The Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life

[Trapped]

OBW - I read a little bit so far. I just have some comments but they won't be a well laid out as yours, and they probably won't be as deep as yours were either. To be honest they are mostly complaints as the more time passes the harder time I have reading anything of Lee or Nee. This is just what I have the time for at present.

The first thing I noticed is the phrase "church life", which was repeated three times in the first three sentences. This is a phrase commonly used within the local churches to refer to itself (i.e. "when I touched the church life" means what would typically be stated as "when I joined ABC Church"). So immediately it seems like Lee is stating that the local churches are special because they hold a Christian faith. This is, as usual, hand-in-hand with the viewpoint in the local churches that they are "it" and are the only expression of the Body, or, excuse me, the "practical" or "proper" expression of the Body.

"God" section: I don't know what the LCs get out of using the phrase "uniquely one" to describe God. I have checked out a number of other churches' statements of faith and they just use the word "one".

His "Christ" section is incredibly difficult to read because it's a handful of words broken up by parenthetical verse references, repeated more times than I can count.

I also noticed too what you said that Lee says things like "genuine believers" or "genuine Christians". It's just another dividing, us-vs-them word.

While he does admit that some may disagree on OCOC, he then essentially calls anyone who does disagree an "improper Christian", by saying as "proper Christians" we have to believe OCOC.

Just a little further down Lee uses another phrases that chaps me, "so-called". The "so-called" Pentecostal people. There is too much haughtiness and arrogance in just the first few pages for me to stomach.

Although I just kept reading and it's interesting that in chapter 3 it gets more tolerable. He talks about the importance of accepting, for example, a Seventh Day Adventist brother comes to the LC and insists on their own keeping of the Sabbath, or accepting weaker saints who are afraid of eating food sacrificed to idols. I don't disagree there.

Sorry if this isn't the kind of response you were looking for; this is just my reaction as I read the first few pages.

StG - While I haven't read the entire book, it has come up often in conversations with LCers who do see issues in the LC. Many try to "come back" to this book as the handbook for how to fix issues and how the church "should be". Essentially the book is supposed to be what things we have to contend for in the church, i.e. what is non-negotiable, what we cannot bend on (speciality), and then what things we can accept as different one from another but do not become contentious over (generality), and then how to carry out the "proper" church life using things that we may not insist on but realize they are the "best" practically for the carrying out of the church, e.g. pray-reading, etc. (practicality).

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

StG - While I haven't read the entire book, it has come up often in conversations with LCers who do see issues in the LC. Many try to "come back" to this book as the handbook for how to fix issues and how the church "should be". Essentially the book is supposed to be what things we have to contend for in the church, i.e. what is non-negotiable, what we cannot bend on (speciality), and then what things we can accept as different one from another but do not become contentious over (generality), and then how to carry out the "proper" church life using things that we may not insist on but realize they are the "best" practically for the carrying out of the church, e.g. pray-reading, etc. (practicality).

Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. Yes, that is perhaps a more detailed explanation, but I think that it can be conveyed in much simpler terms.

My simple take-away from this book was this: We are all one in Christ and should not divide ourselves over things that are not essentials of the faith.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

LEE - The Specialty, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life In reading this book with some Ohio LC bros (back in the 80s), I had perhaps the strongest bubbling-up enjoyment of the Lord I've ever had.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

My simple take-away from this book was this: We are all one in Christ and should not divide ourselves over things that are not essentials of the faith.

So the strongest bubbling-up enjoyment of the Lord you've ever had was in realizing that we are all one in Christ and should not divide over things that are not essentials of the faith? Christians have been preaching and teaching this for about 2,000 years now...and we all have seen very mixed, if not very limited, success in actually seeing these lofty propositions get expressed in our church life. In looking at the history of the Local Church of Witness Lee, is there any doubt about the mixed and limited results of Lee and his followers?

To be clear, I'm all for the bubbling-up and enjoyment of the Lord! But in my experience and observation (43+years) the teachings and practices taught and fostered by Witness Lee and his followers eventually lead to a very divisive and haughty attitude towards other Christians. And for these reasons I would not recommend this book to any young person or anyone new to the Christian faith.

Here is an excerpt from the Forward to this book written by Benson Phillips:

When the Body of Christ is divided, it loses everything; yet it has been divided again and again, mainly due to the overemphasis of certain beliefs other than those comprising the faith. Concerning the faith we must be very specific and particular, however, concerning the other things we must follow Paul’s example and be general, never insisting that others believe as we do To possess such a spirit of generality is the generality of the church life. If we are special and insist on anything other than the common faith, the oneness will surely be damaged, and divisions will occur.

Did Witness Lee or his followers EVER practice what Benson Phillips wrote here? Talk is cheap - especially super spiritual sounding platitudes coming from people like Benson Phillips, who has never had anything good to say about anybody that doesn't sing the praises of his acting god and deputy authority, Witness Lee. The "oneness" practiced in the Local Church is a bogus oneness. They are all talk and no action.

I love you my dear brother Sons to Glory! But you can keep your chicken dinner if it means that we have to give Nee or Lee credit for practicing what they preached.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Oh, I'm sorry - I forgot everything on here has to be framed in nonstop Lee bashing! Regarding everything you stated - yes - it may be that many others have preached this and Lee didn't practice it. Nonetheless, it doesn't diminish the enjoyment of the Lord (which you seemed to belittle here bro) I had while reading that book . . . does it? (I think not)

Seriously folks, this thread seems to border on Lee-aphobia or something, to the point that having a simple back & forth isn't easy. Can't we just have a discussion without instantly going from zero to 100 MPH extremes?

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Oh, I'm sorry - I forgot everything on here has to be framed in nonstop Lee bashing! Regarding everything you stated - yes - it may be that many others have preached this and Lee didn't practice it. Nonetheless, it doesn't diminish the enjoyment of the Lord (which you seemed to belittle here bro) I had while reading that book . . . does it? (I think not)

Seriously folks, this thread seems to border on Lee-aphobia or something, to the point that having a simple back & forth isn't easy. Can't we just have a discussion without instantly going from zero to 100 MPH extremes?

StoG, how about simply giving credit where credit is due? I am talking about the Lord, the word, and the Holy Spirit. You are not alone when you point to a teacher, speaker, or minister and say, 'See what great truths are released and uncovered by this one!!' When it is here in the word for us all, already, delivered, breathed out by the Father. It seems like it is easy to forget the source of all truth, and who authored it originally. Why credit Lee or Nee or any other, for that matter....if it did indeed come from God, and it is the truth, and you gained something wonderful, some light from it, then praise the Lord, brother! Any light in you is via the Holy Spirit given to you. Praise the source.

I know I don't care to hear these men being uplifted, and I really really don't care for others to expect me to uplift alongside. Sorry. To God be all the glory!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

StoG, how about simply giving credit where credit is due? I am talking about the Lord, the word, and the Holy Spirit. You are not alone when you point to a teacher, speaker, or minister and say, 'See what great truths are released and uncovered by this one!!' When it is here in the word for us all, already, delivered, breathed out by the Father. It seems like it is easy to forget the source of all truth, and who authored it originally. Why credit Lee or Nee or any other, for that matter....if it did indeed come from God, and it is the truth, and you gained something wonderful, some light from it, then praise the Lord, brother! Any light in you is via the Holy Spirit given to you. Praise the source.

I know I don't care to hear these men being uplifted, and I really really don't care for others to expect me to uplift alongside. Sorry. To God be all the glory!

Bravo! Bravo!

Time to prayread James 1.16-17

Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers,

All good giving and every perfect gift is from above,

Coming down from the Father of lights.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Oh, I'm sorry - I forgot everything on here has to be framed in nonstop Lee bashing!

Sorry Sons to Glory! I thought you were going to use this book to bash the rest of us. I was confused.

I think UntoHim was right on point to mention current LSM president Benson Philip. His "Forward" in this book further states:

Those of us who were in those meetings when these messages were released can never forget their timeliness or impact.

The vision of all these points was deeply wrought into us.

It has been said that Benson Philips incorporates the ministry, the heart, and the mind of Witness Lee. None on earth was as absolutely one with Lee as he. That's why he was appointed President and chief Blended in the Recovery.

Obviously from his Forward, Benson also "had perhaps the strongest bubbling-up enjoyment of the Lord" as you had back in 1971. That's what he said anyways. How then could Benson, with such "vision" wrought into his being, send his DCP operatives into the Midwest to lay waste all the LC's due to the young people playing electric guitars in their gatherings? And TC printing a few obscure books?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Seriously folks, this thread seems to border on Lee-aphobia or something, to the point that having a simple back & forth isn't easy. Can't we just have a discussion without instantly going from zero to 100 MPH extremes?

Well, Sons to Glory!, it was you who started off at about 95 MPH with your:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I had perhaps the strongest bubbling-up enjoyment of the Lord I've ever had.

Sorry if my radar gun is a little off....but you were still way over the speed limit with your "strongest bubbling-up" blast. Can't we just have a discussion without someone giving the credit to Witness Lee for something that he had little or nothing to do with? My brother, I'm sure you really did have a bubbling-up enjoyment of the Lord. What I'm disputing is that it came from something Witness Lee spoke and got edited into a book. I think your bubbling-up enjoyment of the Lord came from the Lord himself. Thank him, praise him and give him the glory, and forget about some dude who has been discredited and debunked to the point that he does not deserve to be even mentioned as someone who was so key to your enjoyment of the Lord. Your enjoyment of the Lord (bubbling-up or not) had/has NOTHING to do with Witness Lee, or anything he ever spoke or wrote. And of this I am quite certain. If you believe otherwise, you are more than welcome to give us your testimony. Nobody can take that away from you my dear brother. And this is what this forum is all about. You have your testimony. I have my testimony. Neither is more valuable than the other. And of this I am quite certain as well.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Well we're all getting a little revved-up over nothing here probably. . .

The book, standing alone on the merits of the words on the written page, is good IMHO, and I heard from the Anointing while reading it. Plain and simple. I provided no commentary other than that, regarding the author or any of his motives. Nor did I say anything remotely resembling, "I got this great bubbling-up from WL himself!" (really absurd to even think that) But I am guilty, at least, of speaking something positive about a book that was sourced in Witness Lee's speaking, on a forum that is obviously quite biased against anything of WL.

So, my endorsement regarding this one book might lead some here to say, "StG is all in the tank for WL and the LC!" We humans do seek to categorize things in the extreme.

Again, there is nothing wrong with the simple, basic theme of this book, which I'll state here again (in case anybody missed it): We are all one in Christ and should not divide ourselves over things that are not essentials of the faith.

So Ima gonna pull it out . . . . here it comes . . . . wait for it (bro Ohio loves this)

>>>>Let's move on . . . nothing to see here as far as I'm concerned!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

The book, standing alone on the merits of the words on the written page, is good IMHO, and I heard from the Anointing while reading it. Plain and simple. I provided no commentary other than that, regarding the author or any of his motives.

I agree, it's a good book, most of it anyway. It was the public face of the movement. It reinforced the idealism behind the oneness of the body so often talked about in the Recovery. It's just too bad that we never saw it put into practice. Our former LC in Columbus was laid waste by these same people.

The difficulty here is in removing the context. Here's a bad analogy, on par with your "dead horse." Appreciating a few of WL's books on this forum is like finding a few healthy patients of a doctor just busted for a long list of malpractice suits. The guy didn't even have a license to practice, but someone just got overly excited because his headache is gone, and his fever broke. He feels great. Who can blame him?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Oh, I'm sorry - I forgot everything on here has to be framed in nonstop Lee bashing! Regarding everything you stated - yes - it may be that many others have preached this and Lee didn't practice it. Nonetheless, it doesn't diminish the enjoyment of the Lord (which you seemed to belittle here bro) I had while reading that book . . . does it? (I think not)

Seriously folks, this thread seems to border on Lee-aphobia or something, to the point that having a simple back & forth isn't easy. Can't we just have a discussion without instantly going from zero to 100 MPH extremes?

Sorry for being away from the discussion — long holidays with effectively two dips into Christmas.

I must admit that my starting for this thread was partly to give some perspective to your experience of something "bubbling-up." And to demonstrate how potentially corrupt the source of your experience might have been. This doesn't make you corrupt. Rather it shows a little of the fog we all (well most of those on this forum) were under. One in which we came to have spiritual "highs" from things that might not be what we thought they were. Or were actually contrary to what the Bible teaches in some cases.

I've been out of the LRC ("Lord's Recovery Church" — not what they call it, but what it has effectively become) since August of 1987 after 14.5 years in it. (OK, that dates me, so I will be clear here — I go on Medicare next month.) For many years after 1987, I went along thinking that I had some "higher" teachings than those around me, but that other issues kept me from returning to the LRC. Then, over the course of a few months, I finally read the Godmen, and then the Thread of Gold. In the former, I saw some of the evidence of the cult-like characteristics. In the latter, I saw evidence of the abuses. And not just somewhere else, but right here in Texas.

And then I learned of a forum that discussed LRC issues (the predecessor forum in the Phillippines that covered all kinds of religious groups). That was about 2005. And bit-by-bit the remaining fog lifted. I began to see things more clearly. Eventually, unlike several others here who often talk about the positives of the LRC, I have concluded that there was really no legitimate positive to attribute to the LRC. Maybe to the people who were there, but not the LRC itself.

So when I hear/read some statement made about "bubbling-up," I have to question whether it is something truly of Christ or part of the environment of becoming excited — even sometimes euphoric — over anything that was said or read without any clear consideration of what it is that is exciting us.

Now I would agree that evidence of real oneness is something noteworthy. But when you discover that the oneness that is actually being addressed is only a closed oneness (oneness among a select few rather than the fullness of the body fo Christ) then I would have started to doubt the basis for my prior excitement.

And that is why I almost always start with skepticism about anything that continues to be remembered positively. Not because I want to pour cold water on everything, but because if you look closer, you might find that what it is you thought was positive was seriously infected with frogs an lice.

I am still a very strong believer. I admittedly do not toe every line of even the group that I meet with, but I have no real problem with them — or many/most others. But when the discussion gets into the theoretical side of things (Calvinism, eschatology, dispensationalism, etc.) I'm too often the one wondering how verse X is claimed to say something it just doesn't say. I was in a bible study last night where someone gave 5 or so verses that supported the basic Calvinist position on eternal security. But at least half of the verses don't say what they claim unless you start with the presumption that Calvinism is correct. Classic begging the question. You can't say something agrees with you because you have already asserted that its words mean differently because the premise is true. Like Lee's "God's economy" ruse to reinterpret so many things — or toss out whole sections of the Psalms, and most of James.

My journey to where I am now did not happen the day I left the LRC. It hadn't happened after 18 years. It may have happened by now (after 32 years) but I bet I still occasionally find errors in my thinking of some significance in the future.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

I must admit that my starting for this thread was partly to give some perspective to your experience of something "bubbling-up." And to demonstrate how potentially corrupt the source of your experience might have been. This doesn't make you corrupt. Rather it shows a little of the fog we all (well most of those on this forum) were under. One in which we came to have spiritual "highs" from things that might not be what we thought they were. Or were actually contrary to what the Bible teaches in some cases.

So when I hear/read some statement made about "bubbling-up," I have to question whether it is something truly of Christ or part of the environment of becoming excited — even sometimes euphoric — over anything that was said or read without any clear consideration of what it is that is exciting us.

Ya-all can wonder . . . I am convinced it was the Anointing within "bubbling up." You cannot move me from that.

Just because it came through a book with WL's name on it, doesn't mean that the basic idea the Anointing was conveying to me was not true. That is, that we should hold to the essentials of the faith tightly and all else very loosely. This word helps me today in fellowshiping with all you-alls (I love when southerners say that!), and every other believer.

So question WL of course, but please don't disparage the Anointing with in me!

[OBW]

I cannot disparage the anointing within you. But I can give you reason to consider whether what was thought to be the anointing at some previous time actually was. What you do with it is up to you.

My only warning is that just because we have some sense within an environment that is full of faux senses provided to us for the purpose of trapping us in a system of error does not mean that it is either of the Lord (anointing) or is not. Just don't fall prey to the idea that you couldn't have been fooled even if others are. Don't presume that you had to be there for some God-ordained reason and therefore have the need to justify things. I do not believe that the Bible teaches that God ordains such things. Just because we were there does not mean He ordained it.

I would gladly declare the truth that I was once a member of a group whose leadership used mind tricks to lull me into a false sense of spiritual superiority and am still recovering to some degree even after 32 years. I can point to a very few positive things that I learned while there. And to many more that I learned since by willfully seeking clarity even where it contradicted things that I had otherwise come to believe to be true.

And I can see the possibility of having a sense of the oneness of the whole body while reading SG&PotCL under the assumption that the hidden negatives were not yet visible to direct you to have a restricted oneness. But that unrestricted oneness is not what the book set out to define — rather to lay the groundwork for finding fault with other Christians.

So if you did not see those errors, then praise God for that!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The first thing I noticed is the phrase "church life", which was repeated three times in the first three sentences. This is a phrase commonly used within the local churches to refer to itself (i.e. "when I touched the church life" means what would typically be stated as "when I joined ABC Church"). So immediately it seems like Lee is stating that the local churches are special because they hold a Christian faith. This is, as usual, hand-in-hand with the viewpoint in the local churches that they are "it" and are the only expression of the Body, or, excuse me, the "practical" or "proper" expression of the Body.

"God" section: I don't know what the LCs get out of using the phrase "uniquely one" to describe God. I have checked out a number of other churches' statements of faith and they just use the word "one".

His "Christ" section is incredibly difficult to read because it's a handful of words broken up by parenthetical verse references, repeated also noticed too what you said that Lee says things like "genuine believers" or "genuine Christians". It's just another dividing, us-vs-them word.

While he does admit that some may disagree on OCOC, he then essentially calls anyone who does disagree an "improper Christian", by saying as "proper Christians" we have to believe OCOC.

Just a little further down Lee uses another phrases that chaps me, "so-called". The "so-called" Pentecostal people. There is too much haughtiness and arrogance in just the first few pages for me to stomach..

Trapped,

I agree that Lee's work is shot through with a tone of judgment and sectarian division, using code words like "genuine", "proper" and whatnot to control the flock. If you look at any HWMR outline it's littered with such stock phrases, reinforcing the prior mental conditioning that what is "in" (the fabled "church life") is good and desirable, and what is "outside" is at best to be tolerated. (But the fire-breathers have permission to reject everything but the words of ministry).

Yet only Jesus is "proper" and "genuine". That is at the root of the gospel and our Christian faith. To somehow wrap ourselves in this mantle, whilst pushing others away, is self-deception. And these books strike me as such.

Again, I also am much self-deceived. But I'm not selling my books and starting training centers. I'm just pointing out why this book doesn't carry much stock with me.

[Nell]

1 Corinthians 4:7 Amplified Bible (AMP)

7 For who regards you as superior or what sets you apart as special? What do you have that you did not receive [from another]? And if in fact you received it [from God or someone else], why do you boast as if you had not received it [but had gained it by yourself]?