Open - Interactive Letter to The Co-Workers in The Lord's Recovery

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Jay

Ya know, you bring up an interesting point here. One thing that I've noticed is that I think modern Christianity is very big on works. But if you compare that to the local churches, you realize the local churches are NOT big on works. I'm wondering if there's a middle ground here. The LC focuses pretty much exclusively on the subjective and corporate experiences of Christ and the living in the spirit. Which is fantastic. However I do think works are needed and necessary and I think this may be one reason why the LC doesn't have a lot of fruit, among other large reasons that are discussed here on this site. Anyway I do believe Jesus does talk about works a lot, and I think that in the LC they just somehow gloss over that. I think works do show Christ's life and his humanity and they do impress people and gain people for God

But with that said, I do also believe that good works should come out of the life of Christ in our spirit. We're always told in the LC that if we are doing good works outside of our spirit then it's wood, hay, and stubble. Lee would say that for sure it is. But on the other hand the LC has very little works, if any at all. So the important question is can Christians be one anywhere else but in their mingled spirit? Maybe not according to Lee, but I will say at least modern Christian churches are very giving and very charitable and loving. Which, it's hard to say that any local churches are like that because they're so preoccupied with the inner experience of life and "the church life" that they rarely if ever even think of how to help, and if anyone comes to them who needs help they seem to clam up and go into their shells. But, so far you haven't shown me anything that's coming close to contending with the ground of locality as an objective doctrine. Jesus may have talked a lot about works, but the rest of the Bible we see God trying to gain a unique group of people to become his bride, to be called out of the world, and to represent him on earth. For this I believe he needs a corporate army. I do think Nee and Lee are biblically correct about this. Lee may have been wrong in his wording, shoot he may be conflating the ground of locality with the ground of oneness. But it doesn't remove the fact that the Bible clearly gives the archetype for the way to meet and it clearly says that we are not to meet at the place of our own choosing

But I do think that modern Christianity has something on the LC. They do seem to care about people a lot, and they do seem to put their money where their mouth is. Whereas the LC might just pray for someone, modern Christians might go the extra mile and actually DO something about someone else. I do think the LC are short in that way, and I do think it's a matter of practice, or failure to act, or failure to express Christ's humanity to a good extent

Btw I DO think that God is in modern Christian churches, and I think there's a certain type of love there that may be short in the local churches

The difference between them may be very important. As far as I know most modern Christians are very big on "doing what Jesus would do." Whereas those in the local churches are very focused on the inward experiences of Christ, living out Christ, and living in the spirit of Christ. The problem with both is they only focus on one or the other. If you ask a Christian in a modern church about the spirit they might give you a long blank stare. They don't even know! They don't even know they have a spirit. Many of them at least. How close are they to their spirit? How much do they exercise their spirit? Have they ever exercised their spirit? Have they felt the indwelling God ever? Sometimes I doubt they have. I think most of their doings and behavior is in the soul. They probably don't even know the difference between their soul and their spirit. This is pretty important

On the other hand those in the local churches seem very dull when it comes to charity, helping the needy, giving, loving, not judging others, not being closed off, being open minded, accepting and loving the downtrodden. Which lends to being more in the condition of Laodicea. This is a problem

So I see both sides have shortages

I appreciate your objective assessments of the local church and other Christians. I agree about what you say each of them emphasize.

Okay, regarding contending with the ground of locality as an objective doctrine.....

There are two things going on:

The first is how the Bible often refers to the church. And it is indeed often referred to as "the church in ABC city". This would be called "the ground of locality", would you agree?

The second thing is the concept of the believers being one. The oneness of the church.

My contention is not that referring as "the church in ABC city" is wrong. My contention, based on what I've gotten from and agree with from that video, is that to claim that "if you are not meeting on the ground of locality then you cannot be in oneness" is wrong. The Bible never connects "meeting on the ground of locality" with "oneness". Everrrrrrrr.

The Bible simply refers to the church being in a city, and also references elders being appointed in each city. It doesn't teach anything more than that related to churches and cities. It doesn't explain why a church is referred to in relation to a city. It doesn't explain that this is how the believers are one in practicality. It doesn't explain that this is the practical expression of oneness. None of that is there. Lee taught that it is there in the Bible, but it is not. We could agree that this is Witness Lee's THEORY as to why the church is usually referred to in terms of the city, sure, but as far as the Bible actually explaining why it is, it is not there.

Lee made a connection to oneness where the Bible does not make a connection.

So a saint can say "the Bible often shows one church in each city", because it does. But a saint cannot say "and the Bible says that is how the believers are in oneness", because it does not say that anywhere.

Witness Lee taught it, and so to verify Witness Lee's teaching, we just need to look at if the Bible ever says meeting as the church in your city is connected to the expression of oneness. But it doesn't. Oneness is never connected to the locality, but instead is always connected to good works and care. To connect oneness to good works/care is biblical. To connect oneness to meeting as the church in your city is not biblical. The Bible does not connect "clear archetype for a way to meet" to "oneness".

That's the contention.

I would also add that Jesus prayed in John 17:21 “that they all may be one, even as you, Father, are in me, and I in You”.

However it is that the believers are supposed to be one must parallel whatever way the Father and the Son are one. It is absurd to claim that the Father and the Son are one on the basis of locality. Therefore, it is similarly absurd to claim that the believers must also be one on the basis of locality. Hence, oneness must involve something else, something the Bible reveals as the thing that shows the Father and Son are one. And based on Jesus' words, the thing that shows that the Father and Son are one was the good works Jesus did, not anything having anything to do with "how they meet".

Does that make sense?

You talked about a bunch of other stuff, which I’ll respond more to later.

Trapped

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I appreciate your objective assessments of the local church and other Christians. I agree about what you say each of them emphasize.

Okay, regarding contending with the ground of locality as an objective doctrine.....

There are two things going on:

The first is how the Bible often refers to the church. And it is indeed often referred to as "the church in ABC city". This would be called "the ground of locality", would you agree?

The second thing is the concept of the believers being one. The oneness of the church.

My contention is not that referring as "the church in ABC city" is wrong. My contention, based on what I've gotten from and agree with from that video, is that to claim that "if you are not meeting on the ground of locality then you cannot be in oneness" is wrong. The Bible never connects "meeting on the ground of locality" with "oneness". Everrrrrrrr.

The problem with this though, and I believe this is the crux of Lee's point on the matter, is that if believers are divided according to denomination, practice, beliefs, etc. how can they actually be one? This is both a spiritual and a practical problem. Spiritually if believers are not in the mingled spirit, not connected to God the spirit (John 4:24), then how can they be one with God, let alone one another? Practically if believers are not physically in the same location, thinking the one thing (Philippians 2:2), and practicing the same things, then how can they be one? I don't believe it's possible. What we see today is fragmented groups of believers all doing what is right in their own eyes. At best they all follow the creed or doctrines of their pastor (which btw the pastoral system is an obvious practice of clergy-laity). So at best they can only be one with the fragmented congregation that they happen to like and go to. But what about all the other believers in any given city?

One of the biggest attacks against Lee is that he was exclusive and wouldn't mix or mingle with those in the denominations. But do the denominations mix and mingle? In fact I think all doors are open from every party. Those in the denominations can visit each other, and those in the local churches can visit the denominations and vice versa. All are welcome everywhere I believe. But how often do any Christians visit any other churches strictly for blending and fellowship? Probably very rarely. I don't believe the LC ever shut its doors on any genuine Christian visiting from amongst the denominations. But it rarely happens. Why? Because Christians are too comfortable in their spots. To whatever extent that also goes for the local churches. Although it is often encouraged in the LC to go to other localities and blend

Anyway my point is that the very thing denominations accused Lee of they were guilty of themselves. Each sect has its own little culture and it's own little set of doctrinal practices. If someone were to come who practiced differently they probably wouldn't accept it

At any rate, how is there any semblance of oneness in this scenario? Are those in the denominations one? I don't think so. Realistically speaking the body of Christ is divided. Christians are scattered in every city. Moreover who amongst the Christians in any given city is actually exercising their spirit and one with God? So how could they be one with anything? Aside from their works and their like souled behavior in those works? At best in Christianity we get a nice message from a bought and paid for pastor who kills the spiritual function of the believers, quells their ability to prophesy (which builds up the church; 1 Corinthians 14:4), and more than likely feeds them with the leaven of the prosperity gospel, or worse teaches them some worldly behavior modification habits and misuses the Bible to support their message. At best you will get a pastor who knows the word some and will expound upon the word, but if we're honest to what direction do they expound upon the word? Invariably it will tie into better behavior, or sinless living, or at the very best maybe some nice talks on living righteously. But who in Christianity is focused on living Christ, loving Christ, being connected to Christ, pursuing Christ for mutual satisfaction, and being taught how to do all of it? I think that Lee is absolutely right in his assessment of how poor modern Christianity is. I see it all over, all the time, whenever I contact modern Christians and churches. I see only the exercise of the soul, I see little to no light in the word that they expound, and at best they exhibit charity and giving to the needy. The last one is the best thing they do. I suppose also it's better to go to a denominational church than to a movie. I'd much rather live in a city with a church on every corner than a movie theater on every corner. Or a bar on every corner. I suppose religion serves a decent purpose to at least keep people occupied with a semblance of the right thing as opposed to just all out satan's systemic places of death. But spiritually are these places full of life or full of death? Or are they stagnant?

As far as spiritual oneness, I don't see much of it in that scenario. Just a crowd of disjointed members. I don't see Christians exercising their spirits. I don't see Christians enjoying the spirit. I don't see Christians expressing God much, if at all, and I don't see much life of Christ. At least they're believers I guess. But I don't believe it's what God intended or wants

One of Lee's definitions for religion is 'doing something for God without Christ.' I think that is an apt definition of modern Christianity

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by Jay

...But who in Christianity is focused on living Christ, loving Christ, being connected to Christ, pursuing Christ for mutual satisfaction, and being taught how to do all of it? I think that Lee is absolutely right in his assessment of how poor modern Christianity is.

Well Jay, how about we look at a heathen government's recent assessment of a genuine Lord's Recovery Local Church?


This particular LC, until recently, may have been able to get by with claiming to be "focused on living Christ, loving Christ, being connected to Christ, pursuing Christ for mutual satisfaction, and being taught how to do all of it". But now, who in their right mind would believe a word of that after reading the Civil Court Transcript?

How unfortunate it is for a large modern City like OKC to have been assigned such a disgusting testimony of Jesus. And this is NOT just one bad apple in the barrel - this is the "cookie cutter" structure beneath all Witness Lee & LSM aligned churches.

Note: It appears that "Hearne" was a Full Time serving sister in that locality until she got fired for not going along with the cover-up. Just think about how her world got turned upside down...

P.S.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The Bible simply refers to the church being in a city, and also references elders being appointed in each city. It doesn't teach anything more than that related to churches and cities. It doesn't explain why a church is referred to in relation to a city. It doesn't explain that this is how the believers are one in practicality. It doesn't explain that this is the practical expression of oneness. None of that is there. Lee taught that it is there in the Bible, but it is not. We could agree that this is Witness Lee's THEORY as to why the church is usually referred to in terms of the city, sure, but as far as the Bible actually explaining why it is, it is not there.

Lee made a connection to oneness where the Bible does not make a connection.

So a saint can say "the Bible often shows one church in each city", because it does. But a saint cannot say "and the Bible says that is how the believers are in oneness", because it does not say that anywhere.

Witness Lee taught it, and so to verify Witness Lee's teaching, we just need to look at if the Bible ever says meeting as the church in your city is connected to the expression of oneness. But it doesn't. Oneness is never connected to the locality, but instead is always connected to good works and care. To connect oneness to good works/care is biblical. To connect oneness to meeting as the church in your city is not biblical. The Bible does not connect "clear archetype for a way to meet" to "oneness".

That's the contention.

I would also add that Jesus prayed in John 17:21 “that they all may be one, even as you, Father, are in me, and I in You”.

However it is that the believers are supposed to be one must parallel whatever way the Father and the Son are one. It is absurd to claim that the Father and the Son are one on the basis of locality. Therefore, it is similarly absurd to claim that the believers must also be one on the basis of locality. Hence, oneness must involve something else, something the Bible reveals as the thing that shows the Father and Son are one. And based on Jesus' words, the thing that shows that the Father and Son are one was the good works Jesus did, not anything having anything to do with "how they meet".

Does that make sense?

You talked about a bunch of other stuff, which I’ll respond more to later.

Trapped

The way to be one is similar to how a car engine works. You need all the necessary components. You will need the exhaust system, the drive belts, the cooling system, etc. If one of those functioning parts ceases to function then the engine will not go, or it will not go very well. In the same way how can the believers be one if they aren't exercising and living in their spirit? How can they be one if they are fundamentally divided from the other believers not only in belief and practice but in physical proximity? Your point that the ground of locality is not necessary folds under this reality

And the fruit of the schisms is a soulish fruit. As I said before I appreciate their works. As did Christ in Revelation 2:18-19. Unfortunately Thyatira is the Roman catholic church, Babylon, and that Babylonian system flows into the denominations. Objectively the denominations are better than the Roman Catholic church, but their practices are the same in essence. They are married to the world, they house unbelievers, and they are full of idolatry. Don't believe me? Let's look at the Roman Catholic church and all of their idols. These people actually in fact worship the idols of Mary and some of the apostles whom they call saints. They pray to these idols, literally even bowing down before them. How horrible is this, and yet are the denominations much better? Many of then still have pictures of a blonde haired blue eyed Jesus on their church walls. Many of them adorn themselves with crosses, or get tattoos of Christ on the cross. Is this not idolatry? It's enough to say they are divided, but we could go further and say that they are corrupted. Not only are they not one, but I believe many of them express satan. When I watch Joel Osteen or these other mega church pastors, I sense a demonic energy about them. These men are closer to satan than they are to God. What is their fruit then? Certainly it's not the oneness that Jesus was talking about in John 17

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

And the fruit of the schisms is a soulish fruit. As I said before I appreciate their works. As did Christ in Revelation 2:18-19. Unfortunately Thyatira is the Roman catholic church, Babylon, and that Babylonian system flows into the denominations. Objectively the denominations are better than the Roman Catholic church, but their practices are the same in essence. They are married to the world, they house unbelievers, and they are full of idolatry. Don't believe me? Let's look at the Roman Catholic church and all of their idols. These people actually in fact worship the idols of Mary and some of the apostles whom they call saints. They pray to these idols, literally even bowing down before them. How horrible is this, and yet are the denominations much better? Many of then still have pictures of a blonde haired blue eyed Jesus on their church walls. Many of them adorn themselves with crosses, or get tattoos of Christ on the cross. Is this not idolatry? It's enough to say they are divided, but we could go further and say that they are corrupted. Not only are they not one, but I believe many of them express satan. When I watch Joel Osteen or these other mega church pastors, I sense a demonic energy about them. These men are closer to satan than they are to God. What is their fruit then? Certainly it's not the oneness that Jesus was talking about in John 17

Jay, you have no clue how much of this same corruption and idolatry pervades your Recovery. You think that system of error is pure and holy because you see it from a distance, and they sell themselves so well. So did I for 30 years.

Unfortunately all the debates here have only hardened your position. I was that way too. As a Catholic, we all complained about it, but once outsiders attacked, we became defenders of the Catholic Church. Same thing happened to me for 30 years in the Recovery.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, you have no clue how much of this same corruption and idolatry pervades your Recovery. You think that system of error is pure and holy because you see it from a distance, and they sell themselves so well. So did I for 30 years.

Unfortunately all the debates here have only hardened your position. I was that way too. As a Catholic, we all complained about it, but once outsiders attacked, we became defenders of the Catholic Church. Same thing happened to me for 30 years in the Recovery.

Well I can't go along with their frauding money and then paying back the saints out of their own tithes. That was wrong any way you look at it. And I can't go along with any of the alleged cover ups either, if they are indeed true. And I also can't go along with the uplifting of a man to almost godlike status, which I believe many had the tendency to do with brother Lee. I believe all of that was wrong, and I hope Lee tried to squash it. But from what others are saying on this site he didn't do that, or he didn't do that very well. Although I have heard of instances when he did try to squash that, and I have read him saying things along that line

But those allegations are big problems, and unfortunately a lot of people were hurt by them. So obviously I can't endorse those errors, or sins. But I also wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water either. I believe that the concept of recovery is pure in and of itself. Just like the efficacy of the message shouldn't change if the messenger is corrupt. However when it comes to leadership structure that's a different story. If leadership is corrupt then that produces spiritual death in my view. I have a hard time believing Lee was wholly corrupt, but reading all that I have I believe he made major mistakes and had certain major sins. And maybe his holding onto his assumed or delegated position of leader over all the churches was wrong. But I still think God never ceased to bless his ministry. Maybe this is something that I myself am learning about God. But as I said I can't throw the baby out with the bath water. And I also don't say that to excuse or diminish any of the allegations against him. But I also couldn't see the local churches as defunct despite these major errors/sins

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

Well I can't go along with their frauding money and then paying back the saints out of their own tithes. That was wrong any way you look at it. And I can't go along with any of the alleged cover ups either, if they are indeed true. And I also can't go along with the uplifting of a man to almost godlike status, which I believe many had the tendency to do with brother Lee. I believe all of that was wrong, and I hope Lee tried to squash it. But from what others are saying on this site he didn't do that, or he didn't do that very well. Although I have heard of instances when he did try to squash that, and I have read him saying things along that line

But those allegations are big problems, and unfortunately a lot of people were hurt by them. So obviously I can't endorse those errors, or sins. But I also wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water either. I believe that the concept of recovery is pure in and of itself. Just like the efficacy of the message shouldn't change if the messenger is corrupt. However when it comes to leadership structure that's a different story. If leadership is corrupt then that produces spiritual death in my view. I have a hard time believing Lee was wholly corrupt, but reading all that I have I believe he made major mistakes and had certain major sins. And maybe his holding onto his assumed or delegated position of leader over all the churches was wrong. But I still think God never ceased to bless his ministry. Maybe this is something that I myself am learning about God. But as I said I can't throw the baby out with the bath water. And I also don't say that to excuse or diminish any of the allegations against him. But I also couldn't see the local churches as defunct despite these major errors/sins

I struggled with these matters also. I’m not sure if you realize it, but I have taken a beating over the years on this forum for trying to navigate a path according to the truth. Sometimes being in the middle made me a target for both sides.

My concern was that so many 2nd Gen ex-members were indeed “throwing out the baby” after they departed from the Recovery. Most of these ones left due to legalism, rigid ideology, hypocrisy, and serious abuses. Many had been trained to condemn Christianity from birth, so finding another believing church was never an option. Sadly, many of them had no real experience of God’s saving love and grace. Some are damaged and stumbled for life. Truly tragic.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I struggled with these matters also. I’m not sure if you realize it, but I have taken a beating over the years on this forum for trying to navigate a path according to the truth. Sometimes being in the middle made me a target for both sides.

My concern was that so many 2nd Gen ex-members were indeed “throwing out the baby” after they departed from the Recovery. Most of these ones left due to legalism, rigid ideology, hypocrisy, and serious abuses. Many had been trained to condemn Christianity from birth, so finding another believing church was never an option. Sadly, many of them had no real experience of God’s saving love and grace. Some are damaged and stumbled for life. Truly tragic.

Yeah that's an interesting and crucial point. I'm not sure there's much I can say about that. I can see how that could happen for sure. The way Lee presents the recovery is more or less "this way or the dark room." So is there another option? I don't see one. So I can definitely see how many would be shipwrecked regarding their faith after leaving the recovery. I guess this is where you get the whole "mindbenders" thing. And I also see this all from another angle. Before I experienced it myself none of what you all are saying meant much. But once I ran up against it now I totally get all of it

I guess it's up to the Lord. I feel for those who went through it, because I'm tasting it now and it's not fun. But I think the Lord has me and I hope those who left don't forget to turn to him

Right now I'm dealing with the problem of how can I go on if it's not in the local churches? But I don't want to go back to something that I know is basically a weird type of clergy-laity authority. Until I really spent time around it I never saw it. But once I saw it I realized the problem of it. You have the choice to just accept it or leave I guess. I don't think there's any beating it. You're kind of trapped to it. There's nothing better than the ministry and I think it's what God is doing, so anywhere else is a huge degradation and you'll never be able to live down the fact that you are not meeting on the right ground wherever you go. On the other hand how do you stay? You have to go in with blinders on and tolerate the clergy control from the leading brothers

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Jay

Yeah that's an interesting and crucial point. I'm not sure there's much I can say about that. I can see how that could happen for sure. The way Lee presents the recovery is more or less "this way or the dark room." So is there another option? I don't see one. So I can definitely see how many would be shipwrecked regarding their faith after leaving the recovery. …

Right now I'm dealing with the problem of how can I go on if it's not in the local churches? But I don't want to go back to something that I know is basically a weird type of clergy-laity authority. Until I really spent time around it I never saw it. But once I saw it I realized the problem of it. You have the choice to just accept it or leave I guess. I don't think there's any beating it. You're kind of trapped to it. There's nothing better than the ministry and I think it's what God is doing, so anywhere else is a huge degradation and you'll never be able to live down the fact that you are not meeting on the right ground wherever you go. On the other hand how do you stay? You have to go in with blinders on and tolerate the clergy control from the leading brothers

How about strengthening your walk with the Lord first? He can and will lead you. No one can build his church but him. We just need to get out of his way and let him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

Right now I'm dealing with the problem of how can I go on if it's not in the local churches? But I don't want to go back to something that I know is basically a weird type of clergy-laity authority. Until I really spent time around it I never saw it. But once I saw it I realized the problem of it. You have the choice to just accept it or leave I guess. I don't think there's any beating it. You're kind of trapped to it. There's nothing better than the ministry and I think it's what God is doing, so anywhere else is a huge degradation and you'll never be able to live down the fact that you are not meeting on the right ground wherever you go. On the other hand how do you stay? You have to go in with blinders on and tolerate the clergy control from the leading brothers

We have all come to that “fork in the road” and were forced to make a decision to stay or go. Can you stay to effect positive change in your situation? That really is a decision to make with the Lord leading you, the Author and Perfecter of your faith.

I will say, however, after much study and many deliberations, that the “right ground,” the so-called ground of oneness, which we heard so much about, was a false teaching. The “local ground of oneness” was a teaching adapted from JNDarby and the Exclusive Brethren of 19th century England. Ironically, using these identical justifications for MOTA, these Darby churches still exalt one leader, called by diverse titles. They have a lineage of leaders. The third? in line was James Taylor Jr who banned WN, and that story can be found. His son James Taylor Jr., the fourth? in line, the “heir apparent,” was every bit as loathsome as Philip Lee. The “ground” teaching is an offshoot of the Recovery teaching, as is this “minister of the age.”

Back to the “ground.” This teaching was developed as a false standard, a cudgel, by which all other churches could be discredited and forever judged. Quite convenient, except that the ground of oneness was never taught in the Bible. Paul never taught it nor followed that pattern of ecclesiology. In Revelation 2-3, John *describes* it but never *prescribes* it. Huge difference here in faithful Bible exposition.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Jay

…
But I also couldn't see the local churches as defunct despite these major errors/sins

Wow! This is a stunning statement. Truly a doctrine of demons if ever there was one. Whose church is it anyway? Yours? Is that your decision to make? “Sin in the church is Ok by me.”

Do you have verses supporting your apathy toward sin in the church of Jesus? He came to save his people from their sin.

Unbelievable. Are you reading your own words? Would you marry such a bride? Do you think Jesus is OK with Laodicea?

The church, if it is the church, is spotless and without wrinkle.

Galatians 5:9
9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

A little leaven leavens the whole lump is a metaphor the apostle Paul uses to compare the effects of false teaching in the church to the results of yeast in bread dough (Galatians 5:9). Just as a small amount of yeast will make a whole loaf of bread rise, a little bit of legalistic teaching will quickly spread, infiltrating the hearts and minds of individual believers until the entire church is contaminated.

https://www.gotquestions.org/little-...hole-lump.html

Witness Lee leavened the whole loaf, and you, Jay, are adding your own leaven.

Nell

[TheStarswillFall]

Originally Posted by Jay

Unfortunately Thyatira is the ... church. their practices are the same in essence... they are full of idolatry. Don't believe me? Let's look at the ... church and all of their idols. These people actually in fact worship... some of the apostles whom they call....

Minister of the Age?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by TheStarswillFall

Minister of the Age?

Maybe. But I've never heard anyone pray to Lee. I have seen a great deal of reverence for him. And yes I would agree with others that......if looking from the outside in.....Lee does resemble a cult leader. I can see that, particularly if looking in as someone who has no experience in the local churches. It definitely seems like they're all following Lee. And I guess in a sense they are, however I'd say they are following his ministry more than HIM per se. And I can see why. His ministry is unique and leads you in a direction where you experience Christ. But there have been times where I myself have just read and read his ministry and became dead spiritually because I was too caught up in reading the ministry as opposed to praying, touching my spirit, and pray reading or just reading the word. Similar to John 5:39

On the other hand Paul himself said 'be imitators of me and as I am of Christ' (1 Corinthians 11:1). But then you would say "Is Lee on the same level as Paul." Idk I guess that's up to each person to decipher. But I certainly would never have gained as much Bible clarity as I have from reading Nee and Lee without them. Are they on Paul's level in their personal life? I don't know. I have seen video of Lee where he definitely seemed like he had the spirit of God upon him. But I don't know. I suppose we will know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:16). As far as his ministry is concerned, Lee has spiritual fruit and he has had spiritual increase in the form of conversion and if the local churches are of God then certainly he has much fruit by way of bringing believers into the line of life and the line of meeting correctly.....if the local churches are correct, and if his ministry is correct

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Jay

On the other hand Paul himself said 'be imitators of me and as I am of Christ' (1 Corinthians 11:1). But then you would say "Is Lee on the same level as Paul." Idk I guess that's up to each person to decipher.

This is a great example of taking a verse out of context to fit into an idea. Paul in the actual context is closing his statements here regarding doing all things to the Glory of God.

Using this verse to support the argument that various fallen men are ranked by according to “levels” is to make the Bible fit your agenda.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Zezima

This is a great example of taking a verse out of context to fit into an idea. Paul in the actual context is closing his statements here regarding doing all things to the Glory of God.

Using this verse to support the argument that various fallen men are ranked by according to “levels” is to make the Bible fit your agenda.

Well we can call Paul a very spiritual man can we not? Sure he's just as fallen as us, but is our spiritual pursuit as successful and advanced as his was? I'm just saying Paul wasn't NOTHING or NO ONE per se. Granted he was just a vessel that God showed mercy on, but he also was someone who was very close to God and that means something. He was also a murderer as was king David and Solomon was a lecher who also happened to build God's physical house on earth. Somewhat of a paradox. Sure God isn't a respecter of persons, but God also called Abraham his friend and he said he loved Jacob but hated Esau. Paradoxical things

I'm not suggesting there is any kind of rank in the body though. Not the point I'm trying to make. I don't say that to imply rank or importance. But these men are in some ways role models insofar as their spiritual pursuits and attainments are concerned. Yes they had major sins and major failures, but we also can't say that had no major attainments and major success either. This is where we need some nuance to have a more broad understanding

But I will say that those in the recovery have placed probably way too much reverence and honor on Nee and Lee. To the point where those around Lee would cover up for his major sins. It's probably true that if Lee was a smaller member then his sins wouldn't go unnoticed or be swept under the rug as they have been. In the Bible we all knew David's sins and Solomon's sins and Saul's sins, because the Bible records them. But when it comes to Nee and Lee their sins have been whitewashed to protect the integrity of the recovery. Idk if that's something of the will of God. It seems to me that that's more of a boasting point for the enemy. I think it gives less validity to the recovery as a whole and it wreaks of the works of man and not of God

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Jay

Well we can call Paul a very spiritual man can we not? Sure he's just as fallen as us, but is our spiritual pursuit as successful and advanced as his was? I'm just saying Paul wasn't NOTHING or NO ONE per se. Granted he was just a vessel that God showed mercy on, but he also was someone who was very close to God and that means something. He was also a murderer as was king David and Solomon was a lecher who also happened to build God's physical house on earth. Somewhat of a paradox. Sure God isn't a respecter of persons, but God also called Abraham his friend and he said he loved Jacob but hated Esau. Paradoxical things

I'm not suggesting there is any kind of rank in the body though. Not the point I'm trying to make. I don't say that to imply rank or importance. But these men are in some ways role models insofar as their spiritual pursuits and attainments are concerned. Yes they had major sins and major failures, but we also can't say that had no major attainments and major success either. This is where we need some nuance to have a more broad understanding

But I will say that those in the recovery have placed probably way too much reverence and honor on Nee and Lee. To the point where those around Lee would cover up for his major sins. It's probably true that if Lee was a smaller member then his sins wouldn't go unnoticed or be swept under the rug as they have been. In the Bible we all knew David's sins and Solomon's sins and Saul's sins, because the Bible records them. But when it comes to Nee and Lee their sins have been whitewashed to protect the integrity of the recovery. Idk if that's something of the will of God. It seems to me that that's more of a boasting point for the enemy. I think it gives less validity to the recovery as a whole and it wreaks of the works of man and not of God

You were taking a Bible verse out of context to fit your point. You quoted a verse from 1 Cor. to support your point, but that verse isn’t used by the author to prove the point you’re making.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Jay

I have other threads going on and I've written a lot on this website recently. Can you show me where I quoted 1 Cor. to support my point so I can understand what you're talking about right now....

Sure thing, here is where you quoted 1 Cor to support your point.

Originally Posted by Jay

On the other hand Paul himself said 'be imitators of me and as I am of Christ' (1 Corinthians 11:1). But then you would say "Is Lee on the same level as Paul." Idk I guess that's up to each person to decipher

Here Jay, you use 1 Corinthians 11:1 as support to the rational behind following witness lee.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Zezima

Sure thing, here is where you quoted 1 Cor to support your point.




Here Jay, you use 1 Corinthians 11:1 as support to the rational behind following witness lee.

Here's my full quote without being taken out of context-

On the other hand Paul himself said 'be imitators of me and as I am of Christ' (1 Corinthians 11:1). But then you would say "Is Lee on the same level as Paul." Idk I guess that's up to each person to decipher. But I certainly would never have gained as much Bible clarity as I have from reading Nee and Lee without them. Are they on Paul's level in their personal life? I don't know. I have seen video of Lee where he definitely seemed like he had the spirit of God upon him. But I don't know. I suppose we will know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:16). As far as his ministry is concerned, Lee has spiritual fruit and he has had spiritual increase in the form of conversion and if the local churches are of God then certainly he has much fruit by way of bringing believers into the line of life and the line of meeting correctly.....if the local churches are correct, and if his ministry is correct

Clearly this is a conjecture, or hypothesis, me saying

"Is Lee on the same level as Paul." Idk I guess that's up to each person to decipher

is clearly a "what if" statement. But you've taken that out of context and claimed I am asserting that Lee IS in fact on the same level as Paul. Which is underhanded

If you go back and read our exchanges and what I actually said, you're accusing me of uplifting Lee in a certain way that I'm not necessarily doing. As I explained here, which you apparently ignored in lieu of your taken out of context attack-

I'm not suggesting there is any kind of rank in the body though. Not the point I'm trying to make. I don't say that to imply rank or importance. But these men are in some ways role models insofar as their spiritual pursuits and attainments are concerned. Yes they had major sins and major failures, but we also can't say that had no major attainments and major success either. This is where we need some nuance to have a more broad understanding

So essentially you're taking things I said, distorting what I meant by them, and applying them to your bent that I'm uplifting a false apostle (Lee). When actually I'm just pointing out that like Paul, Lee had major impact on the body of Christ and they both did great works to bring about God's economy. Paul received the revelation, and Lee distilled it, expounded upon it, and presented it to the body in an up to date and understandable way. Does that mean I'm worshiping Lee? No it doesn't. But I can recognize achievement and give credit where it's due

I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to twist and distort things I'm saying into your method and mode of slander please

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Jay

Here's my full quote without being taken out of context-




Clearly this is a conjecture, or hypothesis, me saying is clearly a "what if" statement. But you've taken that out of context and claimed I am asserting that Lee IS in fact on the same level as Paul. Which is underhanded

If you go back and read our exchanges and what I actually said, you're accusing me of uplifting Lee in a certain way that I'm not necessarily doing. As I explained here, which you apparently ignored in lieu of your taken out of context attack-

So essentially you're taking things I said, distorting what I meant by them, and applying them to your bent that I'm uplifting a false apostle (Lee). When actually I'm just pointing out that like Paul, Lee had major impact on the body of Christ and they both did great works to bring about God's economy. Paul received the revelation, and Lee distilled it, expounded upon it, and presented it to the body in an up to date and understandable way. Does that mean I'm worshiping Lee? No it doesn't. But I can recognize achievement and give credit where it's due

I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to twist and distort things I'm saying into your method and mode of slander please

From my perspective, I understood the addition of that scripture within your statements as support for your statement. It’s not that you’re uplifting lee, rather you’re using the verse to support that “hypothetical” of it being possible to rationalize.

“On the one hand ABC (insert Bible verse), therefore XYZ. “


Perhaps I have misunderstood your conjecture, though I am now curious why you added that verse into your words. Especially in parenthesis like you did.