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

[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.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

There's no way to change the scenario of the leadership there. It's just about as tight as the papal system. Unless certain elders came to me and apologized and said they were wrong about certain things. But they won't, because that's not how human nature works in leadership positions. If you're not in the position you're s.o.l. with regards to whatever problem you have, as demonstrated by many many testimonies on this website. That's just how human leadership is. You're s.o.l. if they disagree with you because they hold the position, you don't. So at any time they can pull the rank card on you to get their way, and they have. There's no way to fight that. Particularly when you have a scenario of "well we brothers prayed and WE FEEL this is best for you," which alludes to them being closer to God than you therefore whatever they say goes

For Brother Lee to take money from the saints to fund his sketchy side business with his unethical sons and then pay the saints back with their own tithe money is serious stuff. For elders to scoff at members who need financial help while millions of dollars is going to build more training centers and buy plots of land to bury their prominent members. Those are serious high level problems and were any apologies given? Maybe, was restitution made? I don't think in full, and in many cases none at all

I'm just a small brother who needs other members. I can't theologically leave for anywhere else, but I also haven't found myself going back. So......anyway this world seems about closing. The age is darker and darker. May not be long before the Lord returns anyway

But I know at least in my locality they have no fruit. No new ones. No lasting success in their gospel efforts. I wonder how God could bless them when they treat the lowly members like they're nothing. Sure they're still praising the Lord every day but they also ignore a lot. No one questions leadership, no one really takes care of needy members. So they're all just in a Jesus daze. They all just have blinders on, which I guess is what they've been trained to do. "Don't listen to the dissenters. Anyone who is causing problems ignore." Well that's a nice way of absolving yourself from any accountability. They're so hyper-focused on Jesus that they don't see something right in front of their face. Which is what they've been trained to do. Be good little lemmings who take direction. And if they don't then they're "rebels." If they step out of line then they become a problem and that's a powerful adhesive against change

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

I can't agree objectively that the ground isn't biblical or the right thing. I've stated many times on this site before that it is and given the Bible verses that back it up. No the Bible doesn't say exactly "the local ground is one church per one city." But it gives a clear picture of it

Now it's possible that Lee for many years of his ministry was wrong in his personal life and how he handled the situation with his sons. And it looks as if he was very wrong with finances. But I can't say his theology is wrong. The only thing I could say is that it does seem like you all have a point on the MOTA thing and he for sure leaned into that moniker and he propped himself up like he was the head guy of the whole recovery while also claiming he wasn't. I'm certain that all major LC business flowed through him like all the business of a mafia flows through a godfather. I'm quite certain that he gave the yes or the no on many many matters in the entire LC, and to say he didn't is not truthful. But that's as far as I can go to critique Lee. I can't say anything about his doctrine or his theology aside from maybe that and maybe certain things about the authority of the church and the authority of the leading ones, which concept probably stemmed from Nee. And it seems those concepts were and are being abused by the leadership. That's as far as I can go, and that is a very large thing though. A very large thing to misuse. But the rest of his theology I find wholly biblical including the ground of the church. If he overemphasized it then probably that was part of his major sins and errors. But WE shouldn't underemphasize it either. I believe it's very important

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

"The Recovery" does seem like an offshoot of the Exclusive Brethren or perhaps Nee and Lee borrowed what they got from it.
After my family and I stopped meeting with the Church in Renton, we began meeting with East Renton Community Church. In my time there and in my conversations with the pastor, I learned prior to becoming a pastor he was excommunicated from the Exclusive Brethren. He conveyed to me some of the practices of the Exclusive Brethren which are identical to the Local Churches except with different terminology. "The one meeting place" versus "The ground of the church".

[Jay]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

"The Recovery" does seem like an offshoot of the Exclusive Brethren or perhaps Nee and Lee borrowed what they got from it.
After my family and I stopped meeting with the Church in Renton, we began meeting with East Renton Community Church. In my time there and in my conversations with the pastor, I learned prior to becoming a pastor he was excommunicated from the Exclusive Brethren. He conveyed to me some of the practices of the Exclusive Brethren which are identical to the Local Churches except with different terminology. "The one meeting place" versus "The ground of the church".

Objectively I don't see what's so wrong with this. sounds like the Brethren were on the right track, although it seems they didn't expand on the concept to include all the believers in that locality meeting at one place. At least insofar as calling it 'the church in such and such city.' Which would be more Biblically correct than calling it 'the one meeting place' which is kind of abstract. It's much more solid to say 'the church in such and such city'

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Jay

Objectively I don't see what's so wrong with this. sounds like the Brethren were on the right track, although it seems they didn't expand on the concept to include all the believers in that locality meeting at one place. At least insofar as calling it 'the church in such and such city.' Which would be more Biblically correct than calling it 'the one meeting place' which is kind of abstract. It's much more solid to say 'the church in such and such city'

The problem with OCOC (one church one city) is that Lee took a description of the New Testament churches meeting in a city…because that’s where the believers lived in those days, and turned it into his personal prescription or a command for how the church was to meet for all time.

This is a hallmark of the Lee method…turning a description into a prescription, a command. Many of Lee’s teachings followed this pattern. Another example…authority.

https://www.gotquestions.org/descrip...scriptive.html

Much has been written in this arena regarding the honest use of words overall, not just in biblical interpretation. Lee was very creative in his use of words which relied on him for interpretation.

Nell

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Nell

The problem with OCOC (one church one city) is that Lee took a description of the New Testament churches meeting in a city…because that’s where the believers lived in those days, and turned it into his personal prescription or a command for how the church was to meet for all time.

This is a hallmark of the Lee method…turning a description into a prescription, a command. Many of Lee’s teachings followed this pattern. Another example…authority.

https://www.gotquestions.org/descrip...scriptive.html

Much has been written in this arena regarding the honest use of words overall, not just in biblical interpretation. Lee was very creative in his use of words which relied on him for interpretation.

Nell

The reason why I don't think it's just simply descriptive is because of Deuteronomy chapter 12 where God clearly says we can't just choose to meet at any old place we decide to or feel comfortable at, but rather only at the place of the Lord's choosing

I genuinely see no basis to call that sectarian. In fact sects already exist. It seems to me that OCOC is a 'calling back' from the sects to the proper ground

I also think to whatever extent you're conflating the concept of a unique meeting place with the concept of being one with all believers. I think both of those things can be true at the same time. We are one with all the believers, however most of them are not in oneness with us. Now it could be that by claiming "we are what God wants" is a kind of exclusivity, but think about it for a minute and break it down- are you suggesting we go and blend with the denominations? what would that accomplish exactly? it probably would just cause a lot of problems and there would be confusion and a lack of enjoyment for both parties. those from the LC would want to call on the Lord, exercise their spirit, and sing praises. those in the denominations would likely just feel odd about that and what do they have to offer exactly? I'd certainly appreciate fellowship with other believers. which in that sense, it would be nice. but eventually their lack of exercising their spirit would be troublesome to LC veterans. it's a strange thing to think about and it's for sure multifaceted, because probably there is some elitist and exclusive behavior from the local churches, who take pride in their Biblical correctness. which could be an overall reason why they don't have much fruit as far as increase, and probably why you view them as sectarian. it comes down to behavior I suppose

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jay

Objectively I don't see what's so wrong with this. sounds like the Brethren were on the right track, although it seems they didn't expand on the concept to include all the believers in that locality meeting at one place. At least insofar as calling it 'the church in such and such city.' Which would be more Biblically correct than calling it 'the one meeting place' which is kind of abstract. It's much more solid to say 'the church in such and such city'

I think it is hypocritical will take the road to sectarianism.
Hypocritical in the sense. Take for example the pseudo Blended MR from Bellevue. Paraphrasing an example he gave regarding the local ground is if you want to go a certain person's home, there is only one address. Not multiple. Meaning the Church in Bellevue is like a legal wife. Another other church than wants to call themselves a church is not like a legal wife. My mom had pretty much said the same thing, but in other words.
It's hypocritical because if you are a brother meeting with the Church in Seattle for example and you raised a concern to an elder the local churches are becoming like ministry churches, and then are requested to go meet somewhere else. By making such a statement does such an elder truly believe the Church in Seattle is the only legitimate church in Seattle. It's hypocritical.
Taking this way of one church one city is also sectarian. Having lived in Renton for nearly 25 years, Christians I've met from services, riding the bus, etc, there are many home meetings throughout Renton. Yet the attitude within the local churches is they will only go to LC home meetings. And vice versa when I was meeting with the Church in Renton, when it came to home meetings they had room if you met with the local churches.
One of my regrets. Returning from summer vacation August 2010, not sharing my experience meeting John Ingalls at the Renton home meeting.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

I think it is hypocritical will take the road to sectarianism.
Hypocritical in the sense. Take for example the pseudo Blended MR from Bellevue. Paraphrasing an example he gave regarding the local ground is if you want to go a certain person's home, there is only one address. Not multiple. Meaning the Church in Bellevue is like a legal wife. Another other church than wants to call themselves a church is not like a legal wife. My mom had pretty much said the same thing, but in other words.
It's hypocritical because if you are a brother meeting with the Church in Seattle for example and you raised a concern to an elder the local churches are becoming like ministry churches, and then are requested to go meet somewhere else. By making such a statement does such an elder truly believe the Church in Seattle is the only legitimate church in Seattle. It's hypocritical.
Taking this way of one church one city is also sectarian. Having lived in Renton for nearly 25 years, Christians I've met from services, riding the bus, etc, there are many home meetings throughout Renton. Yet the attitude within the local churches is they will only go to LC home meetings. And vice versa when I was meeting with the Church in Renton, when it came to home meetings they had room if you met with the local churches.
One of my regrets. Returning from summer vacation August 2010, not sharing my experience meeting John Ingalls at the Renton home meeting.

There's a lot to unpack here. First of all the term church just means congregation. In the original Greek it means 'gathering of the called out ones.' So in a sense wherever believers meet there is the church. Ok.....but, we have Deuteronomy chapter 12 where the Lord clearly says we can't just meet at any old place we want to, but at the place of his choosing. So where is that then? That's a golden question in this equation

As far as who is welcome in the LC, I've never ever seen anyone who met at a denomination turned away. I've never felt that type of pressure or heard that type of concept being spoken. Rather the opposite, I've only heard that we accept all believers in our meetings. And from time to time some would come and they weren't treated weirdly or ostracized. So I'm not quite sure why you're alluding to that type of thing happening. Have you seen it happen?


Also I'm not sure why you view the concept of the local ground as like a legality. I don't think that's what it is per se. I think it's more of a doctrine, and as far as I can tell is completely correct. I think the brothers are right to stand strong on that doctrine because it safeguards against divisions, which is one of satan's biggest tactics against the building of the church. one thing I haven't heard anyone on this website say or mention is how satan is involved in the denominations and his plan to divide the body through them. I absolutely see that that's what he has done throughout the centuries starting with Catholicism. and he's brought in a lot of weird and damaging practices into these divided centers of gathering. so what I see from that is his goal is to disconnect and distort. to fight against that you need a proper vision (Proverbs 29:18)

As far as your experience with that elder in Seattle I don't really understand why he would request for you to meet somewhere else. that is confusing and seems odd and wrong for him to say given the context you presented, unless there's more to the story

And to touch again on your line "the church in Bellevue is like a legal wife." I think your thought here is really similar to women who say things like "my husband is so controlling because he won't let me talk to other men." think about that for a minute......However with that said I don't believe at all that anyone in the LC would tell another member that they COULDN'T go and meet somewhere else. I think they have advised and admonished against that type of thing in ways. Which I understand the warnings behind that. So again I can't really co-sign on your experience here as the LC "controlling" the members with "legalities" over meeting only at the LC. because I have never heard of that type of thing or experienced it. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but certainly nothing I've ever heard about. As far as I know the door in and out of the church is always open