Leaders of the Lord's Recovery

[Cal]

Originally Posted by HERn

Bro Indiana, please forgive my rudeness, but is a connection to Nee required for an expression of Christianity to be legitimate and pleasing to the Lord? Must all legitimate Christian expression proceed from some connection to Nee? Have you not seen that there is only one oracle of God and that is Christ Jesus? Do you not understand there was only one apostle Paul and that he referred to himself as the least of all the saints? So who is this Nee that you highly regard? Is he an angel? The oracle of God? An apostle at the level of Paul? Is he even the equivalent of Luther? No. Nee was a dear brother whose writings have helped many increase their love and appreciation of our Lord Jesus Christ, but he was also the one that spawned Lee and the extremes his movement has foisted upon the body of Christ. You have given up Lee, it is now time for you to give up Nee and to look to the Lord Jesus Christ and to the ministry of the true apostle of the age, Paul.

HERn, FYI, Indiana (Steve Isitt) is not interested in online discussion. He just uses the board as a means to publicly communicate with LSM and the other powers-that-be in the LCM and to broadcast his insights. So don't feel ignored. I mean, feel ignored but don't get your feelings hurt about it. Indiana is a brother with a good heart who has dreams of fixing the LCs. I personally think he is wasting his time, but he might think I waste my time, too. He has to follow his own conscience and we by convention allow him that freedom here.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Igzy

HERn, FYI, Indiana (Steve Isitt) is not interested in online discussion. He just uses the board as a means to publicly communicate with LSM and the other powers-that-be in the LCM and to broadcast his insights. So don't feel ignored. I mean, feel ignored but don't get your feelings hurt about it. Indiana is a brother with a good heart who has dreams of fixing the LCs. I personally think he is wasting his time, but he might think I waste my time, too. He has to follow his own conscience and we by convention allow him that freedom here.

10-4. I figured. I know I'm a rabid anti-LSM type. Maybe with time . . .

[Indiana]

A brother where I meet, Godwin Sun, shares in a booklet called "Our Goal", "Forgive me for saying this, but if we have this attitude, we will be a problem in Christ's body. Not one person in the church should feel that they have a special position. Only Christ has the position of being the Head and we are all members of His body....Fellowship is the life flowing one to another..."

I shared in my letter,
"Stephen Kaung would welcome this joining together of members under the headship of Christ for the building up of the Body."

"Believers who possess the same essential extracts of truth from God’s word should come together as adherents of the same vision."


Nee and Lee have noted that they stand on the shoulders of others in recovering these essential truths. We realize this also. They knew who they got help from. Many of us also realize who we got immense help from.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Indiana is a brother with a good heart who has dreams of fixing the LCs.

WL once famously told WN, "If you don't take this way, I will take it." Maybe Steve is saying that WL and the BBs lost the way, but he hasn't. (not to put words in anyone's mouth, but that's what I see him saying here).

They were/are eventually for "the ministry", but he remains here for the church. If you look at it that way it seems pretty simple. And thus his stubborn refusal to give up on his dreams.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by aron

WL once famously told WN, "If you don't take this way, I will take it." Maybe Steve is saying that WL and the BBs lost the way, but he hasn't. (not to put words in anyone's mouth, but that's what I see him saying here).

They were/are eventually for "the ministry", but he remains here for the church. If you look at it that way it seems pretty simple. And thus his stubborn refusal to give up on his dreams.

That is correct Aron.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

WL once famously told WN, "If you don't take this way, I will take it." Maybe Steve is saying that WL and the BBs lost the way, but he hasn't. (not to put words in anyone's mouth, but that's what I see him saying here).

They were/are eventually for "the ministry", but he remains here for the church. If you look at it that way it seems pretty simple. And thus his stubborn refusal to give up on his dreams.

The thing is a church according to "the proper vision" (whatever that is, I don't claim to know completely) can be started anywhere. It does not require the cooperation of anyone who used to follow "the vision" but no longer does. It seems to me that if you are inspired by a vision you should seek out those who are open to it, not seek to convince those whose minds are made up another way. In fact, if the vision is a good one, it should be applicable with any group of seekers. At some point shaking the dust off your feet is a legitimate course of action.

I understand trying to warn the deceived, but it seems one should be content with people leaving the movement to take the way of the Lord. Reforming the movement (any movement for that matter) is not part of the Great Commission. Certainly I want to help as many LCMers as possible. But my hope for them is for something outside that movement. God doesn't call us to save movements, but people. Movements are a dime a dozen and when they've outlived their usefulness we should not be sentimental about them.

It's my opinion (and just my opinion) that Indiana is still a bit confused about the difference between the church and a movement. The church is the people, nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps you could add in the faith and some very broad doctrines. But the rest is just the horse the church rides, and as much as we might like the old steed, when it's time to put her out to pasture and saddle up another, it's time. In the case of the LCM, the old nag is way past due and in fact ready for the glue factory.

The LCM does not have "first dibs" on being the church. It never did and it seems to me Indiana's efforts still reveal a belief that for God to "go on" he must reform that movement. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Still perhaps his efforts are a genuine expression of care for the people. If so, great. But after a certain point we should not waste any more time trying to reform any movement. Thinking that God must go through "the Recovery" to get things done shows a very distorted view of God and reality. If a movement gets to an intractable point our call should change from "repent" to "come out of her my people." God will not be held hostage by anyone; and he is jealous for his people, not any movement or "Recovery."

[Cal]

I didn't want to take anything away from Indiana's invaluable research and documentation of the history of the LCM. As with Lilly Hsu's book, church historians will find his work useful.

However, again, I have detected in his work a thread which seems to reveal a devotion to restoring a movement. This may be rooted in a mistaken devotion to this idea of "recovery"--recovery realized as a special privilege movement within the church as a whole. The problem with anything like this is that it displaces our proper devotion to God coupled with care and service for all people, and replaces it with devotion to an abstract idea or institution.

The same problem occurs with devotion to "the Church," when the Church is seen as anything but God's people. Lee taught us to be devoted to "the Church" as a ideal, not as simply God's people. So people became expendable, and the end of the gospel became not the salvation of people but the production of an idealized and impersonal institution, "the Church."

Human history generally and church history specifically are full of examples of devotion to even the best idea eventually doing damage. Once we make the end an idea (e.g. the Recovery, the Church, reason, liberty, equality, whatever) then people become a means to that end, and sacrificing people for that end becomes standard and acceptable.

We heard time and again, "We must be for the Recovery," and even "God loves his Recovery." Both those quotes are false. We should be for God and people, because that's all God loves and expects us to love. Anything else and be alert for the devil's wiles.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I didn't want to take anything away from Indiana's invaluable research and documentation of the history of the LCM. As with Lilly Hsu's book, church historians will find his work useful.

However, again, I have detected in his work a thread which seems to reveal a devotion to restoring a movement. This may be rooted in a mistaken devotion to this idea of "recovery"--recovery realized as a special privilege movement within the church as a whole. The problem with anything like this is that it displaces our proper devotion to God coupled with care and service for all people, and replaces it with devotion to an abstract idea or institution.

As a blended co-worker formerly of Bellevue once told Steve as I paraphrase; he (Steve) has to drop his concepts. The recovery isn't going to change for you. It isn't going to change for anyone.

I would have to agree with SR. Living Stream Ministry is a revenue generating business. Regardless of a business' tax status, they do have to generate revenue. For Living Stream, whether it's through book sales or real estate.
As I see Steve's writing. it's not a matter of changing the recovery, but to tell the truth. If there is any impact to be made I hope it is the spiritual principle of reconciliation. I know it has to a degree, Steve's writing has produced a spiritual responsibility to reconcile. Whether or not any of the blended brothers have an ear to hear, it's on each of them individually before God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But the rest is just the horse the church rides, and as much as we might like the old steed, when it's time to put her out to pasture and saddle up another, it's time. In the case of the LCM, the old nag is way past due and in fact ready for the glue factory.

Only a guy from Texas would even think this way.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Only a guy from Texas would even think this way.

Wake up, Recovery! Wake up! Yeehah!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

HERn, FYI, Indiana (Steve Isitt) is not interested in online discussion. He just uses the board as a means to publicly communicate with LSM and the other powers-that-be in the LCM and to broadcast his insights. So don't feel ignored. I mean, feel ignored but don't get your feelings hurt about it. Indiana is a brother with a good heart who has dreams of fixing the LCs. I personally think he is wasting his time, but he might think I waste my time, too. He has to follow his own conscience and we by convention allow him that freedom here.

I believe Igzy's comments here are fairly accurate. Several years ago, after numerous forum debates, I encouraged him to do what he does best, and not to get bogged down with the daily banter of forum debate. I'm not sure if he actually took my suggestion, but it seems so.

Indiana (Steve Isitt) has benefited all of us ex-members with his research and networking with many former members, including well-respected former leaders. In this regard, he understands the Recovery probably as well as any. His ability to document our history has been tremendously informative. I consider him to be like the "Ken Burns" of the LCM in the US.

As far as his lack of participation on the forum goes, there are many others who this forum as a clearinghouse for their writings. I think this mix of historical accounts and daily feedback is what makes this forum so beneficial.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Indiana (Steve Isitt) has benefited all of us ex-members with his research and networking with many former members, including well-respected former leaders. In this regard, he understands the Recovery probably as well as any. His ability to document our history has been tremendously informative.

Indiana did what was on my mind even while I was a single brother living in the brother's house. That is, taking time to travel, visit, and interview many former leading brothers.
Without his contribution, would there be any way to correlate the late 80's turmoil to that of 2004-2006?
In each of these turmoils, brothers are marked negatively for expressing their concerns.