'Ground of the Church'

The ground of the church is clearly the city. It is through the oneness of standing on this ground alone that we are aligned to Jerusalem. LSM is a movement! It is a living stream! The movement moves those standing on the ground off of it. The stream then carries them away. I have no issue with LSM; the Lord has allowed it. It brings understanding of obedience to the commandment to your lay your life down for the brothers AND in continued obedience, for the taking up again of that life in them! Now although I have no issue with LSM, it still presents a problem for the Church. Where the church has not dug down to solid rock through the obedience to lay your life down for the brothers, the force of LSM is greater than what the local church built there can resist. It is the proverbial house built on sand, the sand being a riverbed of the stream. The storm comes and much is lost and carried away, but revelation in the aftermath is great for some.
I am David, standing the ground of the church in Greenback in the Meeting Place State!
Enjoy!!!!!!!

[aron]

Originally Posted by David

a moderator declined to allow my post regarding the ground of the church to appear yesterday. . . Just goes to show that this place is nothing more than an echo chamber.

Not quite as extreme as the echo chamber of the LC, tho. There, we were told to be "Witness Lee tape recorders". If you want to get an ''ayyemenn" when you "function", just stand up and say, "What I enjoyed this week was..." and then read, verbatim, a quote from the ministry. Then you'll be a member in good standing in the LC.

Originally Posted by David

I am standing on the ground of the Church in Greenback in the Meeting Place State

Here's a quote from someone's experience trying to find "the ground" in Singapore.

Originally Posted by Bradley

One thing I was very passionate about when I was in the LC was the ground of the church. We were taught that it was the source of all blessing and had to be perfect. We were taught that the ground of locality was everything, the name was everything. Brother Lee was not the ground of the church but the ground was.

We were taught that there could be all sorts of problems in the church but as long as the ground was right, it would be okay. There could be all sorts of things going well but as long as the ground was wrong, God has forgotten you and your work is in vain.

You can imagine my surprise then when I went blending in Singapore and found myself not in 'the church in Singapore' but 'the church of God in Singapore'. Subtle difference, but I had spent two years in the training being taught how bad this is. You just can't do that, you might as well call yourselves the southern Baptists.

There was another group that was 'the church in Singapore' and they had broken off. They got to keep the name, so this group I was blending with was forced to take another name. The other group was apparently not on the 'true ground', but the 'church of God in Singapore' was. Why was that? I couldn't understand. They had the right name, so they should have the ground.

Nobody could answer my question: what is it about 'the church of God in Singapore' that gives it the proper ground despite having the wrong name, and what is it about 'the church in Singapore' that puts it off the correct ground, despite the fact that they have the right name?

Apparently, the true requirements for the ground of the church is not what the ministry teaches, i.e. having the right name, it is what the ministry specifically said was not important, i.e. loyalty to the Living Stream Ministry and the blending brothers. They teach one thing but do the other.

On that note, a full-timer brother I knew was secretly going out and fellowshipping with them, maintaining a friendship with them even though they broke off twenty or so years ago. He had to keep it a secret because they were demonised as bad guys from pretty much everyone, even though they all used to be friends in the past. Pretty sad really.

But my point is this: the people (in Anaheim) who decide which church groups are on the right ground and which are not, do not read their own books to tell them how to decide. They go with whoever invites them to come speak at conferences, and reject those who do not.

My conclusion now of course is that there is no ground, or any one true church, and that its all BS. But the hypocricy still bothers me.

And in Shanghai

Originally Posted by Bradley

There are three separate local churches in Shanghai too, where I lived for three years - all of them 'faithful to the ministry', all of them inviting coworkers from overseas to hold conferences, all of them up to date with the morning revival and 7 feasts. All three of them are accepted by the global LSM as legit. But they won't meet with each other, they hardly even know each other. One group is the locals, one group is for foreigners, one group was of 'turtles' i.e. locals who had lived overseas for years (of course, through the gospel, there were locals, foreigners and turtles in every group). I went to meetings at all three: the local group was the most burning and the foreign group was the most dead but thats where the English-speaking districts were so I went out of necessity.

One brother (from the local group) told me he discovered that his next door neighbour was in the LC (a Taiwanese district in the foreign group) and they both hosted table meetings in their homes every sunday morning. He had invited him to join table meetings together for blending and the other brother had refused, as if that would be a terrible sin and he didn't have the authority to do that (though he wouldn't ask anyone who did). They basically had a 'wave at each other and say good morning' -type relationship after that and thats all.

When the local brothers expressed their concern about it to me, I contacted a well-known coworker called Paul Hon. He had already known about it for decades and basically said: "its no big deal, there's nothing you can do, if we can't fix it you can't either so forget about it and ignore it." I had the attitude that a little person can make a small difference, at least to those around him, but his attitude was pretty much "meh who cares, don't even try".

This bothered me no end because I had been taught that the proper ground is the master key to all blessing, and without it, you shouldn't even partake of the bread and wine. Here was a big time coworker telling me to forget about it and carry on like it means nothing, partake anyway. But according to the teachings, in this situation there's no blessing and the work is in vain. He didn't refute that, he just said there's nothing I can do. It was a depressing cloud hanging above my church life while I lived there.

The LC "practical oneness" seems to be slavish submission to HQ - you don't even have to be "one" with the LSM-affiliated believers in your city, as long as you are "one" with Anaheim. Just keep buying those books and tapes!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The ground of the church is clearly the city. It is through the oneness of standing on this ground alone that we are aligned to Jerusalem. LSM is a movement! It is a living stream! The movement moves those standing on the ground off of it. The stream then carries them away. I have no issue with LSM; the Lord has allowed it. It brings understanding of obedience to the commandment to your lay your life down for the brothers AND in continued obedience, for the taking up again of that life in them! Now although I have no issue with LSM, it still presents a problem for the Church. Where the church has not dug down to solid rock through the obedience to lay your life down for the brothers, the force of LSM is greater than what the local church built there can resist. It is the proverbial house built on sand, the sand being a riverbed of the stream. The storm comes and much is lost and carried away, but revelation in the aftermath is great for some.
I am David, standing the ground of the church in Greenback in the Meeting Place State!
Enjoy!!!!!!!

The other thing I have against LSM is that they stop the seeking. Jesus taught, "Seek and you will find". LSM says, "Here (on the ground of the church) we have ended our search." Now you are a prisoner to the ministry. No longer a slave of the Lord, destined to search for the home above, the city that endures. Just sucked into another man-made system. If you don't seek, you won't find. Living Stream Ministry is the River Lethe, that puts people to sleep.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethe

The River of Forgetfulness. Forget your home with the Father. Just go to the meetings and recite this week's bullet points.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The ground of the church is clearly the city. It is through the oneness of standing on this ground alone that we are aligned to Jerusalem. LSM is a movement! It is a living stream! The movement moves those standing on the ground off of it. The stream then carries them away. I have no issue with LSM; the Lord has allowed it. It brings understanding of obedience to the commandment to your lay your life down for the brothers AND in continued obedience, for the taking up again of that life in them! Now although I have no issue with LSM, it still presents a problem for the Church. Where the church has not dug down to solid rock through the obedience to lay your life down for the brothers, the force of LSM is greater than what the local church built there can resist. It is the proverbial house built on sand, the sand being a riverbed of the stream. The storm comes and much is lost and carried away, but revelation in the aftermath is great for some.
I am David, standing the ground of the church in Greenback in the Meeting Place State!
Enjoy!!!!!!!

I think this is very funny. You have brightened my day, thanks. Imagine for a minute an unbeliever visits two assemblies. One keeps "the ground of the city" as a controlling doctrine. The other one has the undeniable presence of Jesus in the midst, prayers are answered, sins are dealt with, there is forgiveness of one another which also results in love of the brothers. Which one is the church that will withstand the onslaught of Satan and which is built on sand?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The ground of the church is clearly the city.

"If I say it enough, it might become true."
"If I say it enough, it might become true."
"If I say it enough, it might become true." . . .

But it will not be because there is sound basis for the claim.

Reminds me of Charlie Brown wondering why his team cannot win even one baseball game when they are "so sincere."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

LSM is a movement!

Yes, I do agree.

[Bradley]

Originally Posted by Terry

Yes, I do agree.

LOL me too . I find it amusing how it was the LSM that taught me the difference between God's move and a movement of man in the first place, and yet, here we are.

The devil will often condemn others for things that he is fully guilty of himself. Not just hypocrisy, but projection - as if he was getting his ideas and inspiration from within. For some reason, when an authoritative figure or group is teaching you and warning you about a certain issue, that figure or group becomes the last person you would suspect of being the thing they are warning you about. We all read the outline and listened to the message about God's Move™ vs a movement of man and assumed like unthinking sheep that the ones feeding us the message were obviously 'God's Move'.

The 'Lord's recovery' is absolutely a movement of man, organised and led by men. I wouldn't have recognised it if I hadn't actually read their books, maybe they should drink their own tea? LOL.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Bradley

For some reason, when an authoritative figure or group is teaching you and warning you about a certain issue, that figure or group becomes the last person you would suspect of being the thing they are warning you about. We all read the outline and listened to the message about God's Move™ vs a movement of man and assumed like unthinking sheep that the ones feeding us the message were obviously 'God's Move'.

This is very true. WL attacked and condemned a lot of things, but hardly anyone in the LCM ever dared to criticize him. In fact, I don’t think it even crossed most people’s minds that WL had any ambition or viewed himself as a “spiritual giant” – the very types of things that he warned everyone about.

LCers believe that WL was God’s “humble servant.” They feel that he saw things that others didn’t, that his ministry ‘unveiled’ something. They will thus equate following his ministry with being “God’s move.” It really is just an excuse for why they are following one man vs any other man.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Bradley

The devil will often condemn others for things that he is fully guilty of himself. Not just hypocrisy, but projection - as if he was getting his ideas and inspiration from within. For some reason, when an authoritative figure or group is teaching you and warning you about a certain issue, that figure or group becomes the last person you would suspect of being the thing they are warning you about.

As with all self-righteous hypocrites. Paul said they were all inexcusable in Romans 2.1: "Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As with all self-righteous hypocrites. Paul said they were all inexcusable in Romans 2.1: "Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."

Admittedly, there have been all kinds of movements that have involved following a man. Probably in most cases, criticism of such groups is completely warranted. What made the LCM different, and what I think kept LCers oblivious to the hypocrisy was the fact that Lee pointed to the ground to disguise the fact that everyone was following him. This construct of the ground fooled people because is something that is inanimate, something that creates the illusion of having a particular 'standing' rather than being part of just another group that was following a man.

It continues to amaze me that those who defend the LCM will not answer the basic question as to why the LCM only considers churches that follow "the ministry" aka Nee/Lee/LSM/blendeds to be genuine local churches. On the one hand, they claim to practice localism organized practically in terms of geography. On the other hand, they will insist upon allegiance with LSM. And that is what serves as evidence they are a movement that is indeed following a man.

[Bradley]

Originally Posted by Freedom

...What made the LCM different, and what I think kept LCers oblivious to the hypocrisy was the fact that Lee pointed to the ground to disguise the fact that everyone was following him. This construct of the ground fooled people...

Right. That quote they keep saying, how Lee told Nee 'even if you do something different, I will continue to take this path' - it helps everyone say 'oh we are not following Lee, we are following his vision, we would continue to follow it even if he wasn't'.

Except its one thing to say that, its another thing to do it.

Originally Posted by Freedom

It continues to amaze me that those who defend the LCM will not answer the basic question as to why the LCM only considers churches that follow "the ministry" aka Nee/Lee/LSM/blendeds to be genuine local churches.

Just one example among many of them following the man, not the vision. His books teach very clearly not to do that kind of thing, but he did it anyway, so everyone else does too.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Bradley

Right. That quote they keep saying, how Lee told Nee 'even if you do something different, I will continue to take this path' - it helps everyone say 'oh we are not following Lee, we are following his vision, we would continue to follow it even if he wasn't'.

Except its one thing to say that, its another thing to do it.

Bradley, the entire late 80's turmoil in the Recovery was about this. Actually there were two parts. Firstly it was Lee and the LSM/FTT in Taipei changing the entire nature of the Recovery, breaking every rule laid down in the so-called vision book by Nee TNCCL. Secondly it was Philip Lee's abuses.

All of these brothers tried to act on the saying above, until they all eventually learned that it really was all about following a man, whether he was true to the Bible or not.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It continues to amaze me that those who defend the LCM will not answer the basic question as to why the LCM only considers churches that follow "the ministry" aka Nee/Lee/LSM/blendeds to be genuine local churches. On the one hand, they claim to practice localism organized practically in terms of geography. On the other hand, they will insist upon allegiance with LSM. And that is what serves as evidence they are a movement that is indeed following a man.

Let's call it what it is.....ministry churches. To call it the ground of locality is a deception. Someone could be living in Crestline, California. There may be community churches there but none standing on the local ground. All this talk about locality, one would have to drive down highway 18 and meet with the Church in San Bernardino for the local standing.
Or what I was familiar with for a few years. Brothers and sisters meeting as the Church in Bellevue, Washington would come far and wide from Renton, Kent, Sultan, Everett, etc in order to meet "locally".
Call it localism. I call it ministry churches.
For a local church in Moses Lake that received Lee's ministry from the 1960's until 1986, how come it's no longer regarded as a local church? Everything points to receiving according to a man's ministry.

[Freedom]

As someone who grew up in the LCM, it didn't take long for me to realize how committed LCers were to the ground of locality teaching. Before I even understood what the teaching entailed, I saw the passion for the teaching and assumed it must be really important.

Maybe that is why I never questioned the fact that we had to commute 30 miles to "meet locally." I was told that all other Christians were wrong for having so many different churches, but here we were, having to travel far and wide to practice a church model that was supposed to be practical.