'Ground of the Church'

[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.

[Ohio]

The quote here was posted on the "Quips and Quotes" block of the forum, and it caught my attention:

Heretics are not dishonest men; they are mistaken men. They have been some of the most sincere men that the Church has ever known. Their trouble was this: they evolved a theory and they were rather pleased with it; then they went back with this theory to the Bible, and they seemed to find it everywhere.
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Such could be said of the foundational Recovery teaching, the acclaimed "Ground of Oneness." Lee saw it everywhere in scripture, and supposedly there it was, cause he said so. Yet the Bible never actually said it. Thus the Recovery was built upon long lost hidden secrets, kind of like the Da Vinci Code. Then one day W. Nee came along (or Robert Langdon in the movie) and unlocked the mystery of the faith, that which was missed by all men of God for centuries.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The quote here was posted on the "Quips and Quotes" block of the forum, and it caught my attention:
Such could be said of the foundational Recovery teaching, the acclaimed "Ground of Oneness." Lee saw it everywhere in scripture, and supposedly there it was, cause he said so. Yet the Bible never actually said it. Thus the Recovery was built upon long lost hidden secrets, kind of like the Da Vinci Code. Then one day W. Nee came along (or Robert Langdon in the movie) and unlocked the mystery of the faith, that which was missed by all men of God for centuries.

If you notice he saw it everywhere in the typology. But there was no black and white teaching in the NT, only an inferential teaching based on two verses that had little or nothing to do with the ground but rather the appointment of elders. They also inferred it from the references to churches being singular or plural.

So yes, it seemed he saw it everywhere but anyone could discern that all of the teachings were inferred or interpreted from typology. So then, even if it were a genuine teaching the apostles kept it secret from most Christians. Why? Also, if the apostles wouldn't say this plainly, why are you, that is to leave the apostle's fellowship.

What is the temptation here that led us astray? Everyone wants a shortcut, to learn some secret no one else knows, and they want to be the "elite" Christians. Also, for those that came out of Christianity you can assume that they were not happy with where they were. This allows you to blame others for being off. If you were deceived you were a willing participant. If you deal with those temptations and humble yourself, then it is a simple matter to return to the apostle's fellowship.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you notice he saw it everywhere in the typology. But there was no black and white teaching in the NT, only an inferential teaching based on two verses that had little or nothing to do with the ground but rather the appointment of elders. They also inferred it from the references to churches being singular or plural.

So yes, it seemed he saw it everywhere but anyone could discern that all of the teachings were inferred or interpreted from typology. So then, even if it were a genuine teaching the apostles kept it secret from most Christians. Why? Also, if the apostles wouldn't say this plainly, why are you, that is to leave the apostle's fellowship.

I stayed in the LC's because the Lord brought me there. In the end I left, not because LSM was so bad, but because my LC became unbearable. It was only after I left, did I find the Berean forum, Ingalls' book, and began to "examine all things." (Rom 12.2; I Thess 5.21)

What is the temptation here that led us astray?

The N.T. has many warnings for the believers, yet very little chastisement for those who have been deceived. In my case, I definitely trusted the brothers far more than I should have. Many took advantage of me, yet none would ever apologize for it. It took a few seriously bitter experiences to teach me that these LC leaders were often self-serving, and not to be trusted. After I left, I then realized how right I was to leave.

[Cal]

The principle of local unity among God's people is pretty clear in the Bible, largely because the idea of unity is so clear.

The question is, How is that unity to be expressed?

The LC error was to decide (for everyone) that local unity meant one organized church in a city under one group of official elders who pretty much have absolute authority over just about everything having to do with that city church. it other words, the LC defined for everyone the idea of "practical oneness" and decided for everyone that's the way it had to be: one tightly organized group under one group of leaders, which, of course, are loyal to some central ministry.

That principle is not clear at all in the Bible.

Further, it doesn't take much reflection to see how this principle cannot work and even is destructive. Because once a group of elders gets control, there is no way for the Lord to reform them if they go off the reservation. Everyone must continue to submit to them, regardless. The only option is to leave town, which is silly.

It is easy to see how this could not possibly be God's plan. If the principle had been true, then the Catholics would have gotten control of all the city churches centuries ago and no one would have had the ground to leave them. This is the implication of the LC's teaching. If the LC says, well, yes we could have left them, then they are saying that people can leave the LC also, and the point becomes moot.

The only conclusion must be that the city church is like the universal church. Yes, it exists in reality, but we are not required to officially organize it under one official group of elders. All Christians in the city should see their common unity in that city, but smaller organized churches, as the house churches in the New Testament suggest, are allowed for practicality, flexibility, and, not the least in importance, preventing presumptive self-assumed rule by domineering leaders bent on controlling everything and everyone.

The Lord is wise.

[OBW]

. . . once a group of elders gets control, there is no way for the Lord to reform them if they go off the reservation. Everyone must continue to submit to them, regardless. The only option is to leave town, which is silly.

While the average member of any particular assembly/group does not engage in the ongoing discussions about the doctrines and positions that cause the separation of meetings, behind the scenes there are arenas in which all of these differences are constantly being discussed in a mostly civil manner.

The exceptions are the groups that insist that only they are correct. The LC is just one of the latest in such small splinter groups. While some larger groups have been more closed than others, it is mostly small groups like the LC that truly keep to themselves and write all the others off. Like calling them all the daughters of Jezebel, or of the Whore of Babylon.

Or mooing cows. Sound Familiar anyone?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Or mooing cows. Sound Familiar anyone?

Yes. 'Incestuous Moabites' comes to mind, too. Lee had such a colorful grab bag of put-downs, didn't he?

In general, though, the idea that one group gets to call itself "the church in..." and, by squatter's rights I guess, gets to consider their leaders as the default leaders of the whole city is pretty far-fetched. The idea that God is waiting for everyone to join that group is even more far-fetched.

But the LC doesn't even recognize squatter's rights, really. They've never recognized a church which called itself "the church in..." which wasn't compliant with their movement. The best they would do is come into town, tell the group it needed to align with the LC's. When the group would say "No, we don't," the LCers would then disregard them and set up their own shop. I doubt they even bother with this shallow gesture anymore.

Oneness and unity? Wonderful! As defined by the LC? Deeply flawed and dangerous.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Further, it doesn't take much reflection to see how this principle cannot work and even is destructive. Because once a group of elders gets control, there is no way for the Lord to reform them if they go off the reservation. Everyone must continue to submit to them, regardless. The only option is to leave town, which is silly.

In the Midwest LC's, TC used to say, "gain one brother, and you have a church." TC needed a worker in every LC to make sure that church was loyal to TC.

Nearly all LC's had conflicts between the elders over their loyalty to HQ's. I eventually left for that very reason. Regardless of published teachings, in the LC system of leadership, the loyalty of the elders must be first to HQ's, then to the church, then to the Lord. Obviously that created serious conflicts with many elders. It explains why so many have left the program.

An independent eldership, on the other hand, serving God and serving the saints is the safest form of church shepherding. The Apostles obviously thought so. Ignatius, however, felt they needed supervision by the regional Bishop. Though I heard endless protests to hierarchy and the bishopric, careful study would always conclude that the job description of the Bishop identically matched that of LC "apostles."

This helps to explain why the "local ground of the church" was never really practiced. It could not be controlled by outside sources.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The only conclusion must be that the city church is like the universal church. Yes, it exists in reality, but we are not required to officially organize it under one official group of elders. All Christians in the city should see their common unity in that city, but smaller organized churches, as the house churches in the New Testament suggest, are allowed for practicality, flexibility, and, not the least in importance, preventing presumptive self-assumed rule by domineering leaders bent on controlling everything and everyone.

Then there is the stark reality that Local Church elders really don't function anything like elders described in and modeled by the New Testament. They are actually more like branch managers of a local franchise of the Living Stream Ministry corporation. They are only allowed to serve Lee burgers, Lee fries and Lee shakes, which are all neatly wrapped and supplied by the headquarters in Anaheim. The menu is strictly dictated and sternly enforced by the members of The Board (aka The Blended Brothers).
-

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Then there is the stark reality that Local Church elders really don't function anything like elders described in and modeled by the New Testament. They are actually more like branch managers of a local franchise of the Living Stream Ministry corporation. They are only allowed to serve Lee burgers, Lee fries and Lee shakes, which are all neatly wrapped and supplied by the headquarters in Anaheim. The menu is strictly dictated and sternly enforced by the members of The Board (aka The Blended Brothers).
-

And they act more like the religious rulers that Jesus spoke against. They really do not care for the flock, but order it around and profit from it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Then there is the stark reality that Local Church elders really don't function anything like elders described in and modeled by the New Testament. They are actually more like branch managers of a local franchise of the Living Stream Ministry corporation. They are only allowed to serve Lee burgers, Lee fries and Lee shakes, which are all neatly wrapped and supplied by the headquarters in Anaheim. The menu is strictly dictated and sternly enforced by the members of The Board (aka The Blended Brothers).
-

How very true!

Careful examination of LC history shows that every so-called "storm" or supposed "rebellion" in the Recovery actually began with some elders attempting to protect the saints from Nee, Lee, and LSM.

How do you think the Great Shepherd of the flock feels when the elders He has appointed (Acts 20.28) get expelled by a ministry for protecting the very people He died for?