider’s view that it is working at some level), they are not cookie-cutter churches.

And despite my strong opposition to a certain thread here for reasons that did not include the stated purpose of the thread, some of the teachings and practices, even if mostly as the result of misunderstanding overstated hyperbole to be “a word for God,” have lead to actions by individuals in their dealings with their spouses, children, parents, coworkers, other Christians and even the general population that even the worst of the LC leadership would stand against. (Unfortunately, some of the LC leadership was involved in some of it.)

Now when it comes to deconstructing the teachings that Nee and Lee pushed onto the LCs, there would surely be the discovery of teachings that we believe should be eliminated from the theological base of any church inside or outside of the LC. Whether that should be accomplished by simply rejecting Lee outright and then rediscovering truth or retaining Lee and trying to cleanse the errors is their decision. I do have an opinion about it, and have stated it repeatedly over the past years. But, I do not find anything in scripture that says that a church should simply throw out its understanding of scripture and start over because they might have some error in that understanding.

But when it comes to accepting or rejecting Lee, I believe that the correct answer is to reject him outright. I believe that because, consistent with my analysis of his teachings and the fruit of those teachings, the tree is bad. (While less obvious, I actually believe that Nee is in the same position.) I do not believe that Lee stands with Paul, Peter, Apollos, etc., as a true worker on God’s farm and/or building. Instead of allowing Lee and Nee to remain in the company of the workers, they should be rejected as those who are teaching differently. In the case of Lee, there is also evidence that he was using his position in the LC to feed his belly, and the greed and lust of his sons. Such persons are not qualified to be teachers.

The fruit of one church one city is the de-legitimization of all others and their denigration as “poor,” and even “apostate.” The fruit of “turning to your spirit” and “walking by the spirit” (rather than “walking by the Spirit”) is excuses for being the ones in Galatians that Paul said were indulging in the sinful nature. (Paul did not say get more Christ then you will stop. He said stop.) The fruit of deputy authority is gross misconduct accepted as OK because of the presumption that a deputy of God cannot sin. The fruit of following after a person is that such person’s errors become yours and the division from others concerning that person is your error.

The list goes on and on. The fruit is clear. I believe that it says strongly to reject Lee, and less strongly to reject Nee.

Then certain persons argue that we should just leave Lee alone and leave the churches that accept his teachings alone. While I do agree somewhat with respect to the churches, I do not agree with respect to Lee. To reject is to take a stand and reject. And to the extent that a church decides to not reject Lee, I believe that they should continue to hear the reasons to change their position.

But the church itself is not necessarily subject to being closed and shuttered because it determines that its primary source of food was actually a cesspool. That determination can only be made by the people. If they determine that the church is too ingrained with the errors and that remaining together would simply perpetuate them, then closing may be the answer. But if not, I would not dare to demand that they close anyway.

I know that my speaking here in opposition to many of the teachings and actions of Lee, and even the teachings of Nee (I cannot find evidence of errors in Nee’s actions), will at times bleed over into statements against the LC. My intent in that is not to condemn the many good Christian brothers and sisters who meet together in the LC, but to point to the systemic errors that have been institutionalized due to the decades of Lees’ teachings and the over-lording of his coworkers and now the BBs. And due to the willful perpetuation of many of Lee’s errors, many of those coworkers should be rejected as potential leaders of a “Lee-less” LC. And while we can at least wonder how they don’t individually see themselves as being “of Lee” we might also be able to understand that at the individual level they do not believe that to be the case.

This has rambled on for long enough now. I was having one of those “what are you doing and why are you doing it” moments and thought that I would put it into my blog. I think that I have somewhat redefined my position and intent. I hope that it shows up in my future writing.

[OBW]

OK. Enough is enough. I now have to redraft this post because the #*%&^@ McAfee Site Advisor popped-up as I was hitting “review” to ask whether I really wanted to be on this site. While not the inevitable outcome, this time it lost the post so that when I got back to here, to do the reviewing, the post did not exist. It was not in the previous screen. It was gone. 30 minutes of effort lost.

McAfee says that for smaller sites, they don’t have the resources to check everything out, so they need site administrators to register their sites with them. It may be an annoyance, but it will decrease our ongoing annoyance.

But I will try to mostly recreate my thoughts. This time offline. I always used to do it that way. But with the introduction of Office 2007, there began to be problems keeping weird formatting issues out of the forum. But, alas, I guess it must be until that little site advisor turns from yellow to green when I log onto this site.

I’m sure that this version will be quite different from the original.

- - - -

I have probably got some of you wondering what is going on with me. I visit less regularly. More like sporadically. And I have begun to take some even more strong stands in favor of Christianity as we know it. And I don’t really leave any of it out. It does sort of make one wonder why I would bother picking on the LRC if I can be so generous to the RCC. I’m not giving the RCC a free pass. But the problems I have with the LRC affect me and my relationship with family. So those clearly stand out as more important to me.

For the past year I have begun to drop out of some things. I rarely visit facebook any more. I have been reading less of the extreme “emergent” blogs that I used to follow. I have even stopped being regular here. (Add to that a week-long trip to the NW for rest and relaxation with my younger son and I’ve not been around much lately.)

But I am at a different place in my spiritual journey. The journey began in my youth with the Assemblies of God (AOG). During my senior year of high school, we (the whole family) left that for the LRC. Just up and left. (Of course, that is fairly common of LRC converts.) Then 14.5 years later, me, my wife, and our two young children (5 and 2) left the LRC. We have mostly been at one Bible church the whole time. We recently moved to another Bible church. Not because of problems or disagreements. But our son followed a girl at Dallas Theological Seminary to this other group and married her. We get to see them more often this way. (That kind of thing will get you the label of “marginal” in the LRC.)

But before that, back in 2005, I got a copy of The Mind Benders, that awful book that we sued back in the late 70s / early 80s. Then shortly after that, The Thread of Gold. It was through that author that I found out about the BARM and from there we have mostly moved here. What the books, and then the forums showed me was that our exit from the LRC was far from complete. We continued to hold onto too much of their thinking and ways. I began to see the words of scripture as they were written and not as they were reinterpreted for us.

I am now convinced that the old things are neither something to be discarded like dirt from your shoes, nor cherished like there can be no more. The ways of various groups are just that — ways. They are not gospel. Neither are they heresy.

Then why would I come here to join in chastising the LRC when I think that virtually all the others are OK? Not because I think all others are the best, but because I think that the “we are superior” mindset of the LRC, coupled with a core of teaching that gives unrighteous liberties to the leadership while keeping the rank-and-file under worse chains than we think are on those in the RCC.

And I know that my generosity to the RCC may tend to grate on some. I do not think they are simply OK. There is much to say about them. But I also cannot join with those who virtually declare them to be not a church. But within that, I believe that there are many more there who are “saved” than the rest of us like to consider possible. I’m convinced that Martin Luther did not complain that Catholics did not have faith. They simply did not understand that the faith they had gave them surety. Since this was not a teaching pushed forward by the RCC, the fact that salvation was attained by the simple act of faith was not recognized. But that did not make it untrue. I don’t think that Martin Luther was trying to get Catholics saved. He was trying to show that they were and could know it.

And nothing has really changed. Yeah, the RCC still suggests that you need another mediator. Pretty poor. But at the same time, they may be better at confessing their sins one to another than most of the rest of us are. I think that we like to just “tell it to Jesus” and leave it at that. Surely that is the important thing. But as we do find that we are perpetually needing to “tell it,” and often for the same thing over and over, telling it to someone else actually does help us to have someone with an audible voice trying to help us keep in line. Does the RCC system do all of this? No. But then again, I’m not sure of one that fully does.

My alternate journey through study on the “emerging church” movement (They hate to be called a movement) is also dwindling. Not because I have found all my answers, but because I am finding that there has always been a center and that study (along with this one) helped clear away the vines that had grown over the door into the center.

The church is not the center. Ministers are not the center. Jesus is the center. Following Jesus is the center. Obeying is the center. Love God and love your fellow man. If you can’t link it back to this, you probably don’t understand it and it isn’t the center.

And you don’t love your fellow man by denigrating him/her as poor and pathetic. Love does not stand at a distance and demand that everyone rush to your side.

I will continue to participate here on and off because I still have family in the LRC. My father, a brother and a sister, along with their spouses and children. 14 in all, including 3 of my nephews’ spouses. There is no way to avoid the clueless insults that come from their mouths at times. They never mean to insult. They just don’t see it.

They are clueless.

So let’s give them some clues.

[OBW]

In the last post, I mentioned having read The Mind Benders back in 2005. Based on more recent discussions here, I am fairly certain that it was The God-Men that I actually read. What I read was only concerning the LRC. I believe that The Mind Benders covers several sects/cults, originally including the LRC.

[OBW]

Having just stepped into another minefield, I have to admit that I am less and less concerned with the ongoing errors of the LRC (others are dealing with those quite well), but more and more concerned about how we have simply replaced one kind of dogma for another. Maybe not as extreme a dogma, but dogma nonetheless.

We are too often busy lobbing well-deserved grenades over the LRC’s fence to notice that while we may have moderated our position on Christianity, we still have so many of the problems with it that we never imagined were there until Lee and his lackey’s told us about them. We have jettisoned “the ground” but somewhat condemn ourselves to actually proving Benson’s (and others’) claims that you just can’t go on anywhere else.

Why? Because they have a choir. Or they have a rock band. Or they actually say the words “go to church.” The list goes on and on. We continue to determine that the errors of denominationalism are what we were told because we can find evidence of some spiritual or doctrinal error occurring inside of some of them in some locations (assemblies). Or we distrust even elders because we know of an elder that (fill in the blank with whatever evil or error).

We want to encourage the LRC membership to feel free to jump ship, then turn around and declare that most of everything else is no better. If that is the case, if your particular city doesn’t have and real dealings with Anaheim (as far as the average member can tell) and has some real spiritual camaraderie, why exchange the devil you know for a different devil?

Are we that unhappy with where we have gone? Is it really worse than that little group in Corinth that Paul had to chastise so severely? In most cases, I bet it is not.

Yes, you can find issues with some of the older denominations. I note that there is about to be another split in the Lutheran ranks over the recent ordination of an actively gay preacher/priest. It is unfortunate that there is no one with the status of Paul to kick that in the head. But there isn’t. But the fact that this happens is not proof that the LRC is right. Or more importantly it is not proof that the LRC is the “only true church.” And it does not make any other group (and maybe even member assemblies of that group) spiritually unfit.

It is interesting that when we first linked-up with the LRC in the early/mid 70s, there was a significant movement underway that brought many Christians together despite their preferences in meeting or doctrine. To some extent, it was precursor to much of the breaking down of walls between groups that has increased over the years since.

But the LRC offered a different way. Form yet another sect and specialize in pointing at everyone else’s flaws.

Reminds me of a song from the Sesame Street movie, “Follow That Bird.” Oscar the Grouch sings the "Grouch National Anthem" which includes the lines:

Let this be your grouchly cause
Point out everybody’s flaws
Something is wrong with everything
Except the way I sing

Doesn’t take much modification to make it an anthem for the LRC. The question is, have we completely stopped singing it?

I keep finding that I have not. And then for some period of time after each realization, I struggle to reset my mind, by the Spirit, to have the mind of Christ rather than just the mind of Lee. I’m sure that it will continue.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have begun to take some even more strong stands in favor of Christianity as we know it. And I don’t really leave any of it out. It does sort of make one wonder why I would bother picking on the LRC if I can be so generous to the RCC. I’m not giving the RCC a free pass. But the problems I have with the LRC affect me and my relationship with family. So those clearly stand out as more important to me.

Mike. I just started reading your blog. If I am not posting, I am not lurking. I do not read all threads because compared to most people here, I was in the LC a very short time. The RcV was not even compiled! But I do have a copy of the NT RcV.

When I was in the LC, we mostly used the KJ. I learned to pray read from the KJ. The scriptures that are inscribed in my heart and mind are from the KJ and the NASB, which we also used briefly. In recent years, I have cross referenced the Amplifie, New Living Translation and on very few occasions the NIV. My RcV is in a box collecting dust. It was given to me. I have skimmed through it but. I have never really used it as as study bible.

But just like the RCC impacted my upbringing, the LC also made an impact on me which is why I come and go.

I think I go to mass once a year due to weddings, funerals, or some other invite. I even participate in the litergy except when they pray the "Hail Mary". I draw the line there. No can do. Will not do.

I have attended some AOG services but not recently. I am not a tongue speaking die hard. I have prayed in tongues BY FAITH, believing the Holy Spirit is praying through me when I could not find the words to pray with. Other church services and prayer meetings I have attended in the last 10 years all emphasized praying in tongues. I tried to be open. Ultimately I would much rather pray the scriptures.

I think it is commendable you have been generous towards the RCC without giving them a free pass. My one neighbor is a very religious Catholic. He was ordained a deacon a couple of years ago. I went to the elaborate mass. I never prayed so hard or so much. NOT because it was a devilish service. Had I not prayed as I did, I would have either been bored out of my mind or would have fallen asleep! I developed a new appreciation for crucifying the flesh!!!!

But I am at a different place in my spiritual journey. The journey began in my youth with the Assemblies of God (AOG). During my senior year of high school, we (the whole family) left that for the LRC. Just up and left. (Of course, that is fairly common of LRC converts.) Then 14.5 years later, me, my wife, and our two young children (5 and 2) left the LRC. We have mostly been at one Bible church the whole time. We recently moved to another Bible church. Not because of problems or disagreements. But our son followed a girl at Dallas Theological Seminary to this other group and married her. We get to see them more often this way.

Good for you!!! Life IS a journey. We ought not be afraid where the Spirit of God leads us and guides us. Just like Abram did not really know where the Lord was taking him, and walked by Faith, so do we.

I began to see the words of scripture as they were written and not as they were reinterpreted for us.

I am now convinced that the old things are neither something to be discarded like dirt from your shoes, nor cherished like there can be no more. The ways of various groups are just that — ways. They are not gospel. Neither are they heresy.

Then why would I come here to join in chastising the LRC when I think that virtually all the others are OK?

I know you addressed this question Mike. I just want to add that you, me everyone here are on a quest for Truth. Some are very content going to church, some are exploring the idea and some have been there already.

[Quote]I know that my generosity to the RCC may tend to grate on some. I do not think they are simply OK. There is much to say about them. But I also cannot join with those who virtually declare them to be not a church.[Quote]

It does not grate on me. I am not sure that it grates on anyone here. Of course, if you -converted- to Catholicism eating up the whole enchilada, well that would ruffle a lot of feathers! I do not know that anyone argues it is not a church. Setting aside, we learned in the LC the RCC is represented by the CHURCH in Thyatira in Revelation 3, it is true. In fact, when I did my own personal study of who are those that call themselves Jews but are from the synagogue of Satan, I discovered it was the "converted" Jews Paul was warning in the book of Hebrews who were responsible for instituting the RCC. And that is all I will say about that.

within that, I believe that there are many more there who are “saved” than the rest of us like to consider possible.

No doubt OBW!! no doubt. Aron posed a better question IMHO regarding the "Who is a real Christian" thread.We can discuss it there.

And nothing has really changed. Yeah, the RCC still suggests that you need another mediator.

It is far more sinister than that Mike. Most Catholics, most people do not know the dark and evil doings that go on in the Vatican. Malachi Martin was a close associate to Pope John XXIII and People Paul VI.
He has several books detailing his findings. He died in 1999.

That said, I know many Catholics who love the Lord Jesus. I believe many Catholics are saved, truly born again.

The church is not the center. Ministers are not the center. Jesus is the center. Following Jesus is the center. Obeying is the center. Love God and love your fellow man.

This should be the mission statement of this forum!!!

Thanks for sharing and blessings to you and your family Mike..especially those stuck in the grip of the LSM.

[OBW]

I was reading one of my favorite blogs and came across this portion that was reposted from a much longer post of years earlier. I won't say that I am entirely in sync with the blogger's thoughts, but do think he is onto something important.

- - -

From the "Internet Monk" (not Catholic)
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/...h-to-the-bible

- - -

I believe most Christians use the word “inspiration” to mean “the Bible is a magic book, where God speaks to us in unusual ways.” By this they mean that the contents of the Bible – the verses – have unusual power when read or applied. So if we were to transfer this idea to another book, and treat it as we treat the Bible, it might be like this: If we considered “Walden” to be inspired in the typical evangelical way, we would not be looking for the big ideas or the main point in Thoreau’s book, but we would be examining particular sentences to see if they “spoke to us.” The actual text of “Walden” would be secondary to our use of verses.

So on, let’s say, the matter of changing jobs, we might find a sentence that says, “Most men live lives of quiet desperation,” and we would conclude that this verse is God telling us to change jobs. Or another sentence might say, “I left my job and moved to the woods.” This, we would say, is God speaking to us. Now we might be able to read the entire book and sustain that conclusion, or we might find – if we studied better – that the book didn’t sustain that particular use of an individual sentence. It wouldn’t really matter, however, to most of us, because God used the verse to speak to us, and that is the way we read the Bible.

Or, for further example, say someone is facing a troubled marriage. He reads and discovers a sentence in “Walden” that says, “I did not speak to another person for over a month.” From this, he concludes that God is telling him to not argue with his spouse. The fact that this is a universe away from what Thoreau meant with that sentence would be irrelevant. This is how we would be using “Walden” as a “magic book.” Recognize the method? I think we all do.

If we were committed to the “magic book” approach and someone were to teach “Walden” as a whole, telling us the main ideas and message in the book, we might not consider that particularly impressive. It is nice to know what the book says, we would say, but the use of the book as a “magic text” doesn’t depend at all on understanding the meaning of the overall book, or the message Thoreau was conveying. Introductions and analysis of the book as a whole would almost be a secondary, and mostly useless, exercise in comparison to the more exciting and personal “magic book” use of “Walden.” We might be confident, in fact, that the ordinary reader can handle the “inspired Walden” with far more relevance for his life than the educated scholar handles the same book, because the scholar doesn’t believe that the sentences contain the power. So ignorance is no barrier in the magic book approach. Recognize that, too? Uh-huh.

- - - -

Any thoughts?

[OBW]

"Feed my sheep. Feed my lambs. Shepherd my sheep." Those were the Lord's words to us all, clearly.

Is it really clear that it is to everyone? We like to think it is. Or alternately, some people like to assert that it is to everyone.

But is it really true? Or just thought of as true because everyone says it is?

I'm not diminishing the actual charges that are laid at each of our feet. But despite years of hearing "no clergy-laity" shouted by and to us, there is strong evidence that Jesus said certain things to everyone, a lesser amount to the large group of regular followers, and still a smaller body of things to the 12/11.

And when we read Paul and others, they also suggest the same things.

They indicate that there are teachers. If everything is to everyone, then we should teach ourselves.

They indicate that certain ones build while others are the result of that building. And there is a high price for using poor materials in building.

Certain ones have gifts supplied so that the rest of us can be equipped to do our part in ministry.

Don't anyone get their panties in a wad over this. I'm not trying to shirk what is my responsibility and charge. But not everything is charged to everybody. And the charge to Peter was said specifically to Peter, and only in the presence of a few. I do not deny that there is an aspect of feeding that occurs among all believers. But Jesus had a larger charge for his closest apostles. He took them aside and sent them to preach the gospel to the all the world. To baptize and to instruct in the commands of Jesus.

No. It would be impossible to say that "feed my sheep" does not apply to us all at some level. But I believe it is equally impossible to say that the charge that was being spoken to Peter was something that was clearly spoken to us all in the same way that it was spoken to Peter.

Yes, there is a royal priesthood — a kingdom of priests — but I think we over-apply the meaning of that metaphor when we insist that everybody is everything. That we all do it all and have been charged in that way.

As I said, I'm not trying to excuse my lacks. I'm trying to discover what it is that is really a command to me so that I can quit beating myself up for failure to be Peter, or John, or Paul. And instead find myself one of the multitude that sat at their feet for teaching then went back to family, community, and work to live the life that we were made for — to bear the image of God in all that we do.

[OBW]

I decided to put this here rather than in the thread I started it in. It would be off-topic and probably not get enough interest to be its own thread. So this seems like the best place for it.

First, while I will use uncredited quotes from recent posts, I do not provide the credit because I do not consider anything to be peculiarly wrong with what they have said — maybe other than we may not be saying what we think we are saying (with due deference to Inigo Montoya’s “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”) I am not suggesting that I know what it means. But for various reasons, I have begun to think it is not what I have long thought.

Here goes:

When talking about the “pure Word of the Bible” comes this line:

What is even more puzzling is WL's admitting as divinely revelatory those portions quoted in the NT, yet even denuding the surrounding text of Christ!

This is an excellent point. But there is something not directly in this that I have been wondering about.

We have had a poster here in the past that was so big on the gospels only. Ignoring his other issues, I admire that he espoused the idea that the core of the NT is in the gospels, not in the epistles. But Lee (and I think also Nee) bases virtually all of his theology on the epistles, and most importantly, on those of Paul. In addition to the aforementioned poster, there is a significant groundswell in certain sectors of Christianity to downplay Paul. I’ve seen articles in which they are sort of allowing Paul back in by “rehabilitating” his writings.

But the problem is not Paul. It is us. Just like the problem is not the Psalms or James, it is us (or more specifically, Lee). It is not just a Lee problem. It is heavily an evangelical and fundamental problem. Most of our core teaching starts with Paul rather than with Jesus in the gospels. That would be OK if we truly understood Paul. But when we declare that our new life in Christ is by grace and not works, we prove our misunderstanding of that passage. It did not dismiss works other than with respect to what it is that provides salvation.

And when we read that I am free from the law of sin and death and declare that the law is abolished, we clearly have not read Christ. He said it remained. He said it was harder than we originally thought. (Funny, we think the Jewish leaders were simply stupid adding on so many more nuances to the actual laws. But Jesus took it even further!) If we started with Jesus — with the gospels — and allowed the following material to provide further understanding, we would never use the words of Paul to dismiss the words of Christ.

But Lee seemed to do it a lot. Jesus says "you think that not committing actual adultery is enough. I say that if you think about it you did it!" Lee says that it technically does not matter because the law is abolished. He thinks that is what Paul said.

And sometimes we do it too. We allow the epistles (ignoring James for some) to not only “denude the surrounding text of Christ,” but to denude Christ’s text. To refuse his own words.

The second thing that is bothering me was:

. . . and still find the "pure Word of the Bible," which Christ Himself.

Simply as words, this is as real as it gets. The Word of God is God. But John more specifically put it as “the word became flesh.”

So the first response should be “what could be wrong with that?”

On the surface, I agree. But what do we mean when we say that? What did John mean when he wrote that? (Or more correctly, what did God mean when he inspired John to write.) I don’t think I know for sure. But we have been operating on the premise that it is one particular thing to the exclusion of other possibilities. And we probably have never considered that there is even one other possibility.

The Word is the spoken/written expression of who God is. Since he does not lie, it is an accurate description. But as written, every word is not necessarily descriptive of God in itself. “In the beginning, the earth was waste and void” (or whatever translation you want to use) does not describe God. But the narrative in Genesis 1 tells us a lot about God. But when I juxtapose a statement like “the pure Word of the Bible which is Christ himself” up against Genesis 1:1, I am left with a resounding “Huh?”

There is something about this statement (and there are similar statements outside of the LRC, so this is not personal to us) that seems to be making more out of words than what they are. The description of the death of Judas is not Christ. But in the context of the story of his life on earth, his betrayal, death and resurrection, we learn something about mankind in the description of the destruction of someone who rejected Christ. So, as a whole, we learn much about Christ. But in isolation, it is not “simply Christ” (to borrow from our favorite debunked MOTA).

The very things recorded are at God’s behest. The specific words used to say it may or may not have been key. (It is a case-by-case issue and I am not the one to ask. I think this is one of the reasons that which translation, or translation method, is often not as important as some often think. I even wonder if reading something as different from the norm as The Message might be enlightening because it removes the presumptions from what is said, how it is said, and what we already think it means. The alternate rendering could open our eyes to reconsidering meaning — which will still need to be checked against the literal words/phrases. Sometimes we just need to get our default answer set aside to be able to see something new.)

The point is not that the Word is not God. Or the Word is not Christ. It is just that it is not in the way of some kind of magical thing (like that Book of the Dead in “The Mummy” that you had to be careful how you spoke it out loud). So somewhere between “every word is specially ordained by God” and “that part is the natural concept of man” is the truth.

And the truth is that the story of God — the revelation of God — is the revelation of his person and relationships. Relationship within the godhead. Relationship with man. The parts that tell us who and what God is are often direct. But not always. Sometimes we learn who his is through the story. The details of the story are not God. But the story is. So in one sense, the word is Christ. In another the word is not, itself, Christ, but tells of him.

Just like we don’t consider that a book became flesh. Rather, the thing told of in the story became flesh. The God who spoke to few directly came in body and spoke to everyone. The crossing of the Red Sea did not become flesh. But the God who caused it did.

So what do we mean when we say “the pure Word of the Bible is Christ Himself”? If we mean that the cause of it is Christ, or the force behind its very existence is Christ, I understand. If we say that the words “now the serpent was more crafty than . . .” is Christ, what does that mean? Unless it just means that when put with a lot of other words, we learn something about God and about his relationship with man.

I’m coming to the thought that the words are, in themselves, nothing special. But when we see how God is revealed in its narratives, descriptions, and in the very words that he spoke on various occasions, nothing is meaningless. Nothing is “natural concept of man.” Nothing is worthy of derision.

I guess that what I am saying (in way too many words) is that making bald declarations like “the pure Word of the Bible is just Christ himself” doesn’t solve anything or do anything. It even could be argued to suggest something that I don’t think we mean. But finding God, Christ, the Spirit revealed in so many ways and aspects throughout its collection of words does a lot. The catchphrase too often distracts from the revelation that is really there.

Almost like ignoring grace because Christ is grace. If Christ is grace, then what is grace? If I do not need grace, but only Christ, then why mention it?

If the Pure Word is just Christ, then I don’t need the word. I just need Christ and it all comes to me. If so, then why the word? If so then why do we stray so far when we think we are so spiritual and only caring for Christ?

This may be as much of the problem with where Lee and the LRC have gone as anything else. Replace the truth found in the Word with a catchphrase that allows you to do without it.

[OBW]

I have been saying for some time that there is something seriously wrong with so much of Nee’s teaching. It was not just a Lee thing to be so ridiculous in devising teachings.

But somehow we too often just can’t see the problems with Nee.

Since the issue of Deputy Authority has once again risen its head within the discussion concerning the book by a former member of Nee’s church in Shanghai, I once again started looking into it.

At the same time, on the other forum it was suggested that we try to determine if Spiritual Authority (aka Authority and Submission) might be in some way responsible for causing the external designation as a cult by others. The person who opened the line of discussion then scanned through the book and discovered that all of the parameters seemed to be sound and scriptural. The character and demeanor of the authority. Their position as a servant. And so on. And at one point it seems to say that they are accountable to God.

And that would be 100% true.

But when you slow down in your reading, you discover many things that undermine the apparent spirituality of the teaching. The church must absolutely obey. They are unable to make any accusation against the authority. And in one place, Nee actually says that the authority is not subject to correction because of sin, but only because of rebellion (or something like that). It is derived from an example of the sons of the priest who were judged by God for doing what was not allowed. Can’t remember if it centered around Eli’s sons, or Nadab and Abihu. But these were similar issues. Nee asserts that it was not because they sinned, but because they dared to do something not under the headship of the high priest. I never figured out where he got that. It was true that it was not under the HP’s headship. But there is nothing that I could see that made that the reason for their deaths. Rather, it was for their wanton sin being brought into the holy place.

Yet this is a point of error that stands strong in Nee’s mind to insist that a church cannot challenge a “deputy authority” based on sin.

And when I back away from this one inquiry, I even see that so much of the book is just full of conjecture and misdirection (intentional or otherwise). But it is all spoken/written in such pious and spiritual terms that it is easy to be fooled into believing that you are reading the word of God itself. And this may be one of the most insidious things about Nee’s writings. From my limited research in the past few years, I have found him to be consistently sloppy (being generous) with handling and interpreting the scripture. He replaces words to achieve a goal without even making a case for the correctness of the replacement (and in the case of the book we are discussing here, he was not correct). He declares things to be the most important thing. But he does not even bother to give a reason. Just says it.

Yet it could be argued to sound so right that it is too easy to just take it as truth.

And a whole lot of people have. Fortunately, most readers of Nee are not from with in the LRC, so they have not been exposed to the worst of them. But even some of his more popular inner-life books dance around the errors that Lee eventually lead us into. Sit Walk Stand, his short book on Ephesians sets you up to accept “wait for the dispensing.” I read it again several years ago and it stuck out to me like a sore thumb. That was my window into the questioning of Nee. But it was a couple of years after that when someone was spouting quotes from one chapter in Lee’s Economy of God that I first saw the scriptural mishandling coupled with declarations that things not even supported were settled so we could move on. Near the same time, there was some study into Nee’s Further Talks on the Church Life in which he set out to better settle his church = city rule. Seems that he had not yet dealt with the house churches. So he simply said that it could not mean that because it would violate the church = city rule. And so the rule that needed proof became the evidence to refute the evidence against it. Standard circular reasoning. Begging the question.

I recall Max R coming to Dallas one time back in the 70s (of course he was only around in the 70s). He was poking fun at some new “maharaji” of some sort that had set up shop in the Astrodome. He said, “all you have to do is say ‘up is up; down is down; the hands of the clock go round and round’ and you will have a following.” Pretty funny. And too true. We just didn’t see that we were being lead astray by less foolish-sounding words, but they were nonetheless in error. They just sounded good.

I recall times when some would stand in a meeting and declare to Christians that they should “come out of her my people” as if they (now we) were in the whore of Babylon. I’m not sure that I would characterize the LRC as the whore of Babylon. But its inhabitants really need to come out. They have been inhaling garlic fumes for too long. They have become befuddled by the smoke of an opium den. But, unfortunately, it seems that it is too much like crack cocaine or methamphetamine. They need fix after fix to keep going. They long for the leeks and garlic of he LRC.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I recall times when some would stand in a meeting and declare to Christians that they should “come out of her my people” as if they (now we) were in the whore of Babylon. I’m not sure that I would characterize the LRC as the whore of Babylon. But its inhabitants really need to come out.

Perhaps we need a recovery of The Come-outers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come-outer

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

when you slow down in your reading, you discover many things that undermine the apparent spirituality of the teaching. The church must absolutely obey. They are unable to make any accusation against the authority. And in one place, Nee actually says that the authority is not subject to correction because of sin, but only because of rebellion (or something like that). It is derived from an example of the sons of the priest who were judged by God for doing what was not allowed. Can’t remember if it centered around Eli’s sons, or Nadab and Abihu. But these were similar issues. Nee asserts that it was not because they sinned, but because they dared to do something not under the headship of the high priest. I never figured out where he got that. It was true that it was not under the HP’s headship. But there is nothing that I could see that made that the reason for their deaths. Rather, it was for their wanton sin being brought into the holy place.

The thing I never could understand about Nee's logic here is that the rule didn't apply to him, when he was leaving the "headship" of established Christianity, and encouraging others to do so. His and others' leaving the degraded Protestant denomination wasn't rebellion, or division, so he said. But once established as "authority" in his new, restored movement, he set up a rule in which doing anything apart from the organizational head was not allowed.

To me this smacks of "Do as I say, not as I do."

Supposedly his outstanding character was the counterweight (I am guessing here). His meekness and humility and mature spirituality would prevent any leading of the flock astray. He as the deputy God (Living Stream terminology) would have a clear line to the interceding High Priest in heaven. Just do what Nee/Lee says, and you are covered, by the "deputy authority".

Yet none of this occurred to Nee when he was considering leaving the Protestants. It only made sense after, when he was ensconced as leader of his own "little flock".

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

somewhere between “every word is specially ordained by God” and “that part is the natural concept of man” is the truth.


If we mean that the cause of it is Christ, or the force behind its very existence is Christ, I understand.

I wish I had time to respond to this post as it deserves. I think it's an outstanding piece of writing and I'd like to addend it to my thread on the Psalms. Because in making generalizations I was (I think) making assumptions that you've put here. I just didn't state them.

Three things, for brevity. First, when Peter in his great speech at Pentecost, saw different levels in the scriptural text. The failed, sinful David made a declaration which, to him, didn't come true. Yet Peter didn't spend much time on the "natural concepts" of David but rather said that David was foretelling something to come to his seed, Jesus the Nazarene. So I thought, why can't I use that same rule as well?

Second, similarly, the Hebrews author quotes the poetic scripture and says "We see Jesus". I similarly thought that I could do the same thing. Not at the same level, perhaps, not as 'objective truth', but still as my own particular spiritual journey, following Jesus.]

Third, in quotes like "none of his bones shall be broken" and "zeal of thine house has eaten me up", nowhere did I see the idea that the Christ was to be found only here, and the surrounding text was void of revelation.

Lee, essentially, did just that, which I found offensive. And that he imposed this as the rule in the church I found disgusting.

But in saying "the word is Christ" or some other hifalutin statement I didn't mean to impose the same rule, nor do I think that others who like a particular turn of phrase are also doing. Unless you make that explicit one can assume you simply like that turn of phrase. And it means to you whatever it means to you.

We will be judged by what we do, more than what words (or phrases) mean to us.

[OBW]

aron,

Some time back, I listened through part of a podcast series that was actually from a live classroom at a major seminary of Reformed theology. (I could figure out which one if given some time, but it is really not important.) The podcasts consisted of a class session of lecture, followed by a session of question and answer.

The class topic: Preaching Christ in a Postmodern World

But the core of the part I listened to (the first half of the sessions) was not really about postmodernism, but about preaching Christ. I found it refreshing that (excluding passages that were strictly speaking of Satan, or something like that) there is, besides the obvious meaning of most of the narrative, some insight into the nature of God, and therefore insight into the nature of Christ. The goal was not to turn everything into Christ. But to almost always find a link back to Christ as part of the sermon.

I believe that in later sessions there would be some discussion of the postmodern mindset, coupled with insight into how observable experience if often useful in reaching the postmodern mind. They are not impressed with declarations of truth. But they are impressed with examples of how something is seen as true.

This is somewhat the core of the "it's true for you but not for me" mentality. You may have seen something that establishes truth for you. But if I have not seen it, I have no basis to accept it a true for myself. You need to show it to me.

So churches full of propositional teaching about the nature of Christ and salvation, and so on, just don't get through. You want to claim that Jesus changes lives? Then show me some changed lives. (And exuberant, joyful people in meetings is irrelevant when they still act like heathen in so many other ways.) You say that righteousness, peace, and joy are in the Holy Spirit, then I need to see righteousness rather than unrighteousness coming from your people.

And try as we might, there is an aspect of postmodernism that is taking over the world. It is not the kind of ridiculous extremes of the early days of postmodernism where the rhetoric essentially denied the existence of truth. But it no longer accepts things just because it is written down. No longer do they believe it because it is in the paper (in a book, on the internet, etc.). They require evidence.

And Christian groups that seem to thrive on unrighteousness will not have a meaningful impact on the postmodern world because they claim to be more righteous than others simply by their claim to being Christian. So evidence that they are no different will undermine their testimony.

And speaking of testimony, it seems that for the LRC, the only testimony that matters is a declaration to God. If they say the right things to God, they think they have a strong testimony. If they believe the right doctrines, they have a better testimony.

But their testimony is a slander to the God they claim to serve. They prefer "good material" over others, and in doing so, do not love their neighbor as themselves. They slander honest and righteous men because their honesty stood against evil men, therefore they prefer evil over good. They elevate men to such a level that they become exempt from the very human actions that were directed by Paul with respect to leaders and teachers, therefore they nullify the word of God.

And they want to find favor on campuses. Go figure.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

This is somewhat the core of the "it's true for you but not for me" mentality. You may have seen something that establishes truth for you. But if I have not seen it, I have no basis to accept it a true for myself. You need to show it to me.

So churches full of propositional teaching about the nature of Christ and salvation, and so on, just don't get through. You want to claim that Jesus changes lives? Then show me some changed lives. (And exuberant, joyful people in meetings is irrelevant when they still act like heathen in so many other ways.) You say that righteousness, peace, and joy are in the Holy Spirit, then I need to see righteousness rather than unrighteousness coming from your people.

I like this part very much because it speaks so much of my experiences over the last couple of years. As roughly outlined above, I slowly and fitfully began to "see Jesus", a la Heb 2:9, in the text of scriptures as never before. I was enthralled, and then indignant when Lee effectively said, "Run along, nothing to see here".

But... just because the Psalmist (ch 3) wrote that "I laid me down and slept/I awaked/ for JHWH was with me", and I can 'see' Jesus saying "I have the power to lay my life down, and the power to raise it up again", or just because Psalm 18 said, "He rescued me because He delighted in me" and I subsequently 'see' the Father saying "This is my beloved Son, in whom I delight; hear Him", just because I see these things and feel as though I were 'falling in love all over again for the first time', the rub lies not in some supposed insight nor the momentary excitement that it may engender. No, the rub lies in whether this word endures within me such that others can 'see' this reality lived out.

Our assessment of what is Christ in the Word is subjective. And the assessment, by others, of what in us is Christ, is also subjective. This, I believe, is the narrow path. I dare not characterize my journey other than to say I've been delighted to have had an opportunity to travel it, and am truly grateful to God. May He be blessed forever, amen. As to the Son - I am sure that He is there before me, shining, in the word; I am just a bit dull to perceive, is all. But if I struggle in the word the Spirit comes; of this I testify. Beyond that, though I could say(write) a lot, and sometimes do, truly I can hardly say I know, or see, anything at all. The knowing, and seeing, is in the living.

"But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, and deceiving yourselves."

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is not just a Lee problem. It is heavily an evangelical and fundamental problem. Most of our core teaching starts with Paul rather than with Jesus in the gospels. That would be OK if we truly understood Paul. But when we declare that our new life in Christ is by grace and not works, we prove our misunderstanding of that passage. It did not dismiss works other than with respect to what it is that provides salvation.

And when we read that I am free from the law of sin and death and declare that the law is abolished, we clearly have not read Christ. He said it remained. He said it was harder than we originally thought. (Funny, we think the Jewish leaders were simply stupid adding on so many more nuances to the actual laws. But Jesus took it even further!) If we started with Jesus — with the gospels — and allowed the following material to provide further understanding, we would never use the words of Paul to dismiss the words of Christ.

I grew up in fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, and in retrospect it seems as though we instinctively transposed "grace" or "Christ", upon encountering "law", without having considered what it had possibly meant to the epistolatory writers, and their readers. It was as if some "recovered" insight into Paul's teaching had now simply rendered any consideration of law or obedience as superfluous. This was indeed convenient, but unfortunately too convenient: since we had our meaning, and had convinced ourselves of its solidity, we'd simply ignored the possiblility of any other meaning.

Only years later did I begin to appreciate the obedience of the Son. Yes, the poet's declarations of allegiance and fealty, and God's subsequent approval were arguably vain, but deeper still lay the Son. And we dismissed this because we thought we already had laid hold of "grace". We missed a lot, I believe.

Originally Posted by OBW

And sometimes we do it too. We allow the epistles (ignoring James for some) to not only “denude the surrounding text of Christ,” but to denude Christ’s text. To refuse his own words.

What helped me immensely was the stunning realization that at the time of the writing of the New Testament, they didn't have the New Testament! The scriptures were what we now call the Old Testament. So the shared meaning of the NT was a deep, deep appreciation of the OT. It was the scripture, God's speaking, in both its promises and its perils. This shared understanding formed the conceptual basis of the narrative of Jesus presented in the gospels, and the letters that followed.

Millenia later, we who treasured the NT often weren't too interested in the OT's content because it was, well, old. But in our willful ignorance of what was old and fading away, we failed to truly understand what was new (of course I am painting with a very broad brush here, but I speak as one who sat in meeting after meeting of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity, and heard the conversations after the meetings, and saw the living).

Originally Posted by OBW

The second thing that is bothering me was: Simply as words, this is as real as it gets. The Word of God is God. But John more specifically put it as “the word became flesh.”

So the first response should be “what could be wrong with that?”

On the surface, I agree. But what do we mean when we say that? What did John mean when he wrote that? (Or more correctly, what did God mean when he inspired John to write.) I don’t think I know for sure. But we have been operating on the premise that it is one particular thing to the exclusion of other possibilities. And we probably have never considered that there is even one other possibility.

The Word is the spoken/written expression of who God is. Since he does not lie, it is an accurate description. But as written, every word is not necessarily descriptive of God in itself. “In the beginning, the earth was waste and void” (or whatever translation you want to use) does not describe God. But the narrative in Genesis 1 tells us a lot about God. But when I juxtapose a statement like “the pure Word of the Bible which is Christ himself” up against Genesis 1:1, I am left with a resounding “Huh?”

There is something about this statement (and there are similar statements outside of the LRC, so this is not personal to us) that seems to be making more out of words than what they are. The description of the death of Judas is not Christ. But in the context of the story of his life on earth, his betrayal, death and resurrection, we learn something about mankind in the description of the destruction of someone who rejected Christ. So, as a whole, we learn much about Christ. But in isolation, it is not “simply Christ”.

...I’m coming to the thought that the words are, in themselves, nothing special. But when we see how God is revealed in its narratives, descriptions, and in the very words that he spoke on various occasions, nothing is meaningless. Nothing is “natural concept of man.” Nothing is worthy of derision.

... making bald declarations like “the pure Word of the Bible is just Christ himself” doesn’t solve anything or do anything. It even could be argued to suggest something that I don’t think we mean. But finding God, Christ, the Spirit revealed in so many ways and aspects throughout its collection of words does a lot. The catchphrase too often distracts from the revelation that is really there.

Almost like ignoring grace because Christ is grace. If Christ is grace, then what is grace? If I do not need grace, but only Christ, then why mention it?

If the Pure Word is just Christ, then I don’t need the word. I just need Christ and it all comes to me. If so, then why the word? If so then why do we stray so far when we think we are so spiritual and only caring for Christ? [We may] replace the truth found in the Word with a catchphrase that allows us to do without it.

In seeing the penitent psalmist's acknowledgment of failure and God's mercy, we may say to ourselves, "This isn't Christ. Jesus never sinned". But in the psalms of penitence I could still feel the words of Christ. Why? Because I am a sinner, and Christ bore my sins on the cross, and because of His gracious substitution the psalmist's repentance wasn't vain, nor is my echo of the psalmist's words. Because Christ is standing by the Father, pleading my case, and the Father listens because of the righteous One standing before Him. Suddenly, I sense these words of penitence received by the Holy One of God, the great High Priest, and laid before the Father's throne, having been borne aloft by His sent Paraclete.

If it were not for my faith, I would be lost. I am sure of it. By my faith I see the righteous One, and even in the failures of David, Peter, and so many others I now can see God's mercy in Christ Jesus. Through Christ it was available for them, and even for me. For some funny reason it wasn't until I read Psalm 51, for example, that I really could feel the resonance of Jesus saying, "Peter, you will fail. You will deny Me tonight. But I have prayed for you and My prayers will not fail. You will be saved". I was like, wow. Somehow the misery of Psalm 51 allowed me to appreciate Peter's loss, and Christ's hand of mercy reaching out.

And on and on. You get my point. Therefore, when Paul wrote "let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly" I think there is a lot of latitude for our own interpretation, application, and experience. Back when I was effectively ignoring the text which formed the shared basis for understanding this kind of encouragement, I was missing some of its latent power. And this misaiming, I later came to feel, Lee had also done. He'd ended up with a teaching but lost the power.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

when Paul wrote "let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly" I think there is a lot of latitude for our own interpretation, application, and experience. Back when I was effectively ignoring the text which formed the shared basis for understanding this kind of encouragement, I was missing some of its true power...

This is perhaps also relevant, living in an increasingly postmodern, subjectivist world. In my growing awareness of thier solid roots in the common reality of the OT text I began to feel that Paul and Peter and John and the author of Hebrews had given me permission, even encouragement, to construct "my" own Christ, with my meanings, understandings, and subsequent living. When Paul wrote, "Am I not free?" I was like, "Yes! I also am free!" When I mention the 'true power' in the text I am thinking along these lines. It has the power to inform us of the Christ, who is Jesus our Lord, and who truly sets us free. The text doesn't just give us some information regarding God, but as the word of Christ it sets us free.

And I found that in some way, as this personal, subjective, constructed experiential reality made me unique, and not a fundamentalist drone, so also could I respect that all those people out there were not me. All of them had their own histories, experiences, thoughts, feelings, reasonings, and understandings. I began to sense and respect the uniqueness of each person and stopped despising them for not being me ("I" of course being justified as the orthodox, fundamentalist Christian). And now they had some small ground to respect me back: I began to experience Christ's words that just as I had done unto others, so would I in turn be treated. Those around me became more willing to respect my faith, my understanding, my Christ. Because they could feel my Christ's respect for them.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

You will never find the foreword (pages 7-16) at ministrybooks.org. There is good reason why. Following is a passage from page 11.

"The book The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion includes my spoken messages, but its content was edited afterward by me personally. I have carefully checked all the facts and have tried my best to be accurate, to be without any mistakes. In addition to an account of the beginning and development of the whole period of the rebellion, the content of that book includes personal testimonies from over thirty brothers. Therefore, concerning this storm, I have spoken the clarifying and concluding word that I needed to speak. I have absolutely no more interest in talking about this matter. This matter now stops here. I hope that you brothers who have come to attend this conference will not mention it anymore. It does not deserve any more mentioning."

Message given 4/18/90

Originally Posted by bearbear

Wow the situation that verse describes was exactly what my parents experienced. The righteous were gradually were forced out by lies and false reports. My parents were among those casualties but who would want to stay in that environment anyway?

Originally Posted by Terry

Generally, I believe those that stay in that environment are those who believe the falsehoods and those that see no viable alternatives to meet.

In my situation since the early 80's and all of the 90's my dad did not meet and for my mom, fellowship that comes from LSM co-workers is trusted.

For those who have been around these forums since earlier days, you know that I have had an occasional soft side toward the LRC, or at least the people trapped within it. But therein lies the problem. Even when it seems they really want to be there, they don't realize to what extent they are trapped. Why else would there be so many stories of those like Terry's parents, one that ceased meeting with anyone for almost two decades while the other just takes every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LSM.

Every time we soften up on the system because the underlying basics are clearly orthodox, we justify the system that traps people in serious error and even psychological danger and damage. The quote from Lee concerning Fermentation says it all. There is no hiding from the gross immorality that was PL. And there is no hiding from the fact that Lee had PL deep in his ministry since the 70s. And was warned twice of the things he was doing — not only in private, but on the very premises of the LSM's offices. Both events ultimately ended with the ouster of an otherwise close associate of Lee and a story fabricated to justify the ouster.

In the second instance, Lee went so far as to brag about how thoroughly he had verified the "facts" that were published in Fermentation. That should have been enough for him to receive the boot by all of the churches.

But the true facts were hidden. And it was aided by younger ones that saw themselves as the ones to succeed Lee. And the way that the rest of the garbage teachings are packaged as something so special, all you get is the picture painted by Terry. Gung ho with your eyes closed and your ears plugged or just stay home. I know a couple in this area who went through many years in the same condition. Probably many others as well.

My point in this is that the LRC is not healthy. Not as an institution and not as a place to be. It is like reading the nutrition label on the worst junk food you can imagine, finding one or two ingredients that are, by themselves, healthy, and deciding that a diet of nothing but that is a good thing. The truth is that many should not even consume it as an occasional splurge.

But to make it your entire diet is absolutely absurd.

Some will argue that there are no other teachers or writers who are perfectly correct. And I will agree. But most of them are willing to admit that they don't have it all down correctly. Of course, if they knew where they were wrong they would fix it. But in the case of Nee, Lee, the LRM, and the LRC, they have no desire to fix anything even though the parts that are OK are not what they really care about. That is the problem. The parts that they care about are the problem. Their emphasis is not only questionable . . . it is just plain wrong. Their emphasis is not on God has a purpose greater than salvation. It is on God has a purpose to build a church whose "ground" on political boundaries. They have determined that where you put the foundation is of first importance. You don't just have a foundation of Christ. It must be laid on certain ground. And that ground is decided by secular governments.

Do the analysis on any of their special teachings. How many of their special teachings are sound and useful and how many are enslaving people who want to be faithful to Christ to a system of a self-elected MOTA? The Pope at least does not elect himself.

And can a system that is so steeped in garbage teachings of the leader of a personality cult ever withstand the positional demise of that leader? Even years after his death? Are there too many problems that unraveling Lee and the LSM will destroy the fabric of the LRC? Is the fabric of the LRC, in total, the false teachings of Nee and Lee? Without them, is there an LRC? Is the very idea of "recovery" lost? Is the basis for their separate meeting gone? Will they wander like people who don't take the red pill. Who stay in their version of the Matrix.

Woah! @ (OBW) Did Christ "become" or not "become" the Life-Giving Spirit according to 1 Cor 15:45? I think I would love to hear your understanding on the Oneness of God...

[UntoHim]

To Unregistered,

OBW is certainly free to comment on your post here, but I think there may be numerous threads out in the open forum where we have discussed the LC's teaching regarding the oneness of God.

Thanks

[OBW]

Thanks for pointing to the forum in general. But I will actually take this on as it is the common response once we have been pickled with Lee's teachings.

1 Cor 15:45 does not speak about the Holy Spirit. That is the most important thing to know about the verse. This verse is in the midst of a discussion about the kind of body that believers will receive when they are resurrected. So Paul turns to the only example that he can point to in a solid way — Jesus. He is speaking of the physical body that Jesus had after resurrection. And there is no way to describe that body as simply physical since it was not always visible, and could move through solid walls and locked doors. So Paul referred to it as "spiritual." Sort of a no-brainer, since the Son is part of the Godhead and God is spirit. So Jesus is spirit. That is different from declaring that Jesus is the Holy Spirit.

I know that Lee strongly declared that there can be only one spirit that gives life. But he was wrong. Jesus gives life and he became "A" spirit. Not the Holy Spirit. I think that it is also provable that the Father can give life. And he is also spirit. BTW. The Holy Spirit is also spirit.

Seems like a no-brainer. Unless you are Lee or are under his spell (and I used to be). He is equivocating between "sprit" and "Sprit." The word "spirit" has many meanings. Among them is the idea of a state of being that is not simply physical. And God is spirit. All of Him — Father, Son, and Spirit. It just happens that one of those three has a name that is the same word — Spirit. That does not cause the Spirit to subsume all aspects of "spirit" but rather to simply be one part of the Trinity.

Your question is phrased in the words of the Lee/LSM/LRC lexicon. "The Life-Giving Spirit" is a code word for this singular thing that is the Holy Spirit. But this verse does not say that. It says that the last Adam became "A" quickening (life-giving) spirit. Jesus surely gives life. That does not make him the Holy Spirit. It simply acknowledges the truth that Jesus has this different body — a spiritual body — and he does give life.

Besides, if you buy Lee's version of the verse, then you have to assume that Paul is busy talking about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the Trinity other than to consider the body that Jesus received in resurrection. Then suddenly, in the middle of that discussion, Paul had a serious bout of ADHD, shouted "squirrel" and rambled on about how Jesus became the Holy Spirit (without ever actually saying those words) then just as suddenly returned to the discussion he had been carrying on before.

In short, Lee demanded that "spirit" can only be the "Holy Spirit" — and that is just plain wrong. So the answer to your question is "Christ did not become the Life-Giving Spirit" according to 1 Cor 15:45. At least not in the way that Lee meant it. He did receive a spiritual body in resurrection. But that did not cause Jesus to morph over and become the Holy Spirit. That is not supported by this or any other verse in scripture.

[OBW]

Back in May, 2014, some unregistered person posted the following

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Woah! @ (OBW) Did Christ "become" or not "become" the Life-Giving Spirit according to 1 Cor 15:45? I think I would love to hear your understanding on the Oneness of God...

to which I responded later the same day. (post #69)

While I did not want to start a drawn-out discussion within the blog, I always wondered where they got the "woah!" reaction. I looked several posts back and couldn't find it. Must have been way back and the person was just reading through and decided to post. It would have been nice to know what had sparked the question.

The other thing I always wondered was whether, after asking the question, they even read the response. It clearly didn't result in a response. Maybe I should be deluded into thinking I helped someone. But more and more I think that would be wishful thinking.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by OBW

The other thing I always wondered was whether, after asking the question, they every even read the response. It clearly didn't result in a response. Maybe I should be deluded into thinking I helped someone. But more and more I think that would be wishful thinking.

Thanks for your response either way. Hopefully it will help someone looking for answers or those who've been led astray by Lee's teachings.

[Trapped]

Just ventured into the Blogosphere for the first time today. Your blog posts are phenomenal. Thanks for taking the time to write them.

[Trapped]

I started reading The Economy of God yesterday to see what you meant about chapter 1. WOW! No wonder I had such a hard time trying to read it as a young person. I mean the dude just makes a sweeping statement and doesn't back it up AT ALL.

I'm on chapter 3 now and I just had to laugh at this: "The last verse of 2 Timothy definitely states that Christ is in our spirit. “The Lord be with your spirit” (4:22)."

NOPE it states the Lord is WITH our spirit as plain as day!!!! Do you know prepositions, bro!?!? And every other translation says "with" too. (I'm not commenting on whether or not the Lord is in our spirit.....just that the example for Lee's "definitely states" is then totally not definitely stated). It's amazing how much falls apart when you read his stuff with eyes wide open.

[OBW]

Something I recently read that I don't know what to do with.

I don't know whether to agree with it, curse it, consider it to have some validity, laugh at it, or cry because of it.

Here it is:

Bible + my preferred meaning = 34,000 church divisions

If I recover enough to really read through the article that contained it, I might give some more of what was behind this (hopefully) over-the-top conclusion.

[OBW]

If you think this is too long, don't read it. If you think I an too opinionated (like you are not) then don't read it. If you don't like the things I say in it and just want to complain about the fact that I said them, then stop reading at that point.

This is my blog, not a discussion board, so I ask that other than some short comment (if you care to leave one) if there is anything you really want to discuss, either put it in the forum in the appropriate place, or send me a PM.

Now, if you care to, proceed at your own risk.

. . . .

I was recently reading a post on a favorite blog and the writer was commiserating about how hard it is to be vulnerable. That is such a popular thought these days — being vulnerable. His conclusion was that true vulnerability is only achieved within a rather close group and not with much larger groups or the world at large.




He started his discussion talking about the many groups of people that he knows, and how each of those groups do not really know the people in the other group. He listed:

• My Extended family
• Past colleagues
• High school friends and acquaintances
• University friends and acquaintances
• Seminary friends and acquaintances
• Neighbors
• Friends and acquaintances from prior churches
• Friends and acquaintances from current church
• The local cycling community
• My kids school community, friends, and parents
• Other people who I met at some point in time in life, with whom I have made some kind of connection
• Cool people (at least from my perspective) who don’t really know me, but I like to read their posts. People like Scott McKnight, Rachel Held Evans, and Steve Bell
• (The people with whom he shared a popular blog)

But among those, many are on facebook, and so there is an overlap of unknowns commenting on common things.

But he noted at one point “I made what I thought was a fairly innocent and humorous political comment which resulted (after much discussion) in a very old acquaintance unfriending me.” Not the result he expected or wanted.

Not here to discuss vulnerability, but the interactions among mostly unknowns with a common link (even though the link is different for those on the inside v those on the outside of that link).

We claim to be here to discuss the system that calls itself the Lord’s recovery (Recovery) and the local churches (Local Churches). Because we disagree on whether there is such a thing as the Lord’s recovery, and the term “local church” has meaning for many that is much different from what those in the “Lord’s recover” mean by it, many have taken to using the term “Lord’s recover church” or “LRC” to specify that group. It is not meant to be derogatory, although since the group claims that it has no name, it generally takes offense at some level at any attempt to put a name on it. But the prospect of continually saying something like “the group that says it stands as the church in the city” just is not acceptable, and the acronym “TGTSISATCITC” is almost like saying supercalifragilisticespiallidocious. So LRC it is.

There is an aspect of our interactions that certain ones, especially UntoHim, like to keep as fully civil and not at odds. And I agree with the premise. However, since we are discussing the errors of certain teachers that we are becoming clearer and clearer were not correct in their theology (being nice about it), some will always take exception to the very fact of saying that as being derogatory. And in a sense it is. But if it is true, then maybe that is just life.

But even among us who have left the organization and are finding ourselves further and further from that system, we continue to discover things that we hold to that are not necessarily healthy. But we just can’t see them. I have found that over the several years I have been involved that I have realized that the LRC is not just a sound, evangelical group with a couple of funny doctrines of questionable applicability that I could consider returning to if other issues improve, but is a system that is so inundated with error that many very good Christians there are being fooled into believing things that may actually be spiritually harmful

Now if you wanted to hear something derogatory, there it is. But that is the way it is in such discussion.

But to have a real discussion, you need to be willing to provide evidence, support, etc., for what you say. That does not mean that everyone will like your evidence, or the conclusions you draw from it. And sometimes, in the midst of discussing one thing, evidence, support, etc., is provided that assumes something that is not necessarily assumable. So there often is a question about the validity of the assumption. The result is a side discussion.

Lately there has been a tendency to dislike side discussion. Now I understand that in a context in which there is simply a testimony being given. That should be true in the Introductions and Testimonies section. But too often the group includes topics rather than just testimonies and introductions. At that point, the banner over the thread becomes irrelevant. So asking a question or challenging something that is placed in such a thread should not be treated as off limits because it is a testimony thread. It isn’t. It is a discussion of a topic. And the discussion has brought up additional topics that affect the analysis of the original topic.

Surely there are times when a more complete discussion of an otherwise side issue is required and a new thread for it is warranted. But not always. If someone includes in their post that “X is Y because of God’s economy,” I would think that a challenge to the overall statement, and maybe a question as to what they think God’s economy is that it could have such impact is warranted. And maybe even a bit of a discussion on that. If the notion of taking it to another thread occurs about the time that you realize the discussion is dying out, then starting the new thread is probably a waste of time. And it separates the information that could be relevant to understanding the rest of the current thread from it, so always starting a new thread is not necessarily the best thing to do.

And disagreement needs to be met with civility. If I disagree with something I read, I should be able to challenge the premise. It is not personal. It is about the statement, thought, or reasoning. And many, like me, are open to considering good evidence that something we had not considered before could be right. If we didn’t we would probably all be still in the LRC, or desperately trying to get back in. Or we would at least just think that its teachings are benign and not worth discussing.

I don’t think the same as I did in late 2005 when I found the Berean forum, which was different from 2007 when I realized that 1 Cor 3 (talking about wood hay and stubble) was talking about the teachers, not the church members), which was different from what I thought in 2009 or so when I realized that Nee used the same illogic as Lee did (such as in The Economy of God) to set up many of his works, and that his verses too often did not actually support, or even have anything to do with, his assertions (The Spiritual Man, Authority and Submission, Further Talks on the Church, etc.). In the midst of all of that, I learned something about Daystar and Phillip Lee, and realized that W Lee was everything that Paul warned against. And my position with respect to Lee and his teachings is now based upon that discovery. (And you do not have to agree with my assessment on that. But I will try to persuade you.)

Have I found everything that I think is still hanging on buried in the garlic of the LRC? Probably not. Will I find it by lashing out every time someone sees old LRC stuff that they think has no support still hanging on me?

No.

So I propose that rather than stifling discussion, we embrace it. Yes, there should be some rules. I agree that most threads should not be required to defend the Bible as the Word of God. Or Jesus as God. Without hiding it, we can have those discussions somewhere else, not in the midst of the regular postings. But sidebars should not be simply banned. And if we want to protect the sanctity of introductions and testimonies, then be sure that is all they are. Once they are something else, then you can’t use the overall topic to put lipstick on a pig. (Bad metaphor, but the intent is to say that if it is not simply a testimony or introduction, it is a discussion no matter where you put it.)

And we all need to be a little toughened to have discussions. Everyone is not going to always agree. It is not about you/me personally (unless they make it so). It is about the thing being discussed. Look at what you said and what the response was. If it is that you said something you didn’t intend to, fix it. If you truly disagree, then provide the reasons that you disagree. Someone may learn something from the interchange, even if the two (or more) that engage in it remain where they were. That is how my mind changed on so many things over the past nearly 10 years.

Lots more I could say. But ss I am famous for going long (the little bells broke hours ago), this post is now very long.

[OBW]

Losing interest. I had some heavy days at work, coupled with a seriously painful knee and didn't visit for a couple of weeks. Then just couldn't get excited about what is going on.

I am still an anti-LCM type. But my need for vocalizing it is diminishing. And the discussions tend to lean too heavily on the environment as it currently is and not on the things that I have some knowledge of (the past and the doctrines/teachings).

I may not be disappearing as completely as some others have (SpeakersCorner comes to mind), but then I didn't plan this anyway. It is just happening.

[OBW]

We email, Facebook, Tweet and text with people who are going to spend eternity in either heaven or hell. Our lives are too short to waste on mere temporal conversations when massive eternal realities hang in the balance. Just as you and I have no guarantee that we will live through the day, the people around us are not guaranteed tomorrow either. So let's be intentional about sewing the threads of the gospel into the fabric of our conversations every day, knowing that it will not always be easy, yet believing that eternity will always be worth it.

Truth:

• We are all going to either heaven or hell.
• We have no guarantees of living to the end of today.

But I fear that turning that into a call to cast normal conversation aside and make every effort to work the gospel into every conversation is just a different distraction. One in which the goal is to work so hard at being spiritual that we are insufficiently human to cause much of anyone to be attracted to the gospel we speak but can't take the time to live.

I'm reminded of someone who decided to write "Jesus is Lord" on bathroom stall walls at the local Community College. Got the message out there. But spoke poorly of the "speaker." And in that, undermined some of the impact of getting the message out there.

We have to live both normal and at least somewhat exemplary before we often get the opportunity to speak.

Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.

If our only hope of evangelizing is in the words, then we should reexamine our lives.

And our gospel.

[OBW]

The recent participation by at least two current LRC members has made it more clear that this forum cannot go away, but at the same time, that the blindness of so many in the LRC is great.

The tales and teachings of Lee are taken as fact. Scripture is presumed to mean what Lee said it meant. It is irrelevant that you would never come to that conclusion without being pushed there by someone claiming special knowledge (and that would be Lee).

Saying something means a particular thing is just accepted without a thought.

Declaring that a church with a name is an abomination is accepted as scripturally sound fact.

Claiming to be the home of oneness while singing "Overcome, Overcome, Overcome degraded Christianity!!" is never seen as an oxymoron.

Using a metaphor to prove a position is not seen as a form of begging the question.

I have a hard time not simply coming unglued at the fact that they simply say something "is" because that is how they read it. Not that the words actually say, but that they had decided to infer into what is said and insist that their inference is simply what was meant. No room for discussion or disagreement.

Disagreement means "degraded Christianity!!" With dogma like that, it is no wonder they don't ever address the reasons to dismiss their positions. They just restate them. And bring up metaphors and stories as if something made up that is unrelated to the issue at hand is the reason that they are right.

Someone once referred to this kind of thinking as illogic in the service of attempts at reason. (It cannot be in the service of reason because reason rejects illogic.)

I know that someone will trot out the "foolishness to those who don't believe" line, or something like it. But that statement was not suggesting that what the scripture actually says can be set aside and manhandled into something that doesn't resemble what it says because foolishness is OK. It simply says that what the scripture does say (not what it doesn't say) may not be reasonable to those who do not believe. But it is not claimed to mean something other than what it says.

Except by Lee and the LRC. And probably a few other strange sects.

[OBW]

I decided that yet another unwanted post in the thread on prophecy and the end times would just be placed here.

- - - -

I guess my actual question is not clear enough. Let me restate it.

Do you read Revelation to figure out how things may be pointing to the end times, or do you recognize that the end times are always "at the door"? That the world is always inundated with darkness and the gospel is always moving into that darkness? That the time of reckoning for each of us is uncertain and could be either many years in the future, or before we would otherwise lay our heads down to sleep for the night? Do we live as if that judgment seat that we will stand before is not necessarily years away, but possibly only moments?

If that is your understanding. If the otherwise nondescript day is actually your portal into what is to come, or alternately, just one of many on that road. In view of all of that, how are you living your life? Are you living to be the one taken . . . or the one left behind?

Yes, there is a lot of imagery about what is going on behind the scenes. And while it may not actually look quite (or even much) like John wrote it down, it is not insignificant. But if it turns us toward that future more than it turns us toward today — with or without any apparent sign that the end is upon us — have we missed the point?

The purpose of the imagery is not to define details of the end, but to impress that God ultimately does fully redeem his people, and after much time an opportunity, will punish those who refuse him.

If that understanding is true, then why are we wasting our time with reading the signs right rather than ensuring that we are the ones who are always ready? And while I do not see either of you doing this, why do so many focus more on whether in our resurrected bodies we can fly or do a supernatural version of "beam me up, Scottie" to get from one place to another? It seems to be an exercise in missing the point.

From Daniel and on through the apocalypses of the brief period before Christ, and then on to Revelation, these writings do two things: 1) bring the end (or the culmination) of the present problems/evil forward to the present, and 2) comfort us that right does prevail. These writings were primarily during the period of exile of Israel and continued through the progression of occupiers up to Rome, then with Revelation, the understanding of the church as continually dwelling within the world, which is referred to as "in the evil one."

So I never diminish Revelation and its message. The question is what message is being received? Is it a litany of triumphs over evil and streets of gold, or is it a reminder to actually have the right to be those who obtain whatever those images actually portray? That means to be living right now. Not just with white robes standing on the top of some hill or mountain because the end is near, but faithfully living day by day in the world as a citizen of the Kingdom of God.

The present nation of Israel could be wiped off the earth and the truth that is contained in Revelation is not diminished. If you think otherwise, then you don't believe in much of a God.