Against the LC Practice of Prophesying

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

But what did "profitable for me personally" really get us? Better hooks to draw us back. An itch that could only be scratched at the tree in the middle of the "prophesying" times in the LCM?

Sometimes I think you are so obsessed with Lee's faults that you can't see anything objectively. Even Christian psychologists warn of the dangers of looking back with only bitterness and rancor. Doesn't God work all things for good? Are you so bothered that I would remember anything positive in my LC experience?

Originally Posted by OBW

And what was the indicator that we had the inspiration and anointing of the Lord and the Spirit? Too often feedback from others who were mired in the same cesspool. The ones that are still there defending the very things that eventually drove you out. I am convinced that even though it has been a few years now, you are still too close to the leeks and garlic of the LCM and think that it is valuable.

And how do we know that what you post has any value? How do we know whether or not your mind has been pickled in the AOG/LCM/IBC brines, and not God's word? I have no idea whether you had any inspiration and anointing of the Lord and the Spirit. But I can speak for myself, and I get a little disturbed with this OBW shadow following me around and claiming my thoughts are "mired in the same cesspool." Does it disturb you that much that I say anything good about that place? Get over it bro!

Originally Posted by OBW

It is a package deal. Basic salvation may not have been polluted. But even maybe that was. Do you really think that saying three words "Oh Lord Jesus" actually saves you? There is power in the words only if you understand what they mean and you mean them when you say it.

And where in the world did i ever say that? I have never heard anyone say that, not even Lee. I have always said that we are saved by grace thru faith. (Eph 2.8) If you are going to refute this statement taken out of context, then why don't you also go after "the sinner's prayer." Do you really think that someone can repeat a few words off a sheet of paper and be actually saved?

Read Romans 10.13 and tell me what it says. Are you telling me that no one has ever been saved during a calamity by crying out to God?

[Cal]

RE: Ohio and OBW discussion.

Saying you got some good out of something is not the same as recommending it to others. I probably have gotten some good from Taco Bell, but I wouldn't go around recommending it because there are better restaurants.

Most of us got some good from the LCM, some of which may have been difficult to get elsewhere. The basic healthy teachings of the Brethren and the inner life teachers are only recently finding their way into the mainstream, forty years after we heard them.

What I still take with me from the LCM that is precious is that God is in me as the Spirit close and available with all his Triune riches for me to enjoy. I'm not saying you couldn't get something similar somewhere else now, but you'd probably have to wait or dig for it. I also got a great appreciation of the generality of the Church and the equal status of the members. The idea of generality is now in the mainstream, but only with the advent of the community church movement, which is only about 20 or so years old.

Now, both these things eventually got distorted in the LCM, almost beyond recognition. But that didn't stop God from impressing me with the essential TRUTH of these matters and of others, which has remained after the dross of unnecessary LCM enhancements was burned away.

Like I said, saying you got good out of something is not the same as recommending it. Anyway, the LCM I got good out of doesn't exist anymore, so I couldn't recommend it if I wanted to.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Like I said, saying you got good out of something is not the same as recommending it. Anyway, the LCM I got good out of doesn't exist anymore anyway, so I couldn't recommend it if I wanted to.

That's right. The good is long gone. Kind of like Taco Bell. I remember back in the mid-70's going with some friends there. I had a great chicken burrito supreme. What a great first impression! Then I tried it a few more times, and it was just not the same. Never went back. Maybe it was just good because I had the munchies.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Anyway, the LCM I got good out of doesn't exist anymore, so I couldn't recommend it if I wanted to.

I couldn't agree with you more. Not since 1986 in my experience. Now the LCM is just a shadow of what it used to be.

What I can recommend is to read Leading with Love by Alexander Strauch. In my opinion this book trumps anything Living Stream can publish.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Saying you got some good out of something is not the same as recommending it to others. I probably have gotten some good from Taco Bell, but I wouldn't go around recommending it because there are better restaurants.

Most of us got some good from the LCM, some of which may have been difficult to get elsewhere. The basic healthy teachings of the Brethren and the inner life teachers are only recently finding their way into the mainstream, forty years after we heard them.

But we are not just a bunch of exes, talking about what was before, understanding that we are not going back there. We are speaking in front of those who are needing to understand why they don't want to stay there. And while the past two days may not have had a comment about Lee as a gifted minister, it is a fairly regular statement made by some of our most regular exes and some newer ones.

Do we really think that? And is the challenge as to whether it is true so reprehensible that rather than think about it, we shoot at the messenger?

And when positive experiences are mentioned, are they clearly isolated from what we want to reiterate is just cause to reject Lee?

I have raised the issue of Paul's words concerning reasons for instructing or rejecting/refuting teachers and so far I can find no reason to exclude Nee or Lee from one or both of these categories. And no one has really given me a reason to rethink it besides pointing to something that they consider to be truth that Lee taught. But even if I agree on that particular point, does it excuse Lee from the general restraints on the ministers/teachers we should listen to?

So if an apparently great chef is working in a restaurant making really great dishes, but worked into virtually everything is just a hint of arsenic — not enough to kill, but enough to damage you and harm you a little — do we continue to recommend that restaurant after we discover the truth about it? (Arsenic may not be the best example since you can actually develop some tolerance for it rather than just getting slowly sicker and dying.)

I ask the question. If you don't want a discussion, don't respond. I am not in the habit of chasing around people who ignore what I say. Or if you respond that you don't care and don't want to discuss it, that is fine.

But just as you think it is not harmful to give out kudos to Lee and the LCM for certain things, if I disagree, am I precluded from expressing my disagreement? If I am, then I am being required to sit quietly while you and others say what I can only regard are potentially damaging statements without anyone providing any kind of challenge to it. If you don't want to take on the challenge, don't. But don't think that it means that others should not have the ability to assess both sides for themselves. Silence me and you silence a position that is tied to the Word. Ohio just challenged whether I had really considered and prayed about it. I have considered it over a fairly long period of time. It has been prayed about.

Maybe I should ask the same thing in reverse. Have any of you considered and prayed about whether it is a good idea to continue to suggest that Lee was a gifted minster of the Word? Or just a naturally gifted speaker that captured all of us at one time or another?

Or would you rather I just shut up and allow my ideas to fall back into the threads that are on the third page back of languishing threads and eventually be lost in antiquity.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Maybe I should ask the same thing in reverse. Have any of you considered and prayed about whether it is a good idea to continue to suggest that Lee was a gifted minster of the Word? Or just a naturally gifted speaker that captured all of us at one time or another?

Or would you rather I just shut up and allow my ideas to fall back into the threads that are on the third page back of languishing threads and eventually be lost in antiquity.

It isn't black and white. That's the whole issue. There was some good and some bad. I think you have the kind of mind that wants to categorize it as one or the other. Others are less comfortable doing that. Ohio is one. He feels like you are leaning on him a bit and he responded to you. Just take his feedback at face value, process it and see what the Lord says to you about it.

To me what makes the LCM such a difficult thing to deal with is precisely because it seemed to have such good things, alongside the bad things. Why the dichotomy? Didn't the Lord say a tree was either good or bad? It seems your approach has been to analyze the good things away, to say they were just emotion or delusion. Maybe some were. But I can't believe they all were. Some of those good things were precious to me. The LCM didn't own them. God did. But it would be sad indeed if we felt we had to abandon them to excise all influences of the LCM just to be "free."

It's the baby and the bathwater question. And we all have to deal with it differently. So Ohio is saying, I think, let him deal with it his way. He's comfortable with that, why shouldn't you be? When you continually qualify his positive comments with negative ones it makes him feel like you are saying he is wrong.

Ohio is a sensitive guy. You are very brainy guy. Brainy guys like you and me tend to step on sensitive people's feelings. So take that into consideration when you comment on his posts. Emotional intelligence is the key here.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It isn't black and white. That's the whole issue. There was some good and some bad. I think you have the kind of mind that wants to categorize it as one or the other. Others are less comfortable doing that. Ohio is one. He feels like you are leaning on him a bit and he responded to you. Just take his feedback at face value, process it and see what the Lord says to you about it.

To me what makes the LCM such a difficult thing to deal with is precisely because it seemed to have such good things, alongside the bad things. Why the dichotomy? Didn't the Lord say a tree was either good or bad? It seems your approach has been to analyze the good things away, to say they were just emotion or delusion. Maybe some were. But I can't believe they all were. Some of those good things were precious to me. The LCM didn't own them. God did. But it would be sad indeed if we felt we had to abandon them to excise all influences of the LCM just to be "free."

It's the baby and the bathwater question. And we all have to deal with it differently. So Ohio is saying, I think, let him deal with it his way. He's comfortable with that, why shouldn't you be? When you continually qualify his positive comments with negative ones it makes him feel like you are saying he is wrong.

Ohio is a sensitive guy. You are very brainy guy. Brainy guys like you and me tend to step on sensitive people's feelings. So take that into consideration when you comment on his posts. Emotional intelligence is the key here.

Actually I am extremely analytical like OBW, but that is both a strength and a weakness, depending on how employed. For example, I always excelled in engineering analysis, aced all my classes, given the tough assignments at work, etc. But the downside is to get mired in all the petty details, "analysis paralysis" if you will.

None of us is perfect, and we are all a mixture at best. I have tried to be fair, as the scripture says, "I will have mercy on those who show mercy." For example, I have always tried to limits my comments to Lee's actions rather than his unseen motives. Only God can know the hearts. Because I take a middle-of-the-road position, I sometimes get it from both sides, and not just here on the forums.

About the time my wife and I were leaving the LCM a decade ago, we watched a great series of video presentations by a well-respected Christian counselor named Gary Smalley. He has helped many a brother and sister involved in all sorts of difficult relationships. It was he who presented the concept of "treasure hunting" the painful parts of our past. Since God loves us dearly, and has worked all things for our good, it is very beneficial for us psychologically, spiritually, emotionally, and even physically to discover and identify "the good" in our past.

Thirdly, I cannot judge Lee to a higher standard that I would other ministers. For example, I have been to congregations which excessively promoted tongues, to the point where they saw tongues in almost every scripture. I didn't like it, but that was their way, and they have lots of company. Likewise the practices promoted by Lee. Prophecying, or allowing every member to speak, is "a" way, but not "the" way, kind of like tongues is "a" way. There's nothing inherently evil about about any of these promoted ways, and it is only the excessive stress which can be detrimental to believers.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It isn't black and white. That's the whole issue. There was some good and some bad. I think you have the kind of mind that wants to categorize it as one or the other. Others are less comfortable doing that. Ohio is one. He feels like you are leaning on him a bit and he responded to you. Just take his feedback at face value, process it and see what the Lord says to you about it.

To me what makes the LCM such a difficult thing to deal with is precisely because it seemed to have such good things, alongside the bad things. Why the dichotomy? Didn't the Lord say a tree was either good or bad?

I'll not burden the post with a complete quote. We know what is there and responding to this part alone is sufficient.

I read both your post and Ohio's that follows before this. I will start by saying that I do believe that we need to seriously consider our experiences in the LCM. I cannot say that they are all bad, or that any particular one is. But the environment was so charged with teachings where something is dismissed for something else (because of God's economy or some other overlay), where we were constantly reminded of our special position due to our (divisive) stand of oneness "on the proper ground," and were focused to strongly on finding types of Christ (and the church) that were designed to point us away from now and instead to the age to come — to a period when we would be "overcomers" (unlike so many other poor mooing Christians) — and so on. How, in the midst of all of that can we assert that the "positive" experiences are clearly positive?

I will concede that some may truly be. But if they are not described independent of the problem that is the LCM, such as in conjunction with a statement like "the rich ministry of WL" or "WL was a gifted minister of the Word," then I have a problem with it. It has nothing to do with emotions.

You say that it isn't black and white. And I would agree. But once there are certain signs, Paul said to shut them down, not to cherry-pick.

Do you really think that anyone could get away with teaching entirely bad theology — then or now — and have a following? So none of them were entirely bad. But the presence of certain things was Pauls' sign to turn off the spigot. Not just take care of what you accept from their ministry.

In short, a teacher with a collection of good and bad was rejected as bad.

Period. End of story.

That was Paul's rule. Not mine.

Don't try to sort out the chicken from the bones. Or separate the wheat from the leaven.

Reject them altogether without reference to what they taught that might have been good.

Open the dumpster and drop it all in.

There are many more teachers that are not rejected. Whatever the rejected teacher taught that was good will come back from the good teachers. And if it does not come back, maybe we should take a closer look to see if it really was so good.

Every time we suggest that Lee was a gifted minster of the Word, we deny the reasons to reject him altogether.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

In short, a teacher with a collection of good and bad was rejected as bad.

Sounds good. Until you consider every teacher is a mixture of good and bad. Including you. To play the advocate where is the line? Please provide a reference for "Paul's rule," too. I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Really though, dealing Witness Lee or any teacher is relatively is easy. Because like you said you can drop a teacher.

But mostly we were talking about the teachings and the experiences. Those are the difficult ones to sort out.

We are really talking about two things: Whether there was anything good about our experiences, and how to talk about it going forward. As I said, saying you got good out of something is not the same as recommending it. It's just citing what to you are the facts.

In general, I don't think you should ask people to act like they got nothing good out of it just because you are squeamish someone might take that as a recommendation.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Igzy

How, in the midst of all of that can we assert that the "positive" experiences are clearly positive?

I don't like this kind of agnostic approach. To me it's like the question: how do you know you really exist? At some point you have to take a stand one way or the other. Again, if you think you had no good experiences in the LCM, no experiences you will take into eternity and treasure, then fine. Others don't necessarily agree with you.

How can you be sure what you believe and experience now is good and real? I mean, how far do you want to push the skepticism? All the way into cynicism?

The bottom line is we walk by faith, not knowledge. Because whatever we think we know is always based on certain more basic assumptions, including that our reasoning ability in any way actually corresponds to reality. Nothing really can be proved without assuming by faith something more fundamental. This is why there is no proof of God, because if he exists he's the most fundamental principle there is. There is no more basic principle on which to base a proof of him.

The same goes for the most basic things we believe. At some point we just have faith that what we think we know is true. You can't really exist, except as a tediously negative cynic, without doing so.

So the only real clue we have is what is the fruit of our lives and beliefs. You shall know them by their fruit. Check out the fruit of how you think and live. There the answer lies.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Maybe I should ask the same thing in reverse. Have any of you considered and prayed about whether it is a good idea to continue to suggest that Lee was a gifted minster of the Word? Or just a naturally gifted speaker that captured all of us at one time or another?

Again, this is part of the whole question we ask here.

• Who and what was Witness Lee?
• What was the LCM?
• What were our experiences there, and what do they mean going forward?

For some people, these questions have not been answered yet. Let's not pretend they have. If they have been for you, great!. Make your case accordingly. But you have to take different approaches to arguing your case with different people. One size does not fit all. Make your case with care and sensitivity. Don't take the attitude of, Well, I was logical so they should get it. You will win very few that way.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sometimes I think you are so obsessed with Lee's faults that you can't see anything objectively. Even Christian psychologists warn of the dangers of looking back with only bitterness and rancor. Doesn't God work all things for good? Are you so bothered that I would remember anything positive in my LC experience?

You mistake what I believe is reasonable warning against a truly unqualified teacher. Paul would have rejected him in a heartbeat long before he arrived in the US. And probably would have done the same with Nee before he hardly had his first little church.

Yes, God works all things for good. But continuing to comment on Lee and/or Nee as "gifted ministers" is contrary to the very declaration that Paul would make that we never should have listened to them in the first place. It is true that we had insufficient information at that time to do that. But while it is hindsight, it is valuable to those who are still there, or who might seek to return or to pine after what we think was so great about the time.

God uses all things. But that does not mean that he orchestrates them to happen so that he can use them. Surely he does at times. But very often, he just uses what he gets. I am skeptical that he intended for any of us to spend time in Lee's garlic room. That does not mean that I dispute anyone's salvation while there. Or declare that they had nothing positive within that time. But on the whole (not necessarily in every detail or situation) I do not believe that we were all positively directed to this place by God so that we could have this experience for God to use for our good. Yet surely he did use it.

And he used the experience of stopping in at the legal whore house in Nevada. But are you ready to declare that it was God's intent that whoever that applies to was there sovereignly so that God could use it? Or is in fact one of those things that God gets to use because that is what we hand him to use?

Don't like the example? It is very real. So why is an experience of being in a church that messed with our minds with respect to right thinking and practice concerning God something that we should simply declare that God intended to use for our good rather than it was just one among many things in our lives that was what he got to use? I can't find that it makes being there positive. Just an alternative way of saying that we were actually there. And yes, we really were there. So that is what God got to use.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Does it disturb you that much that I say anything good about that place? Get over it bro!

It is not just that you say anything good about the place. It is that you are among a few that continue to say that Lee was some gifted minister. He was a gifted speaker, but that is not the same as being a gifted minister of the Word. I think that we are allowing the fact that he did not simply jettison the Bible outright and teach an entirely different religion as evidence that his errors, both theological and practical, would not have Paul writing to have Lee removed from any kind of teaching role.

So I think it is worthy of a challenge. Can you accept it as a challenge and explain why you think I am wrong rather than just complaining that you don't like it? Are you unable to refute that Lee falls into the category of those who are feeding their belly in a manner that Paul points out. Or that he is teaching myths and endless genealogies along with truth? Do you think Paul would have tolerated that?

Don't bother just complaining. I think that it is a legitimate point worthy of consideration. You don't even have to respond. Just consider. And I am not just following you around. But you have provided a couple of comments I see as problematic in an environment that concerns itself with the errors of the LCM. I believe that is worthy of comment in return. Shall I ignore it just because it is you?

Get over it, bro!

Originally Posted by Ohio

And where in the world did I ever say that? I have never heard anyone say that, not even Lee. I have always said that we are saved by grace thru faith. (Eph 2.8) If you are going to refute this statement taken out of context, then why don't you also go after "the sinner's prayer." Do you really think that someone can repeat a few words off a sheet of paper and be actually saved?

just saying the sinner's prayer does not save you. And I know that there are probably some times when people who are just too nice to tell some gospel preacher to go away that they go through the words to get rid of them.

Unlike Benson Phillips (who I believe is at least one that I have heard directly say that just because they said the words, they are now saved whether they like it or not), I believe that true belief and repentance is required. While we make statements about three words, those words imply so much that it is virtually impossible to think that they could be meaningful in isolation where it does not include repentance and true belief. To declare otherwise is to strip the words of their full meaning. Satan knows and believes that Jesus is Lord. But it is doing him no good. Even the belief has to be toward Jesus as the one who saves and then stands as Lord of our life.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Read Romans 10.13 and tell me what it says. Are you telling me that no one has ever been saved during a calamity by crying out to God?

This is a classic strawman. I did not say that calling on the Lord with those three words or a close alternative cannot save you. I said that it is not necessarily so that merely saying the words results in salvation. The real crying-out to God is always responded to, no matter how many or how few words. But the repetition of words without any real thought of what it means is not a profession of belief. It is an exercise in speaking your lines in a play.

And since you bother to pull this one out, it might seem that you have now said exactly what I did not say that you specifically have ever said, but the generic "you" of the LCM. At least at the level of the teachers who decided that it was all they needed to do in those gospel meetings.

I dare say that you do not actually mean that. So I do not need you to refute it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

God uses all things. But that does not mean that he orchestrates them to happen so that he can use them. Surely he does at times. But very often, he just uses what he gets. I am skeptical that he intended for any of us to spend time in Lee's garlic room. That does not mean that I dispute anyone's salvation while there. Or declare that they had nothing positive within that time. But on the whole (not necessarily in every detail or situation) I do not believe that we were all positively directed to this place by God so that we could have this experience for God to use for our good. Yet surely he did use it.

Looking back, it was like going into a Grateful Dead rock concert: it was an overwhelming sensory experience, of spirit, soul, and body. And I had a lot of fun, and lived to tell about it, but both of those things are probably due to the mercy of God more than any inherent "goodness" of the experience itself. The very spirit associated with this group, the more I look at it, the less I like it. Everything seemed to be scriptural, or at least was presented that way. And everything, upon reflection, was shot through (leavened) with something else. What there was pure? What escaped "the rich ministry"? In the end, it was "get out while you still can."