The Local Church Lexicon — Common Phrases

[OBW]

There are a number of phrases that are thrown around by the LRC, and to a great extent continue to be by those who have left the LRC, even many years back. There is probably something worthy in many of them. But I wonder if what we think when we hear them is really what they could or should mean.

The two I have read most recently were in the “Christ versus Religion 50 Years Later!” thread. In this case, Igzy was the source of both statements, so I need to make it clear that this is not to or about Igzy.

When I read them, I was immediately struck by two things, 1) an impression that this was something concise and meaningful, and 2) I’m not sure what it really means.


The two phrases are:

• Genuine service to God
• The simplicity that is in Christ

My concern is not do debunk them, but to give them meaning that is more than some kind of “simply” or “just” whatever. Since there are many requirements upon us, then “simplicity in Christ” cannot be in opposition to those requirements. It needs to be understood in a manner that is not inconsistent with the words used (e.g., “simplicity”) and yet still does not negate what is truly required of us.

I am not trying to negate simplicity, but understand it. Give it a context.

For starters, when I recall 2 Corinthians 11:3 being used, the phrase “the simplicity that is in Christ” was generally put in contrast to everything that was different from the LRC way. No works. No need to concern yourself with righteousness. Just keep turning to your spirit. And so on. But the context is not about just Christ v things that even Christ commanded. It is Christ v things that are contrary to Christ. And Christ's commands are not contrary to Christ.

I hope you understand where I am coming from.

So, what do these very scriptural terms really mean? How do we, or should we understand them?

And what other terms/phrases do we encounter, and even use, that do not mean what we have tended to think of them as meaning in the LRC context? We have bantered “religion” around some, but it would probably be best to leave that one alone for now since it has been discussed recently.

[Nell]

Good topic, OBW.

Here's one that bothers me: "the Recovery".

Nell

[Cal]

"The simplicity that is in Christ" is the literal biblical phrase used in 2 Cor 11:3. It's not an LRC phrase.

It implies first of all that there is something simple about following Christ which is crucial or Paul would not have worried that the believers could be led away from it.

My experiences tells me that when I'm in close fellowship with the Lord, being a Christian is simple. Yes, I do all sorts of things (Pray, serve, teach, preach, etc) but they all naturally flow from my relationship with Christ.

On the other hand, if I focus on the things I'm supposed to do (pray, serve, teach, preach, etc) and do not take care of my intimate fellowship with the Lord, then being a Christian becomes very complicated. Should I pray now, or preach? Should I become a missionary to Africa or a YMCA coach? Should I embark on producing a new translation of the NT or should I distribute food to the needy?

OBW, I think you overwork this concern about the LRC disdaining obedience and preferring "dispensing." I never felt the LRC taught me that I didn't have to obey the Word, just that my obedience had to be in the context of abiding in Christ, otherwise I'd just be "obeying" according to my own understanding of the word apart from the Lord's enlightenment.

Granted, the abiding camp can go too far, but so can the obedience camp. The point is we cannot really obey without abiding, and obedience is evidence of abiding. But simply doing nominally Christian works outside of abiding and claiming to be obedient doesn't cut it. Suppose for example I "obey" by becoming a street preacher, when in fact if I had sought the Lord he was leading me to become something entirely different. I was obedient to the word, but not in the context of a relationship with God. Possibly not the worst thing I could do, but certainly a bit out of whack.

[Cal]

Jesus said, "Abide in me and I in you for apart from me you can do nothing." This implies that the things we do for God apart from abiding may amount to nothing. So in order for our obedience to amount to something, it must be done in context of abiding.

When the LRC talks about being in the dispensing, they are talking (I think) about abiding. Yes, their arrogance about their proprietary rhetoric is annoying, but that doesn't mean there is not some valid point there.

The LRC didn't really disdain works, they just disdained the works traditional Christianity emphasized and focused on different works. Traditional mainstream Christianity emphasizes outreach/mission related works. The LRC emphasizes church-building/movement-building works.

But make no mistake. The LRC believes in works. Any group which tells people to avoid missing meetings and to go to all the conferences and trainings is concerned about works.

[ToGodAlone]

One that I never understood was this thing called a God-man. Also overcomer sins or something to that effect...seem to be LRC specific terms. I also see a lot of indwelling spirit of Christ thrown around a lot, but that's less...strange sounding.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

"The simplicity that is in Christ" is the literal biblical phrase used in 2 Cor 11:3. It's not an LRC phrase.

It implies first of all that there is something simple about following Christ which is crucial or Paul would not have worried that the believers could be led away from it.

"It implies that there is something simple . . ."

Yes, there must be. But I note that there is a context for the verse. This verse is in the midst of a discussion that includes the "another Jesus" thought. The idea here seems to be that the real gospel is clean and straightforward. A gospel with other baggage, with other requirements, isn't as simple and suggests a Christ with different capabilities.

The point isn't that "everything is Christ so just focus on Him" or something like that. It is that what Christ demands, what he provides, and what he has done — the whole package — is straightforward and needs no alteration into something else. Our faith is in him. Our direction is from him. Our requirements are those he gave.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Granted, the abiding camp can go too far, but so can the obedience camp. The point is we cannot really obey without abiding, and obedience is evidence of abiding. But simply doing nominally Christian works outside of abiding and claiming to be obedient doesn't cut it.

And while I did not bring this one up, it has been on my radar for a while.

How does a branch abide? By just sitting there and allowing stuff to flow in at the connection to the trunk? No. It is busy doing as it takes in the nutrients. Just basking in the glow of the connection leaves you with a bunch of sap barely across the line of connection. (And as with any metaphor, there are problems, so someone will try to bring up the example of winter. Well, in winter, there is no sap flowing into the branch, so it is probably not part of the metaphor.)

During the growing season, sap flows in and it is put to use. Immediately. There is no "wait for more sap" mentality. The branch begins to use what it gets immediately. And it is getting it because it is connected. Not because it was sitting and soaking up something while waiting until enough is received to do some task.

So when we read that we have to abide before we can do anything, do we think that it means we must be connected for a while, realizing that stuff is flowing in while we do nothing? Then one day it will be time to start working? No. In the case of a vine, "abiding" would seem to be little more than "connected." And that makes plenty of sense. If I am connected, then I will be doing "according to" what is coming in. This would appear to be one way that Jesus said "walk according to the Spirit." Paul did not say something entirely unique. Just said it differently.

And James came along and pointed to the evidence that we weren't abiding. It shows in our lack of love for the brothers. In our lack of obedience.

Oh, I'm sure that there are probably more aspects to "abiding" than this, but I'm becoming more and more clear that metaphors were entirely over-applied in our history with the LRC. Or misapplied.

No, you are probably right that we were never directly told not to do anything. But the implication in these was that there was some kind of need to spend time soaking something up before acting.

Or that so many things were "simply Christ" that we figured that it would just work itself out. Those with a desire to be righteous will eventually do something. But when someone was having a hard time with something, somehow more meetings was claimed to be good enough. As if abiding is about meetings. As if simplicity in Christ is found in turning to your spirit, or calling on the Lord over and over. That's all you need.

And then comes the show stopper. What is "God's economy"? What is 1 Timothy talking about? What is it suggesting needs to be taught? This is an important phrase or term — at least in the LRC. It was used as the reason that many verses were rewritten to mean something different than what they said. Any ideas on this one?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LRC didn't really disdain works, they just disdained the works traditional Christianity emphasized and focused on different works. Traditional mainstream Christianity emphasizes outreach/mission related works. The LRC emphasizes church-building/movement-building works.

When I read the Bible, I see a lot of outreach, mission, relational with respect to others. The "Great Commandment" was a combined two: Love God and love your neighbor. And the example given of who is a neighbor makes everyone we meet on the list.

So what are church-building works? How many of those were commanded relative to others. How much of the "sermon on the mount" was about religious gatherings and the development of religious groups? How much was about your interaction with others — both your brother and your neighbor? How much was about your personal righteousness?

So does anyone think that the "works" that "traditional Christianity" emphasized are worthy of disdain? What works that Christian groups do fall outside of the commands for loving your neighbor? Providing "justice" (care) to the widow, orphan, alien, homeless, unemployed, etc? I'm sure that some will try to compare the amount of LRC-style meeting exuberance those places have in their meetings. But since when is exuberance in meetings a criteria for meetings? Since when is the sober celebration of Christ and his sacrifice evidence of a poor state of spiritual being?

So what do we mean when we say "works"? So we mean something contraindicated by Christ. Or by Paul? If so, then what part of the "works" of those other Christian groups is actually contraindicated?

And if it is a matter of a perceived lack of "abiding," then what do we think abiding is that we are so sure that they are not doing it? If we learned to disdain the works of traditional Christianity, and still do it, then I would suggest that we have a serious problem with works, and therefore with obedience. It seems hard to have it both ways.

And I think the biggest problem is that we still have some kind of chip on our shoulders about at least some portion of Christianity that we think just isn't doing it right. It isn't enough like what we were taught and think. So they still must be poor. Just not quite mooing cows.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

"The simplicity that is in Christ" is the literal biblical phrase used in 2 Cor 11:3. It's not an LRC phrase. It implies first of all that there is something simple about following Christ which is crucial or Paul would not have worried that the believers could be led away from it.

Another catch phrase that commonly was used to defraud the saints from the simplicity that is in Christ is "being one with the body." This has so complicated many a brother and sister. Instead of the simplicity of being attuned to what the Lord was doing within, many had the complexities of being "one with the body, one with the church, and one with the brothers." The demands to conform for the sake of oneness stole the joys of our simplicity in Christ.

It seems that diversity became a huge threat to the program. We often heard challenges like, "anybody can claim to be one with the Lord, but he real test is being one with the body." So often the tests of real faith in Christ were not in the unseen, but in the seen.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

When the LRC talks about being in the dispensing, they are talking (I think) about abiding. Yes, their arrogance about their proprietary rhetoric is annoying, but that doesn't mean there is not some valid point there.

I mostly understood the matter of dispensing to be God's activity in us during trials. Via fervent prayer and clinging to the Lord, He does dispense Himself into us, even when our environment did not seem to improve, nor when He did not seem to answer our prayer. I view this to be very similar to the thought of many Christians when they say "wait on the Lord."

If one complains that technically the Lord does "not dispense Himself," but rather "He gives grace," or "He encourages us," then I say what's the difference? Inwardly there is none. The real problem occurs when God's children pray without results, and then withdraw from the Lord in discouragement. Thus little dispensing may occur, and God may be considered as only a Santa Claus, who gives me what I want.

But ... to be considerate of some posters' concerns, LSM's teaching of dispensing is indeed vain, if all our intention is misfocused on leaders and their programs, and our obedience misplaced in men and their mandates.

[Cal]

So what are church-building works? How many of those were commanded relative to others. How much of the "sermon on the mount" was about religious gatherings and the development of religious groups? How much was about your interaction with others — both your brother and your neighbor? How much was about your personal righteousness?

I never said the LRC was correct to focus mainly on church-building works. Just that that's what they did. My point is they labor, albeit in a somewhat misguided fashion. Ironically for all their belief that they are clearer on the word than most, they are actually quite mistaken on its emphasis. The word does not emphasize church building, it emphasizes being an example of Christ to all. And it says we cannot be proper examples apart from abiding.

Or that so many things were "simply Christ" that we figured that it would just work itself out. Those with a desire to be righteous will eventually do something. But when someone was having a hard time with something, somehow more meetings was claimed to be good enough. As if abiding is about meetings. As if simplicity in Christ is found in turning to your spirit, or calling on the Lord over and over. That's all you need.

I have to be honest that it seems to me in reaction to the LRC you have lost a little baby with the bathwater. The fact is, God is all you need. God's salvation cannot be disconnected from God himself. God's blessing cannot be disconnected from God himself, and God's commission cannot be carried out, let alone understood, apart from God himself. And being connected with God himself requires abiding.

You have to recall that the early LRC was a reaction to dead works. "Dead works" is a biblical phrase (Heb 9:14). Yes, it was referring specifically to Jewish works, but there's no doubt Christian works can be dead as well. The solution is to "serve the living God." Key phrase: "living." How to do that? The answer must be to abide in the Vine while laboring in vineyard. And many Christians don't abide in the vine even while laboring in the vineyard. That's just a fact.

On the flip side, abiding without the issue being laboring for the Lord is an oxymoron. Jesus' prescription for abiding contained the thought that our subsequent doing would not amount to nothing. James says true faith manifests works. So anyone who says "we don't need" works does not understand that true abiding issues in good works, whatever they may be.

So anyone who thinks he is abiding, but is not also serving is deceiving himself. But service takes on all kinds of forms, but it will always be there with true abiding.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I have to be honest that it seems to me in reaction to the LRC you have lost a little baby with the bathwater. The fact is, God is all you need. God's salvation cannot be disconnected from God himself. God's blessing cannot be disconnected from God himself, and God's commission cannot be carried out, let alone understood, apart from God himself. And being connected with God himself requires abiding.

I'll start at the end. Being connected with God is abiding. That is what I realized for myself was the disconnect. I was looking for something more than being connected and thereby receiving what the connection provided. And I'm not just talking about being saved = being connected. We keep looking for something that is more than being actively connected that must be done before we can assert that we are abiding and then start doing something. We are over-thinking abiding. We make it into its own activity that must be accomplished before anything else can go on. That is not what the metaphor I see would suggest.

I am not throwing anything out. I agree that God is all we need. But even in saying that, do you suggest that we should just stop eating because we don't need that? Even saying "God is all you need" is a statement that is not absolutely, literally just that. Unless you are simply ready to die and move on to the next life. In fact, where does it say that God is all you need? What is the context? Is it in juxtaposition to your actual needs to remain physically alive? There is great meaning to the phrase. But it is not just 5 words that mean literally exactly that to the exclusion of everything else. It has a specific meaning that is not to the exclusion of many other needs.

I am suggesting that in the LRC we added much activity, importance, and time to what we thought was abiding. We needed to establish some kind of history of abiding. Then we might not be dead. But (as I keep coming back to) Paul did not say to do a lot of stuff and when you think you have done enough then you will fulfill the righteousness of the law. He said to set your mind and walk. No big formula. I would suggest that this is not much different than saying "abide and do."

But we are so focused on the abiding. What is it? How do we do it? How can we be sure we have really been abiding? Constantly worrying about whether at this moment we are abiding? Taking note that while we were "doing" we didn't constantly think about Jesus and therefore were not abiding?

You think I have gone too far to the obedience and doing side of the equation. I doubt I have gone far enough. And probably few of us have if we are too concerned about whether we are abiding. Do your reading. Your meditation. Take a little time through the day to refocus (however you do that — reading, prayer. . .). Accept that we are not capable of multitasking (not really). Get set and go. Otherwise we are too worried about the "spiritual" and worthless in the practical.

I seem to be pushing the "doing' so much because my observation is that even those who have been in very good, spiritually and doctrinally founded, Evangelical groups are way to much for more knowledge. More spiritual stuff. And not really much for "works." We may actually live in a righteous manner. But we still feel that there is something wrong with any kind of social outreach. Especially if there is any chance that we can't just be preaching the gospel the whole time. We put stipulations on our service. So we don't do too much of it. We let the "liberal" churches that we don't even think are really Christian do it for us. What does that say about us and our doing? Way short.

I'm talking about me too.

Originally Posted by Igzy

You have to recall that the early LRC was a reaction to dead works. "Dead works" is a biblical phrase (Heb 9:14). Yes, it was referring specifically to Jewish works, but there's no doubt Christian works can be dead as well.

Yes, they can be dead. But the presumption within the LRC is that they simply are dead. They aren't abiding the way we are.

How does anyone determine that about another? How do we simply call the works of much of anyone "dead"? Surely you can preach to the choir that we need to be careful not to just be doing things because we think we are supposed to but without maintaining that connection with God. But knowing that certain others aren't doing it? How do we know that?

Originally Posted by Igzy

On the flip side, abiding without the issue being laboring for the Lord is an oxymoron. Jesus' prescription for abiding contained the thought that our subsequent doing would not amount to nothing. James says true faith manifests works. So anyone who says "we don't need" works does not understand that true abiding issues in good works, whatever they may be.

And we clearly are on the same page here. And on to the end.

[OBW]

This has been discussed before as well. But it is always a good topic.

Recovery implies something is lost or damaged. It suggests that something is wrong and needs recovering. And based on the rhetoric, everything that pretends to be Christian but is not in line with Lee’s thinking on things, and more importantly, under his ministry, needs recovering. And the only place to get that recovery is in . . . well . . . The Recovery.

Now recovery is an important thing. AA is a recovery program for alcoholics. NA is for the drug addicts. OA for the overeaters. And so on. And there are now groups that refocus the “higher power” back to Christ. One such group is “Recovery at IBC.”

But somehow, despite a lot of rhetoric to the contrary, I’m not sure that anything important in the Christian life has been lost such that it needs recovery. Some think that all groups ought to be more like them. And if they are not then there is something wrong or missing in their worship, belief, practice, etc. And one group is especially like that. They think that so much is missing from those other groups. So much that a search party was needed, led by Nee, then Lee, and now the BBs, to find and recover all that missing stuff.

But have they really provided much that is not already there in Christianity? Outside of claiming some exclusive stuff like “ground,” what have they provided that is not just the same song under a different label?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LRC didn't really disdain works, they just disdained the works traditional Christianity emphasized and focused on different works. Traditional mainstream Christianity emphasizes outreach/mission related works. The LRC emphasizes church-building/movement-building works.

But make no mistake. The LRC believes in works. Any group which tells people to avoid missing meetings and to go to all the conferences and trainings is concerned about works.

You have a good point here.

We have to ask which and what kinds of works did the LRC promote? The first and foremost was the works promoted by LSM. LSM also tended to only endorse those works which they could personally supervise. In this regard they were as much about the control of the works, as the works themselves. WL was all about controlling the works of others. He would belittle anyone's works if they appeared at conflict with his own, regardless of whether the Lord had initiated them or was blessing them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You have to recall that the early LRC was a reaction to dead works. "Dead works" is a biblical phrase (Heb 9:14). Yes, it was referring specifically to Jewish works, but there's no doubt Christian works can be dead as well. The solution is to "serve the living God." Key phrase: "living." How to do that? The answer must be to abide in the Vine while laboring in vineyard. And many Christians don't abide in the vine even while laboring in the vineyard. That's just a fact.

The key here in the book of Hebrews is faith. To put Paul and James together -- works without faith is dead, and faith without works is dead. Sounds contradictory, but is not.

Faith places the believers in contact with the living God. No man on earth, whether Pope or MOTA, can supervise the works of God through His body. God's works in the old creation are infinitely diverse, so shouldn't His work in the new creation be the same? What organization on earth could come remotely close to meeting His needs today? To talk as if on earth today is only "one work," as WL and LSM so often have done, is absurd.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The key here in the book of Hebrews is faith. To put Paul and James together -- works without faith is dead, and faith without works is dead. Sounds contradictory, but is not.

Faith places the believers in contact with the living God. No man on earth, whether Pope or MOTA, can supervise the works of God through His body. God's works in the old creation are infinitely diverse, so shouldn't His work in the new creation be the same. What organization on earth could come remotely close to meeting His needs today? To talk as if on earth today is only "one work," as WL and LSM so often have done, is absurd.

Speaking of diversity, here's a great example of it from a website called sandgrains.com. Even grains of sand are incredibly diverse.



"I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore." Gen 22:17

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'll start at the end. Being connected with God is abiding. That is what I realized for myself was the disconnect. I was looking for something more than being connected and thereby receiving what the connection provided. And I'm not just talking about being saved = being connected. We keep looking for something that is more than being actively connected that must be done before we can assert that we are abiding and then start doing something. We are over-thinking abiding. We make it into its own activity that must be accomplished before anything else can go on. That is not what the metaphor I see would suggest.

Abiding is simply maintaining a personal spiritual contact with God. On the one hand it's very natural to do it once one gets a taste for it. On the other hand, the world, the flesh and the devil all work to distract us from it, so we tend to get distracted from it.

I never thought the LRC taught there was more to abiding than what it is. I just think the LRC worked like any other religion to complicate the simplicity that's in Christ.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying abiding is not an activity that must be accomplished before anything else can happen. That in fact is pretty much what it is. Without abiding we can do nothing. So it must come first. Unless the problem you are having is with the word "accomplished." Abiding is never accomplished any more that breathing is. It is ongoing, it is sometimes almost unconscious, but it is primary.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

You think I have gone too far to the obedience and doing side of the equation. I doubt I have gone far enough. And probably few of us have if we are too concerned about whether we are abiding. Do your reading. Your meditation. Take a little time through the day to refocus (however you do that — reading, prayer. . .). Accept that we are not capable of multitasking (not really). Get set and go. Otherwise we are too worried about the "spiritual" and worthless in the practical.

I see your point.

In my experience I'm most obedient when I'm most abiding. That is when I'm flush in the presence of God and delighting in him good works seem to be all I can do. But when I'm fretting whether I'm good enough or doing enough I lose my peace and am not good for anything, let alone service to God.

"Performance failure" aka "condemnation" is a common problem among serious Christians. Jesus said come to him if you are heavy laden and he will give you rest.

It's a balance. God doesn't want us to kill ourselves serving him. But neither does he just want us to sit under a tree counting daisies. He doesn't want us to navel gaze, yet he wants us to maintain inner peace. You only find your own optimal operation by practice.

I hope I haven't hijacked this thread.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I hope I haven't hijacked this thread.

No. You have not. It is important to understand the distinctions, nuances, various understandings. I have spoken things in one way and you in another. I admit that I have seemed overly concerned with the works side of the equation. It does need to be pointed out that it is neither abiding with no works nor works with no abiding. It is only abiding and works in concert.

Otherwise we walking around leaning far to one side like that recent nutrition commercial.

[OBW]

I was reading through a thread from the old Berean site that ended over 2 years ago. In it were at least 2 more questions raised as a sort of "and what does that mean?"

The Enjoyment. Now we all know what enjoyment is in plain terms. But what was this thing that we kept seeking after called "the enjoyment"? This thing that some people only cared for (as in "only care for the enjoyment").

Fall short of Christ. I went so far as to look this up. The words "fall short of" only appear in the NASB and NIV (of major translations that I searched) and it is in only one verse in either. Romans 3:23. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

So where did we get "fall short of Christ"? And when you hear it, what is the first thing that comes to mind, what do you recall it meaning in your LRC days, and what does it mean now?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Even grains of sand are incredibly diverse.

Much like snowflakes for us northeners.

[ToGodAlone]

Here's a term that seems to be exclusive to the LRC: economy. That is, God's economy. Don't really hear that anywhere else.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

Here's a term that seems to be exclusive to the LRC: economy. That is, God's economy. Don't really hear that anywhere else.

Funny you should bring that one up. I had some free time today and went back to the old Berean form and read much of the last 1/3 of a lengthy thread (741 posts) on Lee's book and theology of The Economy of God.

"God's Economy" is a mantra thrown around like fairy dust to change the nature of things. It is like sprinkling holy water on the dead to get them into heaven.

Why do I say that? Because Lee used the concept of "God's economy" to reread much of scripture, even using it to turn the teaching found in the book of James into an example of error.

But the clincher is that there is no place in the Bible in which it is said that God's economy should be taught. It is only referred to as being the result of good teachings (as opposed to "questionings" which arise from bad teachings). And the meaning given by Lee to "economy" is the most narrow possible definition from among a rather rich palette of consistent meaning.

What does "God's economy" mean? For me, it means the fullness of the Christian life coupled with the expectation of the life to come. In Lee's definition, it was simply "dispensing" — at least that is what was so commonly said.

I'm sure that others will have varying thoughts on how they viewed it in the past.

[OBW]

Actually, it was in the careful reading of the first chapter of The Economy of God that, instead of just seeing really serious problems in the actions of LRC leaders, I began to see serious fundamental error in thinking in the development of the theology. It was now more than ambitious men like Lee, (even Nee), BP, RG, RK, etc. It was the very theology that allowed them to do what they do.

[Cal]

I see and hear the word "economy" used from time to time in Christian teaching. It's always used to basically mean "the way God does things in his working."

As for "the enjoyment," it meant to me the experience of enjoying the Lord as a kind of very fundamental activity. Not a bad term, but more proprietary jargon.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

But the clincher is that there is no place in the Bible in which it is said that God's economy should be taught. It is only referred to as being the result of good teachings (as opposed to "questionings" which arise from bad teachings). And the meaning given by Lee to "economy" is the most narrow possible definition from among a rather rich palette of consistent meaning.

I'm not buying this. There is no "clincher" for me.

Here's a couple verses. I Timothy 1.3-4 mentions teaching and God's economy in one breath.

You might not like the term "God's economy," but it is an acceptable, almost literal, translation for the Greek words.

Paul wrote Timothy to charge certain ones not to teach differently, nor occupy themselves with myths and genealogies, rather than God's economy which is in faith. Here we are instructed in the scripture to teach and to be occupied with God's economy, or God's administration, or God's stewardship, which is in faith.

I looked at a number of translations, and I did not find a "rather rich palette of consistent meaning." Looking at numerous English translations and versions, I find that this phrase is all over the map.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

Here's a term that seems to be exclusive to the LRC: economy. That is, God's economy. Don't really hear that anywhere else.

It seems exclusive, but really it's not. As with much of the ministry, terminology by the LSM wordsmiths is created to make the ministry appear so unique when really it's not. Difference being non-LSM Christianity uses more basic terminology.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not buying this. There is no "clincher" for me.

Here's a couple verses. I Timothy 1.3-4 mentions teaching and God's economy in one breath.

You might not like the term "God's economy," but it is an acceptable, almost literal, translation for the Greek words.

Paul wrote Timothy to charge certain ones not to teach differently, nor occupy themselves with myths and genealogies, rather than God's economy which is in faith. Here we are instructed in the scripture to teach and to be occupied with God's economy, or God's administration, or God's stewardship, which is in faith.

I looked at a number of translations, and I did not find a "rather rich palette of consistent meaning." Looking at numerous English translations and versions, I find that this phrase is all over the map.

Yeah, both have a point, but OBW leverages his to say too much.

It doesn't say specifically that God's economy should be taught directly. Strictly speaking it only says that what we teach or discuss should promote God's economy.

However, at the same time to say that "no place in the Bible in which it is said that God's economy should be taught," as OBW did, seems almost purposefully misleading because assuming that God's economy encompasses everything God does then anything we teach that is legitimate is teaching God's economy!

So to say that the Bible doesn't say to teach God's economy is like saying the Bible itself doesn't teach anything about God's economy, because obviously we are supposed to teach what the Bible says.

Of course, if all OBW meant is that the Bible doesn't say to teach Lee's version of God's economy then he does have a point to some extent.

[ToGodAlone]

Maybe it's just the experiences I have had with LRC members, but every time I hear "God's economy" I kinda twitch a little. Although the essence of God's economy is valid, just the way I've heard it used in context just kind of rubs me the wrong way a bit. That may have to do with the nature in which the LRC uses that term though.

Another phrase that I don't quite understand is this whole "being one with Christ" line that I keep hearing. From what I gather, it seems that they want themselves to be Christ essentially. There is nothing that's 100% wrong with that, but I am not aware of any kind of notion that says we will be gods or anything like that. I've always heard (in non LRC churches) that we will grow to be more like Christ, but it's kind of asymptotic where we will never actually reach that "god like" state. Is this actually the same as what the LRC is saying or what?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yeah, both have a point, but OBW leverages his to say too much.

It doesn't say specifically that God's economy should be taught directly. Strictly speaking it only says that what we teach or discuss should promote God's economy.

However, at the same time to say that "no place in the Bible in which it is said that God's economy should be taught," as OBW did, seems almost purposefully misleading because assuming that God's economy encompasses everything God does then anything we teach that is legitimate is teaching God's economy!

So to say that the Bible doesn't say to teach God's economy is like saying the Bible itself doesn't teach anything about God's economy, because obviously we are supposed to teach what the Bible says.

Of course, if all OBW meant is that the Bible doesn't say to teach Lee's version of God's economy then he does have a point to some extent.

You are very close to the point.

1 Timothy says to stop some from teaching certain things which result in questionings rather than God's economy/administration. It is the equivalent of saying "which results in questionings rather than resulting in God's economy." The verse is saying that the correct teachings result in God's economy, or promote, or lead to God's economy.

Lee missed (being generous) or twisted (not being generous) the grammar to say something Paul did not say. Paul did not say stop them from teaching things that lead to questionings and instead teach God's economy, he said stop them from teaching things that result in questionings and instead teach things that lead to God's economy.

And when you read James, if you are true and faithful to the life we are called to, there is no way to dismiss that book because it is "short on God's economy" or something like that. Lee didn't understand God's economy. But he used the term at leisure to restate verse after verse and dismiss much of James.

God's economy is the result of the teaching. It is not the teaching. Teachings are taken in an applied and the result is something that he calls God's economy. Paul never said that there was a thing called God's economy that was to be taught. That is the raw fact of the verses. To say otherwise is misleading. Lee distills God's economy down to something so minuscule and simple, then says that it is the content of the proper teachings.

So, according to Lee's logic, everything about the Christian life is just dispensing. Just teach dispensing and you are doing all that is required. Don't teach any thing else. Just teach dispensing.

Baloney.

[ToGodAlone]

What does dispensing mean in the LRC context anyway?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

What does dispensing mean in the LRC context anyway?

As a singular thing within a larger theology, dispensing is an odd way of terming the intake of spiritual food. They will put reading the Word (or more preferably, pray-reading the Word, but that is a different problem), praying, calling on the Lord, turning to your spirit, going to meetings. Outside of the problems with some of the pray-reading, the uncertainty of what it is to turn to "your own" spirit rather than to God, and the fact that meetings are just meetings, it is clear that we need an ongoing connection with God beyond the basic of salvation.

But the whole of teachings are not just "dispensing," or even "connecting with God." They include walking by the Spirit (not the spirit), actually doing the things that are commanded, etc. And this is where "dispensing" became a problem. It was "all you needed." You didn't need to worry about being righteous. Whatever righteousness you should have would flow out of the dispensing.

And if that is true, then Paul should never have bothered to tell any church about what they were doing wrong. It would have been irrelevant. They only needed to bask in more dispensing and it would happen. But Paul pointed at their unrighteousness and said to shape up. And at the same time he would tell them why they should, giving all of the spiritual underpinnings of our ability to do it. While we do need to "keep it coming" so to speak, most of what Paul said on the spiritual side was stated as given fact, not something to achieve. He said "I have been crucified with Christ," not "I am being crucified with Christ." The given fact altered his ongoing life. At least as long as he remained active in setting his mind. In walking according to. If you are actually doing the things that get you "more dispensing" (in a real way) then you have your mind set. Failure to go ahead and step out to walk is inexcusable.

And that is what Paul was too often saying. He didn't tell the Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, etc., to do a bunch of spiritual stuff then see if they could start to get it right. He told them they had what it took and he chastised them for not doing it right now. He told the Corinthians to stop doing the things they were doing. He gave instructions on taking the three-ring circus out of their meetings.

And Paul told Timothy that there were some in the place(s) that Timothy was dealing with that were teaching wrong things (false doctrines). They needed to stop. The way to tell the difference in the teachings was that the wrong things promoted controversial speculations rather than God's work which is in faith. I like this translation (roughly the NIV) which does not say "economy" and takes the controversial word off the table. (Wow. That just hit me. "Economy" is a controversial speculation, especially the narrow way Lee defined it. Sort of puts his teaching into the "false doctrines" category. Even if you can find some use for his narrow definition, it is not the end-all teaching, but a part of the result of a multitude of true teachings.)

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You might not like the term "God's economy," but it is an acceptable, almost literal, translation for the Greek words.

I have no problem with "God's economy" as a term. But "almost literal translation" is often not the best. Especially when you put it up against a word that most people automatically think of only one thing when the word has a much more general meaning.

Economy is generally thought of as the monetary and commercial system. But it really deals with everything in which resources must be rationed, or choices need to be made between available alternatives. There is an economy of time, of resources, of leisure, of work, and so on. Every time you choose, it is an issue of economy. If you must choose, then you must not be able to do all, take all, afford all, etc. And the process of choosing is part of "economy."

So the way that everything plays out in our lives is a matter of economy. And among the choices we constantly face are choices between right and wrong, righteousness and unrighteousness (and nothing in particular), a mind set on the Spirit or a mind set on the affairs of this life, and so on. God's economy is how it works out on the side of righteousness (still choices here), with a mind set on the Spirit, keeping that connection with God active in whatever way you do it. And it includes the ways that God provides teachers for us to listen to, the way he takes sides or allows things to run their natural course. It is robust. It includes our obedience in loving both God and others. And we fool ourselves about our love for God if we don't actually do things that shows love for others.

Telling the unemployed homeless person that appears at the door of the house on the church property asking for help that it is "not the business of the church" is casting great doubt on the value of any so-called "dispensing" that has been going on. That is clearly not God's economy. And I'm not saying that simply giving him whatever he wanted is either. But essentially chasing him off with a rebuff surely is not it.

And it happened just like that in Dallas. The leading brother responsible for it told the story himself. He was proud of his lack of love for a neighbor.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

So, according to Lee's logic, everything about the Christian life is just dispensing. Just teach dispensing and you are doing all that is required. Don't teach any thing else. Just teach dispensing.

Baloney.

Well, even Lee didn't just teach dispensing. But he majored in it, especially in his later years. So his take on 1 Tim 1:4 was to justify his majoring in it and to criticize teachers that didn't, which conveniently allowed him to dismiss just about every teacher.

However, it's important to note that the Bible does not prohibit teaching God's economy. Like I said, if God's economy includes everything he does and how he does it, then teaching any biblical doctrine is teaching God's economy.

Lee's error was to claim that God's economy was just "dispensing." There is no biblical justification for that. None whatsoever. That was entirely a leap of his own creation.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, even Lee didn't just teach dispensing. But he majored in it, especially in his later years. So his take on 1 Tim 1:4 was to justify his majoring in it and to criticize teachers that didn't, which conveniently allowed him to dismiss just about every teacher.

However, it's important to note that the Bible does not prohibit teaching God's economy. Like I said, if God's economy includes everything he does and how he does it, then teaching any biblical doctrine is teaching God's economy.

Lee's error was to claim that God's economy was just "dispensing." There is no biblical justification for that. None whatsoever. That was entirely a leap of his own creation.

At the end of the day, the emphasis on "God's economy" is all about promoting a unique set of teachings, decorated with unique terminology, that gives the group a feeling of being...unique.

Why the need to translate the Greek word oikonomia differently from all the other translations? As Igzy and OBW have already pointed out, could it just be so that Lee could invent an essentially new word and make it say what he wanted it to say? And then measure other Christian groups by their lack of his own propietary teachings/terminology?

Nah, couldn't be.

Originally Posted by OBW

I have no problem with "God's economy" as a term. But "almost literal translation" is often not the best. Especially when you put it up against a word that most people automatically think of only one thing when the word has a much more general meaning.

Yes whenever I see this word I think of Charles Darwin's invention of the branch of science called Ecology. In his introduction he said the term was based on this Greek word and the proceeded to discuss various "Eco's"

Just as Darwin saw creatures filling various "niches" I see saints having different functions, kind of like different members of a Body having different gifts.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

At the end of the day, the emphasis on "God's economy" is all about promoting a unique set of teachings, decorated with unique terminology, that gives the group a feeling of being...unique.

This reminds me of another Lee word: wrecked. Being wrecked for the world. Being wrecked for Christianity.

Don't teachings like God's economy serve this purpose well? Unique teachings that cause you to hunker down in your unique group. Unique ways of seeing things that people outside the group can see...in your eyes. It's kinda sick if you think about it.

And the scariest part to me is that so many people there already see this, they know a big purpose of these teachings is to set themselves apart. And they somehow see that as a positive thing.

P.S. Thanks to UntoHim for restoring my membership in the forum. Here's hoping you will consider doing the same for our friends zeek and awareness.

[UntoHim]

rayliotta and others:
Neither zeek nor awareness were ever banned. zeek was put into moderation status so that his posts could be reviewed prior to appearing on the forum. This is because he was insulting other members and belittling their faith. I received lots of complaints from many people regarding this. Just because someone is an ex member does not mean they can post anything they want. I try to be as liberal as possible here, including allowances for those who do not consider themselves as Christians, but I draw the line when a particular member's postings become a distraction and discouragement to other's participation.

awareness (Harold) was never restricted in any way and he knows this. Presumably, he left the forum as a protest against the moderation of zeek. I received lots of complaints about awareness during his time here, however I think he stayed within the lines (barely) most of the time.

Some have suggested that there should have been more public warnings. There is a warning/infraction system within the Vbulletin forum software, but I have chosen not to activate it. Personally I think such a system on a small forum like this one should not be necessary. We are all adults. Some of us have interacted with each other for many years now. I see no reason that we cannot "agree to disagree" with some measure of dignity and grace. I think this should extend to all participants, even to those who have chosen a different path such as awareness and zeek. Of course that does not mean we need to put up with insults and belittling of others.

As always, I am open to constructive criticism and sincere suggestions when it comes to this forum. Anybody who considers themselves as a participant here is welcome to post their comments on the open forum, or if they want, send me a Private Message. (Email would be better due to restrictions on PM length)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

Maybe it's just the experiences I have had with LRC members, but every time I hear "God's economy" I kinda twitch a little. Although the essence of God's economy is valid, just the way I've heard it used in context just kind of rubs me the wrong way a bit. That may have to do with the nature in which the LRC uses that term though.

I viewed "God's economy" almost in contrast to the world's economy. In the world's economy, money is everything, and is the fuel to make everything happen. In "God's economy" Christ is everything, and He is the fuel to make everything happen in the spiritual realm.

This phrase "God's economy" may make you twitch a little, but the phrase is an exact transliteration of Paul's letter to Timothy. The best translation may be "God's administration," which Knoch uses in his Concordant Literal Translation.

I have concluded that WL and LSM loved to use unique phrases to distinguish themselves from the body of Christ. They're not the only ones to do that, since all the congregations I have been associated with all used their own special terminology.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Lee missed (being generous) or twisted (not being generous) the grammar to say something Paul did not say. Paul did not say stop them from teaching things that lead to questionings and instead teach God's economy, he said stop them from teaching things that result in questionings and instead teach things that lead to God's economy.

God's economy is the result of the teaching. It is not the teaching. Teachings are taken in an applied and the result is something that he calls God's economy. Paul never said that there was a thing called God's economy that was to be taught. That is the raw fact of the verses. To say otherwise is misleading. Lee distills God's economy down to something so minuscule and simple, then says that it is the content of the proper teachings.

So, according to Lee's logic, everything about the Christian life is just dispensing. Just teach dispensing and you are doing all that is required. Don't teach any thing else. Just teach dispensing.

Baloney.

OBW, this is mostly splitting hairs and picking nits.

Kind of like saying we should teach things that result in healthy marriages, but not teach about healthy marriages. Kind of hard to have one without the other.

Lee taught that God's economy was His plan, His administration, His household law for His family. Lee taught that God accomplishes this plan through His sovereign arrangement and His dispensing of Himself as life and grace.

This is hardly miniscule and it is hardly baloney.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have no problem with "God's economy" as a term. But "almost literal translation" is often not the best. Especially when you put it up against a word that most people automatically think of only one thing when the word has a much more general meaning.

Economy is generally thought of as the monetary and commercial system. But it really deals with everything in which resources must be rationed, or choices need to be made between available alternatives. There is an economy of time, of resources, of leisure, of work, and so on. Every time you choose, it is an issue of economy. If you must choose, then you must not be able to do all, take all, afford all, etc. And the process of choosing is part of "economy."

So the way that everything plays out in our lives is a matter of economy. And among the choices we constantly face are choices between right and wrong, righteousness and unrighteousness (and nothing in particular), a mind set on the Spirit or a mind set on the affairs of this life, and so on. God's economy is how it works out on the side of righteousness (still choices here), with a mind set on the Spirit, keeping that connection with God active in whatever way you do it. And it includes the ways that God provides teachers for us to listen to, the way he takes sides or allows things to run their natural course. It is robust. It includes our obedience in loving both God and others. And we fool ourselves about our love for God if we don't actually do things that shows love for others.

Telling the unemployed homeless person that appears at the door of the house on the church property asking for help that it is "not the business of the church" is casting great doubt on the value of any so-called "dispensing" that has been going on. That is clearly not God's economy. And I'm not saying that simply giving him whatever he wanted is either. But essentially chasing him off with a rebuff surely is not it.

And it happened just like that in Dallas. The leading brother responsible for it told the story himself. He was proud of his lack of love for a neighbor.

I'm not buying this, or that story.

Numerous times I have had "homeless people" come to the door for help. One time while I was listening to one, another brother threw him out. He had a nasty encounter with him just days ago. One time I spent almost a whole day with another brother in need of money. All I ended up doing was helping him get drunk ... again.

I'm not saying the church should be callous to the needy. I am good friends with a brother who cooks for the homeless ministry. They have learned to follow strict guidelines in their ministry. One thing they never give away or carry is money. Absolutely no cash! Clothing is good, home-cooked meals are great, blankets and shoes, but no money. Let me repeat, no money.

Did I leave out that their real burden to preach the gospel and to "dispense" Christ in their gospel dinners?

Sorry to say, but your thoughts on God's economy are far too focused on money and commerce. Cannot you at least agree that the English word economy comes from the Greek word oikonomia, which is the very word Paul used?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Why the need to translate the Greek word oikonomia differently from all the other translations?

I thought I made that point before. There is no consensus among Bible translations. They are all over the map. Many don't even translate the thought of the writer. Many translators don't seem to understand what Paul was even talking about.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

OBW, this is mostly splitting hairs and picking nits.

Kind of like saying we should teach things that result in healthy marriages, but not teach about healthy marriages. Kind of hard to have one without the other.

Lee taught that God's economy was His plan, His administration, His household law for His family. Lee taught that God accomplishes this plan through His sovereign arrangement and His dispensing of Himself as life and grace.

This is hardly miniscule and it is hardly baloney.

I agree except that Lee left the impression that the dispensing of life and grace was all there was to it. He tried to make the microscope view the scenic lookout view. It isn't.

Again, Lee's view was that most of Christianity had missed the dispensing of life and grace and so felt to emphasize it. He had a point. But instead of emphasizing it to Christianity he emphasized to his little group to the point that the over-emphasized it. After a few basic lessons his followers didn't need to hear about dispensing week in and week out. But eventually that's about all he knew how to talk about.

[Cal]

As an analogy, imagine if I wanted to help people understand marriage better in order to improve married life. But suppose instead of talking about all the aspects of marriage, I just chose to talk about all the ins and outs of physical contact. Suppose I went into great detail about how nerve endings fired and hormones were released and circulation increased and on and on. But I gave just cursory coverage of other aspects of marriage. Suppose this is the way I taught for my entire counseling career and my followers listened to no one but me.

Would my teaching help them? No doubt they would have a great understanding about physical contact. But their view of marriage would be distorted. It's very possible I would actually damage their experience of marriage rather than help them, even though in some sense they had more understanding than many people.

This was what Lee did with his economy teaching.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I agree except that Lee left the impression that the dispensing of life and grace was all there was to it. He tried to make the microscope view the scenic lookout view. It isn't.

Again, Lee's view was that most of Christianity had missed the dispensing of life and grace and so felt to emphasize it. He had a point. But instead of emphasizing it to Christianity he emphasized to his little group to the point that the over-emphasized it. After a few basic lessons his followers didn't need to hear about dispensing week in and week out. But eventually that's about all he knew how to talk about.

I don't see any "microscopic view" by any Christian teacher as being a serious issue. Lots of ministries are, like the homeless ministry I just mentioned.

Your second point about condemning all of Christianity for missing out is indeed serious. This just produces Laodicea -- thinking that you alone are "in the know" about God's plan, and all others have totally missed out. This is a root of evils, perhaps the single-most destructive ingredient in the entire LRC. I think all other failures emanated from this prideful thought.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not buying this, or that story.

Numerous times I have had "homeless people" come to the door for help. One time while I was listening to one, another brother threw him out. He had a nasty encounter with him just days ago. One time I spent almost a whole day with another brother in need of money. All I ended up doing was helping him get drunk ... again.

I'm not saying the church should be callous to the needy. I am good friends with a brother who cooks for the homeless ministry. They have learned to follow strict guidelines in their ministry. One thing they never give away or carry is money. Absolutely no cash! Clothing is good, home-cooked meals are great, blankets and shoes, but no money. Let me repeat, no money.

Did I leave out that their real burden to preach the gospel and to "dispense" Christ in their gospel dinners?

Sorry to say, but your thoughts on God's economy are far too focused on money and commerce. Cannot you at least agree that the English word economy comes from the Greek word oikonomia, which is the very word Paul used?

I reread OBW's and Ohio's posts, and sorry to say, it ain't OBW's post that's focused on "money".

As to the "that's not the business of the church" story, are you saying that the guy who opened the door gave the homeless man food? I musta missed that part...

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't see any "microscopic view" by any Christian teacher as being a serious issue. Lots of ministries are, like the homeless ministry I just mentioned.

It isn't an issue unless the ministry teaches their microscopic view is the most important thing going. Which Lee did.

[Cal]

In my earlier post (#43) I meant to type "physical contact," not "physical content."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It isn't an issue unless the ministry teaches their microscopic view is the most important thing going. Which Lee did.

Paul said that he planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. Dispensing is God giving the growth. God's dispensing really needs our cooperation. Lee felt that most of Christianity was entirely focused on man's doings and not on God's, hence his teaching about dispensing. If we only look at archaic ecclesiologies and liturgies like that of Rome and the state churches, he might be right, but the body of Christ is far bigger than just those.

Taken by itself, this teaching on dispensing may be unhealthy. It's too bad that some of the teachings of Lee could not be balanced by others, or be complementary to others. Lee was elevated as the consummate MOTA, which was totally absurd. His minions taught that Lee's teachings subsumed every ministry before him. He supposedly consummated the interpretation of scripture.

It is these ridiculous claims which spoiled the whole, not the over-emphasis on particulars. All ministers take the license to over-emphasize their own points, especially in their spoken ministry. That was nothing new with Lee.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is these ridiculous claims which spoiled the whole, not the over-emphasis on particulars. All ministers take the license to over-emphasize their own points, especially in their spoken ministry. That was nothing new with Lee.

All ministers brother Ohio? I must have told you a million times that using the term all is over-emphasising Seriously, there is no way you could possibly know this. I don't think you could even use the term "most" here. Maybe just the ministers that you have heard or seen. I can tell you that the two pastor/elders at my fellowship do not over-emphasize any particular teaching/practice, accept proclaiming that salvation is through the Lord Jesus alone. Also, we practice taking the Lord's table weekly, and they repeat those verses in 1st Corinthians 11:23-26.

Actually I look at this matter of "MOTA" as something of over-emphasis as well. Yes, the Lord has given gifts to the Body, and some even have the gift of ministering throughout a larger area, some even the throughout the whole world. But the MOTA teaching is a gross misuse and over-emphases of this scriptural principle.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Paul said that he planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. Dispensing is God giving the growth. God's dispensing really needs our cooperation. Lee felt that most of Christianity was entirely focused on man's doings and not on God's, hence his teaching about dispensing. If we only look at archaic ecclesiologies and liturgies like that of Rome and the state churches, he might be right, but the body of Christ is far bigger than just those.

Ohio, is it too presumptous to say God can't give the growth apart from MOTA? I personally haven't witnessed any planting in years. When was the last time you were at a LC meeting that was focused on the gospel to and for the unsaved? Yes, there may be some watering, but as far as the growth, that can happen anywhere and anytime God gives the growth.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not buying this, or that story.

Then you choose to disbelieve what was said to me and several others at the same time concerning someone who appeared at the "Big House" on the Dallas property back in the early 70s. And it was told by the one who said he was the one who was there and dealt with the person.

I did not say that many of the average members would simply act as this leading one did. But in Dallas, it was kind of made a point that it was not our job. Let the Methodists and Lutherans and Catholics do that. Let the soup kitchen take care of him. That kind of thing is "too low."

And, unfortunately, there are many evangelical groups that have somewhat taken the same kind of thought (maybe not as harshly) in the past. And so many of them are changing. And maybe the LRC did as well after I left. But there was the implication where I attended that you only really cared for the "brothers" and that meant the brothers and sisters who were meeting in the LRC.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

Then you choose to disbelieve what was said to me and several others at the same time concerning someone who appeared at the "Big House" on the Dallas property back in the early 70s. And it was told by the one who said he was the one who was there and dealt with the person.

I did not say that many of the average members would simply act as this leading one did. But in Dallas, it was kind of made a point that it was not our job. Let the Methodists and Lutherans and Catholics do that. Let the soup kitchen take care of him. That kind of thing is "too low."

And, unfortunately, there are many evangelical groups that have somewhat taken the same kind of thought (maybe not as harshly) in the past. And so many of them are changing. And maybe the LRC did as well after I left. But there was the implication where I attended that you only really cared for the "brothers" and that meant the brothers and sisters who were meeting in the LRC.

Fast forward 25 years: As a kid in the 90's I learned that we aren't here for that.

But hey, maybe they've changed since I left.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

OBW, this is mostly splitting hairs and picking nits.

Kind of like saying we should teach things that result in healthy marriages, but not teach about healthy marriages. Kind of hard to have one without the other.

You give an example in which the description of what you are talking about is phrased in the same terms as a general description of the outcome. But if you teach things that result in controversial speculations, you don't necessarily conclude that the teaching that brought it on was simply "controversial speculation." Let's even take Lee's conclusion that "God's economy" should have wide-ranging authority to affect the reading of other scripture. As a result, many people have begun to question the basis of that teaching. To question whether he even bothered really reading other scripture for what it actually said, but instead forced it to say what he wanted it to say. There is definitely controversy arising from that teaching. And a lot of speculation as to how it arose and what was the purpose.

But you don't teach a controversial speculation to cause controversial speculations. You teach something that ends out making people disagree on things, get into controversies about what is right or what is wrong. etc.

On the other side, look at all the teachings in the New Testament. Most of them link in some way to the things that Jesus actually said, did, and taught. Those are the teachings. All those things Jesus taught. That Paul taught. That John taught. And so on. Yes, every one of those should result in God's economy. But like so many of Lee's "simply" this or "just" that, once you distill it down to a small phrase, the fullness of what is represented by it becomes hidden. What aspect of the teachings of Jesus would suggest that the things James said in his book would be inconsistent and therefore should be understood as example of missing the mark? Or Paul's teachings? Or John's? Provide some. Then we can talk about James. But throw out some phrase like "didn't have a proper understanding of God's economy" and what are you saying? What aspect of that huge and robust library of teachings makes this true? We still don't know.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee taught that God's economy was His plan, His administration, His household law for His family. Lee taught that God accomplishes this plan through His sovereign arrangement and His dispensing of Himself as life and grace.

This is hardly minuscule and it is hardly baloney.

Lee occasionally taught in general terms that God's economy is something more than just "dispensing." But I do not recall it ever being specific in any way. And the "simply"fied version was what was mostly spoken of the rest of the time.

And it is baloney to suggest that everything can be distilled down to just dispensing. Down to something so small and simple that you don't need to worry about all those pesky commandments. Oh, I forgot, commandments are all part of the law, and it was abolished. But I still don't see where it is that this claim is true. Where it is that doing the requirements of commandment is eliminated. If it is true, then what was Jesus telling the disciples to teach the future believers to obey when he spoke to them right at the end of Matthew? Surely "all that I have commanded" was not just to believe in Jesus and get more dispensing.

As has been the case too often lately, you are missing the point. It never was that God getting into us is not part of God's economy. But while it is true that many of the teachings that would result in God's economy could be said to be God's economy, what good is it to say "teach God's economy" when you don't want to specifically allow that certain teachings are even part of it? Do you think that the words in James do not reflect God's economy? If they do, then why would "God's economy" be a basis for disparaging those words? And does that not call into question (there's that pesky controversial questionings again) what Lee meant by "God's economy"?

How can something that justified the claim of error in the book of James be understood as less than controversial? It puts the Bible truly at odds with itself.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

All ministers brother Ohio? I must have told you a million times that using the term all is over-emphasising Seriously, there is no way you could possibly know this. I don't think you could even use the term "most" here. Maybe just the ministers that you have heard or seen.

The Word Natzi got me! How did that slip by post-production editing? My first ever violation for exaggeration. My bad.

How was my spelling and grammar? Forgive me, I was still drugged up with that pain-killer from my dental work.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by OBW

And it is baloney to suggest that everything can be distilled down to just dispensing. Down to something so small and simple that you don't need to worry about all those pesky commandments. Oh, I forgot, commandments are all part of the law, and it was abolished. But I still don't see where it is that this claim is true. Where it is that doing the requirements of commandment is eliminated. If it is true, then what was Jesus telling the disciples to teach the future believers to obey when he spoke to them right at the end of Matthew? Surely "all that I have commanded" was not just to believe in Jesus and get more dispensing.

The law was never abolished, per say. Rather, it was fulfilled. Christ himself says so. So you're absolutely right, the claim is false. It's true in every translation...even the Recovery version.

Some examples just because I feel it's an important thing to point out against this notion of an abolished law and only dispensing stuff...

NIV

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

NLT

"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

ESV

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

KJV

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

RCV

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

Thus if WL actually did teach that the law was abolished, he's not only contradicting the Bible, but his own version of it, which from what I gather has several parts translated differently to suit his own definitions and ideas. Then again, his footnotes on the verse confuses the very meaning of what is explicitly said (based on my reading it just now) in the verse. But maybe that's just poor reading on my part...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Ohio, is it too presumptuous to say God can't give the growth apart from MOTA? I personally haven't witnessed any planting in years. When was the last time you were at a LC meeting that was focused on the gospel to and for the unsaved? Yes, there may be some watering, but as far as the growth, that can happen anywhere and anytime God gives the growth.

God can't give the growth apart from MOTA? Did someone tell you that?

If so, that is worse than being "too presumptuous."

Sure there are LC meetings where brothers preach the gospel and baptize people. Some even get watered. "Whenever two or three gather in My name, I am there."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

How can something that justified the claim of error in the book of James be understood as less than controversial? It puts the Bible truly at odds with itself.

The Christian life is full of ironies. Lots of diversity has occurred during the last 2,000 years. Some have done reasonably well, while dissing the entire O.T. The LRC are not the only folks to dismiss James; e.g. Luther said James was the "straw epistle, only good for burning."

I do understand, however, that these anomalies are difficult for you to grasp. All I can offer is that the Knower of hearts has a bigger heart than most of us, and oftentimes He overlooks contradictory and "irreconcilable differences."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

God can't give the growth apart from MOTA? Did someone tell you that?

Sure there are LC meetings where brothers preach the gospel and baptize people. Some even get watered. "Whenever two or three gather in My name, I am there."

I have heard it numerous times if you equate the recovery with MOTA. Prophesying where saints in the recovery have all the riches and Christians outside the local churches see nothing. Basically if you're a non-LSM/LC Christian, you're still an infant and you need to be "in the ministry" to experience some growth in life.

As far as meeting go, I'd have to go back to the 80's last time there were meetings focused on the gospel. In the last 15 years or so, the gospel is likely to happen in the home meetings. Following a Lord's Day meeting is when you'd be a witness to a baptism.

[Ohio]

Saints = Members of LC's (except for those sad folks from Who Dat Nation)

Christians = Believers in Christianity

This terminology hits guests almost immediately. Right away they learn that there is a special class of Christians, called Saints, in the Recovery.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

Good topic, OBW.

Here's one that bothers me: "the Recovery".

Nell

There are still churches in the Reformation Movement of the 16th century.

There are still churches in the Restoration Movement of the 19th century.

There are still churches in the Recovery Movement of the 20th century.

I guess it is common for Christian leaders to make their congregations and their history more special than the next congregation.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Right away they learn that there is a special class of Christians, called Saints, in the Recovery.

Yes, when you're referring to a brothers in the local church it's "saints". If it's a non-recovery brother, it's "brother in the lord". If it's brothers in the LC bearing administrative responsibility, it's "the brothers".

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Nell

Here's one that bothers me: "the Recovery".

Nell

I'm bothered more on what's implied. That implication being God is only moving in the churches that are taking Witness Lee's ministry as the one publication. Once a church decides to stop taking this ministry as the one publication, God is no longer moving there. I bothered by the notion man can place boundaries where God is moving. Do you actually think God's moving is reduced to a Christian publisher and the churches that receive their publications? All the while being closed to saints divisive for being politically incorrect. I'm sure in his time Elijah and Jeremiah were considered divisive for the things they spoke. In relation to their kings, these prophets were politically incorrect.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by Terry

I'm bothered more on what's implied. That implication being God is only moving in the churches that are taking Witness Lee's ministry as the one publication. Once a church decides to stop taking this ministry as the one publication, God is no longer moving there. I bothered by the notion man can place boundaries where God is moving. Do you actually think God's moving is reduced to a Christian publisher and the churches that receive their publications? All the while being closed to saints divisive for being politically incorrect. I'm sure in his time Elijah and Jeremiah were considered divisive for the things they spoke. In relation to their kings, these prophets were politically incorrect.

"The recovery" is a good common phrase from the LC, Nell!

This reminds me of a time a sister and I in Houston many years ago spoke with a friend of mine from work. We had been asked about our “church,” and we began speaking about the “Lord’s recovery.” This friend immediately said, “Oh, I didn’t know the church was sick.” That took us aback, but not for long. We just kept on talking because we had been convinced by the LC that “God is only moving in the churches that are taking Witness Lee's ministry as the one publication.”
I agree, Terry, no one can place boundaries on where God is moving.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by bookworm

"The recovery" is a good common phrase from the LC, Nell!

Hi Bookworm,

Maybe my post wasn't clear. I know "the Recovery" is an LC phrase. My point was that it bothers me. I don't like it. I don't think there is anything "good" about it...sorry. I'll quote myself with my original post:

Re: The LRC Lexicon — Common Phrases
Good topic, OBW.
Here's one that bothers me: "the Recovery".
Nell

Adding to Terry's comments, when you look at the devastation this place has wreaked in the lives of Christian believers...just the ones you know, to continue to call it "the recovery" seems absurd. I think its full of hypocrisy and presumptuousness.

Nell

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by Nell

Hi Bookworm,

Maybe my post wasn't clear. I know "the Recovery" is an LC phrase. My point was that it bothers me. I don't like it. I don't think there is anything "good" about it...sorry. I'll quote myself with my original post:

Re: The LRC Lexicon — Common Phrases
Good topic, OBW.
Here's one that bothers me: "the Recovery".
Nell

Adding to Terry's comments, when you look at the devastation this place has wreaked in the lives of Christian believers...just the ones you know, to continue to call it "the recovery" seems absurd. I think its full of hypocrisy and presumptuousness.

Nell

I certainly agree, Nell. I did not mean to say "the Recovery" was a good phrase but meant to say it was a good example of a common phrase used by the LC. Surely there was nothing good about it and it bothers me also and I agree it is presumptuous to say God is only moving in the churches that are taking Witness Lee's ministry.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Nell

I think its full of hypocrisy and presumptuousness.

I am sure there are many who may disagree with your words. Maybe, but your statement is confirmed by "the ministry" when compared against practices. I used "the ministry" as a starting point, because "the ministry" is given more weight than the Bible.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Christian life is full of ironies. Lots of diversity has occurred during the last 2,000 years. Some have done reasonably well, while dissing the entire O.T. The LRC are not the only folks to dismiss James; e.g. Luther said James was the "straw epistle, only good for burning."

I do understand, however, that these anomalies are difficult for you to grasp. All I can offer is that the Knower of hearts has a bigger heart than most of us, and oftentimes He overlooks contradictory and "irreconcilable differences."

That Luther did not like James does not answer the question. And it does not exonerate Lee. And just punting it all to the "Knower of hearts" does not make it OK.

In fact, as I read through some commentaries on 1 Timothy, generally looking at the area in question as well as the whole of the first chapter, I see that most understand "God's economy" as part of a larger phrase rather than as its own "nugget." And some even use the term "dispensing," but not in the way that Lee did. All see this as concerning the gospel of salvation (which is entirely by faith) and not sanctification (in which we actually must do more than just believe).

And when you trot out your "Knower of hearts" thing, it would appear that you are speaking of how God will deal with the people who are learning under the regime that teaches such a peculiar definition of "God's economy" and then uses that definition to write off parts of the Bible they claim to cherish. And I think I agree. God is nowhere near as hard on the ones learning from it as he is on the ones who are teaching it. He does know the hearts of the "average" LRC member. They are just trying to follow they best they know how. That a system of error was slowly pushed on them is not entirely their own fault.

But the ones giving so much push back now did not always take this position. I saw the abject poverty of scriptural basis for what Lee wrote in his book on "God's economy" starting back in 2007. My start of seeing so much error in Lee's actual doctrine of "God's economy" began two and a half years ago when someone decided to do a thread on teachings of Lee that they thought were good. Every time that there was any question as to how something that seemed to say one thing was taken to mean another, there was the finding of some use of phrases like "according to God's economy" or "not knowing God's economy" or "not understanding God's economy" found that was given as justification for the unusual reading, or, in the case of James, outright dismissal of the book as an example of how not to live the Christian life. When asked to provide a definition of "God's economy" that could wield such massive authority over the reading of scripture as a whole, it was always going to be provided, but never was.

This is the reason that I have such a problem with this little phrase in the context of the LRC. It means something very different for them than it does for us. It is an all-powerful control on scripture, and on the lives of the believer, yet it is such a rare term in scripture that is, in the case of 1 Timothy, not given as a teaching, but as a result. And given the immediately-following verses which are mostly considered to be a sort of an aside, it would appear to be mostly about the message of salvation and not sanctification in 1 Timothy. So using it as a way to redefine the process of sanctification seems to be even more of a stretch.

[Hope]

Hello Mike,

The Lord is good and ever faithful.

Regarding “God’s economy.” Or “administration” or “stewardship” as the Greek word is translated, here is an interesting verse.

Ephesians 3:8-10
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
8 To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; 10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.

Here is seems that part of Paul’s commission was to teach God’s administration (economy).

The Lord has helped me very much in the understanding of God’s administration. This was the reason I left circa 1987-88 and pretty much severed my relationships with LSM etc by 1989.

This is about the only interest I would have in continuing to interact with former or current members of the old local churches.

The personal attacks against various personalities of previous times when I was on the forum plus my own personal family issues (Daron’s paralysis) added to the time required to take care of about 25 new believers here in Durham caused me to retire from the forum.

But I will look to the Lord if I should reengage regarding bringing to light what is the administration of the mystery. May the Lord lead.

Hope

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

This is the reason that I have such a problem with this little phrase in the context of the LRC. It means something very different for them than it does for us. It is an all-powerful control on scripture, and on the lives of the believer, yet it is such a rare term in scripture that is, in the case of 1 Timothy, not given as a teaching, but as a result. And given the immediately-following verses which are mostly considered to be a sort of an aside, it would appear to be mostly about the message of salvation and not sanctification in 1 Timothy. So using it as a way to redefine the process of sanctification seems to be even more of a stretch.

Mike, I don't read these verses that way. God's economy is His means of administrating His household. LSM may use this phrase to disparage the teachings of others, whether parts of the Bible like James or Proverbs, or the teachings of those outside the Recovery, but they actually are misrepresenting the Head of the body.

I believe I Tim 1.4 highlights the importance of God's economy, His administration. The verse is a healthy warning to some not to teach differently, and a warning to all of us not to occupy ourselves with unnecessary and time-consuming things which produce only questionings and endless debates. Paul's charge here should be a safeguard to all of us regarding how we "occupy ourselves."

Interestingly, Paul uses the phrase "God's administration" in contrast with myths and genealogies. Should not all the LSM talks about the succession of MOTA's throughout church history be considered in this category of "unending genealogies which give occasion for questionings?" With the passing of WL back in the nineties, all those who occupied themselves with "MOTA theology" were forced to occupy themselves with the question, "who is the next MOTA?" Out of this bad theology spawned "Blended Brother theology" and eventually the quarantines. One of the sad anomalies of the recent quarantine by LSM was this promotion of "God's economy" to condemn TC and others, all the while promoting MOTA's which the same verse warns us about. To promote MOTA's and to exalt ministers is to "teach differently" and to violate the basic tenets of "God's administration," which is to exalt His Son, and only His Son.

Why would Paul use this phrase "God's administration" instead of saying the "gospel of grace" or another important matter of the N.T.? It is because "God's administration" encompasses the whole of all the other N.T. teachings. This is partly proven by v. 5, which says the "goal of the charge is love." Didn't the Lord summarize the whole as "love?" He instructed us to love God and love our neighbor, hence the goal of the charge was "love." Another supporting point is the emphasis on "faith." Paul says "God's administration is in faith." Faith is the realm of "God's administration." Anything outside of the realm of faith cannot possibly be "God's administration." Hence, the two most important descriptors of "God's administration" which Paul provides us in this charge are love and faith. The complete lack of genuine faith was highlighted in LSM's abuse of the legal system, even promoting lawsuits on a local level over meeting halls. Their abject lack of love out of a pure heart was highlighted by the public condemnations and quarantines of brothers they had served with for years.

In conclusion, much of what WL taught about "God's economy" or "God's administration" was healthy and scriptural. The problem was they did not practice what they preached. Reminds me of the Lord's word concerning the Pharisees, "do as they say, but not as they do."

[OBW]

I am very glad to discuss the mystery, and the administration of it. Some are assuming that I am dismissing "economy" in its entirety. What I am opposed to is a system in which something as broad an all-encompassing as "God's economy" can be altered into something that, in turn, alters the view of scripture.

Paul revealed much of the life that God brought in Jesus Christ. While that life is not entirely different from the life that was decreed previously, its source of power was changed from the outside to the inside. Yet the core of that life is not actually altered. When I read that someone is teaching that the book of James is not God's instruction to us for our living, but is allowed in scripture as an example of the wrong way to live, all because of a presumption of not understanding "God's economy," then I have a problem with what it is that they are claiming "God's economy" to be. I realize that the use of quotes around a phrase is sort of way to indicate that it is not really what is being discussed. And that is exactly what I am saying. There is much to God's economy. It is mostly not the thing that rewrites scripture. It is the result of reading and understanding the scripture that already is.

"God's economy," and a handful of other overlays, is used over and over to bring thoughts with no context into the reading of verses such that what actually is in the context is ignored, and in some cases, demeaned as some kind of poor thing. The book of James is just the most egregious example.

But there does not really seem to be any desire to discuss the doctrinal errors of Lee and his followers. We like to rail on the bad things the BBs do. And point out how they are not faithful to Lee's ministry (as if that is a good benchmark). And quibble over who is following that ministry best. In other words, who does the best job of following a system of errors.

I need a break.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

"God's economy," and a handful of other overlays, is used over and over to bring thoughts with no context into the reading of verses such that what actually is in the context is ignored, and in some cases, demeaned as some kind of poor thing. The book of James is just the most egregious example.

But there does not really seem to be any desire to discuss the doctrinal errors of Lee and his followers. We like to rail on the bad things the BBs do. And point out how they are not faithful to Lee's ministry (as if that is a good benchmark). And quibble over who is following that ministry best. In other words, who does the best job of following a system of errors.

Why the backlash on the book of James, I don't know. There's much in the book of James I've gained from. Maybe because the text in James convicts your spirit?

When you get into the doctrinal errors versus bad things BB's do, at least my my persepctive the harmful practices are obvious. When you get into doctrinal errors, the key is learning where Witness Lee's ministry was doctrinally correct and where it wasn't. As I've stated before in the forum, until the late 80's I couldn't find fault in any of Witness Lee's ministry. Perhaps doctrinally what needs to be identified is whether scriptural support mentioned in Witness Lee's ministry was taken out of context? Going forward whatever ministry you read, this is the approach that should be taken; examination.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

When I read that someone is teaching that the book of James is not God's instruction to us for our living, but is allowed in scripture as an example of the wrong way to live, all because of a presumption of not understanding "God's economy," then I have a problem with what it is that they are claiming "God's economy" to be.

Everyone take note. This is important.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

When I read that someone is teaching that the book of James is not God's instruction to us for our living, but is allowed in scripture as an example of the wrong way to live, all because of a presumption of not understanding "God's economy," then I have a problem with what it is that they are claiming "God's economy" to be.

To me this was another example of "Early Lee -- Later Lee." When I first read, reread, and studied this book with the church in the mid-70's, these derogatory comments about the book of James were not included. Later on in the Life Study of James in ~1983, these comments about James being "not clear about God's New Testament Economy" were used often. Then during the Crystalization Study of James, WL basically trashed the book.

So, as OBW has voiced in his concerns in recent posts, the teaching and understanding of "God's Economy" has deteriorated over time. What is now understood as "God's Economy" is a far cry from the original book on the subject. This explains why different brothers in the Recovery have completely different views of what "God's Economy" refers to. Most brothers I knew took their understanding from the Greek texts in the Bible, and the original teaching by WL. Nowadays "God's Economy" has come to mean an exclusive view, focused singularly on the ministry of WL, and exclusive to the Recovery.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then during the Crystalization Study of James, WL basically trashed the book.

In the thread RayLiotta started on FTTAOL, why would the online study include the Crystalization Study of the Epistle of James? What exactly is being taught in the FTTA regarding James?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What is now understood as "God's Economy" is a far cry from the original book on the subject. This explains why different brothers in the Recovery have completely different views of what "God's Economy" refers to. Most brothers I knew took their understanding from the Greek texts in the Bible, and the original teaching by WL. Nowadays "God's Economy" has come to mean an exclusive view, focused singularly on the ministry of WL, and exclusive to the Recovery.

Nothing has changed. Read the first chapter of TEOG. It is a primer in disregarding, even ignoring scripture. There is essentially none there. And he tricks us into accepting his "just God dispensing himself into man" definition through a vague reference to some "careful study of the entire Bible" which he site absolutely none of.

And so when someone goes to other verses in which the given understanding of TEOG is used to alter the reading, then that verse is, in turn, used as evidence that TEOG really is all he says it is (which is essentially every place that Lee brought it up as a reason to reread anything in a different way than it obviously read).

That is not "later Lee." The fantasy in TEOG in 1963(ish) was no different from the fantasy of Nee in Spiritual Authority (Authority and Submission) in the first couple of chapters, and Nee's dismissal of home churches as meaningless in Further Talks since to understand it as it obviously should be understood was in contradiction of the "one church in a city" doctrine.

These guys are not reading scripture for enlightenment. They are reading scripture to find where it might be construed to say what they already think is true. And if necessary, rewrite a little of it through the application of some overlay to get the job done. For Lee, "God's economy" seems to have served him well in many cases. It doesn't matter that there is a rich meaning to God's economy that would not do what Lee wanted. He grabbed it, tied it up, and led it all over the place as his proof that his misreading of scripture was really right.

It's the same old story. Same old song and dance.

They played the pipe for us and we danced. In Lee's case, we danced all the way to the bank.

Maybe the average LRCer doesn't think of God's economy as this thing that trumps words, grammar, and logic. But they are buying what Lee said that was not the words, grammar and logic of the sentences provided in scripture. And when asked why he thinks it is true, one of those overlays, like "God's economy" is given without much meaningful explanation. "It's just what is supposed to be taught, therefore we must be misreading this verse."

BTW, Lee may not have put all the negative stuff into a lot of serious messages about James in a training prior to when I left in 1987. But he had said plenty about James "missing God's economy" by focusing on "works" and other such nonsense. I heard some of it first hand.

My problem is not with God's economy; it is with what Lee did with it to effectively lead the LRC astray.

[rayliotta]

The teaching of God's economy is a Lord's Recovery pet. Its purpose is to scratch the itch, feed the hunger of needing to be special, needing to be different, needing to be unique. This belief that God's economy is something so huge, that sooooo many Christian teachers have missed the boat on -- how much does this belief reinforce the feeling that the "Lord's Recovery" is something that you could never leave?

"I could never go back to Cris-chee-a-ni-tee!"

Given this context, why would you want to continue focusing on this teaching?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

The teaching of God's economy is a Lord's Recovery pet. Its purpose is to scratch the itch, feed the hunger of needing to be special, needing to be different, needing to be unique. This belief that God's economy is something so huge, that sooooo many Christian teachers have missed the boat on -- how much does this belief reinforce the feeling that the "Lord's Recovery" is something that you could never leave?

"I could never go back to Cris-chee-a-ni-tee!"

Given this context, why would you want to continue focusing on this teaching?

Why do folks continue to call it "the recovery", and even "the Lord's Recovery"? I'm not having a little "rant" here...well, maybe I am...just don't get it. Let's call it what it is...what is it?

Another "pet" that has outlived itself! Is anything being "recovered"? What?

Sorry. I told you it bugs me---
Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

Why do folks continue to call it "the recovery", and even "the Lord's Recovery"? I'm not having a little "rant" here...well, maybe I am...just don't get it. Let's call it what it is...what is it?

Another "pet" that has outlived itself! Is anything being "recovered"? What?

Sorry. I told you it bugs me---
Nell

If we discuss the gradual recovery of truths smothered over by Rome during the dark ages, then there is perhaps some merit. But when we capitalize the "r" in recovery, and place "The" in front of it, then "Houston, we have a problem!"

This is no different than someone calling WL a minister, and his lackeys calling him "The Minister of the Age."

I remember the time I showed someone my shiny new "Recovery Version," and they commented that they didn't know I used to be an alcoholic. Ugh! How do I explain that one?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

The teaching of God's economy is a Lord's Recovery pet. Its purpose is to scratch the itch, feed the hunger of needing to be special, needing to be different, needing to be unique. This belief that God's economy is something so huge, that sooooo many Christian teachers have missed the boat on -- how much does this belief reinforce the feeling that the "Lord's Recovery" is something that you could never leave?

"I could never go back to Cris-chee-a-ni-tee!"

Given this context, why would you want to continue focusing on this teaching?

In the time I've spent with the current gathering of Christians I meet with, they're aware of God's Economy. Difference being, it's not emphasized nor has it become a doctrinal matter.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Nell

Why do folks continue to call it "the recovery", and even "the Lord's Recovery"? I'm not having a little "rant" here...well, maybe I am...just don't get it. Let's call it what it is...what is it?

Another "pet" that has outlived itself! Is anything being "recovered"? What?

Sorry. I told you it bugs me---
Nell

Nell,

It's a fair question. Try to understand where I'm coming from.

I guess partly I say it in jest, you know, like those Roman soldiers making that sign? Fine, if that's what you guys wanna be called...

But I also remember as a high school kid, reading sites like Jim Moran's, and being put off by his use of the term "the Local Churches". We don't use it like that! We don't capitalize it! I'm not saying it was a rational response, or one I could defend, but surely you can agree that all these terms are so easily "politicized"...it's very easy for a member to dismiss what we're saying as nonsense just because a term didn't "sound right" to them. Know what I mean?

But "Recovery" -- there's a term the group uses to describe itself. They use it all the time. And they even capitalize it! "To all the churches in the Lord's Recovery", comes the announcement from Anaheim.

To me, as long as they claim to be different, different from denominational churches, different from non-denominational churches, different from community churches, different, different, different -- let them have their capital "R" Recovery. Shout it from the rooftops that they are a group that calls themselves the "Lord's Recovery", all the while boasting that we don't take a name.

(sorry for da long post)

[Nell]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Nell,

It's a fair question. Try to understand where I'm coming from.

(sorry for da long post)

Ray,

Honestly, what the members call themselves isn't what bugs me. That seems to be like a Pavlov's dog type response. Much like the conditioned response to "praise the Lord" being "Amen".

If by some bizarre circumstance they called it "Nell's Recovery" I would be saying "Hey! Don't blame that thing on me! I didn't do it! They don't listen to me...there's this Lee guy...."

We know too much to continue the farce, don't we?

Nell

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Nell

Ray,

Honestly, what the members call themselves isn't what bugs me. That seems to be like a Pavlov's dog type response. Much like the conditioned response to "praise the Lord" being "Amen".

If by some bizarre circumstance they called it "Nell's Recovery" I would be saying "Hey! Don't blame that thing on me! I didn't do it! They don't listen to me...there's this Lee guy...."

We know too much to continue the farce, don't we?

Nell

Then what should we call them? To me the bigger farce would be to pretend they don't take a name. When actually they denominate themselves just like any other group.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Then what should we call them? To me the bigger farce would be to pretend they don't take a name. When actually they denominate themselves just like any other group.

Well, lets see...we could call the movement "The Great Apostacy"! That would satisfy the leadership's desire to be "great" at something. Or, simply, "the apostacy". That's certainly more of an accurate description of what's gone on there than "recovery". I'm being 99% facetious.


We can certainly call the movement what it calls itself, its DBA: The Local Church. The Local Church is the DBA for most if not all the "localities". I really don't think of "the Recovery" or "the Lord's Recovery" as a "name" as in a proper noun, because the movement has never done business as such, to my knowledge.

As for the question "What do we call them", I'm trying to stay away from personal pronouns, which refer to people. I want to make myself clear that, while accurate perhaps, inappropriate names like The Great Apostasy refers to the group and not individuals.

I think you mean "them" to refer to the group and not individuals so I'm not pointing a finger at you. I just want to make my own comments clear. We are all the Lord's brothers. To think of someone as or call an individual "an opposer", "a dissenter", "negative" and how many other derrogatory names have been used, this is sin. This has fostered an "us and them" mentality. I'm as guilty as anyone, and for this, I repent.

"Recovery" or the "Lord's Recovery" assumes "facts" not in evidence. There is no evidence that 1) the Lord lost anything that needed to be "recovered", and 2) that what Witness Lee "recovered" was anything more than his own heretical teachings. To continue to use "recovery" as is now used in the LC, and on this forum, gives credibility to the movement that, in my opinion, it does not deserve, and can mislead others who are struggling with the truth of these matters.

Nell

[Cal]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Then what should we call them?

This is why some of us have taken to calling them the LRC (which stands for Lord's Recovery Church). I don't like calling them the LC because doing so enables their belief that they are the only true local churches, which they aren't. At the same time I will occasionally use LC out of respect for former members.

Them calling themselves "the local churches" meaning that they are the only ones is about as valid (and arrogant) as some subgroup of people calling themselves "the human beings" meaning that they are the only ones.

[OBW]

Seems that what to call the group that is the target of this forum has gone on before. And with uncertain results.

If you want to call it what they call it, then you call it "The Recovery" or "the recovery" or "the local church" or "The Local Church" or even "The Local Churches."

If you mention something about names and denominations, they will claim no name and say that they are "just meeting as the church in [city]."

But that denies that they went on record in the Harvest Hills lawsuit as being a collection of churches that identified themselves as "The Local Churches" and a series of "Church in [city]."

But for the rest of us, since there are a lot of churches that are often much more local to us than the one that calls themselves that, "local church" or "the Local Church" or even "the Church in [city]" is not really palatable.

So, since they do refer to themselves generically as "the recovery" (with or without capitals) or even "the Lord's Recovery," Some have started using "LRC" as short for the "Lord's Recovery Church."

And that won't sit well with most current members anyway. But it is much better than "the Witness Lee Cult" (as Justyn sort of says at times) or "the Leeites."

[Cal]

Mike, I don't know what OBW stands for, but I've taken to pronouncing it in my mind as "Obi-Wan."

Just thought you should know.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

And that won't sit well with most current members anyway. But it is much better than "the Leeites."

I actually think "Leeites" are a good description. It parallels the Wesleyans, Calvinists, and Lutherans which is what the Recovery has become. They, of course, would vehemently protest, but what difference is there really?

I said before, that I went to a Lutheran Church and never once heard the name or the teachings of Luther exalted. Try going to the LSM-friendly local churches and see how often Lee's name and teachings are exalted.

Few regard the Wesleyans, Calvinists, and Lutherans a cult, and the same should be applied to the Recovery -- just a sect of Christianity overly focused on their leader/founder.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I actually think "Leeites" are a good description. It parallels the Wesleyans, Calvinists, and Lutherans which is what the Recovery has become. They, of course, would vehemently protest, but what difference is there really?

I said before, that I went to a Lutheran Church and never once heard the name or the teachings of Luther exalted. Try going to the LSM-friendly local churches and see how often Lee's name and teachings are exalted.

Few regard the Wesleyans, Calvinists, and Lutherans a cult, and the same should be applied to the Recovery -- just a sect of Christianity overly focused on their leader/founder.

It's been the historic characteristic of denominations to believe their way was the true way. At one time some denominations even believed you couldn't be saved or at least sanctified outside of their camps.

However, few believe that anymore... wth the marked exception of the LRC. This is one irony of the LRC. They haven't progressed, they've regressed, recovering (to put it in their terms) classic denominational xenophobia.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's been the historic characteristic of denominations to believe their way was the true way. At one time some denominations even believed you couldn't be saved or at least sanctified outside of their camps.

However, few believe that anymore... with the marked exception of the LRC. This is one irony of the LRC. They haven't progressed, they've regressed, recovering (to put it in their terms) classic denominational xenophobia.

Xenophobia (Grk. fear of strangers) is so ironic for a group of Christians which pride themselves in hospitality (Grk. love of strangers.)

Their "regression" is due to exclusivism. Biblical "oneness" is so positive, based on the love of God. Exclusive "oneness" is so negative, based on unity of judgement.

LC "oneness" boils down to "do you condemn everything we do?" The same was true for Darby Brethrenism -- "we will accept you as long as you agree to condemn George Muller." Today LSM "oneness" requires that you to condemn TC like they do. Isn't that a "oneness" based on fear?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

LC "oneness" boils down to "do you condemn everything we do?" The same was true for Darby Brethrenism -- "we will accept you as long as you agree to condemn George Muller." Today LSM "oneness" requires that you to condemn TC like they do. Isn't that a "oneness" based on fear?

Those who may feel condemn is too strong a word. What about refuse to receive. This is indicative of every brother and sister who has been quarantined. Just as Indiana posted of his New Year's weekend experience. Meeting a couple from the Church in Vista who while acknowledged the presence of an elderly former LC elder, refused to receive and refused to greet.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Mike, I don't know what OBW stands for, but I've taken to pronouncing it in my mind as "Obi-Wan."

You grow wise, my young apprentice.

Actually, I think we went through this when Unto started the forum up back in 2008. OBW is "older but wiser" — a (wishful thinking) take-off on the "sadder but wiser" from The Music Man.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

LC "oneness" boils down to "do you condemn everything we do?" The same was true for Darby Brethrenism -- "we will accept you as long as you agree to condemn George Muller." Today LSM "oneness" requires that you to condemn TC like they do. Isn't that a "oneness" based on fear?

Originally Posted by Terry

Those who may feel condemn is too strong a word. What about refuse to receive.

Absolutely. And not only does LSM "oneness" require you to not receive Titus Chu, it requires you to not receive any of the hundreds (thousands?) of people who continue to meet in "Titus Chu's churches". This is the real tragedy.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Absolutely. And not only does LSM "oneness" require you to not receive Titus Chu, it requires you to not receive any of the hundreds (thousands?) of people who continue to meet in "Titus Chu's churches". This is the real tragedy.

Not to mention the rest of Christianity not affiliated with anything in the LRC.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I actually think "Leeites" are a good description. It parallels the Wesleyans, Calvinists, and Lutherans which is what the Recovery has become. They, of course, would vehemently protest, but what difference is there really?

I said before, that I went to a Lutheran Church and never once heard the name or the teachings of Luther exalted. Try going to the LSM-friendly local churches and see how often Lee's name and teachings are exalted.

Few regard the Wesleyans, Calvinists, and Lutherans a cult, and the same should be applied to the Recovery -- just a sect of Christianity overly focused on their leader/founder.

Though the LRC emphasis on WL and the exaltation his teachings kind of separates them from Lutherans, or Calvinists, or whatever else, doesn't it? People don't call churches like those you mentioned cults simply because they are not. Most people that I know in such churches really don't adhere to only the teachings of Martin Luther or Calvin, or any other specific person. The name of the denomination (at least in my experience and context) has really become just a name. More and more I see saints from all churches coming together to worship and fellowship as a body of Christ. I guess you could say that people consider the LRC a cult of WL because they focus on his teachings so much more than anything and they tend to dismiss everyone else as Babylon. Seems a little on the cultish side from the outsider's perspective. Not everyone will agree with that assessment, but no one's perfect eh?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

Not to mention the rest of Christianity not affiliated with anything in the LRC.

Yes, the difference there is, if you're an outsider they will take all kinds of interest in you as a potential recruit. As a poster on the other forum once described it, they see you as "a piece of meat".

It's those who have been in the group, who then find themselves on the wrong side of a quarantine -- they are the ones who really know what it's like to "not be received".

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Yes, the difference there is, if you're an outsider they will take all kinds of interest in you as a potential recruit. As a poster on the other forum once described it, they see you as "a piece of meat".

It's those who have been in the group, who then find themselves on the wrong side of a quarantine -- they are the ones who really know what it's like to "not be received".

Hm...I never felt like they were that interested in me as a recruit. They were sure to be nice to me and all, but for the most part I never really felt "received" but maybe it's because I chose not to interact with them unless I had to.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

Hm...I never felt like they were that interested in me as a recruit. They were sure to be nice to me and all, but for the most part I never really felt "received" but maybe it's because I chose not to interact with them unless I had to.

Groups like the LRC are only interested in the gullible. If you show signs of being an independent thinker they back away.

It's like lawyers during jury selection. They want people they can manipulate, not people who can think. If you ever get called for jury duty just tell them you were a philosophy major and the captain of your debate team. You'll never get picked.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Groups like the LRC are only interested in the gullible. If you show signs of being an independent thinker they back away.

Igzy's post has very much to do with the campus work.
First sentence explains why campus work is focused on freshmen.
Second sentence explains why campus work shies away from Sopmores, Juniors, and Seniors.
I wouldn't say this if LC announcements about the campus work wasn't geared specifically towards college freshmen.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Groups like the LRC are only interested in the gullible. If you show signs of being an independent thinker they back away.

It's like lawyers during jury selection. They want people they can manipulate, not people who can think. If you ever get called for jury duty just tell them you were a philosophy major and the captain of your debate team. You'll never get picked.

Ha...I felt almost antagonized when I went to one particular outing for something. I could be wrong, but a lot of the older attendees (and I'm talking people at least 40+ years old who likely have been in the LRC most if not all their lives) seemed to look at me in a different way than the college students present. I don't recall if I mentioned I was part of "Babylon" or not.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by Terry

Igzy's post has very much to do with the campus work.
First sentence explains why campus work is focused on freshmen.
Second sentence explains why campus work shies away from Sopmores, Juniors, and Seniors.
I wouldn't say this if LC announcements about the campus work wasn't geared specifically towards college freshmen.

Yeah I definitely noticed that as well. All of the opening events on campus were geared towards freshman and bringing them into the group.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

Yeah I definitely noticed that as well. All of the opening events on campus were geared towards freshman and bringing them into the group.

Once they get into their sophomore or junior years, they become so "preoccupied" with so many other things.

So many other things ... than ... US!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Once they get into their sophomore or junior years, they become so "preoccupied" with so many other things.

Analytical for one.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

Yeah I definitely noticed that as well. All of the opening events on campus were geared towards freshman and bringing them into the group.

TGA,

Would it be possible for you to write a few words of advice for college Freshmen who are being aggressively pursued by the "Christians on Campus" group? What should they watch for? How did you handle their aggression? How did you "escape"?

Thanks--
Nell

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by Nell

TGA,

Would it be possible for you to write a few words of advice for college Freshmen who are being aggressively pursued by the "Christians on Campus" group? What should they watch for? How did you handle their aggression? How did you "escape"?

Thanks--
Nell

I'd like to if I was actually qualified to. I was never aggressively pursued or even pursued. I told them rather early on that I was part of another church and I guess that in itself was how I "escaped" them. The fact of the matter is, CoC will go after a lot of people who are curious about either religion or Christianity in particular. They probably don't know much about Christianity at the very least, and even if they do know some basic facts, CoC will insist that they too believe and follow the same things (and this is true to an extent). CoC will also make their events the most friendly place for you to be, so it'd be hard for anyone who is completely unsuspecting to even feel like they are being pursued. Once they get "sucked in" so to speak, they'll just say they felt the love of Christ in that group. A common thing I heard among members of CoC who said they had been to other fellowships before (which makes me wonder about what those fellowships were like) was that they felt more fellowship in the LRC than anywhere else. So unless that freshman is completely aware of what is going on, there's not much I can say but avoid them or distance yourself from them as much as possible and instead pick a more mainstream group like Intravarsity or something. If the freshman is aware of what is going on, chances are, I'd think, that they'd also know what CoC and the LRC are all about and they wouldn't need much of my help.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't very helpful, so I'm sorry if it wasn't. I guess I said what they should look out for a little bit. Feel free to ask more questions though, I'll try to help to the best of my limited abilities.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Hope

Regarding “God’s economy.” Or “administration” or “stewardship” as the Greek word is translated, here is an interesting verse.

Ephesians 3:8-10
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
8 To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; 10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.

Here is seems that part of Paul’s commission was to teach God’s administration (economy).

But I will look to the Lord if I should reengage regarding bringing to light what is the administration of the mystery. May the Lord lead.

Although I've said this before, I'll repeat myself: Jesus also used the word "oikonomia" in His teachings, in the parable in the Gospel of Luke on "stewardship". LSM poured out rivers of ink on Paul's "oikonomia" of God, but largely ignored Jesus' "oikonomia" of the believer/disciple.

I guess Jesus' teachings weren't in the "central lane of God's economy".

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

When I read that someone is teaching that the book of James is not God's instruction to us for our living, but is allowed in scripture as an example of the wrong way to live, all because of a presumption of not understanding "God's economy," then I have a problem with what it is that they are claiming "God's economy" to be...

"God's economy," and a handful of other overlays, is used over and over to bring thoughts with no context into the reading of verses such that what actually is in the context is ignored, and in some cases, demeaned as some kind of poor thing. The book of James is just the most egregious example.

I ran into the same thing in the LSM interpretations of the Psalms, recently covered again in their semi-annual trainings. They literally bypass dozens of chapters of the Psalms, because those chapters don't fit the Lee's revelations. The excluded chapters were supposedly written by well-meaning but ignorant psalmists, and were left in the Bible merely to show us what not to do, and how not to think/act.

I'm serious. Go look at a Recovery version of the Bible, and read the footnotes. The chapters that line up with LSM "God's economy" get all the ink. Whole sections of multiple chapters are skipped because they can't reconcile them to Lee's "revelations" on "God's economy".

My estimate was that they covered about 1/4 to 1/3 of the Psalms. The rest they skipped, with a few disparaging remarks, because "it didn't fit."

So who doesn't fit well here, the Bible or the LSM?

[aron]

Another Local Church-ism is "saints". If you are meeting in the LSM-affiliated groups, you are regarded, and addressed, as "saints". If you are in un-affiliated "christianity" then you are a "christian" or a "believer".

From the common useage, you'd think there were no saints outside of the Lord's Recovery movement. Of course LSM spokesmen/pitchmen will deny this, but that's what they say in among the LSM-ites.

"We met with the saints in Ft Lauderdale" can only mean one thing in Local Churchese. "We met with LSM-affiliated christians in Ft. Lauderdale." Nobody says "The saints in the Baptist church in Ft. Lauderdale".

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

My estimate was that they covered about 1/4 to 1/3 of the Psalms. The rest they skipped, with a few disparaging remarks, because "it didn't fit."

I tried to read the Psalms in detail in the Recovery Version, which I still own, and gave up in the 34th chapter and skimmed the rest.

So here is an introduction, so you can get my point, and my sense was that the trend continued through the whole book of Psalms. That is how I estimated that they actually addressed 1/4 to 1/3 of the Psalms.

LSM introduces the Psalms as either written by "fallen man's concept", i.e. the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or by a "revelation of Christ". LSM with the "God's economy" template, naturally gets to decide which are which.

So that was the introduction in Psalm 1 (see footnote on 1:1), which chapter is a "natural concept" psalm.

Then Psalm 2 is a revelation of Christ.

Then Psalms 3 through 7 were written according to "David's concept". Sorry, no Christ there, according to Lee.

Then Psalm 8 is a "revelation of Christ" psalm.

Then Psalms 9-15 are full of the concepts of good and evil, and void of Christ. See footnotes in 9:3 and 15:1. The intervening psalms pass without mention.

Then psalm 16 is a "revelation" psalm.

Then psalms 17-21 are "David's concept" psalms. See footnote 17:1. Out of the first 21 chapters of the Psalms, only 3 have any value according to the 'God's economy' metric. The rest are seen merely as placeholders, or worse.

So we are supposed to believe that David was limited by his "concepts" while Mr. Lee entertained no concepts? All I see in the Psalms footnotes are concepts, and rather shallow and rudimentary ones at that.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Nell

"Recovery" or the "Lord's Recovery" assumes "facts" not in evidence. There is no evidence that 1) the Lord lost anything that needed to be "recovered", and 2) that what Witness Lee "recovered" was anything more than his own heretical teachings. To continue to use "recovery" as is now used in the LC, and on this forum, gives credibility to the movement that, in my opinion, it does not deserve, and can mislead others who are struggling with the truth of these matters.

We could say the same thing about how those in the Local Church use the term "The Church". They call themselves "The Church in Anytown" (even if they just got there) when there are multiple genuine Christian churches already meeting. Furthermore, when they call themselves "The Church in.." they are assuming facts not in evidence.

The fact is that the Local Churches of Witness Lee do very little within their communities that would qualify them as a genuine, functional New Testament local church. They do very little (most of the time no) work among those in need. They preach a gospel which adds all sorts of "extras" invented by Witness Lee (and takes away a few while their at it) Though they would deny it, they are not asking people to simply join "the church in anytown", they are asking people to join a world-wide religious organization, complete with their exclusive publishing company and "blended" leadership based in Anaheim California (AKA "the Ministry)

So, for a people who use the word "Church" as much as they do, they don't seem to have any desire to really DO what the Church is called to do, and no, hunkering down in a meeting hall reading outlines and messages from Witness Lee doesn't qualify them as "The Church".

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

I ran into the same thing in the LSM interpretations of the Psalms, recently covered again in their semi-annual trainings. They literally bypass dozens of chapters of the Psalms, because those chapters don't fit the Lee's revelations. The excluded chapters were supposedly written by well-meaning but ignorant psalmists, and were left in the Bible merely to show us what not to do, and how not to think/act.

I'm serious. Go look at a Recovery version of the Bible, and read the footnotes. The chapters that line up with LSM "God's economy" get all the ink. Whole sections of multiple chapters are skipped because they can't reconcile them to Lee's "revelations" on "God's economy".

My estimate was that they covered about 1/4 to 1/3 of the Psalms. The rest they skipped, with a few disparaging remarks, because "it didn't fit."

So who doesn't fit well here, the Bible or the LSM?

I am not surpised. When the Isaiah training occurred a few years ago I was watchful for the same trend. Covering portions that are positive and affirming and neglecting portions that is troubling to the spirit and may even cause introspection. The point to realize is when content is covered in trainings, conferences, etc the goal is to tie the message in a nice bow that "reconciles" scripture to the ministry.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

I'd like to if I was actually qualified to. I was never aggressively pursued or even pursued. I told them rather early on that I was part of another church and I guess that in itself was how I "escaped" them. The fact of the matter is, CoC will go after a lot of people who are curious about either religion or Christianity in particular. They probably don't know much about Christianity at the very least, and even if they do know some basic facts, CoC will insist that they too believe and follow the same things (and this is true to an extent). CoC will also make their events the most friendly place for you to be, so it'd be hard for anyone who is completely unsuspecting to even feel like they are being pursued. Once they get "sucked in" so to speak, they'll just say they felt the love of Christ in that group. A common thing I heard among members of CoC who said they had been to other fellowships before (which makes me wonder about what those fellowships were like) was that they felt more fellowship in the LRC than anywhere else. So unless that freshman is completely aware of what is going on, there's not much I can say but avoid them or distance yourself from them as much as possible and instead pick a more mainstream group like Intravarsity or something. If the freshman is aware of what is going on, chances are, I'd think, that they'd also know what CoC and the LRC are all about and they wouldn't need much of my help.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't very helpful, so I'm sorry if it wasn't. I guess I said what they should look out for a little bit. Feel free to ask more questions though, I'll try to help to the best of my limited abilities.

Thanks, TGA. I appreciate the post. I'm glad you weren't a target like some are. I'm sending you a PM for another question.

Thanks again,
Nell

[zeek]

How about a little "on- the- floor fellowship"? That was a common phrase in the local church at one time. I have been unable to post on this website since 11/23/2011. Now suddenly I can log in again. Isn't that strange? Many of my posts have disappeared too. I wonder if anyone can explain these phenomena. Frankly, I thought that UntoHim had locked me off the website like implied he was going to on the thread "What Harold believes"? What happened to that thread anyway?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

How about a little "on- the- floor fellowship"? That was a common phrase in the local church at one time.

What exactly is on-the floor fellowship? I've never heard of it in the local churches.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[COLOR="Navy"]
Furthermore, when they call themselves "The Church in.." they are assuming facts not in evidence.

UntoHim, this goes back to what name you take for your church. For example just because you call your assembly the Church in ____, does not make it so. Suppose where you live there is not the Church in ______, you go through the proper channels to register as the Church in ______, but in reality it's a home assembly that doesn't need to go through the steps of "taking a name". However because you did register as The Church in _____, in one swoop you're declaring you are the local expression of the Body in your locality.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Terry

What exactly is on-the floor fellowship? I've never heard of it in the local churches.

I don't know what it was. It was a Max Rappaport expression. I thought it meant something like "getting real" or "getting down to brass tacks", or maybe speaking candidly. It was just another stupid thing that was started and repeated mindlessly like so many Local Church sayings.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't know what it was. It was a Max Rappaport expression. I thought it meant something like "getting real" or "getting down to brass tacks", or maybe speaking candidly. It was just another stupid thing that was started and repeated mindlessly like so many Local Church sayings.

Stupid? Not at all. Not if it's speaking the truth in love. Problem with "on the floor fellowship", leadership doesn't want it. Not if it means answering an exposing question.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Terry

Stupid? Not at all. Not if it's speaking the truth in love. Problem with "on the floor fellowship", leadership doesn't want it. Not if it means answering an exposing question.

It was but a momentary thaw in the interminable Local Church deep freeze, quashed by Witness Lee et al.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

How about a little "on- the- floor fellowship"? That was a common phrase in the local church at one time. I have been unable to post on this website since 11/23/2011. Now suddenly I can log in again. Isn't that strange? Many of my posts have disappeared too. I wonder if anyone can explain these phenomena. Frankly, I thought that UntoHim had locked me off the website like implied he was going to on the thread "What Harold believes"? What happened to that thread anyway?

Happens now and then to all of us. Don't take it personally.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Happens now and then to all of us. Don't take it personally.

Of course not. I just would like an explanation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Of course not. I just would like an explanation.

Just the nature of forums that we just have to learn to live with. If you were running the show, I would be looking for explanations too.

[TLFisher]

Another phrase I've heard, but is it common? When you leave the Local Churches, be a gentleman.

[james73]

Local churches and recovery already covered in this thread but I would like to share on "The Recovery" and "The Lord's Move".

I had an issue at a meeting on Sunday when a visiting guy from India stood up and said, basically the situation of the church was very dire in India (subdued amen), it was very dry (subdued Amen) but the Lord was gaining the country (AMEN!) there were 100 or so churches and counting (AMEN!!).

I stood up at this point because it drove me mad. "Actually there are thousands of churches in India," I said, "Did you make a mistake when you said hundred?"

He wasn't quite sure of my meaning, and reiterated that there were now "4,000 saints in India", to which I responded, he must surely mean just Living Stream Ministry "saints", because to my knowledge there were millions of Christians in India, and how on earth could he call India "dry" when there are so many other Christian activities there?

At this point an elder guy (not sure if an "elder" or just older) stood up and said, "James obviously he means India is very dry, as in, it is a very dry country, they even have to build wells to get water, now let's sing a hymn, hymn XXXX" and started singing! A very effective way to silence me. I just dropped it cos life is too short. And actually I was more amused than offended: India is a dry country, CLASSIC!

So here we see the beauty of the lexicon. They are talking about the Local Church/LSM/LRC but they calls it "the Lord's Move" as in something wider, something of ALL Christianity - when I tackled him afterwards, as of course I did, he and the elders (olders) said "of COURSE he is just talking about the work they are doing, not all Christianity, we are not claiming to be the only Christians in India" [or something along those lines, I got confused with it frankly]. But in the meeting, as went into the ear of the young ones who loudly AMEN, the message is that there are no Christians in India but for the great work of Witness Lee's ministry. It's this doublespeak which drives me nuts.

And for the record, I checked when I got home, there are 24 million Christians in India, and some parts of it are amongst the wettest in the world.......

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by james73

So here we see the beauty of the lexicon. They are talking about the Local Church/LSM/LRC but they calls it "the Lord's Move" as in something wider, something of ALL Christianity - when I tackled him afterwards, as of course I did, he and the elders (olders) said "of COURSE he is just talking about the work they are doing, not all Christianity, we are not claiming to be the only Christians in India" [or something along those lines, I got confused with it frankly]. But in the meeting, as went into the ear of the young ones who loudly AMEN, the message is that there are no Christians in India but for the great work of Witness Lee's ministry. It's this doublespeak which drives me nuts.

There's no "beauty" in their lexicon, since it only serves to puff them up, and to reduce the God of the universe to the size of the hearts of their leaders in Anaheim. The "centrality and universality" of God is only as large as their standing order for HWfMR.

Note that insiders are 'saints," but outsiders are "Christians."

One day they will realize that they have become a far worse denomination than some of the ones they condemn.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Another phrase I've heard, but is it common? When you leave the Local Churches, be a gentleman.

This actually is a really good maxim for all Christians who leave churches.

But when members are being hurt by LC leaders, then shame on us for being silent and walking out the door. Speaking up does not mean we are not a "gentleman."

For 30 years I consented to condemnation and criticisms leveled against the rest of the body of Christ. Should I now be muzzled after I finally learned that they have done more to deserve criticism than the ones they condemned.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by james73

So here we see the beauty of the lexicon. They are talking about the Local Church/LSM/LRC but they calls it "the Lord's Move" as in something wider, something of ALL Christianity - when I tackled him afterwards, as of course I did, he and the elders (olders) said "of COURSE he is just talking about the work they are doing, not all Christianity, we are not claiming to be the only Christians in India" [or something along those lines, I got confused with it frankly]. But in the meeting, as went into the ear of the young ones who loudly AMEN, the message is that there are no Christians in India but for the great work of Witness Lee's ministry. It's this doublespeak which drives me nuts.

That's quite allright if the intent in India is for the ministry LSM publishes. However if the intent is to spread the gospel, do not be so narrow to think God is so limited He can only use one organized ministry in LSM for that. Within the scope of this forum, there have been former LC attendees who have been to India for the sake of envangelism. John Smith is one brother who comes to mind. There are others.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by james73

I stood up at this point because it drove me mad. "Actually there are thousands of churches in India," I said, "Did you make a mistake when you said hundred?"

Great question! It's like when they use the term "the Body". What they really mean is themselves. Or "the feeling of the Body" they mean the feeling of the Anaheim Politburo and those within the LC system who agree with them. (An even smaller group.) What was the feeling of the Body in The Church in Cleveland about the feeling of the Body in Whistler when ousting Titus Chu? Seems like the Body had conflicting feelings. Listening to these guys and all their "spiritual" sayings and terms is really comical sometimes!

The truth is the Body is huge and encompasses millions of Christians. Most of the ones I've met have never even heard of the LC system and those who have think it's cultic. How's that for "the feeling of the Body"?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This actually is a really good maxim for all Christians who leave churches.

But when members are being hurt by LC leaders, then shame on us for being silent and walking out the door. Speaking up does not mean we are not a "gentleman."

For 30 years I consented to condemnation and criticisms leveled against the rest of the body of Christ. Should I now be muzzled after I finally learned that they have done more to deserve criticism than the ones they condemned.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Roman 12:14

In my post-LC Christian experience, I have discovered ones who leave have is in mind. One congregation may not meet their spiritual hunger, but it becomes a mutual case of "bless and do not curse". Even in the current congregation I meet with, an elder who left was blessed in his leaving.

In my opinion during the turmoils when brothers were cursed instead being of being blessed, when these ones choose to leave the Recovery, there would be far less to be criticism of the blending brothers. Bless, and do not curse. Instead of calling a brother, "a man of death"; bless him. It is a lesson for us all to practice daily.

[Loveneverfails]

Ah, I was just thinking "I wish I had a dictionary for all the LC jargon!" When I stumbled upon this thread. I know it's an old thread, but I'm currently trying to understand the common terms and phrases used in the LC so I hope no one minds if I post here.

It seems like several of my questions are addressed in the posts above, so I'll start with one that I didn't see mentioned yet:

What exactly is meant by the term "blended" and who/what are the "blended brothers"?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Loveneverfails

Ah, I was just thinking "I wish I had a dictionary for all the LC jargon!" When I stumbled upon this thread. I know it's an old thread, but I'm currently trying to understand the common terms and phrases used in the LC so I hope no one minds if I post here.

It seems like several of my questions are addressed in the posts above, so I'll start with one that I didn't see mentioned yet:

What exactly is meant by the term "blended" and who/what are the "blended brothers"?

"Blended" is one of those terms that seems like it is used in a way that is meaningless. For example, if all those meeting in a certain LC go and visit a different LC that is called "blending". I guess it is supposed to have something to do with being mixed with those who you don't know so well. The problem is that this term is only used as they see fit. So it might not apply to an assembling of just a single church, even if the members don't know each other that well.

The "Blended Brothers" are a group of brothers that see themselves as the plural successor to Witness Lee. They use the term "Blended", because in LC lingo it implies whatever they are doing involves a broad sphere of fellowship where multiple brothers have a say. This is not really the case at all, whereas they can't even accept non-LSM publications. Whatever the basis of their fellowship is, it is much narrower than they would like to admit.

[Loveneverfails]

Thank you for the prompt response, Freedom. I keep hearing "being blended together as the body of Christ" and it never sat right with me. A body isn't blended together. It is separate components that work together and operate as a whole under the leadership of the head. "Blended" just makes me think of a smoothie.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Loveneverfails

Thank you for the prompt response, Freedom. I keep hearing "being blended together as the body of Christ" and it never sat right with me. A body isn't blended together. It is separate components that work together and operate as a whole under the leadership of the head. "Blended" just makes me think of a smoothie.

I completely agree. It it a somewhat odd sounding term, with respect to the Body of Christ. The LC has translated their Recovery Version of the Bible to fit their idea of being "blended". In the Recovery Version, 1 Cor 12:24 says "God has blended the body together", which in my mind changes the meaning of this verse. The NKJV says "God composed the body..." and the NIV says "God has put the body together..." The latter two translations make sense, whereas with the term blended you are left wondering what is meant by that. I'm not sure that anyone in the LC could really give a concrete answers as to what being "blended" means.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Freedom

"Blended" is one of those terms that seems like it is used in a way that is meaningless. For example, if all those meeting in a certain LC go and visit a different LC that is called "blending". I guess it is supposed to have something to do with being mixed with those who you don't know so well. The problem is that this term is only used as they see fit. So it might not apply to an assembling of just a single church, even if the members don't know each other that well.

The "Blended Brothers" are a group of brothers that see themselves as the plural successor to Witness Lee. They use the term "Blended", because in LC lingo it implies whatever they are doing involves a broad sphere of fellowship where multiple brothers have a say. This is not really the case at all, whereas they can't even accept non-LSM publications. Whatever the basis of their fellowship is, it is much narrower than they would like to admit.

Anything to distinguish themselves further from the entire Body of Christ...as if they are pleasing God. Mercy LORD! Mercy!!!!

I liked it better when we were encouraged back in the 70's to build up the saints, the body of Christ, the church. But whatever is not of the Lord, as we were told is 'wood, hay and stubble!'

question:
Is there a man amidst the bunch of blendeds who is a leader among them. I know there is a board of directors. So maybe the chairman of the board is the cut above the rest???

Just wondering...

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

question:
Is there a man amidst the bunch of blendeds who is a leader among them. I know there is a board of directors. So maybe the chairman of the board is the cut above the rest???

Just wondering...

Probably Benson or Ron if anyone. They seem to be the head honchos based upon how much respect they get.

I remember back in the mid 2000's when they were pressed as to who the blended brothers are, they answered something like "the blended brothers are the brothers who are blended". So they seem reluctant to name anyone who is part of their group. I guess the top of their group would be those who speak at the semi-annual trainings. IIRC they had a special section in the semi-annual trainings where the coworkers aka blended brothers sit.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I completely agree. It it a somewhat odd sounding term, with respect to the Body of Christ. The LC has translated their Recovery Version of the Bible to fit their idea of being "blended". In the Recovery Version, 1 Cor 12:24 says "God has blended the body together", which in my mind changes the meaning of this verse. The NKJV says "God composed the body..." and the NIV says "God has put the body together..." The latter two translations make sense, whereas with the term blended you are left wondering what is meant by that. I'm not sure that anyone in the LC could really give a concrete answers as to what being "blended" means.

It is not really much different than their teaching on the Trinity. Oh they believe in Three in One, but have little real use for anything but the One. It is as if they have blended them together into a smoothie in which they are "just each other."

Reminds me of that joke:
Q. What's green and red and goes in a circle at 150 mph?
A. A frog in a blender.

In the case of the LRC theology on the body of Christ and on the Trinity, I don't know what the question would be, but the answer is " the body (or the Trinity) in a blender."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Loveneverfails

Thank you for the prompt response, Freedom. I keep hearing "being blended together as the body of Christ" and it never sat right with me. A body isn't blended together. It is separate components that work together and operate as a whole under the leadership of the head. "Blended" just makes me think of a smoothie.

The word is designed to be disarming to the rank and file shrouded in a cloak of spirituality. The real intention is to manipulate the undiscerning. There is absolutely nothing benign about its use by Lee or anaheim. The GLA had a total disdain for the word.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The word is designed to be disarming to the rank and file shrouded in a cloak of spirituality.

In the LC, I commonly hear the phrase "we need to blend out all our differences". To someone outside the LC, that is a meaningless statement. For someone in the LC, it is quite clear that "blending" or "blended" is synonymous with renouncing individuality. Of course it is always the rank and file LCers that are the ones who must not express their own opinions or ideas. This is where the trouble is, it is not something that starts at the top. The BB's are immune from having to set aside their own interests.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The real intention is to manipulate the undiscerning. There is absolutely nothing benign about its use by Lee or anaheim. The GLA had a total disdain for the word.

I see many take this teaching of being "blended" without hesitation. After all, the word can be found in the Recovery Version. Would anyone even suspect that perhaps they translated 1 Cor 12:24 this way simply to support Lee's teaching on being blended, not because they felt that was really the best translation?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the LC, I commonly hear the phrase "we need to blend out all our differences". To someone outside the LC, that is a meaningless statement. For someone in the LC, it is quite clear that "blending" or "blended" is synonymous with renouncing individuality. Of course it is always the rank and file LCers that are the ones who must not express their own opinions or ideas. This is where the trouble is, it is not something that starts at the top. The BB's are immune from having to set aside their own interests.

In other words "we need to suppress our differences". Make no mistake there are differences. Brothers need to suppress them. Otherwise, there's very little keeping the local churches from what happened to Mars Hill Churches.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the LC, I commonly hear the phrase "we need to blend out all our differences". To someone outside the LC, that is a meaningless statement. For someone in the LC, it is quite clear that "blending" or "blended" is synonymous with renouncing individuality. Of course it is always the rank and file LCers that are the ones who must not express their own opinions or ideas. This is where the trouble is, it is not something that starts at the top. The BB's are immune from having to set aside their own interests.

Everone's "individuality" had to be renounced except for Lee.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Everone's "individuality" had to be renounced except for Lee.

It's an odd notion, isn't it, that walking the earth was one 'spiritual giant' whose every utterance was manna from God, untainted by the fallen human soul. WL's word was equivalent to God's will, expressed in real time. And now its strange corrolary, that the age of giants is over and now it's the 'age of small potatoes'.

At least Luther and Wesley, when they had broken off the Mother Church and begun their own fellowships, never did a 180 degree turn and declared that thenceforth the church leadership was to be sacrosanct on the level of God Almighty Himself.

And that brings to mind the verse by Paul in 2 Cor 2:5, that "we do not preach ourselves." The personality cult ministries do nothing, in spite of their protestations to the contrary, but preach themselves.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The LC has translated their Recovery Version of the Bible to fit their idea of being "blended". In the Recovery Version, 1 Cor 12:24 says "God has blended the body together", which in my mind changes the meaning of this verse. The NKJV says "God composed the body..." and the NIV says "God has put the body together..." The latter two translations make sense, whereas with the term blended you are left wondering what is meant by that.

Translators can never be totally distanced from meanings and have to translate according to their own concepts, like the LSM did. I do not believe they changed the meaning but used the word they preferred out of a few possibilities.

Actually, "blended" as used here is one of several words/expressions that could be used. The Concordant Literal Version uses "blends" while Young's Literal Translation uses "temper"; actually, "temper" seems to win hands down in most translations.

The Amplified has this: "But God has so adjusted (mingled, harmonized, and subtly proportioned the parts of) the whole body." I believe "blend" sums it up quite well. The Greek could have the figurative meaning of combine and assimilate; thus tempered together, i.e. blended.

That pretty well explains it.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Friedel

Translators can never be totally distanced from meanings and have to translate according to their own concepts, like the LSM did. I do not believe they changed the meaning but used the word they preferred out of a few possibilities.

Actually, "blended" as used here is one of several words/expressions that could be used. The Concordant Literal Version uses "blends" while Young's Literal Translation uses temper"; actually, "temper" seems to win hands down in most translations.

The Amplified has this: "But God has so adjusted (mingled, harmonized, and subtly proportioned the parts of) the whole body." I believe "blend" sums it up quite well. The Greek could have the figurative meaning of combine and assimilate; thus tempered together, i.e. blended.

That pretty well explains it.

I think that for someone in the LC, "blended" takes on a unique meaning, a meaning which no one else would attribute to the word. I mentioned that the brothers like to talk about "blending out all differences", in other words not allowing anyone to retain any individuality.

I think a good way of putting it is that the LC idea of being "blended" requires that each member have the same function, even being identical to one another, in contradiction of Rom 12:4. There is no room for each member to have a unique function. People who have their own publications get shut down. People who write their own songs get shut down. The list goes on. That is why I am a little hesitant about the word "blended". Not because it's an incorrect translation, but because of the hidden LC meaning.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I think that for someone in the LC, "blended" takes on a unique meaning, a meaning which no one else would attribute to the word. I mentioned that the brothers like to talk about "blending out all differences", in other words not allowing anyone to retain any individuality.

I think a good way of putting it is that the LC idea of being "blended" requires that each member have the same function, even being identical to one another, in contradiction of Rom 12:4. There is no room for each member to have a unique function. People who have their own publications get shut down. People who write their own songs get shut down. The list goes on. That is why I am a little hesitant about the word "blended". Not because it's an incorrect translation, but because of the hidden LC meaning.

Now that is something clearly different. They have changed the meaning of "blend" in English.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Friedel

Now that is something clearly different. They have changed the meaning of "blend" in English.

In the LCs the innocuous becomes the cover for the surreptitious.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Terry

In other words "we need to suppress our differences". Make no mistake there are differences. Brothers need to suppress them. Otherwise, there's very little keeping the local churches from what happened to Mars Hill Churches.

Actually what happened at Mars Hill is what should have happened in the Local Church many, many years ago. At Mars Hill, one man, the founder, became much too influential and powerful, then when this one man became out of control and abusive towards his fellow elders...he was warned, he was pleaded with, he was reasoned with, then finally he was officially and biblically rebuked. In the case of Mark Dricoll (the founder and "one apostle" of Mars Hill) he chose to be a coward and abandon his flock. Now that their shepherd has fled, the sheep have been scattered and their multi-location megachurch has disintegrated. The elders of Mars Hill did what was biblical (and thankfully legally written into their bylaws) by offering him a plan for restoration which would have eventually restored him to full ministry.

The same kind of action was taken against another founder/apostle of a megachurch several years ago (Ted Haggard). Thankfully, most evangelical churches/denominations nowadays have clear and written laws for discipline written into their bylaws, and most of the time even the founder/apostle is subject to discipline under the bylaws, including removal from ministry.

Witness Lee became disqualified to remain even as an elder, much, much less as the "apostle" of an entire Christian movement. When he became disqualified would probably depend upon who you talked to. If you talked to certain saints in Taiwan he probably disqualified himself way back in the 50s or 60s (when Lee was committing financial fraud and was ripping the saints off, suing over meeting hall properties, removing and installing elders at his personal whim, etc, etc.) If you talked to Max Rapoport or Saul Benoit they would probably tell you Lee became disqualified in 1978 (when Lee betrayed them both - all the sordid details here on this forum). If you talked to John Ingalls, Al Knoch, Jo So et al they would probably tell you Lee became disqualified back in the late 80s (when Lee betrayed all of them in favor of his mentally ill, crazy and immoral son Phillip)

If at any point the Local Church sect had anything even close to the bylaws that were put into place by Mars Hill or New Life Fellowship (Haggard's church) Witness Lee would have been removed from any kind of official capacity of leadership or ministry. Maybe, just maybe, that would have actually humbled the man and he would have repented, and in the process saved a lot of heartache and grief for thousands and thousands of people over about 50 years.

But our God is sovereign. Our God is wise. Our God is gracious. Our God is merciful. We must believe this if we are going to make any sense of what has taken place over all these years. Also if we are going to help our dear brothers and sisters in the Local Church movement we realize what happened, why it happened and maybe what they could do to avoid repeating history.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually what happened at Mars Hill is what should have happened in the Local Church many, many years ago.

It might be a little naive to believe bylaws would have addressed the issues of Witness Lee unless the bylaws promoted a democratic process with due process. Congregational types of churches might have been the only way to possibly deal with him over the years but they would have had to be in place from the beginning and that wasn't going to happen. The LCs were anything but democratic. WL wielded so much power over people and appeared spiritual but apparently was deceitful while encouraging and admonishing at the same time. No one was any match for Witness Lee. He had the support of a considerable number of people in important positions in the LC.

The person who brought me into the LC, Karl Hammond, said he had heard things about what WL did in Taiwan and he went with others to Taiwan to find out the truth. When he met with the brothers there they explained the situation to his satisfaction. Karl wasn't easily fooled but on the other hand he might have wanted to drink the kool-aid and maybe didn't dig deep enough. Apparently that trip with several brothers sealed the deal for the US.

People were too taken with him when he came to the US because of his association with Watchman Nee. Their guard was down and quite frankly we were too naive for the wiles of Witness Lee. Like any other type of situation such as Watergate there are people willing to be deceitful for what they believe is a higher purpose. The ends justified the means and that is what impacted us with WL in the US. The Taiwan churches failed and we failed because we believed not only in WL but in the undemocratic design of the LC structure to include the overarching type of LSM structure which was also in Taiwan under a different name. The WL/WN connection was the reason most people came into the LC and those who knew what was going on behind the scenes also understood what made the LC what it became before everything became problematic. They didn’t want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

[OBW]

I enjoyed a little freedom from the LRC lexicon last night as I listened to Michael Card, Buddy Greene, and Jeff Taylor sing a very eclectic collection of semi-classical/high-church, Pentecostal, blues, blue-grass, southern folk rock and Irish folk all centered around the birth and life of Christ, with a couple of less serious thrown in for the younger ones. Near the end they began to play standard hymns of Christmas for everyone to sing along with. At one point Buddy commented how it is so wonderful to hear the singing of the saints.

We really don't hear the word "saints" too often outside the LRC, but when we do, its real meaning is so full and real. The exclusive version that is bandied about in the LRC just falls flat.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

It might be a little naive to believe bylaws would have addressed the issues...

Exactly, and I bet that's what Mark Driscoll was counting on! You see, this last situation was not the first crisis of leadership at Mars Hill. The last time Driscoll carefully and craftily demonized his detractors, then when the time was just right, he fired them. Then he quickly "changed the rules" and consolidated power by promoting a group of men who were personally loyal to him, and him alone. DOES ALL THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?

Luckily for the folks at Mars Hill, Driscoll was not able to destroy all the vestiges of ecumenical democracy built into the Mars Hills bylaws. I'm sure if he had to do it all again Diriscoll would have made himself an indispensable Pope from the very beginning, just like Witness Lee did.

The person who brought me into the LC, Karl Hammond, said he had heard things about what WL did in Taiwan and he went with others to Taiwan to find out the truth. When he met with the brothers there they explained the situation to his satisfaction. Karl wasn't easily fooled but on the other hand he might have wanted to drink the kool-aid and maybe didn't dig deep enough. Apparently that trip with several brothers sealed the deal for the US.

Actually Karl was never going to find out the truth because by the time he visited Taiwan Witness Lee had already "eliminated the competition" so to speak. By the time Karl "met with the brothers there" Lee had already done a lot of firing and hiring of local elders and had already absconded with a number of the meeting halls. For all intents and purposes there was already two Local Churches - One was The Local Church of Witness Lee, the other was everybody else. If Karl would have looked real hard he probably would have found out about "everybody else", but I'm sure Lee worked his infamous magic to make sure that didn't happen.

An interesting side note here - John Ingalls has stated that at least one Chinese brother who was in Taiwan in those days has related to him that a number of brothers wanted to "spill the beans" to the gullible American brothers who were visiting in those days, but of course they were totally intimidated by Witness Lee and just bit their lips.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by OBW

I enjoyed a little freedom from the LRC lexicon last night as I listened to Michael Card, Buddy Greene, and Jeff Taylor sing a very eclectic collection of semi-classical/high-church, Pentecostal, blues, blue-grass, southern folk rock and Irish folk all centered around the birth and life of Christ, with a couple of less serious thrown in for the younger ones. Near the end they began to play standard hymns of Christmas for everyone to sing along with. At one point Buddy commented how it is so wonderful to hear the singing of the saints.

We really don't hear the word "saints" too often outside the LRC, but when we do, its real meaning is so full and real. The exclusive version that is bandied about in the LRC just falls flat.

AWESOME OBW!!! I recently heard a wonderful message called 'the meaning of 'RED in Christmas'.

While Jesus was not born on December 25th, at least it is the one day of the year that is a reminder a real SAVIOR was born to deliver us called the MIGHTY GOD.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually what happened at Mars Hill is what should have happened in the Local Church many, many years ago. At Mars Hill, one man, the founder, became much too influential and powerful, then when this one man became out of control and abusive towards his fellow elders...he was warned, he was pleaded with, he was reasoned with, then finally he was officially and biblically rebuked. In the case of Mark Dricoll (the founder and "one apostle" of Mars Hill) he chose to be a coward and abandon his flock. Now that their shepherd has fled, the sheep have been scattered and their multi-location megachurch has disintegrated. The elders of Mars Hill did what was biblical (and thankfully legally written into their bylaws) by offering him a plan for restoration which would have eventually restored him to full ministry.

The same kind of action was taken against another founder/apostle of a megachurch several years ago (Ted Haggard). Thankfully, most evangelical churches/denominations nowadays have clear and written laws for discipline written into their bylaws, and most of the time even the founder/apostle is subject to discipline under the bylaws, including removal from ministry.

Witness Lee became disqualified to remain even as an elder, much, much less as the "apostle" of an entire Christian movement. When he became disqualified would probably depend upon who you talked to. If you talked to certain saints in Taiwan he probably disqualified himself way back in the 50s or 60s (when Lee was committing financial fraud and was ripping the saints off, suing over meeting hall properties, removing and installing elders at his personal whim, etc, etc.) If you talked to Max Rapoport or Saul Benoit they would probably tell you Lee became disqualified in 1978 (when Lee betrayed them both - all the sordid details here on this forum). If you talked to John Ingalls, Al Knoch, Jo So et al they would probably tell you Lee became disqualified back in the late 80s (when Lee betrayed all of them in favor of his mentally ill, crazy and immoral son Phillip)

If at any point the Local Church sect had anything even close to the bylaws that were put into place by Mars Hill or New Life Fellowship (Haggard's church) Witness Lee would have been removed from any kind of official capacity of leadership or ministry. Maybe, just maybe, that would have actually humbled the man and he would have repented, and in the process saved a lot of heartache and grief for thousands and thousands of people over about 50 years.

But our God is sovereign. Our God is wise. Our God is gracious. Our God is merciful. We must believe this if we are going to make any sense of what has taken place over all these years. Also if we are going to help our dear brothers and sisters in the Local Church movement we realize what happened, why it happened and maybe what they could do to avoid repeating history.

I vote that this post should be Featured Post. The author is definitely qualified.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Exactly, and I bet that's what Mark Driscoll was counting on! You see, this last situation was not the first crisis of leadership at Mars Hill. The last time Driscoll carefully and craftily demonized his detractors, then when the time was just right, he fired them. Then he quickly "changed the rules" and consolidated power by promoting a group of men who were personally loyal to him, and him alone. DOES ALL THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?

Luckily for the folks at Mars Hill, Driscoll was not able to destroy all the vestiges of ecumenical democracy built into the Mars Hills bylaws. I'm sure if he had to do it all again Diriscoll would have made himself an indispensable Pope from the very beginning, just like Witness Lee did.


Actually Karl was never going to find out the truth because by the time he visited Taiwan Witness Lee had already "eliminated the competition" so to speak. By the time Karl "met with the brothers there" Lee had already done a lot of firing and hiring of local elders and had already absconded with a number of the meeting halls. For all intents and purposes there was already two Local Churches - One was The Local Church of Witness Lee, the other was everybody else. If Karl would have looked real hard he probably would have found out about "everybody else", but I'm sure Lee worked his infamous magic to make sure that didn't happen.

An interesting side note here - John Ingalls has stated that at least one Chinese brother who was in Taiwan in those days has related to him that a number of brothers wanted to "spill the beans" to the gullible American brothers who were visiting in those days, but of course they were totally intimidated by Witness Lee and just bit their lips.

WOW. Thanks. All great info and insight!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

AWESOME OBW!!! I recently heard a wonderful message called 'the meaning of 'RED in Christmas'.

While Jesus was not born on December 25th, at least it is the one day of the year that is a reminder a real SAVIOR was born to deliver us called the MIGHTY GOD.

Yes, but the sanctuaries are now at the malls ....

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, but the sanctuaries are now at the malls ....

nahh....WALMART!!!! Walmart is the sanctuary! haven't you heard or seen?

[Lisbon]

One thing that has always chafed me is taking one word from the Bible and making a doctrine. Lately we have talked about blended, blending etc for one. Surely this is a poor translation to begin with because of the context. You grind up an eye, ear, and foot together and you have none of the three. Paul says the eye needs the ear. And you know all the comparisons from this part of I believe 1 Cor. It is insane to speculate that as some have suggested we are aiming at a huge smoothie.

How many messages have we heard on the Lord became a spirit. How many on "the" Spirit was not yet? How many on Isa 9:6. How many on God's economy? Now it just looks like plain dishonesty which is another way of saying WL was lying and then his minions continued the lie.

My background before coming to the LC was pentecost. I have no problem admitting there were real problems among these people but I knew of many who were sincerely for the Lord. And besides, the tongues and miracles things is clearly in the Bible. I would never had a problem with WL saying I don't understand the situation and leaving it alone but to boldly state "we don't need these things in the church today." Who was he to make such a call. I've never known of an apostle in my whole life. If I had been told that WL was an apostle when I first came, I would never have come. Near my business there was a group of people who just loved apostles, prophets, bishops, etc. and I easily considered them crackpots. Paul talked about signs of apostles. What signs of apostleship did WL have. Dishonesty, immorality, cutting up the Bible are not signs. Excuse me, they are signs, but not of apostleship.

Lisbon

[Dave]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

nahh....WALMART!!!! Walmart is the sanctuary! haven't you heard or seen?

I think you are onto something!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually what happened at Mars Hill is what should have happened in the Local Church many, many years ago. At Mars Hill, one man, the founder, became much too influential and powerful, then when this one man became out of control and abusive towards his fellow elders...he was warned, he was pleaded with, he was reasoned with, then finally he was officially and biblically rebuked. In the case of Mark Dricoll (the founder and "one apostle" of Mars Hill) he chose to be a coward and abandon his flock. Now that their shepherd has fled, the sheep have been scattered and their multi-location megachurch has disintegrated.The world makes more sense to me as it is, without postulating a divine being who is somehow in charge of things.

Mark Driscoll is back at it ... milking what he knows to be gullible Christians.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...p_ref=religion

[OBW]

Given some of the discussion in this thread and in at least one other concerning Mark Driscoll and Rob Bell, and coupled with the mention of the Christmas concert I made earlier, I was reminded that sometimes truth is truth where you find it — even if not in scripture.

We are now a couple of weeks after Christmas, but one of the "lighter songs" for the younger ones that they did in that concert was The Little Drummer Boy. One of those songs that you naturally think of as just fluff. But that night I had a different realization. While the picture of a kid playing a drum for Jesus in the manger is silly, it also provides a different kind of view of people bringing gifts to the new King. The wise men, however many there actually were, brought costly gifts. But for many of us, all we have is our life. So that is what we bring. And this silly little song says it so well.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by OBW

truth is truth where you find it — even if not in scripture.

so TRUE!!!!!!! I have a friend who refuses to believe in God. She is only 18 and had a baby a couple of days ago. Not married of course. She sent me pics of her newborn and I simply responded "Thank You for the pics of your beautiful baby. I know you and your boyfriend (whose name is Christian. How Ironic right? ) are filling your baby's soul with your Love as she is filling yours. I wrote a little more...but no mention of God bless you. But of course God IS LOVE ! He WILL draw her to Himself...in His perfect timing.

We are now a couple of weeks after Christmas, but one of the "lighter songs" for the younger ones that they did in that concert was The Little Drummer Boy. One of those songs that you naturally think of as just fluff. But that night I had a different realization. While the picture of a kid playing a drum for Jesus in the manger is silly, it also provides a different kind of view of people bringing gifts to the new King. The wise men, however many there actually were, brought costly gifts. But for many of us, all we have is our life. So that is what we bring. And this silly little song says it so well.

Traditionally, it ended today... I am so glad there are still houses that have their decorations and lights at night.

I really enjoyed the Christmas season this year. I really did see CHRIST in Christmas. I don't decorate 'cause I have no money but I sure had fun driving around seeing the beautiful lights and so many NATIVITY scenes... just a reminder to this evil infested world Jesus is our Savior. and He is coming again for His Blood washed saints...

[Loveneverfails]

Here's another one I need help with.

What precisely is meant by "the church life?"

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Loveneverfails

Here's another one I need help with.

What precisely is meant by "the church life?"

If this quote doesn't make it clear, I suppose you could read the last five chapters of Romans as that is the passage Lee is referring to:

Apparently the last five chapters of Romans describe the behavior of Christians. However, what is the main item, the main aspect, of a believer's behavior? It is the church life. The church life, the Body life, is the main structure of a Christian's behavior. After he has been saved a believer's behavior is primarily concerned with the church life. Do you realize that our church life is ninety percent of our living? We have even coined a new word—“churching.” Day after day we are churching. We are churching people. I can testify to you that I am churching day and night. We spend a great deal of time, money, and energy that we may continue churching. We do not care for time, the cost, or the energy—we only care for the church. We are churching all the time. The Apostle Paul held this concept of churching when he wrote the book of Romans. He did not care only for so-called behavior; his main concern was the church life. We need to practice the processed life, which is unfolded in the section on sanctification in chapters five through eight, in the church life, and for this we need transformation. Therefore, the transformation in life is for the practice of life, and the practice of life is conducted mainly in the church life. (Life-Study of Romans, Chapter 25, Section 1)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Lee

Apparently the last five chapters of Romans describe the behavior of Christians. However, what is the main item, the main aspect, of a believer's behavior? It is the church life. The church life, the Body life, is the main structure of a Christian's behavior. After he has been saved a believer's behavior is primarily concerned with the church life. Do you realize that our church life is ninety percent of our living? We have even coined a new word—“churching.” Day after day we are churching. We are churching people. I can testify to you that I am churching day and night. We spend a great deal of time, money, and energy that we may continue churching. We do not care for time, the cost, or the energy—we only care for the church. We are churching all the time. The Apostle Paul held this concept of churching when he wrote the book of Romans. He did not care only for so-called behavior; his main concern was the church life. We need to practice the processed life, which is unfolded in the section on sanctification in chapters five through eight, in the church life, and for this we need transformation. Therefore, the transformation in life is for the practice of life, and the practice of life is conducted mainly in the church life. (Life-Study of Romans, Chapter 25, Section 1)

Did I miss something? Where in the book of Romans does Paul use the word churching? Where is it used anywhere in the Bible?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Did I miss something? Where in the book of Romans does Paul use the word churching? Where is it used anywhere in the Bible?

Heb 10.25 (and numerous other places) says, "not abandoning our own churching together." Did you not know that church/churching, gather/gathering and assemble/assembling were all synonymous?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Heb 10.25 (and numerous other places) says, "not abandoning our own churching together." Did you not know that church/churching, gather/gathering and assemble/assembling were all synonymous?

I believe that you have a sense of humor ...

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by awareness

Did I miss something? Where in the book of Romans does Paul use the word churching? Where is it used anywhere in the Bible?

And when did Lee ever go churching with the saints? It was ok for everyone else to go churching but Lee?

Btw, that's one of the few terms coined by the LC I actually like. The problem with it though it only pertains to the LSM...

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Heb 10.25 (and numerous other places) says, "not abandoning our own churching together." Did you not know that church/churching, gather/gathering and assemble/assembling were all synonymous?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I believe that you have a sense of humor ...

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

What is so funny?

Did Tomes' article just upend my little Greek word-study?

All'ya'all pokin fun at me agin?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

I believe that you have a sense of humor ...

Now I'm rollin on the floor. Bro Ohio should start a laughing ministry: The Laughing Church of his city.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Heb 10.25 (and numerous other places) says, "not abandoning our own churching together." Did you not know that church/churching, gather/gathering and assemble/assembling were all synonymous?

The word there is επισυναγωγη or episunagoge ( epi+ synagogue?) and it basically means to assemble which is basically what church means. So you're right. Just ignore the derision. Those who think it's funny haven't explained why. Maybe they can't. This is a thread about the LC lexicon so I presented "churching" for consideration. To me that and "church life" was associated with meetings and service groups and all those things entailed. Mostly working with people in an artificial way where you called on the Lord and pray-read and did menial tasks but you were not supposed to communicate like normal human beings so you never got to know the people you were working with very well.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The word there is επισυναγωγη or episunagoge ( epi+ synagogue?) and it basically means to assemble which is basically what church means.

Really!?

So you're right.

Really!?

Just ignore the derision. Those who think it's funny haven't explained why. Maybe they can't.

Maybe it's funny because support for it is such a stretch.

This is a thread about the LC lexicon so I presented "churching" for consideration.

Okay, we can add to the LC lexicon "churching."

But talk about funny:

"Now Webster says that the root of this word "church" is a Saxon word "circe, or circ, or cyric." Those of you who are versed in Greek mythology or in the Greek language should begin to be raising your eyebrows. This information is so embarrassing that Webster did what he could to hide this in his first edition, but later editions made it easy to uncover. In the Original Webster's under the word "circ" are the simple words "see circus.""

"So where did the word Church come from? It comes from the German word KIRKE.The word "KIRKE" is a word whose root goes back to circle - circe (the false goddess). Kirke is similar to the Hebrew word (kikkar) rKK meaning a disk or circle. Or SUN WORSHIP! (see Zech 5:6-11 NAS). The sun was worshipped as baal or lord by a full circle of pagans. Is it any question why some then worship on sun-day?"*

To me that and "church life" was associated with meetings and service groups and all those things entailed. Mostly working with people in an artificial way where you called on the Lord and pray-read and did menial tasks but you were not supposed to communicate like normal human beings so you never got to know the people you were working with very well.

Well when you put it that way, and relate it to the local church, it's even funnier.

* = http://messianicfellowship.50webs.com/church.html

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Really!? Really!? Maybe it's funny because support for it is such a stretch.

Okay, we can add to the LC lexicon "churching."

But talk about funny:

"Now Webster says that the root of this word "church" is a Saxon word "circe, or circ, or cyric." Those of you who are versed in Greek mythology or in the Greek language should begin to be raising your eyebrows. This information is so embarrassing that Webster did what he could to hide this in his first edition, but later editions made it easy to uncover. In the Original Webster's under the word "circ" are the simple words "see circus.""

"So where did the word Church come from? It comes from the German word KIRKE.The word "KIRKE" is a word whose root goes back to circle - circe (the false goddess). Kirke is similar to the Hebrew word (kikkar) rKK meaning a disk or circle. Or SUN WORSHIP! (see Zech 5:6-11 NAS). The sun was worshipped as baal or lord by a full circle of pagans. Is it any question why some then worship on sun-day?"*

Well when you put it that way, and relate it to the local church, it's even funnier.

* = http://messianicfellowship.50webs.com/church.html

So you've gone back to using the etymological approach you learned from Lee. "Circle" aptly describes the kind of logic you are traveling in. Maybe it seems funny because it's making you dizzy.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by zeek

If this quote doesn't make it clear, I suppose you could read the last five chapters of Romans as that is the passage Lee is referring to:

Lee wrote in his life study:

I can testify to you that I am churching day and night. We spend a great deal of time, money, and energy that we may continue churching. We do not care for time, the cost, or the energy—we only care for the church. We are churching all the time. The Apostle Paul held this concept of churching when he wrote the book of Romans. He did not care only for so-called behavior; his main concern was the church life.

Well..well..well.
So Lee convinced the sheeple the 'church' was more important than the HEAD of the church. The way I read the Ephesians 5:32, it says CHRIST and the church. We are supposed to care for GOD above the church.

Secondly.. if Lee saw that Paul did not care for 'so-called' behavior, wha's up with with the LC behavior? The talk, the look, same behavior at the meetings, reading only Lee and Nee, reading only the RcV with emphasis on the footnotes.

Suuuure, Lee, like Paul did not care for the so-called behavior..

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

So you've gone back to using the etymological approach you learned from Lee. "Circle" aptly describes the kind of logic you are traveling in. Maybe it seems funny because it's making you dizzy.

"In the Original Webster's under the word "circ" [church] are the simple words "see circus."" Reminds me of that wild "if you're not with us, get out get out" meeting. You were there. It was a circus. That, to me, was Lee's churching.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Lee wrote in his life study:


Well..well..well.
So Lee convinced the sheeple the 'church' was more important than the HEAD of the church. The way I read the Ephesians 5:32, it says CHRIST and the church. We are supposed to care for GOD above the church.

Secondly.. if Lee saw that Paul did not care for 'so-called' behavior, wha's up with with the LC behavior? The talk, the look, same behavior at the meetings, reading only Lee and Nee, reading only the RcV with emphasis on the footnotes.

Suuuure, Lee, like Paul did not care for the so-called behavior..

Hi countmeworthy. I'm not sure if we have talked before. Well, you know I can only go by my experience and eventually for me it was all behavior as you say. But, you know, honestly, I don't know if it is the same way for others and I kind of think it isn't or they wouldn't still be there. Would they? As for Paul, I agree with him about some things and not others. If the LC accurately embodies Paul's vision, then I would say it's too inward looking, too ingrown and too exclusive. Does the world really need people so preoccupied with themselves?

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by zeek

Hi countmeworthy. I'm not sure if we have talked before. Well, you know I can only go by my experience and eventually for me it was all behavior as you say. But, you know, honestly, I don't know if it is the same way for others and I kind of think it isn't or they wouldn't still be there. Would they? As for Paul, I agree with him about some things and not others. If the LC accurately embodies Paul's vision, then I would say it's too inward looking, too ingrown and too exclusive. Does the world really need people so preoccupied with themselves?

I'm sure there have been lots of changes good and bad since I left. I know people have the 'freedom' to watch TV, go to the movies and now with the internet, I am sure there a lot of LCrs checking out websites, you tubes, movies that the blenders can't control.

I also think (but don't know for sure) that the younger people dress more stylish than they did in the late 70s and 80s.

Among the reasons I felt it was time for me to leave when I did is that our meetings were beginning to be centered around Paul's ministry. Lee was the Paul of this age and Lee was constantly being compared to Paul. For years to come I did not want to hear or read anything on Paul especially Ephesians!

Also, many of the meetings were no longer locally centered. Lee was being videotaped and those vids were sent to the different localities so when we would meet, we were now watching Lee on TV. ugh.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

"In the Original Webster's under the word "circ" [church] are the simple words "see circus."" Reminds me of that wild "if you're not with us, get out get out" meeting. You were there. It was a circus. That, to me, was Lee's churching.

Yes, that scene still seems to play frequently in your mind. Part of your post traumatic church syndrome. Just think, had it not been for Mel Porter and his heavy-handed ways you might be at least an elder by now. Then "churching" might have a completely different connotation for you. I can picture that meeting too. Of course, it has a somewhat different meaning for me.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I'm sure there have been lots of changes good and bad since I left. I know people have the 'freedom' to watch TV, go to the movies and now with the internet, I am sure there a lot of LCrs checking out websites, you tubes, movies that the blenders can't control.

I also think (but don't know for sure) that the younger people dress more stylish than they did in the late 70s and 80s.

Among the reasons I felt it was time for me to leave when I did is that our meetings were beginning to be centered around Paul's ministry. Lee was the Paul of this age and Lee was constantly being compared to Paul. For years to come I did not want to hear or read anything on Paul especially Ephesians!

Also, many of the meetings were no longer locally centered. Lee was being videotaped and those vids were sent to the different localities so when we would meet, we were now watching Lee on TV. ugh.

I remember those days well. I left in 1986.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I'm sure there have been lots of changes good and bad since I left. I know people have the 'freedom' to watch TV, go to the movies and now with the internet, I am sure there a lot of LCrs checking out websites, you tubes, movies that the blenders can't control.

I also think (but don't know for sure) that the younger people dress more stylish than they did in the late 70s and 80s.

Yeah, no more tent dresses (for the most part). Though the FTTA sisters sure do stand out, with their uniforms, on the college campuses in SoCal. LOL.

[rayliotta]

As for this word, "churching," in the LC lexicon I believe it has come to mean, "Going on a blending road trip," or, "Visiting churches in the Lord's recovery."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

As for this word, "churching," in the LC lexicon I believe it has come to mean, "Going on a blending road trip," or, "Visiting churches in the Lord's recovery."

It often meant only free room and board while taking vacations, which is what helped damage the practice of giving hospitality.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay, we can add to the LC lexicon "churching."

Does/did anyone actually say "churching"? I never heard that in my years there. I left near the time that zeek did (in my case 1987). If they did, it is an excellent example of saying things in a peculiar way so that they forced themselves apart from all other Christians.

And while I am on this word, someone said something in some thread a few days back that has been bugging me. I can't find it so I can't respond in the right place. If someone can point me to it, I will gladly take this to that thread. But they said that the people of the LRC (not the teachings and the leadership, but the people) are so "Christ-centered" in a way that they seemed to think no one else was. I may have misread it, but that was the impression I got.

While I agree that there is a lot of talk about Christ and our love for Christ, was it really so Christ centered? Was there not always an "and" in there and the "and" was the church? Not saying that the church is not real and even important. But it is not the center. And if your center is a conjoined center, and we now conclude that this additional aspect of the center is less than healthy (in terms of what the LRC says the church is) then was the true Christ as much the center of their life and living as they thought? If so much of their Christ is understood and appreciated in juxtaposition to something as erroneous and harboring of evil as the church they claim to be so real and wonderful, is the reality of Christ really what we think (thought it is (was)?
(Or thought it is/was)

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Does/did anyone actually say "churching"? I never heard that in my years there. I left near the time that zeek did (in my case 1987). If they did, it is an excellent example of saying things in a peculiar way so that they forced themselves apart from all other Christians.

According to Lee the mob in Acts 17 was "churching"? Same word: "And with these words he dismissed the assembly (ekklesia)" (v.41). Or does that word have a different meaning with different context? My beef is that we have bias: we let words mean what we want them to mean, and when they don't mean what we want we either wave it away or hopefully we can just ignore it.

This is where the assembly comes in. Some unhelpful person raises the question the authorities don't want to hear. Someone notices that the king is wearing no clothes, or that his buttons are undone. If the assembly accepts an absolute dictator (in the name of peace and harmony, 'to avoid confusion', etc) then it becomes peculiar, as that person's peculiarities become mapped all over the group.

Originally Posted by OBW

And while I am on this word, someone said something in some thread a few days back that has been bugging me. I can't find it so I can't respond in the right place. If someone can point me to it, I will gladly take this to that thread. But they said that the people of the LRC (not the teachings and the leadership, but the people) are so "Christ-centered" in a way that they seemed to think no one else was. I may have misread it, but that was the impression I got.

While I agree that there is a lot of talk about Christ and our love for Christ, was it really so Christ centered? Was there not always an "and" in there and the "and" was the church? Not saying that the church is not real and even important. But it is not the center. And if your center is a conjoined center, and we now conclude that this additional aspect of the center is less than healthy (in terms of what the LRC says the church is) then was the true Christ as much the center of their life and living as they thought? If so much of their Christ is understood and appreciated in juxtaposition to something as erroneous and harboring of evil as the church they claim to be so real and wonderful, is the reality of Christ really what we think (thought it is (was)?
(Or thought it is/was)

"Christ" became "Christ and the church" which became "the Body" which became "the ministry" etc. All these things got added. The subject of the meeting became the meeting, not Christ. Weird.

Christ was Christ because He was God-centered. We should be Christ-centered, not Body-centered. The RCC was Body-centered, and eventually Martin Luther had to leave, because there was little or no Christ there. Just "the church". Or, "The Church". The New God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

According to Lee the mob in Acts 17 was "churching"? Same word: "And with these words he dismissed the assembly (ekklesia)" (v.41). Or does that word have a different meaning with different context? My beef is that we have bias: we let words mean what we want them to mean, and when they don't mean what we want we either wave it away or hopefully we can just ignore it.

Not sure what verse you are referring to here. Acts 19.41?

Do words have a different meaning in a different context? Of course! Every language is filled with words having multiple meanings based on context.

The Greek word ekklesia means a gathering of people. So does the word synagogoe, (Heb 10.25 usually translated "assembling") but that word had picked up connotations connecting the word to a building and to Jewish customs. Unfortunately, over time the same dynamic has happened to the word church. Today people hear the word "church" and immediately think of the building and the customs associated with it. This is why some English translations have opted for the word "assembly" instead of "church."

When Jesus first used the Greek word ekklesia in Matt 16, he drew stark distinction from what the disciples were familiar with. He could very easily have said, "I will build My synagogue ...", since the Lord was referring His people, and picked up a Greek word meaning assembly. Instead He used the word ekklesia, knowing that the word was commonly used in a secular manner.

It irks me to read so many misinformed comments on this forum of a textual, linguistic, or translational basis.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It often meant only free room and board while taking vacations, which is what helped damage the practice of giving hospitality.

yeppers. I don't actually remember the word 'churching' being used all that much but one day, a few of us sisters decided to go 'churching' from San Diego to Texas in 1978. We wanted to get to know saints from different localities. We had a blast as we went on the spur of the moment and life in the LC for me was still good for a few months.

We went to Austin, College Station and Houston. So I might have met some of you when we were all young and dapper whipper snappers.

Everyone was hospitable but we paid for our own food by going out to eat.

It was when we were still Christ centered...at least I was. I did like the church life but....but...but... I knew something was amiss. And look at it now.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

It was when we were still Christ centered...at least I was.

And I believe you. But we were already singing songs that were so church-centered. And the teaching was so much centered on where we were as "the church" (as opposed to all those denominations). Everything had "the church" hanging off of it. And this was by the beginning of 1973.

In fact, I think that if you read from those who were around in the 60s that while it did not have the flavor of what it did in the 70s, then 80s, then 90s, etc., there was something about "the church" that was presumed to be especially important to "getting it right" and that those meeting in those little groups in odd places like Waco, Plainview, Denton, Tyler, etc., (just noting the places in Texas before the consolidation in Houston and the spread out to Dallas and others later). If there had not been this special "church" feature, I am somewhat convinced that there never would have been a "Local Churches" in the US. They would have been like the charismatic movement among so many non-charismatic groups — a subset following after something in addition to their main traditions. (There were charismatics in the Anglican, RCC, Lutheran, Baptists, etc., and they did not abandon their core traditions — just added the charismatic things.)

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It often meant only free room and board while taking vacations, which is what helped damage the practice of giving hospitality.

Were you a victim of free room-and-boarders? Probably not as much in Ohio as you would have endured had you been in the Church in Honolulu.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Were you a victim of free room-and-boarders? Probably not as much in Ohio as you would have endured had you been in the Church in Honolulu.

Or the church in Buffalo. One guy called the church there and said, "I am in Erie, PA on business. Can you pick me up and take me to the Falls?" It was over a two hundred mile round trip -- but just "inches" on his map.

What I grew to dislike was all "institutional" hospitality -- getting last minute calls from the elders that so-n-so needs a place to stay tonight. When I tried to excuse myself saying how disruptive it was to the household, the elder would reply, "Isn't your family for Christ and the church?"

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

...there was something about "the church" that was presumed to be especially important to "getting it right" [to] those meeting in those little groups in odd places...

True. It was a shortcut of sorts. You could be behaving the same as someone not "in the church": going to Sunday morning meeting, saying your daily prayers, etc but your position in the supposedly proper church on the proper ground, under the proper leaderships, would propel you like rocket fuel to the heavens. Because you were doing this in the church it was effective, while Christianity was largely going through the motions.

I remember an LC christian telling me about going to mainland China and being approached on the street. "Jesus?" the man asked him. My friend nodded affirmatively. "Witness Lee?" the man then asked. My friend related this story approvingly to me to demonstrate the zeal of the Lee-ites, but in retrospect it seems that "Jesus" was just a vehicle to get people to the "rich ministry of Witness Lee". Lee wasn't pointing us to Christ, but rather Christ to Lee. Same thing with "the church", with "God's economy", with "the Body", and even "the processed and consummated Triune God." All these were stand-ins for "the ministry". Eventually it all hinged on, "Where are you in relation to the ministry?" That one thing gave meaning to everything else, including Christ. It was a convenient selling point, and for us the consumer it was a convenient buying point.

Ah well. Experience is a hard teacher.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Or the church in Buffalo. One guy called the church there and said, "I am in Erie, PA on business. Can you pick me up and take me to the Falls?" It was over a two hundred mile round trip -- but just "inches" on his map.

What I grew to dislike was all "institutional" hospitality -- getting last minute calls from the elders that so-n-so needs a place to stay tonight.

My father, never an overtly religious man, used to go on business trips to Salt Lake City. He would come home telling stories extolling the virtues of Mormon "institutional" hospitality.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes, that scene still seems to play frequently in your mind. Part of your post traumatic church syndrome. Just think, had it not been for Mel Porter and his heavy-handed ways you might be at least an elder by now. Then "churching" might have a completely different connotation for you. I can picture that meeting too. Of course, it has a somewhat different meaning for me.

I think we all have PTCS of some sort from our local church experience. I maybe more than others, due to Mel Porter's abusive tactics. I'm sure others have encountered such abuse of power. The smart ones, like yourself and Dave, didn't stir up a hornets nest, but just quietly walked away.

Still, Lee, the LC, the Recovery, dealing in God's eternal purpose, packed a wallop on our psyche regardless of how we came out.

But ...
I'm with bro Mike. I've been around Christianity & churches all my life, and went thru the local church, and I never heard the word churching until zeek introduced it here. I think he got it from a serendipitous search on minstrybooks.org and never heard himself. Of course, I could be wrong.

So maybe "churching" does not belong in The Local Church Lexicon, cuz it wasn't among the Common Phrases.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

My father, never an overtly religious man, used to go on business trips to Salt Lake City. He would come home telling stories extolling the virtues of Mormon "institutional" hospitality.

They had a great choir also.

All kinds of great things can be done given the necessary resources. I doubt one of the Mormon families was ever called up during dinner time and asked to give hospitality that night. For us to give short notice hospitality meant canceling plans, immediate food shopping and preparation, laundering bedding, whole house cleaning and vacuuming, shuffling uncooperative kids (and promising bribes), etc.

One time we were hit with short notice, and the kids were not cooperating. The visiting family was on their way from out of time, and there was no way to make things work. Eventually I had to go out and meet them at their car and apologetically inform them that it just wouldn't work out. I apologized up and down, and they seemed to willingly accept different accommodations, but afterwards they went back to their locality and bad-mouthed me and my family.

Perhaps "institutional" is not the best choice of words. A better choice of words might be: coerced, mandatory, taken for granted, unappreciated, etc.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

One time we were hit with short notice, and the kids were not cooperating. The visiting family was on their way from out of time, and there was no way to make things work. Eventually I had to go out and meet them at their car and apologetically inform them that it just wouldn't work out. I apologized up and down, and they seemed to willingly accept different accommodations, but afterwards they went back to their locality and bad-mouthed me and my family.

Perhaps "institutional" is not the best choice of words. A better choice of words might be: coerced, mandatory, taken for granted, unappreciated, etc.

Maybe I had blinders on.. but honestly, I don't recall those kind of problems in San Diego. Of course, back then, we were called a 'young people's church'. Most of the congregation were in their 20s' and the elders of the church were young themselves. We hardly had any teenage LC born kids. So we were a very hospitable congregation.

It's not like that anymore I'm sure. As the babies and toddlers grew into pre teens and teenagers, I'm sure there was less of communal living environment, less hospitality and less home gatherings.

But I can accept that. Marriages and families are challenging even in the best of times! However badmouthing??? WOW... no excuse for that!

Where is the consideration of others! Those people should have been caring for YOU knowing you were in a predicament Ohio! Shame on them!

I pray and hope all Jehovah Raphi, our Healer has helped you and your family to put the past behind and hold on to His Promise that He makes ALL things new, while we reminisce the past.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But ...
I'm with bro Mike. I've been around Christianity & churches all my life, and went thru the local church, and I never heard the word churching until zeek introduced it here. I think he got it from a serendipitous search on minstrybooks.org and never heard himself. Of course, I could be wrong.

So maybe "churching" does not belong in The Local Church Lexicon, cuz it wasn't among the Common Phrases.

Ever sing this song?

Hymnal Supplement #1236

Chorus:

We're churching in the Spirit
On the church's local ground;
We're churching with our brothers,
Our family we have found.
Oh, yes, we're churching with the churches, and we'll make the earth resound
With hallelujas for Christ our land!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Maybe I had blinders on.. but honestly, I don't recall those kind of problems in San Diego. Of course, back then, we were called a 'young people's church'. Most of the congregation were in their 20s' and the elders of the church were young themselves. We hardly had any teenage LC born kids. So we were a very hospitable congregation.

It's not like that anymore I'm sure. As the babies and toddlers grew into pre teens and teenagers, I'm sure there was less of communal living environment, less hospitality and less home gatherings.

This was back in the 90's when we had 5 teenagers. Whew! Glad that's over!

The real problem was that we had deteriorated into a man-pleasing organization, which was the bad fruit of Lee's system.

If the region rejected some outside hospitality, then Titus Chu could be shamed at Lee's leaders' meetings.

If the local elder rejected some hospitality, then he could be shamed at his regional gathering.

If I rejected hospitality then I could be shamed at our local elders/deacons meetings.

See how that works? Shaming is a powerful manipulator to coerce the desired results. Lee and Chu were masters at public shaming, as well as many of their best students. Those who would not play the game were forced to leave the program.

Then ... after years of being manipulated by Titus ... he would charge us basically to "man up" ... deriding us all as "Yellow-belly-push-button-robots."

I suppose i have heard worse stories from those who passed thru Marine Boot Camp. They would carry those kids out on stretchers.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ever sing this song?

Hymnal Supplement #1236

Chorus:

We're churching in the Spirit
On the church's local ground;
We're churching with our brothers,
Our family we have found.
Oh, yes, we're churching with the churches, and we'll make the earth resound
With hallelujas for Christ our land!

No but it does reveal the word was being bantered about ...

In the Lexicon or not?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ever sing this song?

Hymnal Supplement #1236

Chorus:

We're churching in the Spirit
On the church's local ground;
We're churching with our brothers,
Our family we have found.
Oh, yes, we're churching with the churches, and we'll make the earth resound
With hallelujas for Christ our land!

Now that you mention this song, I vaguely remember it. (Of course it was before the hard-bound supplement, therefore no number 1236). But outside of that, I cannot recall the use of the word "churching."

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ever sing this song?

Hymnal Supplement #1236

Chorus:

We're churching in the Spirit
On the church's local ground;
We're churching with our brothers,
Our family we have found.
Oh, yes, we're churching with the churches, and we'll make the earth resound
With hallelujas for Christ our land!

Yes. I remember singing the song. It was a 'fun' song with an upbeat tune. Like I said, we were a young people's church of about 75-100 people mostly in our 20s. 80-85% in our 20s and it was the mid 70s'. It was in the supplement that was not hard bound. It was like a little noted book with typed out songs.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Yes. I remember singing the song. It was a 'fun' song with an upbeat tune. Like I said, we were a young people's church of about 75-100 people mostly in our 20s. 80-85% in our 20s and it was the mid 70s'. It was in the supplement that was not hard bound. It was like a little noted book with typed out songs.

I've noticed this song before, but I've never heard it sung in any meetings. I know what the tune is to it too . It seems that is a set of songs, maybe 30-40 in the supplement that we sing and that is it. I have heard it alluded to that maybe some saints felt that the songs in the supplement weren't as good as the original hymnal??? I know the young people like the more lively songs in the supplement. Didn't WL criticize the brothers for including the last song in the supplement from Rev 21, "Behold the tabernacle of God is with men"?

[rayliotta]

I think churching is in the lexicon. I've mostly heard it in the context of traveling.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

And I believe you. But we were already singing songs that were so church-centered. And the teaching was so much centered on where we were as "the church" (as opposed to all those denominations). Everything had "the church" hanging off of it. And this was by the beginning of 1973.

In fact, I think that if you read from those who were around in the 60s that while it did not have the flavor of what it did in the 70s, then 80s, then 90s, etc., there was something about "the church" that was presumed to be especially important to "getting it right" and that those meeting in those little groups in odd places like Waco, Plainview, Denton, Tyler, etc., (just noting the places in Texas before the consolidation in Houston and the spread out to Dallas and others later). If there had not been this special "church" feature, I am somewhat convinced that there never would have been a "Local Churches" in the US. They would have been like the charismatic movement among so many non-charismatic groups — a subset following after something in addition to their main traditions. (There were charismatics in the Anglican, RCC, Lutheran, Baptists, etc., and they did not abandon their core traditions — just added the charismatic things.)

OBW, care to elaborate on this? I'm not sure if you're saying that perhaps there was something specific from these smaller Texas locales, that somehow propagated itself within the Recovery at large? Or am I misunderstanding?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

Does/did anyone actually say "churching"? I never heard that in my years there. I left near the time that zeek did (in my case 1987). If they did, it is an excellent example of saying things in a peculiar way so that they forced themselves apart from all other Christians.

Yes, and it is in keeping with Witness Lee's admonition that there needs to be a "new language expressing a new culture in the Lord's recovery." This habit of saying things in such a way that fosters misunderstandings with outsiders, is not only part of their culture, part of their habit -- it is something that Witness Lee specifically taught.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I've noticed this song before, but I've never heard it sung in any meetings. I know what the tune is to it too . It seems that is a set of songs, maybe 30-40 in the supplement that we sing and that is it. I have heard it alluded to that maybe some saints felt that the songs in the supplement weren't as good as the original hymnal??? I know the young people like the more lively songs in the supplement. Didn't WL criticize the brothers for including the last song in the supplement from Rev 21, "Behold the tabernacle of God is with men"?

To my recollection, the songs in the supplements were mostly sang at the gospel feast. (The hymnals were not used at the gospel feasts.) At the meetings, we alternated from the supplements to the hymnals and the hymnals were almost exclusively used at the Lord's table.

The brothers also put music to many of the Psalms. That is how I remember the Psalms even today. (Women, of course were never used in the LC except to 'testify' and share the gospel.)

Many of the songs if you recall had "worldly" tunes and after the Max Rappaport fallout which was about the same time the gospel feasts ended, the supplement was no longer used.

I'm pretty sure no one sings the Psalms either since Lee seemed to tear those blessed prayers of Praise and Thanksgiving apart.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by aron

This is where the assembly comes in. Some unhelpful person raises the question the authorities don't want to hear. Someone notices that the king is wearing no clothes, or that his buttons are undone. If the assembly accepts an absolute dictator (in the name of peace and harmony, 'to avoid confusion', etc) then it becomes peculiar, as that person's peculiarities become mapped all over the group.

That person's peculiarities become mapped all over the group. Thanks, aron. This statement says a lot. What is this odd force by which the peculiar traits of one or two people are projected onto a whole group?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

OBW, care to elaborate on this? I'm not sure if you're saying that perhaps there was something specific from these smaller Texas locales, that somehow propagated itself within the Recovery at large? Or am I misunderstanding?

I couldn't say what might have been different in the ones in the various Texas cities in the earliest days relative to the others, such as in LA and elsewhere. But when I "came in" at the beginning of 1973, there was a lot of singing that included everything from small references to the church, to the songs that simply harp upon it constantly. (We're in the church, we're in the church, Oh Hallelujah in the church).

My first conference was in Philadelphia. John Ingalls and James Barber speaking about the good land. But even that was only appreciated by the church. We sang about "Laboring on Jesus, the good land . . . ." So many of the songs we used for our gospel meetings spoke a lot about Jesus up front, but then morphed into references about the church where it was supposedly so much better. These were all songs in the hymnal or in the common supplement issued by The Stream (predecessor to the LSM).

I made reference to the various original cities in the Texas area to note how far back it went, not to say anything special about them. They had consolidated a few years before to Houston, then a few moved to Dallas in 72 or something like that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

OBW, care to elaborate on this? I'm not sure if you're saying that perhaps there was something specific from these smaller Texas locales, that somehow propagated itself within the Recovery at large? Or am I misunderstanding?

Sure. It started with this absolute oneness with the ministry. After the Phillipians training, with the "account of giving," Ray Graver and company began to actively promote the ingredients (e.g. we all are "in debt" to Lee) which would eventually elevate Lee to maximum MOTA status. I'm sure Lee had sown the seeds necessary prior to this, but small town Texas Graver was the one to launch this rocket to the forefront of the Recovery. Shortly after, Lee went to Taiwan to take over the church there, and "The Office" Phillip was charged with bringing all the leaders into submission. Inevitably a global purge resulted.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

After the Phillipians training, with the "account of giving," Ray Graver and company began to actively promote the ingredients (e.g. we all are "in debt" to Lee)

"Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" 1 Corinthians 1:13

Why should I be in debt to Lee? He wasn't crucified for me nor was I baptized in Lee's name. On a lessor note, it wasn't Lee speaking who led me to receive salvation.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sure. It started with this absolute oneness with the ministry. After the Phillipians training, with the "account of giving," Ray Graver and company began to actively promote the ingredients (e.g. we all are "in debt" to Lee) which would eventually elevate Lee to maximum MOTA status. I'm sure Lee had sown the seeds necessary prior to this, but small town Texas Graver was the one to launch this rocket to the forefront of the Recovery. Shortly after, Lee went to Taiwan to take over the church there, and "The Office" Phillip was charged with bringing all the leaders into submission. Inevitably a global purge resulted.

At some level, the local churches have been a personality cult since the very beginning (at least in the US). So many of those who were enticed with Lee's speaking were already reading Nee and trying to figure out how it should be practiced in their lives. What they were offered is more Nee.

I will not deny that there have been some from Texas that have helped to make the LRC what it is today. But it is not just Texans. It is the whole system. The BBs are not just Texans. At some level, I think that TC probably saw himself as heir apparent since he had roots back to Taiwan before the LRC in the US. And that fact may be the reason that the GLA was not as engrained in the things that seemed to come out of Texas. They had the things coming out of Cleveland under the leadership of the semi-loner, TC, to deal with. In a sense, I would suggest that Texas was not so unique in being so much for the ministry. But TC saw the ministry differently and did not want to just go along. I'm even reminded of the sort of battleground that some small church plant in Iowa or something like that came to be, with Texas and Cleveland each sending someone there to either take the lead or at least keep it linked back "home." Remember when Jane told about it? And that guy was effectively bought-off to come and revise his prior statements to her?

Anyway, since the LSM hierarchy eventually was primarily SoCal and Texas, there was somewhat of a rift between the LSM and the GLA that made much of the emperor's clothes evident to the membership in the GLA. And eventually, even with some of the leadership in the GLA as we see these articles from Nigel that expose not only things that have gone astray from Lee, but how Lee has gone astray from the Bible.

Meanwhile, whatever might be a Texas factor is still mostly embedded in the LSM, so whatever its leanings and however it would tend to further the errors of the LRC, it lives on.

In the early days we were promised more Nee, and got Nee and Lee, then less Nee and more Lee. And all the while they were convinced that these men were the ones who had the words of life. And as far as the things that were there in the LRC, they were/are indebted to Lee.

And it may be leading to bankruptcy.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

At some level, the local churches have been a personality cult since the very beginning (at least in the US). So many of those who were enticed with Lee's speaking were already reading Nee and trying to figure out how it should be practiced in their lives. ...I will not deny that there have been some from Texas that have helped to make the LRC what it is today. But it is not just Texans.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

That person's peculiarities become mapped all over the group. Thanks, aron. This statement says a lot. What is this odd force by which the peculiar traits of one or two people are projected onto a whole group?

I have seen personality cults that were the size of a local congregation. Pastor Bob dominated the scene. Or, Pastor Bob becomes a kind of "bishop" with several affiliated congregations. Or, Pastor Bob becomes a kind of "apostle" with a whole movement "affiliated" with his ministry. (That was the LSM term: "local churches affiliated with the ministries of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee.")

Now, what was in it for the rank-and-file? I suspect they saw it as a simplification, and a short-cut. The easy road. Just do what you are told. Troubling uncertainties are removed. They vicariously absorb the confidence of the group's mentor. And the ambitious ones now have a center and a focus of their efforts. The Ray Gravers now have found their Yoda, and it isn't Jesus Christ. It's someone offering a fast-and-easy path to Jesus Christ. "Call, call, won't you call Jesus' name". Some simplified formula. I bought it; I was there, too.

The peculiar traits themselves are largely irrelevant. Every personality cult has its own personalities, languages, behaviors, values, expectations. When RG said, "We do what we are told", when MP said, "You will take my personality as your own", they were doing us all a favor, by removing the pseudo-spiritual sheen and showing us what lay beneath.

We are pack animals, and we want a king. Look at the story with King Saul, look at the crowd coming to Jesus to make him king.... "Herod the Idumean usurper will be banished, and the line of David would once again be ascendant!! Wonderful!!" See how our minds work?

Nee, for example, offered an opportunity to throw off the foreign yoke. Remember that the Boxer Rebellion was fresh on every one's minds... suddenly a native son arises and the "true church" is born, there on the local ground, and not a franchise of some German or English church. It was very attractive, and hugely successful. Suddenly everyone there thinks the success is due to the brilliant and gifted Nee. A personality cult is waiting. Nee buys into it, and the "Jerusalem principle" is born. Consolidation, and handing over.

And I think Lee's experience, coming into the ferment of the Jesus Movement days, is similar. Just a strain of the same virus. As was TC, DYL, the Blendeds, Bill and Patsy Freeman, etc. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of such groups out there. Bait and switch: the easy path to glory, just come to the local church and shout "O Lord Jesus!", and it becomes indentured servitude to the latest "Minister of the age" or "God's anointed one". I bought it; I was there, too.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

"Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" 1 Corinthians 1:13

Why should I be in debt to Lee? He wasn't crucified for me nor was I baptized in Lee's name. On a lessor note, it wasn't Lee speaking who led me to receive salvation.

Exactly!

The Recovery firstly became Corinthians and then later Laodiceans.

Remember what Titus Chu wrote to John Ingalls (from Speaking The truth in Love) after he talked to Lee and flip-flopped his allegiance from the truth to a man, "Is it not a fact that you ... owe him {Brother Lee} your existence?"

No Titus Chu, it is not a fact. We do not owe our existence to Lee.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sure. It started with this absolute oneness with the ministry. After the Phillipians training, with the "account of giving," Ray Graver and company began to actively promote the ingredients (e.g. we all are "in debt" to Lee) which would eventually elevate Lee to maximum MOTA status. I'm sure Lee had sown the seeds necessary prior to this, but small town Texas Graver was the one to launch this rocket to the forefront of the Recovery. Shortly after, Lee went to Taiwan to take over the church there, and "The Office" Phillip was charged with bringing all the leaders into submission. Inevitably a global purge resulted.

So what gave Ray Graver this kind of clout in the first place? Or, could it just as well have been another regional yes-man to promote Lee as the "wise master builder"? In which case Mr Graver could be considered as a kind of foil.

[OBW]

I can no longer recall the sequence of the various trainings, so when was Philippians? The reason I ask is that by the late 70s, Ray Graver was deeply involved in the publication work, first in Houston, then in Irving, so while he may not have been one typically on the speaking circuit, he was not an insignificant person with respect to the LSM.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I can no longer recall the sequence of the various trainings, so when was Philippians? The reason I ask is that by the late 70s, Ray Graver was deeply involved in the publication work, first in Houston, then in Irving, so while he may not have been one typically on the speaking circuit, he was not an insignificant person with respect to the LSM.

I think Phillipians training was in '79. Prior to that Texas already had a reputation for being "the most one with Brother Lee." With SoCal reeling from the Max storm, Texas stock rose significantly. Out of this, the Irving site was conceived. Development property was donated to the church due to proposed airport expansion, placing it in the trajectory of a future runway.

Ray Graver was said to have received great revelation from the Lord, based on Philippians chap 4.10-20 ...

10 But I rejoice in the Lord greatly, that now at length ye have revived your thought for me; wherein ye did indeed take thought, but ye lacked opportunity.
Lee was today's Paul, and Texas was like the ancient Philippians who suddenly gad great opportunity to care for the "aging apostle," when all others seemingly neglected him.

11 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therein to be content. 12 I know how to be abased, and I know also how to abound: in everything and in all things have I learned the secret both to be filled and to be hungry, both to abound and to be in want. 13 I can do all things in him that strengtheneth me.
Lee was portrayed by Graver and Texas as a gentle, almost stoic, and undemanding servant of God, who would never demand a thing for his own personal needs. Mind you, this was the same time Lee was in court suing the Mindbenders and God-men publishers.

14 Howbeit ye did well that ye had fellowship with my affliction. 15 And ye yourselves also know, ye Philippians, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church had fellowship with me in the matter [the account] of giving and receiving but ye only; 16 for even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my need. 17 Not that I seek for the gift; but I seek for the fruit that increaseth to your account.
These verses introduced a new thought. All the LC's had an "account" with the apostle. Supposedly we all owed him a huge debt, which we had never paid. Lee had given to us, and it was high time all the LC's "ante up." A major "guilt trip" was dumped on all the leaders in their meetings. Brothers were publicly shamed and humiliated for how they had treated "The Office," and taken advantage of the humble minister and his Levitical volunteers. Little did we know the "The Office" was the abusive son of Lee. WL was portrayed in an absolutely altruistic fashion, while all the elders in the LC's were self-centered, self-serving, narrow-minded, and uncooperative.

17 Not that I seek for the gift; but I seek for the fruit that increaseth to your account. 18 But I have all things, and abound: I am filled, having received from Epaphroditus the things that came from you, and odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God. 19 And my God shall supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. 20 Now unto our God and Father be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Here the Recovery was promised a false blessing. Give your all to LSM, let Lee and son lord it over you, let LSM take all your best young people, and God will bless you mightily. Your sacrifice will be sweet smelling fragrance to God.

Those who refused to buy in completely with the new program were publicly disciplined, and eventually quarantined for speaking their conscience.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

So what gave Ray Graver this kind of clout in the first place? Or, could it just as well have been another regional yes-man to promote Lee as the "wise master builder"? In which case Mr Graver could be considered as a kind of foil.

He bullied people. His personality was very intimidating. He was a wild-eyed fanatic. He didn't really care who he threw under the bus to serve Witness Lee, except maybe Benson Phillips.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not that I seek for the gift; but I seek for the fruit that increaseth to your account.

These verses introduced a new thought. All the LC's had an "account" with the apostle. Supposedly we all owed him a huge debt, which we had never paid. Lee had given to us, and it was high time all the LC's "ante up." A major "guilt trip" was dumped on all the leaders in their meetings. Brothers were publicly shamed and humiliated for how they had treated "The Office," and taken advantage of the humble minister and his Levitical volunteers. Little did we know the "The Office" was the abusive son of Lee. WL was portrayed in an absolutely altruistic fashion, while all the elders in the LC's were self-centered, self-serving, narrow-minded, and uncooperative.

Thanks for the information on the timline.

Looking at it now, I can see how the direction of the account was ridiculous. Paul was not keeping an account with respect to the believers. He was indicating that they had an account with God.

While Paul surely said that their gifts to him were a positive item for them, he was not using the giving of the Philippians as a yardstick to challenge Ephesus. He was commending the Philippians for what they did. So the entire thrust of the passage is missed.

This is a little like reading the "submits" in Ephesians and only paying attention to the ones pointed at others with respect to you and ignoring the one(s) pointed at you. This is one of the primary problems with some of the more conservative stances in the semi-political realm. They are taking the command to the Christians and pushing it onto the world. It was written to us, not the world. When the world comes to believe, then they will see the same requirements. While it is true that the requirement is not diminished due to ignorance, it is not our job to set them straight, whether they be heathen or other Christians. It is our job to get it right for ourselves.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

He bullied people. His personality was very intimidating. He was a wild-eyed fanatic. He didn't really care who he threw under the bus to serve Witness Lee, except maybe Benson Phillips.

Sounds as if Igzy is in the know. Based on experiences of another Ray might have had a thin skin an easily offended especially if a brother did not give a glowing critique of Living Stream production of book covers. Suddenly a proclamation would be made, there's a brother among us who is not one of us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m48xii7ndcg

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Igzy

He bullied people. His personality was very intimidating. He was a wild-eyed fanatic. He didn't really care who he threw under the bus to serve Witness Lee, except maybe Benson Phillips.

Igzy, this reminds me of this post, re a 1977 Houston Chronicle article (available as an attachment here).

When I read this article back in 2010, I recall noticing Ray Graver's eyes...just somethin' about them...

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Terry

Sounds as if Igzy is in the know. Based on experiences of another Ray might have had a thin skin an easily offended especially if a brother did not give a glowing critique of Living Stream production of book covers. Suddenly a proclamation would be made, there's a brother among us who is not one of us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m48xii7ndcg

Thanks for posting this Star Trek clip, Terry. This really threw me for a loop when you posted it a few years ago (on the old Bereans forum, maybe?) -- just to hear that classic Ron Kangas phrase, not of the body, used in such a different context. (And yet, such a similar context.)

To be honest, I watch that clip with the sound turned low. Don't want those words ringing in my ears too much. Might give me nightmares!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

Suddenly a proclamation would be made, there's a brother among us who is not one of us.

Well, Jesus made that proclamation as well. For years I worried that I was Judas reborn. I still do. When the Network Norwich and Norfolk Lee-ites called me a dark, frustrated person whose ambition had been thwarted, I had to stop and wonder, is this true? Why am I posting here, anyway? I mean, I don't agree that "Jesus is the Father" as Lee put it out. It doesn't fit with word usage as we understand words, it is not logical as I understand logic, it doesn't have a history in the Christian theological perspective (the Son is the Son and the Father is the Father), and yet why am I here, arguing, on a forum of church affairs in a city of southeast England?

Ultimately all I can do is to forgive others their trespasses, and hope that I in turn will be forgiven. Jesus promised this: "As you do to others so will be done to you." And I assume, at least in part, that I'm really the person that I accuse Lee of being: selfish, ambitious, a show-off, egotistic, narrow-minded, petty, grandiose, etc. Why else am I here but to puff myself up and show off my feeble writing skills? So I have to repent, and to forgive. I also must reform my behavior and be quick to hear, but slow to speak (type).

Really, all we can do is try to be honest with each other. Be real. I was once for "the Hive", for "the Body", and quick to point my quivering finger at those who weren't True Believers, but eventually I saw it as a sham. However, that doesn't all of a sudden make me a good person. I'm still a wandering sinner, hearing the voice of Jesus calling me home. And the way home is not to quarrel with one another, to judge one another, and to project our own repressed anxieties on others. Lee arguably did this, and I've read some of the writings of the Dong-ites in Brazil and they're similar. Feverish and self-centered: "You're not of the Body!" No objectivity is allowed to pull the subject out of the trance; it's a complete, hermetically sealed, fully subjective world. And just because you've recruited a few unstable souls into The Cause, it doesn't mean it's more real. I could point out 50 groups from the Heavens Gate cult to the People's Temple to the Branch Davidians. A group delusion is still a delusion, just a shared one.

But what am I doing? Anything better? I wonder.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It irks me to read so many misinformed comments on this forum of a textual, linguistic, or translational basis.

I do not want to start a new thread but will post this under the most suitable current thread here.

Somebody (awareness ?) earlier encouraged members of this forum to use e-Sword with its 30-odd Bible translations, some dictionaries, commentaries etc.

I want to endorse this recommendation.

I also want to add that 8,000+ resources for e-Sword (not a typo!) can be found here.

It is all free but donations are invited (by PayPal). A very reasonable request considering what you get.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Friedel

I do not want to start a new thread but will post this under the most suitable current thread here.

Somebody (awareness ?) earlier encouraged members of this forum to use e-Sword with its 30-odd Bible translations, some dictionaries, commentaries etc.

I want to endorse this recommendation.

I also want to add that 8,000+ resources for e-Sword (not a typo!) can be found here.

It is all free but donations are invited (by PayPal). A very reasonable request considering what you get.

Thanks bro Friedel, for the link to 8000 resources. Great. I got the Net Bible for e-Sword right away. I also got Acts 29 for eSword.

e-Sword has been a great resource for me. I have it open on my computer all the time, and am always using it for Bible references whenever the need arises. I highly recommend it.