What It's Really All About

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Certainly Christ is not coming back for a Bride who is just sitting in her boudoir brushing her hair and reflecting on her own beauty. Not Jesus. He's a man of action and he surely expects his Bride to be a woman of action.

Ha ha! The LCM is captivated by her own beauty! Her every curve and feature are lovely things she loves to behold. But, in the S of S the lover is dark from having labored in the fields under the sun; dark from the labor of righteous living full of good works. The LCM are the ugly stepsisters of Cinderella who continuously beat the real church.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by HERn

The LCM are the ugly stepsisters of Cinderella who continuously beat the real church.

Great metaphor!

[TLFisher]

They give away Bibles? Is that the entire Bible or just the New Testament?

[Cal]

I was really hoping this would spark a better discussion.

He's what this comes down to guys: What is God's purpose for the Church on earth today?

Is it to be spiritual and get transformed and wait for the Lord to come back with little impact on culture?

Or does God want the Church to impact culture? How is this done?

I really think this is a fundamentally important question because it impacts how we see our mission on earth and what we are supposed to be doing and how we are to interact with the world.

Note, I don't believe that organized political strong-arming is much if any part of the plan. But I definitely believe now that God's expects us to use good works to soften the hearts of people, change lives and thus change and preserve cultures.

In short, I do not believe in the LCM view of being so isolated and separated from the world that impact on culture is actually disdained--as if cooperating in any way with, for example, local authorities in charity or mercy causes is bad. The fact is in crises like Hurricane Katrina, it is Christian organizations which do the bulk of the aid work.

Just think if everyone did tithe and the Church was able to collect $165 billion more per year than it does now, and that money was used to end hunger, thirst and illiteracy. How do you think that would affect the world's view of the Church? How would it affect the spreading of the Gospel?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In short, I do not believe in the LCM view of being so isolated and separated from the world that impact on culture is actually disdained--as if cooperating in any way with, for example, local authorities in charity or mercy causes is bad. The fact is in crises like Hurricane Katrina, it is Christian organizations which do the bulk of the aid work.

Just think if everyone did tithe and the Church was able to collect $165 billion more per year than it does now, and that money was used to end hunger, thirst and illiteracy. How do you think that would affect the world's view of the Church? How would it affect the spreading of the Gospel?

I'm sure many had been like me; raised in the local churches and met with them as an adult. There's an indoctrination that goes on regarding charity. It's scoffed at with condescension. However, giving money to LSM is encouraged. Where is charity in that? Who in need have they helped?
The word may be "apply for welfare",
As a child with my parents separated, my mom did that. Any help came from my grandmother and not the Church in Anaheim or Living Stream Ministry.
Other hard times, help came from food banks and not "the ministry".
Suppose the Church was able to collect $165 billion each year, certainly it would rid the need of homeless having to sleep in tents that I see each weekday morning coming into Seattle.

[OBW]

Tough topic.

And given our (broad collective, not any of us in particular) propensity to talk about everything in terms of our quiet time, or being "in spirit" (or in the spirit), or our "enjoyment of Christ," or me and my Bible, or even focusing on activities aimed at "preaching the gospel," I am not sure that our first thought is to move in that direction.

I will say that I have been talking about some of this for a while. But I must admit that at some level it is still theory. I may speak that way, but if someone looks at me like "yeah, poor ignorant plebe, its really about the right doctrines and practices" I still duck my head and think that maybe I am just full of it.

Especially when I am not the poster child for DOING what I am suggesting we should be doing. Just talking about it.

I would never say that trying to be doctrinally right is simply irrelevant. But I am becoming convinced that it is second place, not first. When people defend all the doctrinal teachings by saying you have to know what you believe, I cower because they are right.

At least sort of.

But are they right that we have to understand that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit are three separate but distinct "persons" who are joined as one through something called essence? (And am I relegated to the land of heretics for probably not saying it completely correctly?)

Or is what we need to know that Jesus is God and is the Lord of the Kingdom that we are more connected to than the physical Kingdom of the U.S. (or U.K., R.S.A., France, Germany, etc.) And not only know it, but believe it and prove our belief by obeying the one (Jesus) who came and showed the way. That was what he sent everyone except for the ones he trained for leading to do. The big sermons to the large crowds (on the mount, where he fed 5,000, etc.) were not about preaching the gospel, but about the life of the follower.

[Cal]

I think that our knowledge that ultimately the world will end badly, with war, judgment and the Lord's return, works against our God-given instinct to invest in the good of the world's people. I see why someone would think like that. But the investment I'm arguing for is not one in the world system, not in politics or laws, but in the people themselves. It follows that good people make good societies. Even God does not begrudge this. This is what he intended.

The LCM taught us that nothing wrought outside its walls was worth a plugged nickel, no matter how much good it seemed to produce. But, really, where do you draw the line between spiritual good and seeming natural results? In my experience, spiritual good always results in some sort of outward change for the better in relationships, human life, outward happiness and so forth. I understand that God asks us to suffer in the natural for the sake of the spiritual. But that does not mean that happiness in the natural works against the spiritual. That is asceticism. And it's amazing how much the ascetic concept is worked in to our belief systems.

My point, I guess, is that attempting to draw a line between spiritual blessing and natural blessing is folly. God does not begrudge the natural. To quote C.S. Lewis, he made the physical, he likes it. The problem comes in when we attempt to have the natural without the spiritual. It can also come in when we become so spiritual that we neglect the natural. They are intended to blend together in a continuum.

One manifestation of this is the understandable expectation by the world that the Church, if we really means business about our "love "talk, would manifest love in ways broader and more down-to-earth than passing out free bibles and preaching about pie in the sky. Watchman Nee, when asked by those he preached to whether Jesus would fill their rice bowls famously responded, "He may break your rice bowls!" Well, that's quite nobly "spiritual." But Jesus himself never said or intimated anything like that. He fed the hungry, healed the sick and comforted the downtrodden. A spirituality that neglects these things is a sham. It's a fake. This is the spirituality the LCM taught. And it is a stronghold which ensures a life of ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' Matthew 25

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Just think if everyone did tithe and the Church was able to collect $165 billion more per year than it does now, and that money was used to end hunger, thirst and illiteracy. How do you think that would affect the world's view of the Church? How would it affect the spreading of the Gospel?

Sorry bro, but I'm not so optimistic as you. I see most of that money not going to the poor, but to build some preacher's empire, supposedly "for the gospel of God."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry bro, but I'm not so optimistic as you. I see most of that money not going to the poor, but to build some preacher's empire, supposedly "for the gospel of God."

In other words, for God's Economy, GTCA, BFA, etc.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry bro, but I'm not so optimistic as you. I see most of that money not going to the poor, but to build some preacher's empire, supposedly "for the gospel of God."

There are plenty of trustworthy organizations. Statistics of where money goes are available. Besides, if we used that excuse no one would give. That's part of the problem and part of what Will Davis calls "the spirit of poverty." Did you watch the video?

Davis addresses the issue of not trusting a church enough to tithe to it. He said if you don't trust them then you probably should find another church. We ought to be able to find somebody to give to, and God commands us to give. So I don't think not trusting recipients as an excuse for not giving at all is going to wash with Him ultimately. "Cast your bread upon the waters." "God loves a cheerful giver."

Although I think we all ought to learn to give as the Bible commands, that isn't the main reason for this thread. The main reason is to discuss what is our legitimate involvement in and with the world. The LCM's involvement is so "spiritual" and theoretical that they've pretty much excused themselves from any grass roots good works, even though Jesus performed plenty. My question is, what is legitimate? Beyond that, what does the Lord actually expect?

Is the sheep and goats parable about just the end times and how those non-believers remaining on the earth treated believers, as Lee taught. Or is it a more general parable showing that true believers will have a heart to take care of their neighbors? It's worthy of discussion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

There are plenty of trustworthy organizations. Statistics of where money goes are available. Besides, if we used that excuse no one would give. That's part of the problem and part of what Will Davis calls "the spirit of poverty." Did you watch the video?

Davis addresses the issue of not trusting a church enough to tithe to it. He said if you don't trust them then you probably should find another church. We ought to be able to find somebody to give to, and God commands us to give. So I don't think not trusting recipients as an excuse for not giving at all is going to wash with Him ultimately. "Cast your bread upon the waters." "God loves a cheerful giver."

Although I think we all ought to learn to give as the Bible commands, that isn't the main reason for this thread. The main reason is to discuss what is our legitimate involvement in and with the world. The LCM's involvement is so "spiritual" and theoretical that they've pretty much excused themselves from any grass roots good works, even though Jesus performed plenty. My question is, what is legitimate? Beyond that, what does the Lord actually expect?

Is the sheep and goats parable about just the end times and how those non-believers remaining on the earth treated believers, as Lee taught. Or is it a more general parable showing that true believers will have a heart to take care of their neighbors? It's worthy of discussion.

I did watch some of the video.

For 10 years in the LC (towards the end) I was church treasurer. Not at all my choice, but out of loyalty. We always had a category "needy saints," but almost never gave anything to "needy saints." What little we had to work with was always heavily taxed by Cleveland, basically taxation without representation. It was also required of us to send a monthly check to LSM's DCP for their legal expenses.

The next church we attended was worse about money. We were constantly hammered for tithes, gifts, offerings, missions, special needs, TV ministry, endless building funds, etc. I could no longer afford to be a Christian. We couldn't attend a prayer meeting without passing the basket. At one point they even passed out wristbands declaring, "There is no recession in the kingdom of God." It troubled me that Pastor's wife got a new Lexus, but who am I to criticize such a well-respected organization, that did so much good for the community.

I have known the tremendous joy in giving, yet it has been soured by corruption. Few Christian leaders "take forethought for things honorable."

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I was really hoping this would spark a better discussion.

He's what this comes down to guys: What is God's purpose for the Church on earth today?

Is it to be spiritual and get transformed and wait for the Lord to come back with little impact on culture?

Or does God want the Church to impact culture? How is this done?

Igzy, I have a question. When you ask, What is God's purpose for the Church on earth today?, do you imply that the purpose of the Church today should be "different" (or more wide) than the purpose of the Church at the beginning? Just asking.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Igzy, I have a question. When you ask, What is God's purpose for the Church on earth today?, do you imply that the purpose of the Church today should be "different" (or more wide) than the purpose of the Church at the beginning? Just asking.

No, in principle it's the same. We may use different techniques, but the purpose has always been the same, to bring God's kingdom in. Since God's kingdom is experienced in hearts, we should to whatever we can to touch people's hearts. This include charitable acts.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No, in principle it's the same. We may use different techniques, but the purpose has always been the same, to bring God's kingdom in. Since God's kingdom is experienced in hearts, we should to whatever we can to touch people's hearts. This include charitable acts.

If I understand you correctly, do you wish the Church to build hospitals, orphanages, and do all kinds of charitable acts as a mean to touch people's hearts so that they might receive the Lord as their Savior, and so bringing in God's kingdom?