StandfortheTestimony.Org

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

A big error with Canfield's thinking is that he believes that the churches in the Recovery movement "came together simply as Christians, in the oneness of the Body of Christ, rather than on the basis of some teaching, practice, or person."

The fact is, this is false. The churches in the Recovery movement never, ever stood simply as Christians nor simply in the oneness of the Body of Christ. Ever. They were always about being a special, elite movement apart from the rest of the Body. Always.

Ack!! IE just stopped working and lost my post. Starting over.

Don't be so harsh. The beginning was a bunch of very small independent bible fellowships mostly listening to reel-to-reel tapes of this Chinese man. Their eyes were being opened to a Christian world beyond their flock of origin. But before the four or so groups in mostly small towns in Texas gathered to Houston (and the same thing happened in other places besides Texas), there was already some concern about who was controlling them. In Texas, part of the drive to consolidate was to become strong against someone they saw as controlling (and that someone should have been Lee, but it wasn't yet evident).

This all happened while I was in elementary school or maybe Jr High. All in the 60s. By the time I came along, they had already started expanding back out. They had been in Dallas for a year and a half or so. Control and elitism were part of the reasons they came. Partly to "take the ground" before they would have to duke it out with one of the other Nee coworker groups.

Canfield saw almost half of his time as reasonably pure. He is probably over-attributing a lot of it. From a studied perspective in 2012, it looks like 99 & 44/100ths percent messed up. From the late 70s, it is closer to half (at least until you study some more).

So be kind. Under no scenario was it Always "a special, elite movement apart from the rest of the Body." Just close to it when viewed from 2012.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

So be kind. Under no scenario was it Always "a special, elite movement apart from the rest of the Body." Just close to it when viewed from 2012.

I understand your perspective, but I stand on my remarks.

I'm proceeding from the attitude of Lee and other leaders, which may have not at every point in time yet trickled down to every new member. But in short time it did.

The very first time any new member heard "the Recovery" being contrasted with "Christianity" by someone in authority at that point the movement ceased to be to them a group simply gathering as the Body and became an elitist group. Sentimental idealism aside.

Every member of the Recovery at some point became an exclusivist elitist. And in most cases it was fairly quickly.

[Cal]

Exclusivist elitists don't usually go around with the conscious admission that they are exclusivist elitists. But that doesn't change what they are.

I'm not trying to be mean, but a big problem with the LRC is the denial of what it really is. Canfield is just doomed to repeat history if he doesn't see this in a fundamental way. His continued trumpeting of the local ground shows that he doesn't.

[Cal]

If I could ask Canfield and other local grounders one question, it would be this:

"How much and in how much detail have you really, truly prayed about this doctrine?"

I doubt many of them have really gone to the Lord about whether their attitude on this item is truly of God. I think like most things from Lee they took it on faith and just ran with it.

That's the LRC way, isn't it?

I remember a debate I had a way back with this staunch LSMer about the local ground. I couldn't convince him of anything, of course, so I suggested he pray for ten minutes for thirty days and see what the Lord told him.

You know what he replied? He said he didn't need to pray.

That tells you all you need to know.