Talk:Local churches

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

1 removal of Disputed Neutrality boilerplate
2 Local Church Controversy
3 Writer Beware

[edit] removal of Disputed Neutrality boilerplate

i've tried to sort out the mess that was the Controversies section by separating out the For and Against arguments. in light of that may i suggest removing the Disputed Neutrality boilerplate?

i suppose the Disputed Facts boilerplate should stay as sources are scarce, though. unless someone can suddenly find a wealth of online/written information.

The local churches are criticized on some websites for not having "traditional Christian doctrine"-whatever that is. Most Protestants would agree that the Christian church was hijacked by Roman Catholicism, and all kinds are things were added that are not Biblical, such as meeting in cathedrals, the worship of Mary, transubstantiation, and praying to "saints". They know that is NOT what the Church is, but until Watchman Nee, no one went back to the Bible to find out what the Church IS. The local churches are according to the Biblical pattern.

As far as doctrine goes, using the same Bible, the Lutherans saw more than the Catholics; they saw salvation by grace through faith. Through the years since then more light has been recovered (hence: recovery). Each time this has resulted in the building of a "tabernacle" to try to retain the light like Peter wanted to do on the Mount of Transfiguration. These "tabernacles" are the various denominations of Christianity. What Watchman Nee recovered is the "completing ministry" of the Apostle Paul (Col. 1:25) to reveal "the mystery" (26). This makes the whole New Testament, and indeed, the whole Bible make sense. It's like seeing the picture on the box of a jigsaw puzzle. The history of the "recovery" of truth and light is described on http://www.lordsrecovery.org/site_map/index.html .

Paul wrote over half of the New Testament, yet who knows what he was talking about? Watchman Nee showed that Paul focused on Christ living and being formed in us(Gal. 2:20,Gal. 4:19), being magnified and lived out of us(Phil. 1:20-21), that we as the church His Body, may become His fullness, His expression (Eph. 1:22-23). The Apostle Peter tells us that we are "partakers" of Christ's divine nature (2 Pet. 1:3-7). The Apostle John tells us that the divine life comes into us as the divine seed that we may live out a life that is like God (1 Jn. 2:29, 1 Jn. 3:9, 1 Jn. 4:17) to be the church, a lampstand, which bears the testimony of Jesus (Rev. 1:9, 11-12) which will consummate in the New Jerusalem for God's expression unto eternity (Rev. 21:2-3). This is all from one footnote in the Recovery Version of the Bible (James 1:26 fn.1) which just points out what has been under our noses for 2000 years, and we missed it somehow while we were concentrating on "rightly dividing" the Body of Christ.

Criticisms about "calling on the Lord", of course, cannot be defended by the Bible; the Bible is full of calling on the name of the Lord. Also, everyone hanging off a cliff by the fingers would probably call loudly and repeatedly. They probably wouldn't consider it "vain repetition". Criticisms of pray-reading can only be done by those who don't know Eph. 6:17-18.

Rev. 22:17 says, "And the Spirit and the Bride say 'come'..." Amen Lord! Come! You say "come", and we say "come". Lord, your Bride is longing for your return: Come!. There, that's pray-reading. Was that so scary? Heretical? ~~PalaceSpider~~

[edit] Local Church Controversy

Could the editors of this article please read my talk comments on Talk:Local Church controversy? I'm trying to see if we can get some order and agreement as we try to forge an informative and valuable set of articles, regardless of whether we support or criticize the local churches. Cokoli 02:08, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

==A Biased Soapbox? I am sorry to see such an unprofessional biased soapbox is permitted to exist in Wikipedia. There are a series of controversial claims which can not be verified to be true or accurate or based on any local church published materials. Wikipedia should not become a chatboard, whereby those who are negative against the local churches get to paste their claims (i.e. on a soapbox). It seems that accuracy and unobjective posting on topics, is unexplainedly not being required here. Why not have chatboard pages for every group in wikipedia? then those who are negative can repost their "unsubstaniated, biased, personal interpretations". This kind of trash journalism serves only to degrade wikipedia. I am not clear why posting quotes from the local church publishedn materials is not required for each "controversial claim"?. Allowing potentential misinterpretations or biased opinions masquerading as facts, is shameful and certainly below the standard of a fact based presentation. If one removes the controversial claims/personal opinions then the major content surround lawsuits which each one can be objectively verified and reported on. Whether wikipedia wants to act as link post for Pro/Con websites, my question is are there such pro/con website references for other christian groups/denominations i.e the catholic church, if they have controvery pages as well then the it would seem fair to do likewise. I think for instance in the ruling of Harvest House it would be very beneficial to post the decision (properly referenced), to note that in fact the court could not rule on the controversial claim of the LSM or the plaintiff churches as being a cult, as a matter of law they could not express an opinion on such a definition. The major controversy I have is why these opinions masquerading as facts have been allowed to remain? As for merging this topic with the main page, it seems to me that garbage in garbage out principle dictates this should not be done.

== RS 01:11PM, Jan 18 2006

I think it is wrong to say you are God in any way; to sue Christians for faith; engage in violent screaming and repetitive mantra which is neither reading nor prayer; defending calvinism the pride of believing in being premade for salvation whiles others premade for hell; teaching modalism that the Father is the Son and that the Godhead is a Person; designate one's organization as abiding in Biblical locality when the very existence of a central command associated with products for sale violates the work of apostles; altering Watchman Nee's writings is bearing false witness.

Should the Church accept the unholy trinity of was (Witness Lee), is not (Witness Lee) and is about to come (Rev. 17.8) through the Living Stream Ministry by The Local Church?

This article should be an encyclopaedic summary of what the local church is, NOT an apologetic or diatribe by persons with biased points of view. What matters is NOT what YOU believe...what matters is that the article is FACTUAL and NEUTRAL point of view. NO ONE in the local church ever uses the word "mantra" (which is Hindu) so using it is BIASED. NO ONE in the local church says that Witness Leee is part of the Trinity. No one engages in "violent screaming". What is prayer and what is NOT prayer is in the eye of the believer, not in your eye. Free will and freedom of thought means that the individual person has the right, not YOU, to decide if what they are doing is prayer or not. And if that sounds agnostic, fine. The local church never taught modalism. Predestination is a major tenet of Calvinism (which last I checked, was considered CHRISTIAN several centuries ago). Also, it is YOU, not the local church, that teach about HELL (a word not even in the Bible...the Greek word is "Hades"). The local church only teaches what the Bible says...that some were found with their names written in the Book of Life, and others not (see Revelation 22). Last I checked, no one said that the BAPTISTS weren't Christian because they had a BAPTIST BOOK STORE. The bottom line: your ranting and raving is a poor reflection of YOU, not the local church. If the local church is wrong, it would only be because all religion and belief is wrong, there is no God, and atheism is correct. But if there is a God, and the Bible is the basis for belief ("all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching") then I would surmise that the local church is among the most logically correct of all denominations. Last I checked, I couldn't find the Easter Bunny in the Bible. Oh wait, that's because its a 'pagan' fertility goddess (Ishtar). Hmmm...but if you choose to believe that, its up to you...→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 10:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Writer Beware

Like entries on similar organizations such as Scientology and the Jehovah's Witnesses, no fair discussion can take place on this topic. If anyone dare edit this article, it will be swiftly and aggressively reverted to reflect only the official point of view of the Local Church and its headquarters, the Living Stream Ministry. Try it.

What darkness fears most is the bright light of day.

[edit] Don't even bother to note it is "controversial"

[edit] disputed article text

This warning was moved from the article and replaced with the standard boilerplate texts for NPOV dispute and accuracy dispute. Daniel Quinlan 07:59, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Dear readers,

Note: The information on this page is biased. For more accurate information, please do some research yourself since much of the information below is based on the writings of Jim Moran (therefore it has not been experienced personally by one of the Wiki's contributors).

Pro: www.lsm.org, www.christianwebsites.org, www.contendingforthefaith.org

Against: Sites by Jim Moran, Daniel Azuma, Anton Hein, etc.

Please do not remove this announcement!

I removed some of the more POV passages, including weasel words like 'seeming' and blatent puff passages. It should be possible to write a sensible article about this movement without either canonising or demonising it. I'm going to remove the more purple passages again; please discuss why you think they should go back, if you do. DJ Clayworth 18:27, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please explain what facts are disputed. If none, then we can remove the notice. DJ Clayworth 18:39, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This article hasn't been touched or discussed in two months now, I'll remove the notices and see if there are any further problems that result from it. Bryan 22:52, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I recommend reinserting the accuracy dispute if there is, in fact, legitimate concern. For what its worth, Christian Websites hosts this site giving the history of the movement from a distinctly insider perspective:

The Lord's Recovery

If certain facts are still in dispute, even after verification, then it is certainly reasonable to update the page to match the facts. I simply do not have the energy to engage in an extended discussion as to whether or not such and such is actual history. The facts are there and can be researched by anyone who has the inclination to do so. I encourage concerned readers to make factual updates that increase content in the article, as opposed to simply removing factual information simply because it is in some way disagreeable.

As Daniel Quinlan points out in his user page:

"Many articles at Wikipedia have evolved into agenda vehicles and Wikipedia lacks the will and the technology to allow neutral authors to effectively overrule vocal minorities pushing various agendas."

Give the overall controversy surrounding this movement, I am concerned that any critical remarks about them will be regarded as non-NPOV, and thus edited out. To this end I had considered adding an entry Local Church controversy, however the same problems would arise with that page. The advantage of Wikipedia is in its online revision control system, so older edits of webpages remain available.

Further discussion points can be placed here, and I will try to remain attentive to these concerns in the future.

TheLocalChurch 21:54, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, the talk: page serves as a good record for these things too. Now that you've put your concerns here, it's possible that if a problem arises in the future some editor will see them and know that the "NPOVing" might have an ulterior motive. If the article's text isn't currently under dispute, I think it might be best to just leave these warnings here on talk: as a safeguard against potential future problems for now. Bryan 06:58, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I dispute TheLocalChurch's use of the moniker "TheLocalChurch" as his/her user name. This user claims to have a NPOV on subject matter related to the Local Church, yet it is clear from the user's own statements that his/her position is not neutral on this matter and that he/she is not capable of separating personal grievances from objective description. The moniker "TheLocalChurch" is used by this person not in good faith, as it is misleading in that any reasonable person would assume that a person named "TheLocalChurch" writing on the topic of the "Local Church" would be a representative or authoritative source for the Local Church, which this person obviously is not. If you are having difficulty seeing my point of view on this, consider a person who is in subjective disagreement with the Methodist Church, yet publicly names himself "TheMethodist" and proceeds to subtley modify all Wikipedia articles to spin the Methodist Church in a negative light. Such activity would obviously be considered devious and unacceptable.

I also dispute much of the writing on TheLocalChurch's user page, which I understand is voluntarily off-limits to my redaction. For example, this person's justification for remaining anonymous is itself a subtle slandering of the Local Church. The implication in this user's justification for remaining anonymous is that Living Stream Ministry and the Local Church involve themselves in frivolous lawsuits in order to harass people who disagree with their beliefs and practices, and that this person does not want to be harassed by such frivolous lawsuits. The facts are quite the opposite: Living Stream Ministry and the Local Church have engaged in only three legal actions in their entire existence: one against Thomas Nelson publishers, et al, resulted in the defendants retracting the book and issuing a public apology; one against Spiritual Counterfeits Project, et al, resulted in an $11.9 million judgment against the defendants (with the judge awarding an extraordinay amount of punitive damages to the plaintiffs); and another against Harvest House Publishers, et al, that is ongoing, but is already looking to be a sound defeat for the defendants to the tune of about $136 million. Evidently, the United States government's judicial system would beg to differ with TheLocalChurch's implication that the Local Church and Living Stream Ministry involve themselves in frivolous lawsuits.

And so we must consider what the real motive is behind TheLocalChurch's insistence on remaining anonymous. I don't think this is Daniel Azuma, as he is not afraid to publish his criticism of the Local Church on the Internet. Neither is it Jim Moran, because he passed away last year. Could it be Anton Hein? Maybe. Anton Hein was convicted in the United States of child molestation and fled to another country, from whence he publishes his website that is critical of the Local Church. He would be motivated to remain anonymous on the Wikipedia in order to limit the damage a child molestation conviction would do to his credibility. TheLocalChurch, are you Anton Hein in hiding?

--Nathan w cheng 21:40, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All who are truly interested in getting to the bottom of this, please, before you do anything more, read this: Libel Litigations Filed by the Local Churches. Thank you! --Nathan w cheng 22:21, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nathan,

You are certainly free to have your opinion on these matters! :) In fact, I would encourage you to express it because I value the freedom of speech. You will note, however, that at this point, other than posting the original text for this page, I have made no other major updates to it. Other Wikipedians have themselves defended the article and numerous attempts to deface it. As far as the details you mention above, I do not make a secret of those events, but instead encourage individuals to get both sides of the story. Particularly relevant to this is the SCP Newsletter which discussed the events surrounding the actions you list, and the aftermath of the court decision upon SCP. All users of Wikipedia should use the site with the full knowledge that articles are presented in an as-is basis, and further research should be performed to corroborate the information contained within it. Wikipedia, after all, is by definition a work in progress, and therefore not perfect.

As far as a sound defeat of the Harvest House suit, this is hardly assured. Some details can be found here:

Harvest House Corporate Statement on the Local Church/Living Stream Ministry Lawsuit

Harvest House Frequently asked questions regarding the lawsuit

From Living Stream Ministries, a response:

Response to Harvest House Corporate Statement

And, the most recent response from Harvest House:

Harvest House Publishers and Authors Address Newest Allegations from The Local Church and Living Stream Ministry

(This statement has only been out a couple days. Living Stream Ministry will likely put out a response shortly, however at the time of this edit I am unaware of a response.)

I think your speculation about my identity will be seen by users as adolescent :) That said, I do appreciate your speculation that I might be Anton Hein, and take it more as a compliment than an attack. Anton has his own website, Apologetics Index, which has information about this movement posted. Apparently he can defend himself :) As an aside, if you disagree with Anton's site, there are avenues on his website with which you can express your disagreement. As far as Anton Hein purportedly being a child molestor, how does this speculation relate to the accuracy of this particular article?

As far as NPOV is concerned, NPOV applies to all sides of a discussion, not just one particular one. It would be irresponsible to remove mention of controversy from this article in the interest of a supposed NPOV, as I pointed out already with Wikipedia Sysop Bryan Derksen. If you disagree with my user page, feel free to bring that up with me on my talk page. If you feel that I am a problem for Wikipedia, then you are welcome to address that with one of the Wikipedia Sysops :)

Thanks!

TheLocalChurch 05:14, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My only real problem with you is your use of the moniker TheLocalChurch, because it is such an underhanded thing to do, and it doesn't seem to bother you at all. --Nathan w cheng 22:49, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In that case, thanks for clearing up your concern! :) I don't think it bothers me much, certainly not any more than the local churches portraying themselves as just another evangelical church seems to bother elders of the local churches. This attempt at portraying the movement as just another church is evident in how much "unspinning" this article has been through in the last dozen of so edits.

TheLocalChurch 05:51, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nathan w cheng is entitled to his opinion, but not when it involves wrongful accusations regarding issues he is not familiar with.

For one thing, I post to Wikipedia under my real name, Anton Hein. I do not post anonymously to this - or any other website or online forum. Thus, for the record, I do not post under the name TheLocalChurch

My own websites, Apologetics Index and Religion News Blog are posted under the name of my wife and myself.

Nathan sees fit to mention my conviction on the charges of child molestation, and claims that I fled to another country. In reality, I accepted a plea bargain - in part on the advice of the Dutch consul, who was not impressed with America's justice system and for other reasons highlighted in the FAQ section at my own web site. As a result, I then spent 6 months and 20 days in jail. Shortly after my release, I received permission to visit the Netherland on account of the fact that my sister suddenly died. In the Netherlands, the Dutch Justice Department looked at my case, declared it to be a case of wrongful conviction, and advised me to remain in the Netherlands. Your suggestion that I am in hiding is ludicrous. The Dutch Justice Department interacted with the California Department of Justice regarding this matter. I'm in the phone book, and my address information is available to each and every person.

Has this experience hurt my credibility? Not that I know of. Scientologists and a handful of other adherents of groups deemed by some to be 'cults' have tried, but failed. In large part that is because since April, 2000, my website's FAQ section has included details about this case. Too, many people - lots of Americans included - know that the U.S. Justice System is notorious for its high frequency of i n y u r l.com/2rraf wrongful convictions - including those that people have been pushed into with so-called pleabargains.

If you are going to make comments on legal issues, Nathan, make sure you know what you are talking about. Otherwise you'll have to be concerned about your own credibility. Speaking of which, with regard to the Local Church's lawsuit against Harvest House, you claim that it is "already looking to be a sound defeat for the defendants to the tune of about $136 million." Really? That would surprise the judge, lawyers and parties involved as this is an ongoing case that hasn't gone to trial yet. I advise you and others to check the facts, including a look at Harvest House's corporate statements.

With regard to the LC's lawsuit against the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, I invite people to look into the details of the case. See also, When Talk Isn't Cheap and Speech Isn't Free: The Abuse of Libel Law

I have little time nor interest in pursuing an ongoing discussion on this matter. Just wanted to set the record straight. And should you or anyone else visit Amsterdam, let me know. We'll get together for a beer and talk face to face.

Anton Apologetics Index Research resources on religions, cults, sects, doctrines, and related issues: News and news archives Other research resources

Well, I'm glad you clarified that. It is interesting to me that you seem to imply here that your conviction was unjust, but yet I have read your own testimony in which you admit to having done something that I care not to even write about on this site, let alone think about. Do you really think that grown men should be able to do that to adolescents and not be corrected by the law? I suppose you feel that the U.S. justice system failed again when it made an $11.9 million judgment against Spiritual Counterfeits Project, basically having found SCP to be the real conterfeit. Some day there will be a final Judgment, and at that point it won't really matter how you spin the outcome. --Nathan w cheng 22:49, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Look Nathan, I don't know what your agenda is, but it looks like you'll only see what you want to see. Suffice it to say that those who - unlike you - are familiar with all the details of the case, support me. Among others, that includes the Dutch justice department.

As for the Final Judgment, I have no fear. My conscience is clear before God. That said, you may want to think about the fact that you and others who bring false accusations will have to give an account.

Now, I have given full disclosure, but you are still trying to bolster your case by ad hominem attacks on me. I guess you have no idea how weak that makes your arguments look.

Anton Hein

...But not the American justice system. I'm American, and I think you are too.

I think my agenda is pretty clear: to expose just about everything you have to say about the local churches as being untruthful and not in good faith, coming from a person who cannot be trusted because he has a criminal past for which he is not repentant.

Um, what "false" accusation? ...Um, what "accusation"? Have I accused you of anything? What "ad hominem" attacks? Where have I abandoned fact or reason? If my case is made weak by statement of fact, then so be it; I care for the truth, regardless of whether or not it helps my case.--Nathan w cheng 06:12, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Nathan, I was born and raised in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Though I lived in America for a while, I always remained a Dutch citizen.

Your quest for truth is admirable. Unfortunately, the way you go about it virtually guarantees that you won't find it. After all, it appears that you merely pick and choose from what you consider to be 'facts,' while dismissing anything and everything that doesn't quite fit your opinions.

As for the American 'justice system,' you ought to check the facts presented by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or the Innocense Project. Then try and find similar information about the Dutch justice system.

On ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies see this entry in Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies. If you study the information at that site, you may learn why it is self-defeating to try and defend your opinions the way you do.

So I suggest you cut your losses and return to defending your views regarding the Local Church. You're only spinning your wheels by attacking me. Anton Hein

Anton, if you read the original post in which I brought you up, I was speculating as to the identity of a user who insists on remaining anonymous, and why he might be motivated to do so. Thank you for clearing up the fact that you do not post anonymously--I commend you for that and wish that others would follow your example. As to your invitation to get together with you next time I am in Amsterdam, I must say that several years ago when I read on your website your own explanation of your personal controversy, you seemed to be quite unrepentant. Perhaps your view of the incident has changed in recent years, in which case I would be happy to meet you for a meal if I am ever in Amsterdam again.--Nathan w cheng 01:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And I must add that I do believe when discussing--and especially disputing--topics related to Christianity and morality it is appropriate to consider the Christian testimony and moral character of the persons involved in the discussion or dispute.--Nathan w cheng 01:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Nathan, my wife and I are in relationships of mutual accountability with fellow Christians. My conscience is clear before them and before God, and there is nothing whatsoever you can do to change that. So again, stick to the issue of the Local Church rather than play judge and jury. You gain absolutely nothing by continuing to focus to me. -- Anton Hein

[edit] Purpose of this talk page

This talk page exists to improve the article on Local churches. The above section discussing Anton Hein's private life is completely off-topic and will shortly be removed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:12, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendation

Not being involved in the above discussion, I wanted to propose moving the material in "The Local Church as a Cult" to the "Local Church Controversy" page as it is off topic in the page about the history and practices. Furthermore, I submit that "Cult Awareness" is not NPOV and that the title should be changed to what is now the subtitle, "Opposing Points of View" E David Moyer 03:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it is important we stick the 6 major teachings of The Local Church, so we can hold those in Lee camp accountable instead of continually letting them off the hook by their not addressing these problems (i.e. always skirting around the facts): calvinism (pride in believing in being premade for salvation), suing for faith, modalism (saying the Father is the Son and the Godhead is a Person), altering Watchman Nee's writings (e.g. limiting affection to love and desire only to hate in LSM TSM), calling oneself God (in any way shape or form), and violent screaming mantra (which is neither prayer nor reading to yell 2 or 3 words aggressively).

Also, can we please stick to why it is wrong to have a central-hub command and control centre of LSM for filthy lucre, and no Aposles (which is rejecting Eph. 4.11). If the outlets of the lsm/lc system are without Apostles, then their outlets are taken care of by false Elders since those Elders are not and never will be appointed by Apostles. All this seems like quite a reasonable assessment stated succinctly. If only we could maintain the focus on these specific problems instead of always filling the pages with other matters, perhaps you will help this organization to find the way of the Dodo bird which is God's will. Sincerely. (unsigned comment)

The above rant does more to expose the negative motives of the anti-local church apologist fanatics than it does about the local church. Using words like "filthy lucre" is a joke! Last I checked, when I went to a Presbyterian church, they passed around a collection plate. At a local church meeting, there was NO COLLECTION PLATE. So, the charge is false and biased.

Two, the Catholic church has a central hub-command system. Each church has the right to structure itself the way it sees fit. To be honest, since Catholics are a majority of Christians and others (including Anglicans) have a central structure, in fact the opinionator is in the minority.

Three, an "apostle" is a "sent one." The local church has "apostles." However, they do not officially name persons "apostles". Not doing so is a sign of humility, as it is up to God to decide who is a real apostle or not.

Four, such a response is far from reasonable. If anything need go the way of the Dodo bird, it is those who spout off first without thinking, coming at a subject with an agenda and a closed mind.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 11:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad grammar

Someone with better grammatical skill in English please edit this entry, it is kind of painful to read.

[edit] Criticism should be inside this article

I've nominated the outsourced criticism page for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local Church controversy. According to our policy, the criticism almost always should be part of the main article. Some major editing here is needed. --Pjacobi 15:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I started this separate article, and I agree that for the sake of NPOV, it should be part of the main article. Chitu 16:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The result of the January AfD was merge and major problems were seen with the Controversies article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local Church controversy

I've waited months that somebody knowledgeable would volunteer to do the prune and merge, but to no avail. To end thsi stalemate, I bluntly inserted the entire Controversies article here and hope for merciless editing to resolve the problems. --Pjacobi 20:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A mess

This article is a mess. It seems there isn't an editor available who knows something about the subject and is able and willing to write encyclopedic style. Silly disclaimers like As the issues here are of disputed neutrality and accuracy, it is hoped that Wikipedians will add (rather than delete) information to point out any deficiencies in these respects, in the spirit of having a neutral, factual discussion. (in article space!) don't help much. --Pjacobi 18:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If possible, I would like to volunteer to be an editor for this this topic. I have attended meetings at the local church for a few years and have a good grasp of their teachings. Since 2002, I have not participated in any meetings or had contacts with anyone involved with the Local Church. Having been on both sides, I believe I will make a good editor. Please let me know how to best proceed as an editor.FredCheng 08:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] .......

First I would like to say wikipedia is a wonderful site. But is becoming more or less generic and it seems to be digressing. If it were upto me I would have gotten rid of this article on the local churches along time ago. This action should have been foreseen whether or not who put the article up. I'm not quite sure who put the article up, but from what I can tell its points are somewhat inaccurate, especially the allegations. It sickens me to have seen this. This is not a controversy, its just crap and uselessness. You people have no position to make this article, especially if you have never witnessed the church life. I've been in the church life for 17 years, and it sickens me to see this horrid stuff on here. I can honestly tell the viewers of this site that they are becoming bigots of bigotry just falling into this madness.

[edit] "The Local Church"?

I have grown up in the church life, and this article annoys me. Even though we emphasize that the church should NOT take a name, over and over the churches are referred to as some organization, "The Local Church." I am not being biased, it is inaccurate. There is more than one local church. That's the whole point. it's not The Local Church (like the Catholic Church or whatever). The term 'local churches' is simply used to describe them, not as a name. Please do not call the local churches The Local Church. They are all just small expressions of the one universal church.

It disgusts me that members of the Body should be called "followers of Lee", "Leeists", or believers in "Leeism". Witness Lee and Watchman Nee were both faithful servants used by the Lord to recover many truths lost over the years. God gave them the revelations. Do not think that Witness and Watchman thought it all up on their own and then tried to spread their teachings. Believers who meet with the local churches should NEVER be called followers of Lee. The Bible is their standard and the Lord is one and only Head. They would never think that they are in "Lee's church" or that Living Stream Ministry is in charge of everything.

[edit] Categorization

I noticed that this article wasn't categorized, so I added it to the category "Christian denominations". I know that local churches do not consider themselves a denomination, but I couldn't find another category that seemed applicable. Feel free to change it if you want, but the article should be in a category of some kind. —Cswrye 18:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There shouldn't be any controversy

Last I checked, freedom of religion meant the right to believe whatever one chooses. What I find controversial is not the local church teachings but the smear campaign and polemics from those who seek to misinform, misrepresent, and mislead by building straw-man arguments. In the 1500's, Martin Luther was 'controversial'...but 500 years later, we see that he was right about a great many things. But in this case, right or wrong does not matter, what matters is a NPOV. Considering that most of the 'controversy' in fact amounts to apologist attacks from outsiders, might WIKIPEDIA consider downplaying the 'controversial' aspect. Might we say that all religion is controversial to those who do not agree with it.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

BELOW IS ANOTHER ENTRY FROM ANOTHER PERSON. sorry for forgetting to put in a title. and the rather haphazard setting. I'm horrid with computers. Please can anyone help edit the lines to make them not stick out so much?

  I was born into a family that had faithfully attended the local church in the past but due to moving around to areas that did not have the local church for several interims so far in my life during which I have not been under any influence that the church can possibly have on me. So I hope my comment may be of some value concerning neutriality with this issue. Also to note is the fact that I am currently living in a Sister's house and have constanct contact with the people living there but have chosen to remain apart from the prayer meetings and all other church activities for a time in order to observe my own feelings on the matter and whether I wish to be a part of the church. I would like to state my findings so far:

1.CONCERNING FORCE The local church does not force members, partial members, or potential members to do anything in particular. There may be peer pressure and gentle persuasion, but so far I have found it fairly easy(though uncomfortable)to weasle my way out of attending prayer meetings and such.

 The rules on this matter differ, however, from sister/brother house to house. Since the apartments are provided at a comparitively cheap cost and under the premises that member living there are willing to abide under house rules and the primary purpose of living there is to experience the church life, most restrictions are reasonable. Such as returning to the apartments before 10 or 11 PM to sleep, waking at 5 or 6 PM,encouraged attendance of prayer meetings and/or school meetings, attending conventions, codes of cleanliness, banning of comics, television and porn in the apartments(though in my House comics have so far not been confiscated) and so forth. Some houses have been considered (even among other members) as overly strict, such as absolute banning of personal and intimate communication between the sexes and banning of internet use. Fortunately that is not the case in most apartments. I wouldn't be living here if it were.
 If I were living at home I would have no problem whatsoever concerning pressure in attending services, when it comes to home it depends on your parents. Occasionally a group of sisters and brothers find it imperative for them to visit long-lost members in concern of their spirtuality. I have found no trouble whatsoever in being unable to repay them for their kindness by attending service because it bores me. So sorry. But it shows how little imperative control the church has over its members.

2.CONCERNING BRAINWASHING

as the above, there is no great force applied in making people believe. Let me put it this way - the church does not make people who do not want to believe believe. I know quite a few professor, doctors and basically people who should have sound judgement with such matters become active members of the church. This example may sound lame and I'm sorry if it is. Perhaps I can give a counter-example:
I’ve heard the typical brainwashing regimen includes programs like repetition (making you watch videos telling you the same things over and over again), group living(you are your environment), harsh regimen(harsh living codes that must be observed, period) and so on. It destroys individual freedom and discourages individual thoughts.
I have discovered certain articles that may be useful in cult training, such as videos of conventions, group living (brother and sister houses, for example), and certain living codes (though strangely, they are brought up but not at all reinforced, which makes one, like me, tend to forget them sometimes). There is no imperative, however, to watch these videos, to live together, or to adhere to the codes. In fact, on a side note, the videos are rather dull, to me I mean. So I’m sure anyone who was forced to watch them would feel intense suffering from boredom. There are, however, people who do watch them voluntarily. Admirable, I say. In short, I have not been forced to watch them and nobody I know has either.
In the context of the church, if you freely interpret what the bible has to say it can be dangerous in the wrong hands and the wrong minds. I’m finding problems in the bible all the time. Like I feel like Jesus is always referring us to sheep and fish, which makes me feel ready to be skinned and/or cooked. I pointed this out, and a brother gently corrected me. Saying he was sure God did not mean that we be peeled or cooked for his pleasure or anything of that sort. I have heard of a different denomination that takes freedom of interpretion a little too liberally, with the people associating the ravens that fed the hungry prophet in the old testament (Whose English name I forgot) with some sort of scientific scale or something, which is far from the point the bible was trying to make. There are sure to be other examples of extreme interpretation but that I have no remembrance of. The point is. The local churches preach caution and moderation concerning bible interpretation. Extremes for means of self profit and otherwise are regarded in a dim light, as it should. Since any misleading interpretation could lead to dire consequences.
Also, they do not make us girls wear dresses or skirts, though it is encouraged in certain more formal conventions.

 I'm sorry, this is as far as I can go right now for I have to go to bed. I hope my entry has given a clearer view of somethings.

I was born into a family that had faithfully attended the local church in the past but due to moving around to areas that did not have the local church for several interims so far in my life during which I have not been under any influence that the church can possibly have on me. So I hope my comment may be of some value concerning neutriality with this issue. Also to note is the fact that I am currently living in a Sister's house and have constanct contact with the people living there but have chosen to remain apart from the prayer meetings and all other church activities for a time in order to observe my own feelings on the matter and whether I wish to be a part of the church. I would like to state my findings so far: 1.CONCERNING FORCE The local church does not force members, partial members, or potential members to do anything in particular. There may be peer pressure and gentle persuasion, but so far I have found it fairly easy(though uncomfortable)to weasle my way out of attending prayer meetings and such.

 The rules on this matter differ, however, from sister/brother house to house. Since the apartments are provided at a comparitively cheap cost and under the premises that member living there are willing to abide under house rules and the primary purpose of living there is to experience the church life, most restrictions are reasonable. Such as returning to the apartments before 10 or 11 PM to sleep, waking at 5 or 6 PM,encouraged attendance of prayer meetings and/or school meetings, attending conventions, codes of cleanliness, banning of comics, television and porn in the apartments(though in my House comics have so far not been confiscated) and so forth. Some houses have been considered (even among other members) as overly strict, such as absolute banning of personal and intimate communication between the sexes and banning of internet use. Fortunately that is not the case in most apartments. I wouldn't be living here if it were.
 If I were living at home I would have no problem whatsoever concerning pressure in attending services, when it comes to home it depends on your parents. Occasionally a group of sisters and brothers find it imperative for them to visit long-lost members in concern of their spirtuality. I have found no trouble whatsoever in being unable to repay them for their kindness by attending service because it bores me. So sorry. But it shows how little imperative control the church has over its members.

2.CONCERNING BRAINWASHING

3. CONCERNING ELITISM

 I have heard of some speak of other denominations of churches as 'they' as though they were a different race entirely but not everyone in the church holds this opinion. There are faults, human faults, in our church like any other. Cases where individuals come for self profit and power. It is rather inevitable, I believe. Where people gather it usually means power and money, so it attracts some who desire this. On a side note some people find brother Lee's teaching a bit too harsh and dogmatic, and now these years there has been a wind that calls for being more moderate. Personally I do not worship brother Lee or any other member of our church and those sisters and brothers I know don't either. The focus is not on individuals or sainting people, but on God.

4. ON MANTRAS

 I find it amusing to be called that and in some ways I agree. It is annoying, especially to those who are not part of the chanting group. I don't wakeup early, but I do because I hear the sisters saying the name of the lord in a very loud voice over and over again and it becomes very difficult to maintain the state of sleep. In the context of God I believe it helps one clear oneself of miscellaneous thoughts and instead focus on God entirely. I believe God wouldn't want you to be thinking about that new dress you want to buy or that cute brother sitting six feet away while you're praying. It becomes something of a habit once you're used to it, as I was for the half a year I was passionate about our church's activities. But then I started to doubt myself - maybe by doing this I am brainwashing myself. So I desisted to see what would happen. What I don't agree with is how they talk about enjoying christ and the body, enjoying meetings. I always feel this irresistable urge to yawn and rest my eyelids during these activities, I don't know why. So sorry. Can't help. But I'm sure some people feel enjoyment and I say, as long as they feel happy why should I disput with them. It's their freedom to enjoy christ, as I am unable to.

 I have more points to make about this but have to go to bed now so will end here. Sorry. Hopefully this can clarify some things. The point I wish to get across is that the local churches are not harmful in any cult way, so no need to be worried. It is simply a different way to worship, an alternative for people who want a christian life and teaching that is more intensive. I am surprised that so much controversy can arise from this.
 My advice to local church members - please don't make the situation worst by seeming too partial to the local churches and vilifying others in the process. It will only worsen the enmity. Just state the facts and tell the truth in what way you can. If I look like I'm advertising the church it's not intentional at all.

--Mignonchang 19:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Might I say the above stories miss the mark. First, this talk page should be about the local church, not one's personal experiences. Second, since no one is forced to join a 'brother's house'/'sisters house', what is the point of explaining it? After all, the vast majority of local church members live in their private homes. 'Brothers houses' and 'sisters houses' are ther to provide alternatives to dorm living. One thing I do agree on: there is no force; if you don't want to be there, you are free to leave.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 11:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ryoung, you are right in that what's controversial is "the smear campaign and polemics from those who seek to misinform, misrepresent, and mislead by building straw-man arguments." What's more disturbing is that the critical sites are written by the same group of people. --Pehkay

[edit] Some Claims Need to Be Verified -- or Retracted

Please explain your unsubstantiated claim that "the critical sites are written by the same group of people." The "same" in what sense? They're not all with the same organization, not all located in the same part of the world, not all of the same theological persuasion. Thank you.

==Same Neil Duddy involved with SCP wrote "God-men" in defaming the LC, which were retracted. John Weldon of Harvest House, was involved with SCP wrote another book at the same time from 1977-78. Thread of Gold's author is with the Bereans Apologetic board. etc..

[edit] Moved Allegations to New Page

I have created a Allegations page, because I believe having allegations on the main page gives the organisation a bad look, and therefore destroys the organisation's reputation.
I don't see any allegations on the front page of Wikipedia, and I don't think it is in Wikipedia's interests to create a article with a bias point of view.
-Michael Quantum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelquantum (talk • contribs) 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/c/Talk%7ELocal_churches_2c1d.html"

Category: Wikipedia controversial topics