Attempting to SEEM inclusive

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Freedom

That's funny, and it's true, they think they're the only ones....

I'm pretty sure LSM teaches that there will be at least a few overcomers from the RCC and the denominations that make the rapture and become the Bride of Christ, and that all believers will eventually be together in the new earth and new earth as the wife of the Lamb. I think their exclusivity is that they think they are the only ones on earth now doing it right and pleasing the Father.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

I'm pretty sure LSM teaches that there will be at least a few overcomers from the RCC and the denominations that make the rapture and become the Bride of Christ, and that all believers will eventually be together in the new earth and new earth as the wife of the Lamb. I think their exclusivity is that they think they are the only ones on earth now doing it right and pleasing the Father.

Those in the LC do seem willing to make certain admissions, especially if it involves the opportunity to warm people up to the LC. I know I have heard the same as what you mentioned about overcomers, LCers will admit that Christians outside their Lee sect can be overcomers too. I vaguely remember asking an LCer about this for clarification, only to receive a blank stare.

What it really boils down to is that many LCers are just paying lip service. I do think there are also some members who aren’t as exclusive as the rest, but their idea is more along the lines of thinking that 99.9% of anything “good” is in the LC. The “others” do exist, they just make up .1% or whatever minuscule fraction they imagine it to be.

Consider the following statement that Lee once made: "In every denomination, including the Roman Catholic Church, there are real, saved Christians.” What was he really saying there? It seems to me that the underlying implication is that he assumes the vast majority of Christians outside the LC to be either false or carnal Christians. Otherwise what need would he have to clarify that other groups have “real, saved Christians”? I can’t say that I’ve met any Christians outside the LC that go around questioning the sincerity/genuineness of all other groups but their own.

I don’t have the right to judge WL’s heart, but what I think is fair to say is that his emphasis on certain teachings created a problem for him in terms of receiving others. He equated practicing the ground of the church as the only way for Christians to bear a proper testimony for the Lord. He claimed that his practices of spiritual exercise to be the only way to have a genuine relationship with the Lord. He thus left no door open for other possibilities with respect to those who didn’t practice his teachings.

[OBW]

I made mention of one-way inclusiveness the other day. I think that a more viable understanding is that:

• They are not one with anyone that is not taking their way.
• They include only those who will come to them to be included.

It would appear that at this time, the RCC is more truly inclusive than the LCM. The RCC, like the brother pushing the EO at times, thinks that they are the original church and therefore should be the only church, but they do not deny the status as "church" for others or deny their salvation.

But the LCM would refer to any group that is not them as "so-called" churches. They do not recognize the assembly of believers outside of themselves as being churches. Especially within a city in which there is an LCM assembly.

To get a feel for the kind of sectarianism that prevails in the LCM, several years ago when I was still keeping up with Facebook, there was a post announcing that there was once again a church in Rome since there were followers of Lee that had "taken the ground." Not exactly their words, but it was precisely what was meant.

Really?!? No church in Rome for all these centuries? If that does not say enough about it, I don't know what would!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

To get a feel for the kind of sectarianism that prevails in the LCM, several years ago when I was still keeping up with Facebook, there was a post announcing that there was once again a church in Rome since there were followers of Lee that had "taken the ground." Not exactly their words, but it was precisely what was meant.

Really?!? No church in Rome for all these centuries? If that does not say enough about it, I don't know what would!

I saw the same. For all we know, that assembly could constitute of 6 brothers and sisters and that's your expression of the church in Rome. Of a city more than 4 million, I doubt that's all the Christians in Rome.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

I saw the same. For all we know, that assembly could constitute of 6 brothers and sisters and that's your expression of the church in Rome. Of a city more than 4 million, I doubt that's all the Christians in Rome.

It's funny how confidently those in the LC can make such claims. Yet, they don't know any better. This is what they believe. Something that I have come to realize is that those in the LC have really devloped different semantics for what the word 'church' means. As an example, in the footnote for Matt 16:18 on the word 'church', the RcV states the following:
Gk. ekklesia, meaning an out-calling. This word is used in reference to a called-out congregation. My church indicates that the church is of the Lord, not of any other person or thing; it is not like the denominations, which are denominated according to some person's name or according to some matter.

So, LCers believe the church to be primary an out-calling, and importantly it seems that this out-calling is supposed to primarily from none other than denominations. It's no wonder that 'church' has become a loaded term to them. They can't view any normal assembly as being part of the church, their assembling only occurs by dividing and separating themselves from other Christians - as an "out-calling" from everything they chose to criticize.

If we replace the word 'church' with assembly, and apply that to their nomenclature, what we get is them saying things like "we are THE assembly in Rome." Their whole one church one city rule works for them because their semantics differ from everyone else. It is obvious that within a city, there are numerous Christian assemblies, and for any one group to claim that they are the only assembly or the most important assembly is both ignorant and prideful.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

[I]Gk. ekklesia, meaning an out-calling. This word is used in reference to a called-out congregation. My church indicates that the church is of the Lord, not of any other person or thing; it is not like the denominations, which are denominated according to some person's name or according to some matter.

Based on your RcV quote, it appears they're calling the local churches a denomination...."or according to some matter". When I was last at a LC LTM
in 2014, one of the utterances coming out of the HWFMR is fellowship is according to the ministry publications. Whatever LSM publishes, that is the basis for fellowship.
While attempting to call themselves inclusive, they necessarily don't want to be held by inclusiveness. Rather, it's conditional in practice. If you have a vision of the brand of theology LSM publishes, of course there's inclusion. If you're one who wants scripture only, you will be viewed unfavorably. Maybe even escorted from the LTM.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

[/I]So, LCers believe the church to be primary an out-calling, and importantly it seems that this out-calling is supposed to primarily from none other than denominations. It's no wonder that 'church' has become a loaded term to them. They can't view any normal assembly as being part of the church, their assembling only occurs by dividing and separating themselves from other Christians - as an "out-calling" from everything they chose to criticize.

If we replace the word 'church' with assembly, and apply that to their nomenclature, what we get is them saying things like "we are THE assembly in Rome." Their whole one church one city rule works for them because their semantics differ from everyone else. It is obvious that within a city, there are numerous Christian assemblies, and for any one group to claim that they are the only assembly or the most important assembly is both ignorant and prideful.

There's the thought just because the words "local", "locality", or using the phrase "Christians meeting as the church in" invokes inclusion, generality, etc. Yet in practice basing fellowship on a ministry makes in fact a ministry church. There is no way for a general visiting Christian to sense any inclusion. In reality churches that base fellowship on a ministry should realize their meetings are not for anyone except those who share the vision the ministry promotes.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

I saw the same. For all we know, that assembly could constitute of 6 brothers and sisters and that's your expression of the church in Rome. Of a city more than 4 million, I doubt that's all the Christians in Rome.

And I bet that a major portion of them attend mass regularly at one of the many RCC places each week.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

I'm pretty sure LSM teaches that there will be at least a few overcomers from the RCC and the denominations that make the rapture and become the Bride of Christ, and that all believers will eventually be together in the new earth and new earth as the wife of the Lamb. I think their exclusivity is that they think they are the only ones on earth now doing it right and pleasing the Father.

I know LSM has a teaching you could be meeting with the local churches and not be practically part of the Body of Christ. They could take to another level and make the correlation, if you're absolute for "the ministry" aka LSM publications, that alone enhances your possibility of becoming an overcomer.