The "Lord's Recovery": A Christian Perspective

[OBW]

Sorry, but unimpressed. For starters, this guy is basing upon the premise that the Nee underpinnings were actually right. He speaks of Nee's city-church as simply being scripturally correct, in so many words. So even if he disagrees with Lee, he is thinking in terms of an alternative to Lee under the guidelines of Nee.

That is not the argument that I make. And my argument is that those who meet in the LRC should not meet together, but that they are not special relative to any other Christian assembly for doing so. And as long as they hold to many of Lee's (and Nee's) poor theology, they are hamstringing their experience. It does not make them unChristian or heretical. It just makes their reality far from their claim.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by OBW

Sorry, but unimpressed... That is not the argument that I make.

Perhaps he doesn't make the argument that you make; he actually doesn't argue at all. Rather, what he shares makes a lot of sense. He also had the discernment to see where LSM had erred - and to pick up on it immediately. He shared what he shared for the sake of those who attend, and for those who may consider attending.

Although this was on a different thread, I want to say that Steve Amato did the same - shared for the sake of those who attend and those who might consider joining. I want to note that there again it was a regular member of the forum, and not a visiting lurker, who was most offended by what that brother shared.

I am disappointed too.

[TLFisher]

This morning while I was working, I listened to what Doug had to share. To some extent, Doug touched upon what Witness Lee exhorted at the 1997 Chinese New Year Conference. As for the City Church concept, as idealisitic as it seems what seems impossible to man is possible by God.
Most of Doug's speaking did make sense.

[OBW]

I think that one of the things that I am unimpressed about is that I find no meaningful relationship between the guy in the video and the LRC, and then find nothing about him or his organization that gives him much more than the amount of weight that any of us get here on the internet — a place where anyone with a keyboard and an key can publish. If what is essentially an outsider is going to speak on the LRC, he needs to provide reasonable credentials. And when he seems to speak as if supporting what one might call "competition" for doing Nee right, his credibility goes down even more.

Now if Stephen Kuang (sp?) were to finally weigh-in on some of the self-made claims of Lee, I would listen because he is someone who, while following the premises of Nee, has not tried to compete with Lee and the LRC, but simply done what he has done without any reference to them.

I mean, if "Lioncubseal" (in the other forum, I think) and his alleged "Jesus come in the flesh," INES, were to make a video that said some of the same things, would you listen just because there is an organization name behind it?

Of course, I probably am revealing something about myself in this. I am much more impressed with religious teachers who are focused on Christians living this life in a fully righteous manner, and less impressed with those who are focused on the extremes — the adjectivized Christians, or those with some kind of superlative put before their name; ignoring the present and panting after the end times (and being of no current use); or those who are overly focused on "spiritual" things and ignore regular living. And those who are focused on how to figure out some kind of "the way" church that marginalizes other assemblies that do not meet their criteria. Anyone trying to create some kind of city-church is that for me. The "city-church" is something of impracticality unless your city is very small. It is strictly "universal" and not practical.

[OBW]

Oh. BTW. I didn't say that the guy in the video said bad or wrong things. I just said that there was nothing that impressed me. While I must admit that I gave up on listening straight through at some point and began to skip forward trying to find find something interesting, I never did hear anything that I would characterize as much more than a repetition of things others have said. In other words, is there anything unique or different in this? Or is it just someone repeating what others have said (even if correctly) that he has no real personal knowledge about? I don't need someone else who wasn't there or hasn't really done some genuine homework telling me about the LRC. They tend to miss the real points when they do.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

I just said that there was nothing that impressed me. I don't need someone else who wasn't there or hasn't really done some genuine homework telling me about the LRC. They tend to miss the real points when they do.

OBW, from my perspective I wasn't impressed either. I was thankful for his spirit of love. Doug wasn't spiteful or malicious in his speaking. Just being honest in love.
If I was to listen again and numerate each point that concurred with my spirit, it would be somewhere between 10-20 points. In short bulk of Doug's commentary was in sync with my spirit.