'Ground of the Church'

[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.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by 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.

Likewise being raised in the local church, you don't realize the attitude existing until you begin meeting with Christians who don't take LSM as their ministry of choice.
When I first moved my family to Renton in 1999, we'd make the 10 mile commute to Bellevue each LDM. Not all places have the convenience of being apple to drive to your fellowship of preference.
Take a real life situation. You could be a household living on the island of Maui. There are other Christians meeting as a church (Hope Chapel) and some even in the practice of home meetings, but since they're not taking LSM publications as the basis for fellowship, you're not open to meeting with any Christian who are not like-minded.
One could read this and say, "that's their right and opinion". I'd say yes it is, but it is not isolated. The locality I grew up in Southern California there's that behavior. Same in the present city I live in there's that behavior.
Ground of the Church is LSM.