The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church

[Ohio]

ZNPs "assessment" in neither accurate nor fair, he is simply being argumentative and sidetracking the discussions by trying to address something that Duddy DID NOT SAY, instead of addressing what he did say. I have asked everyone, and ZNP especially, PLEASE ADDRESS WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK, NOT WHAT IS NOT WRITTEN IN THE BOOK.

Aren't you being a little harsh here Bro? It seemed to me that his post was well within topic, yet you were perturbed that Cassidy liked it. I don't mind agreeing with Cassidy ... on occasion. :eek:

Maybe I'm wrong, but for some reason ZNP seems to be held to a different standard. Maybe it's just his NY accent. I have trouble understanding them people at times too. :truce:

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

"Lee's theology of Salvation is addressed in this quote. Duddy says "it could be said that people are not so much redeemed as replaced." This is false. It cannot be said. It cannot be inferred. It is false.

The fact that Witness Lee taught that people are "replaced" does not change the fact that his teaching on redemption is very fundamental and scriptural.

I feel I must address this:


Z - I offered a few sentences from the book on the Salvation Lee preached - and those few sentences are from a page and a half on that - and I haven't touched on Sanctification or the rest yet. Please note that Duddy writes "it COULD BE SAID (it hasn't exactly been said, but it is not a far stretch to say, given the volumes Lee wrote on the subject) that people are NOT SO MUCH (Lee seems to believe that the main aspect has been missed by mainstream christianity - because there is more to the story) redeemed as replaced.

Z- you ADMIT that Lee taught that people were replaced. My Lord God, a brother I was close to didn't even think Christ would LITERALLY return, because there was no point in it: WE ARE CHRIST he said!!! That's where Lee's doctrines lead - he may not have exactly taught that, but his confusing way of writing and contradicting himself didn't just leave his critics scratching their heads, it left his followers often doing the exact same thing!

It Does NOT say "Lee doesn't teach that people are redeemed."
It Does NOT say that "Lee taught that people are only replaced."

You ARE reading something into what was said and making more of it.

Thus far in his treatment of LSM, Duddy has been respectful, courteous, and gracious to the movement - and on MULTIPLE occassions documented that he went to LSM for specifics, for further clarifications, and began his whole treatment of LSM theology with the caveat that LSM doesn't publish a single volume outlining their theology, and on many points they seem to contradict themselves between publications. Duddy even asked LSM to provide a rebuttal, and (later in this book) suggests that LSM or Lee publish a definitive and accurate statement of faith or a book that defines to their satisfaction their lingo. As you well know, LSM's only response was to flip SCP the bird and take 'em to court!

Not once has Duddy called LSM a cult, not once has he used a derogatory term to describe Lee, not once has he questioned the salvation of Lee or of members within the Local Church. Slander has still not been proven, and even Duddy notes that his research (extensive as it was at 4 1/2 years) was still not entirely adequate but that he was making every effort to be faithful to relate what Lee was teaching.

Duddy and SCP were respectful, but where is the mutual Christian respect shown? Do you realize from what we've read so far, that EVERY topic Duddy covered we've also covered here? Do you realize that Duddy covered it quite thoroughly back in 1981 - and even before that to the first publishing in 1978? Have you realized that if you would have read this book back when it first came out, rather than accepting it's ban carte blanche by LSM, that you would have learned about DayStar, about the 'Rebellion', about Phillip Lee, about the differences between LSM theology and 'orthodox' Christian doctrine? Do you realize you might have seen your way out of the LSM movement DECADES ago?

Please, let's return to the topic tonight... I'll resume with Lee on Sanctification....

[ZNPaaneah]

I feel I must address this:


Z - I offered a few sentences from the book on the Salvation Lee preached - and those few sentences are from a page and a half on that - and I haven't touched on Sanctification or the rest yet. Please note that Duddy writes "it COULD BE SAID (it hasn't exactly been said, but it is not a far stretch to say, given the volumes Lee wrote on the subject) that people are NOT SO MUCH (Lee seems to believe that the main aspect has been missed by mainstream christianity - because there is more to the story) redeemed as replaced.

Z- you ADMIT that Lee taught that people were replaced...
You ARE reading something into what was said and making more of it.

The context of the quote was given by you as "Lee's theology of salvation". The quote was this:

"It could be said that people are not so much redeemed as replaced."

That is completely false. There is no confusion between being redeemed and being "replaced" in Lee's theology of salvation. If there was "clarification" that was not in your original quote then go ahead and give us a fuller quote. But anyone not familiar with Witness Lee's teachings who reads this will be alarmed. It is exceedingly misleading and false.

[alwayslearning]

Not once has Duddy called LSM a cult, not once has he used a derogatory term to describe Lee, not once has he questioned the salvation of Lee or of members within the Local Church. Slander has still not been proven, and even Duddy notes that his research (extensive as it was at 4 1/2 years) was still not entirely adequate but that he was making every effort to be faithful to relate what Lee was teaching.

Duddy wanted to meet with Witness Lee and his coworkers to get their input on what he was doing i.e. to make sure he was getting it accurately. As is their arrogant manner they rebuffed him and refused to meet. Then they play their "we're victims of the big bad opposers" game and sue him instead. Somehow in their minds this is better.

A few decades later when the BB had to contend with Harvest House they asked the question WWWD and decided to follow in his arrogant foot steps to sue, sue sue. Thankfully they lost in the legal courts and the court of public opinion. But sadly through the long process they lost mega time and money that could have been used productively to help the poor and other worthy pursuits.

[aron]

... I recall that Lee would work through his little bit of scripture which he would then couple with stories saying the equivalent of "it's like . . ." when a careful observation of the base scripture would not lead there. Lee created a religion on top of Christianity based on stories.

I tried to touch on this with Lee's "God's economy" metric, in which "oikonomia", briefly presented in Paul's epistles without much supporting commentary, gets voluminous treatment by Lee. You'd almost think the whole Bible was about nothing but dispensing.

Then, in the gospels, Jesus' teaching about "oikonomia" (there translated "stewardship") is effectively ignored. Why? Because it might distract us from Lee's "God's economy = dispensing" metric.

The Book of Mormon is not a subtle rewrite of scripture, but an alternate that is clearly identifiable. Lee did something much more subtle. Instead of writing a different book, he simply came along side of The Book and provided alternative explanations. He turned The Book into a cipher in which the words as understood by the casual reader are discarded based on a cipher... a library of writings much more voluminous than the Bible itself. This library carefully explains how to ignore what the Bible says and instead accept something that Lee says.

Oh, some of it sounds like the base scripture. But very little of it.

When I said that I felt cheated by sitting under Lee's teachings, it wasn't because they were "a subtle rewrite of scripture", or "an alternative explanation", even though that may be true. As OBW said, his pastor probably distorts scripture somewhat with his explanatory overlays, as do we all. Nobody really can be said to "cut straight the word" but God Himself, and Him whom God has sent to us, Jesus Christ. The rest of us are struggling toward the light. Only Jesus is the light. Big difference.

So I give Lee a pass there. My current claim of having been cheated stems from the fact that we were told this was the "all-inclusive ministry", which had gleaned the wheat and discarded the chaff of 2,000 years of careful Bible study. That's like saying a third grader's drawing is an accurate representation of a nuclear power plant. You really have to put so many qualifiers on "accurate" that you make it mean something different.

Likewise, to think that Lee's ministry is somehow the all-inclusive, rich ministry of the age is so willfully naive that it's ridiculous. I recently got an inter-library loan of a scholarly book on the Psalms which had a couple dozen articles by researchers who'd put years of work into their studies, with dozens of references given for each article. Of course, not all of them are accurate, and one has to sift, and ignore some. But by contrast how much scholarship does Lee have? As OBW puts it, you get a little scripture then Lee says, "It's like..." and then you get one of his stories.

Now, I do this too. We all do, to some degree. We simplify the universe to explain it, and in so doing we distort it somewhat. But neither I nor these Biblical scholars pretend for one instant that our explanation is the "all-inclusive" one. That is just ridiculous. Not only is it the antithesis of Christian meekness and humility, it won't even fly out in "the world". The only thing you can do with such an attitude is start your own self-congratulatory, navel-gazing, exclusive sect.

[OBW]

I was taught very clearly that redemption was part of salvation. I was also taught very much on the idea of replacement, but never once was I taught that salvation was not so much redemption but replacement. We were very clear that these were two different things and that both were part of salvation. We were also taught that the minute you are redeemed you are "saved".

And, if you look at the printed ministry there is no basis to make this claim at all. Now, if he had said "they emphasize "replacement" more than redemption" that would have been reasonable.And, as I earlier said in general, Duddy may not have gotten all of the details 100 percent correct, but he hot the gist of it.

In this case, you are correct that the base of salvation was clearly taught. But that was almost a side thing. The real teaching — the real meat of the ministry — was in being replaced. And therefore, Duddy's complaint is not laughable. It was entirely too true. Lee may have taught about basic salvation, but then he really does go on to speak of it as something so low. But salvation is a foundation upon which the Christian life is built. If it something so low and nearly forgotten, then what kind of foundation is it? Shifting sand?

Lee was also clear that there are Three in the Trinity. But other than throwing it out there periodically to keep the orthodoxy police at bay, he spent virtually all of his time talking about Jesus as the Spirit. Unlike Justyn who considered Lee's talk about the Three as virtually a ruse to hide from the taint of modalism, I believe him. But it is still only barely enough to be believable. Maybe the discussions on salvation are not quite as minimal. But not really far from it. The only really important things in the LRC were things that were "beyond" anything that could be found anywhere in Christianity. That means they spent/spend most of their time on questionable things and don't do much more than pepper "sermons" with lip service to the basic truths.

(Sort of like when Lee would use a long paragraph saying one absolutely foundational truth after another, complete with a verse or two in reference, only to follow it all with a nonsensical statement that often didn't even have a verse. And that was what the rest of the sermon was going to be about. I do not expect someone like Duddy to conclude that Lee and the LRC really put much stock in things like basic salvation because they were so sparsely referenced.)

[OBW]

Lee's theology of Salvation is addressed in this quote. Duddy says "it could be said that people are not so much redeemed as replaced." This is false. It cannot be said. It cannot be inferred. It is false.You are falling into a deep hole with this kind of claim. Lee said virtually anything on everything in one place or another. That is one of the foundational flaws in his ministry. He has an emphasis, but it is intentionally obscured behind many nuanced statements made judiciously so that they can be brought out to disprove other statements.

And you are free to assert the "both sides are true" or "two-foldness of truth" principles that Lee so often used. But most of the time, the only reason I can find for such a claim of "two-foldness" is that Lee wanted to push a position that ran smack up against things that virtually no Christian could tolerate violating. So he did an end-around. He declared both true, even if clearly contradictory.

So finding a place that Lee said one thing is not sufficient to disprove that he is primarily teaching another. You've fallen for one of the worst blunders of modern times. The first is "never get involved in a land war in Asia." The second is "never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line." And the third is "never assume that because Lee is found in writing to have said it that he didn't mostly say the exact opposite over and over."

[OBW]

Your accusations are false.Your claim is seriously misguided and flawed.

And you are beginning to sound as ridiculous as a favorite LRC stalwart of past days.

[OBW]

But sadly through the long process they lost mega time and money that could have been used productively to help the poor and other worthy pursuits.Cheer up! That money was never going to help the poor. It was going to go into the LSM coffers. So giving it to some greedy lawyer is probably a good thing. At least it has a chance of moving around in circulation to someone who might actually understand justice in the way the Bible speaks of it.:D

[ZNPaaneah]

Your claim is seriously misguided and flawed.

And you are beginning to sound as ridiculous as a favorite LRC stalwart of past days.

This quote is from Post #249.

UntoHim said that my assessment is neither accurate nor fair, his opinion, to which he is entitled. Not an accusation.

He said “he is simply being argumentative and sidetracking the discussion by trying to address something that Duddy DID NOT SAY”

Those are the accusations.

I said these accusations are false because I quoted the quote which NFNL provided. NFNL has also responded and has not in any way suggested this quote was not accurate or provided by him. Instead what he implied that the quote might be missing some context.

Since UntoHim’s accusations were based on the assertion that Duddy did not say this I felt providing the quote adequately proved that He did, and therefore my response was not sidetracking nor was it argumentative.

So please enlighten me

1. How is my response that the accusation was false “seriously misguided and flawed”?

[ZNPaaneah]

You are falling into a deep hole with this kind of claim. Lee said virtually anything on everything in one place or another. That is one of the foundational flaws in his ministry. He has an emphasis, but it is intentionally obscured behind many nuanced statements made judiciously so that they can be brought out to disprove other statements.

And you are free to assert the "both sides are true" or "two-foldness of truth" principles that Lee so often used. But most of the time, the only reason I can find for such a claim of "two-foldness" is that Lee wanted to push a position that ran smack up against things that virtually no Christian could tolerate violating. So he did an end-around. He declared both true, even if clearly contradictory.

So finding a place that Lee said one thing is not sufficient to disprove that he is primarily teaching another. You've fallen for one of the worst blunders of modern times. The first is "never get involved in a land war in Asia." The second is "never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line." And the third is "never assume that because Lee is found in writing to have said it that he didn't mostly say the exact opposite over and over."

Very well provide one quote from Witness Lee that supports the statement from Duddy "It could be said that people are not so much redeemed as replaced". As Lee's theology of salvation.

To be fair the quote should predate Duddy's book, but to prove I'm not an LRC stalwart as you have accused me I'll waive that. I would love to see this quote since I am no fan of Witness Lee. Also, to make it even easier I'll also allow a quote from Watchman Nee, since Witness Lee has claimed his ministry is based on Watchman Nee and since he has itemized the few places they disagree.

Any way you have accused me of making "flawed" and "misguided" statements, of being "an LRC Stalwart" and of "sounding ridiculous". Surely you intend to back up these insults with a quote that proves this. I look forward to your supporting evidence.

Just to be clear:

Duddy said that Lee's theology of salvation "it could be said of people that they are not so much redeemed as replaced". You are going to provide a quote from Witness Lee or even Watchman Nee that supports this statement. I in turn will apologize and admit that you are in fact correct.

Thankyou.

[ZNPaaneah]

In this case, you are correct that the base of salvation was clearly taught. But that was almost a side thing. The real teaching — the real meat of the ministry — was in being replaced. And therefore, Duddy's complaint is not laughable. It was entirely too true. Lee may have taught about basic salvation, but then he really does go on to speak of it as something so low. But salvation is a foundation upon which the Christian life is built. If it something so low and nearly forgotten, then what kind of foundation is it? Shifting sand?

You are confusing two things. To say that Witness Lee emphasized being replaced over being redeemed is an opinion. It doesn't in any way suggest that the teaching on redemption is false, misguided, heretical, etc. However, to say that his theology on Salvation "is not so much redemption as replaced" clearly states that these two teachings are somehow confused, twisted and at the very least "replaced" is substituted for "redeemed". Another way to read this is that he has changed the teaching of redemption with his teaching of "replaced". If the sentence has been taken out of context then we should get the context and I have already asked NFNL to provide more context if it changes the meaning.

[UntoHim]

Ya know ZNP, for someone who says that Witness Lee was only about 5% of his Christian life, and that you went for 20 years in the Local Church only using the Bible, you sure seem quite defensive of Lee's teachings. Sorry to call you on this my friend, but you're kind of asking for it. Sorry, but I'm not going to let you have it both ways. I'm also not going to let you go after the author of this book with the old Local Church mantra of "false accuser! false accuser!". Saying "this is false!" will not cut it in this thread. Duddy made a very specific and keen observation about Lee's teachings regarding the larger scope of salvation, redemption and sanctification. Maybe you missed out on it during those 20 years that you only used the Bible, but Duddy's analysis and criticisms are indeed accurate. I think OBW has been trying to get this through to you, but you are failing to hear him through all your screams of "accuser!" and "insult".

Please, for your own sake, try to take a step back. Maybe take a sip or two of some calming herbal tea (and Ohio, maybe you can have some of the leftovers:o) Read over what OBW and even better what NFnL has written here today. This book was written over 30 years ago. Who knows where Duddy is today, or what he thinks about Lee and the LC today. It DOES NOT MATTER. Let's calmly and thoughtfully go over the quotes AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. Please try to not emulate our friend Cassidy by making wild guesses about what Duddy believes about Sunday school class, the "Immantion of the Holy Spirit" or that all of Christianity is in good shape, etc, etc. THESE ARE SMOKESCREENS AND RED HERRINGS!

Again, this is an important, bewether work on the teachings and practices of the Local Church as they were back in the 70s. These guys did their homework. Some of you out their want to give them an "F" before we get past the first page. You're being unreasonable. There is a good reason you are getting a lot of grief and pushback from us old timers....it's because we were there and we know what Lee taught....even if it didn't make it into the books. We know what was taught and practiced day in and day out. So please, do not treat us like a "new one" or an outsider. You are insulting our intelligence (as little as that may be).

[Ohio]

You're being unreasonable. There is a good reason you are getting a lot of grief and pushback from us old timers....it's because we were there and we know what Lee taught....even if it didn't make it into the books. We know what was taught and practiced day in and day out. So please, do not treat us like a "new one" or an outsider. You are insulting our intelligence (as little as that may be).

Old-timers? Leftover herbal tea? You "know" and we don't? Who's treating who like outsiders? We lived through those books, NFNL did not. For us it's a little personal, for him it's just a book.

You guys got more "seniority" than ZNP and I? And so we should clam up and go elsewhere? OK, Boss, it's your barbeque.

Not much of a "discussion" though. Why are you so threatened by diverse viewpoints?

[TLFisher]

These guys did their homework. Some of you out their want to give them an "F" before we get past the first page.

Before this thread was initiated, this was my feeling towards Duddy's book. That he had not done the research. That everything he wrote was to pose the Recovery as a cult. Whatever inside information was provided came via an insider without ever setting foot in a meeting hall.
On the contrary, it seems Duddy did far more research on the local churches than Hank Hanegraff ever did. It seems Duddy may have been on par or exceeded the desire for dialogue that Harvest House sought with Living Stream.

[UntoHim]

Not much of a "discussion" though. Why are you so threatened by diverse viewpoints?

Right, it's not much of a discussion when people are refusing to discuss what is written in the book! And that was my point!:whack::wow:

Do I look threatened to you? :cool:

How would I know if somebody has a diverse viewpoint when they won't even address the matter at hand. "False accuser! False accuser!" IS NOT A VIEWPOINT.... it may be a "talking point" of those defending Witness Lee and his teachings, but it is not a viewpoint of the actual teaching or practice being addressed by the author.

And as far as how you and others (including myself) were treated when this book came out, well if what was written was true and factual (and so far it has been), then you are placing the blame in the wrong direction. Again, we are just at the beginning of this book. There may be some blame and shame to be thrown Duddy's way....and if that time comes you will see me at the front of the firing line. You can take that to the bank$.

Brothers (and for the poor sister or two out there lurking), Please, I know this is an emotionally charged topic for many of us, I really do know that and I really do appreciate that fact. I didn't start this thread. I have MANY more things on my heart and mind, most are pointing towards the future for us former members (and the current ones who will listen). This is what I appreciate so much about John Myer's "A Future and A Hope" - it is pointing towards the future...it is pointing towards a hope. (come on John...you said you had a finishing touch yet to give us...get to it!)

HOWEVER....however NeitherFirstnorLast, in his search for the truth about the teachings and practices of the Movement that he and his family have invested a measure of their lives into, has thought that delving into this book might bring him some answers. I strongly believe that it will. In the process it seems that it may open some old wounds for some of us. But, brothers PLEASE remember it is not NFnL, it is not even Neil Duddy, that caused the wounds in the first place. We were wounded by a man and the man-made movement that he led. Duddy, though just a sinful man like all of us, falling short of the glory of God like all of us, was simply pointing out that these people, these Christian brothers and sisters, were wounded, and being wounded by the teachings and practices of Witness Lee.

I think he was right in doing so. But let's keep going and find out.

[TLFisher]

Have you realized that if you would have read this book back when it first came out, rather than accepting it's ban carte blanche by LSM, that you would have learned about DayStar, about the 'Rebellion', about Phillip Lee, about the differences between LSM theology and 'orthodox' Christian doctrine? Do you realize you might have seen your way out of the LSM movement DECADES ago?

For some I suppose. There will always be saints in the recovery who believe whatever the brothers tell them in spite of contradicting reports (see Isaiah 5:20).
If you knew a brother in OKC was quarantined by JB for saying Daystar was illegal. If your background was in business law, certainly you'd have the secular discernment. Would his unscriptural quarantine make a difference more than the book? If it's inclusion in a book was spun as an attack, most saints would be dismissive.
I think if the elders and deacons in Anaheim weren't such in a mentality of deference to Witness Lee over the Philip Lee issue in 1978, what then? Of course we don't know how much communication there was between Max, John, Al, Gene, and Francis over Philip Lee. As to the Philip Lee matter, it become a "respector of persons". Because of who his father was, the brothers deferred to Witness Lee (with the exception of Max).

[UntoHim]

Ok, this thread is being reopened.

I have asked NeitherFirstnorLast to continue on. I have promised him that any post that does not address what is actually quoted in the book will be deleted without warning. NFnL, being the thread starter will lead the discussions, and he will be given more leeway as far as exploring the topic at hand.

This is an important work. It deserves serious treatment. I will repeat what I said earlier, you don't have to agree with what Duddy has written, or for that matter what NFnL writes or anybody else, but I will INSIST that you address the matter at hand. Arguing for the sake of arguing and flaming other members will not be tolerated. NO EXCEPTIONS!

Let's give NFnL some time here to pick up the conversation. He can backtrack if he wants or simply go forward.

[OBW]

Any way you have accused me of making "flawed" and "misguided" statements, of being "an LRC Stalwart" and of "sounding ridiculous".A quote from Lee is not required to discuss a line of reasoning being flawed or misguided. I went through my reasons for disagreeing with your positions. And while I am not predisposed to take sufficient time to dig around in whatever book by Lee or Nee might have the quote you desire, I was there and heard them. And I think that there are many here who also heard them.

So for someone who was also there for a period, going back as far as 1977-ish, we find it odd that you jump in to declare that Duddy was false and slipshod when the rest if us pretty well agree that he got it pretty accurately for someone who was denied a real discussion. (And, I might add, a discussion that would provide only the sanitized stuff anyway.)

And I did not refer to you as an LRC stalwart. I don't think you are that and would not say it. I likened your rants of "false" to those rants of FALSE ACCUSATION that a long-time LRC stalwart who no longer posts used to give. It was a reference to a known LRC stalwart, not a declaration that you are such.

I'm enjoying my second read through parts of TGM. As I mentioned before, I read it back in about 2005. It was quite enlightening. Not what the book said about the LRC, but how right it was given how wrong it was claimed to have been.

Actually, back in 2005, some of it was eye-opening with respect to the LRC. I had slowly dumped a lot of the stuff. But the direct confrontation with Lee's theology, while not always written with a complete understanding of that theology, really nailed the essence of it.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter Three Continued.... On the Battle Within.

Given our ongoing discussion on another thread, about the war that is waged inside - about differentiating between conviction (by the Holy Spirit) and condemnation (by the spiritual forces of wickedness in this present age), I had the sense to resume our discussion here... Coincidentally, this section is within the section on Salvation, and follows our last portion.

"For Lee, atonement deals primarily with the corrupted body, the flesh, in which Satan is incarnated. The soul, according to Lee, does not need to be redeemed except insofar as it is wedded to the flesh. The human spirit, on the other hand, is quickened (when God comes into a person by means of the mingling of the divine and human spirits)...

...In Witness Lee's theology, the goal of regeneration is a redeemed (quickened) humanity, a brand new creature in some way spiritually "consubstantial" (one in substance) with God. "Mingling is much more than mixing together; it is an intrinsic union." (WL The Four Major Steps of Christ, pg 6) Elsewhere, Lee teachs that the once separate human and divine natures are now fused into one unit (WL The Economy of God, pg 11)

....Yet two wars are going on inside a believer.... (One:) The quickened person's personality is no longer in the soul but in the spirit, although the old soulish nature lives on. (Two:)The other war is a three-cornered struggle: Satan is still in the flesh as sin, God is mingled in with the human spirit, and the self is still in the soul. (WL The Knowledge of Life, pg 85).... God and Satan are engaged in a continuous battle from their respective bases of operation within an individual. (WL The Economy of God, pgs 168-169)."

***************

Witness Lee's unorthodox Satanology (study of Satan) has been given a thorough treatment by Nigel Tomes and is available here on Local Church Discussions.

This idea of Lee's, that Satan actually physically indwells the believer, is not an orthodox doctrine by any means... and to quote Nigel's article:

"The obvious question arises—is this doctrine of Satan’s personal indwelling consistent with Scripture? Moreover, is this a “healthy teaching”? It is not merely an abstract doctrine. How will this teaching influence believers who embrace it and seek to apply it? What is its potential impact on believers who lack selfesteem, have a poor self-image and who are inclined towards asceticism? What drastic measures might they contemplate to “deal with Satan in their flesh”? Isn’t this a dangerous doctrine?"

If you haven't read the article, I strongly encourage you to. His is a question worth asking.


http://www.concernedbrothers.com/Truth/SATANOLOGY.pdf

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 3 Cont'd: Christianity on Sanctification


To the Christian, whatever their denomination or non-denomination, this is an extremely important topic. Proper treatment of this subject cannot be given, without first establishing the "traditional" accepted definition of "Sanctification". Only in seeing what "Sanctification" is according to Christian Scholars, Theologians, and Pastors, can we adequately grasp the significance of the different view that Lee proposes. After understanding the differences, we will be better equipped to analyze these two radically different theologies (Christianity vs Lee), and see which of the two is properly arrived at through consideration of the Word of God and the FULL COUNCIL of Scripture.

This is no small undertaking, so I am going to ask for license to post a long section here. I cannot find a better way to divide it. What I will begin with is an accepted standard amongst Evangelicals for Sanctification, with it's Biblical support in Scripture.

Please take the time to consider this definition, but do not respond yet - the post that follows this one will be on Lee's version of Sanctification.

I have highlighted here in red some of the key points, for those not prone to read long posts. However, let's analyze these two disparate views separately; then, in a third post - we will discuss those differences. Following that, perhaps we can work through the results (the fruit, if you will) of Lee's peculiar theology.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Baker's Evangelical Dictionary defines Sanctification as "the state of proper functioning." To sanctify someone or something is to set that person or thing apart for the use intended by its designer. A pen is "sanctified" when used to write. Eyeglasses are "sanctified" when used to improve sight. In the theological sense, things are sanctified when they are used for the purpose God intends. A human being is sanctified, therefore, when he or she lives according to God's design and purpose.

The Greek word translated "sanctification" (hagiasmos) means "holiness." To sanctify, therefore, means "to make holy." In one sense only God is holy ( Isa 6:3 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/6-3.html) ). God is separate, distinct, other. No human being or thing shares the holiness of God's essential nature. There is one God. Yet Scripture speaks about holy things. Moreover, God calls human beings to be holy as holy as He is holy ( Lev 11:44 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/leviticus/11-44.html) ; Matt 5:48 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/5-48.html) ; 1 Peter 1:15-16 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=1 Peter+1:15-16) ). Another word for a holy person is "saint" (hagios), meaning a sanctified one. The opposite of sanctified is "profane" ( Lev 10:10 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/leviticus/10-10.html) ).


God said through Peter, "in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord" ( 1 Peter 3:15 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-peter/3-15.html) ). One sanctifies Christ by responding to unbelievers meaningfully, out of a good conscience and faithful life. God calls his own to set themselves apart for that which he has set them apart. Sanctify, therefore, becomes a synonym for "trust and obey" ( Isa 29:23 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/29-23.html) ). Another name for this action is "consecration." Failing to sanctify God has serious consequences ( Num 20:12 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/numbers/20-12.html) ).


Human beings ultimately cannot sanctify themselves. The Triune God sanctifies. The Father sanctifies ( 1 Cor 1:30 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-corinthians/1-30.html) ) by the Spirit ( 2 Thess 2:13 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/2-thessalonians/2-13.html) ; 1 Peter 1:2 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-peter/1-2.html) ) and in the name of Christ ( 1 Cor 6:11 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-corinthians/6-11.html) ). Yet Christian faith is not merely passive. Paul calls for active trust and obedience when he says, "Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God" ( 2 Cor 7:1 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/2-corinthians/7-1.html) ). No one may presume on God's grace in sanctification. Peter reminds believers to be diligent in making their calling and election sure ( 2 Peter 1:10 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/2-peter/1-10.html) ).


Sanctification According to God's Creative Design. God created the universe and human beings perfect (i.e., sanctified). Everything and everyone functioned flawlessly until Adam and Eve believed Satan's lie. The fall plunged the human race and the universe into a state of dysfunction ( Gen 3:14-19 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=Genesis+3:14-19) )...


...Human beings, made in God's image, were the pinnacle and focus of his creation. The sanctification of human beings, therefore, is the highest goal of God's work in the universe. God explicitly declared it to be his will ( 1 Thess 4:3 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-thessalonians/4-3.html) ). He purposed that human beings be "like him" in a way no other created thing is. Human beings are like God in their stewardship over creation ( Gen 1:26-31 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=Genesis+1:26-31) ). Yet this role is dependent on a more fundamentally important likeness to God: moral character. By virtue of God-given discretionary autonomy (faith), human beings may so depend upon God that his moral character (communicable attributes) are displayed.


The unsanctified state of fallen humanity is not caused merely by lack of effort or poor motivation. It constitutes an inherent structural flaw. When Adam sinned, he and his race forfeited that which made it possible for them to function as designedthe presence of God himself. Adam and Eve's prefallen sanctification was not a result of their inherent capabilities. God's indwelling presence was responsible for the manifestation of his attributes in them. Sanctification always requires God's presence. His presence is more than his "being there"a corollary of his omnipresence. It is his dynamic presence, producing fruit for which he alone is the source. "Indwelling" is not God's way of getting close to us sensually. It is a theological, rather than experiential, reality; it is "experienced" by faith, not by feeling.


Jesus Christ: The Sanctifier and Model of Sanctification. The singular means of God's sanctifying grace is Jesus Christ: "We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" ( Heb 10:10 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/hebrews/10-10.html) ). Christ was qualified to sanctify because he himself had been sanctified through suffering ( Heb 2:10-11 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=Hebrews+2:10-11) ).

First, Jesus Christ was the only human being since the fall to live a continuously, perfectly sanctified life. He was without sin, therefore, without guilt or dysfunctionality. He was sanctified from the moment of his conception ( Matt 1:18-20 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=Matthew+1:18-20) ; Luke 1:35 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/luke/1-35.html) ). He was rightly called the "Holy One of God" ( Mark 1:24 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/mark/1-24.html) ), sanctified by the Father ( John 10:36 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/john/10-36.html) ). In his character, therefore, Jesus Christ was morally sanctified. Second, he was vocationally sanctified. Christ did what the Father called him to do ( John 5:19 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/john/5-19.html)John 5:30 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/john/5-30.html)John 5:36 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/john/5-36.html) ; 6:38 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/john/6-38.html) ; 8:28-29 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=John+8:28-29) ; 12:49 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/john/12-49.html) ). He accomplished his vocational purpose through time, yet he continually fulfilled his moral purpose. He sanctified himself by fulfilling his unique calling as the Messiah ( John 17:19 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/john/17-19.html) ), being declared the Son of God at his resurrection ( Rom 1:4 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/1-4.html) ). Jesus Christ, therefore, is the model human being for both moral and vocational sanctification ( Php 2:5-11 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=Philippians+2:5-11) )...


God's law is holy ( Rom 7:12 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/7-12.html) ). Christ sanctified God's Law by fulfilling it ( Matt 5:17 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/5-17.html) ). That means Christ fulfilled the ceremonial purpose of the Law by being the antitype of all that it prefigured, and fulfilled the moral demands of the Law by living perfectly according to its standards. The "law of Christ" ( Gal 6:2 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/galatians/6-2.html) ) is synonymous with the moral demands God places on all humanity. We sanctify God's Law by obeying it. Obedience is not contrary to faith. It is not works-sanctification. Biblical faith is a faith that works (James 2).

The New Testament is full of commands, imperatives, laws. God is pleased when the believer does "good works, " for He designed them from the beginning ( Eph 2:10 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/ephesians/2-10.html) ). It is understandable why some downplay or even deny any present usefulness of "law" in the sanctification of believers. They appeal to such verses as, "you are not under law, but under grace" ( Rom 6:14b (http://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/6-14.html) ). They are right that "law" is not the dynamic that sanctifies ( Heb 7:18-19 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=Hebrews+7:18-19) ). But the Law was never given for that purpose ( Gal 3:21 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/galatians/3-21.html) ). Its purpose for unbelievers is to show them how far from the original design they have come. It has an evangelistic purpose ( Gal 3:24 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/galatians/3-24.html) ). Its (the Laws) purpose for believers, however, is to guide them to where grace is leading them. The old covenant anticipated a fuller application of the Law. God said to Old Testament Israel that he would inaugurate a new covenant in which he would put his Law within them, and write it on their hearts ( Jer 31:33 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/jeremiah/31-33.html) ; Heb 8:10 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/hebrews/8-10.html) ; see Ezek 36:27 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/ezekiel/36-27.html) ). Jesus reiterated, however, the continuing sanctifying function of the moral law, which can never be superseded ( Matt 5:17-20 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=Matthew+5:17-20) )...

Sanctification is applied justification. By its very nature justification does not have a progressive character. It is God's declaration of righteousness. The focus of justification is the removal of the guilt of sin. The focus of sanctification is the healing of the dysfunctionality of sin....


The Holy Spirit is the dynamic of sanctification. Jesus said that he had to go away so that the Holy Spirit would indwell believers ( John 14:16-20 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=John+14:16-20) ). The "Holy" Spirit is so named not because he is more holy than the Father and the Son, but because his specific ministry, vis-a-vis salvation, is sanctification ( Rom 15:16 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/15-16.html) ; 1 Thess 4:3-4 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=1 Thessalonians+4:3-4) ; 2 Thess 2:13 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/2-thessalonians/2-13.html) ; 1 Peter 1:2 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-peter/1-2.html) ). The Spirit that inspired the Word of God now uses it to sanctify. Jesus, therefore, prayed concerning his own, "Sanctify them by the truth" ( John 17:17 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/john/17-17.html) ). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth ( John 16:13 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/john/16-13.html) ). The blessing of the new covenant is the presence of the Spirit ( Ezek 36:27 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/ezekiel/36-27.html) ; Gal 3:14 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/galatians/3-14.html) ).


The Holy Spirit not only is the restoration of the presence of God in believers; He also equips believers to serve the church and the world. As the fruit of the Spirit are the result of the reproduction of godly character in believers ( Gal 5:22-23 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=Galatians+5:22-23) ), so the gifts of the Spirit ( Rom 12:4-6 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=Romans+12:4-6) ; 1 Cor 12 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-corinthians/12.html) , 14 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-corinthians/14.html) ) are the means by which believers serve others.


Sanctification has a negative and positive orientation. Negatively, sanctification is the cleansing or purifying from sin ( Isa 66:17 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/66-17.html) ; 1 Cor 6:11 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-corinthians/6-11.html) ; Eph 5:26 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/ephesians/5-26.html) ; Titus 3:5-6 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=Titus+3:5-6) ; Heb 9:13 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/hebrews/9-13.html) ). The laver in God's sanctuary provided a place for those offering sacrifice to God to ritually cleanse themselves. Christ cleanses the sinner once for all. The believer testifies to this through a lifestyle of self-denial ( Matt 16:24 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/16-24.html) ). Biblical self-denial is not asceticism - withholding pleasure or causing pain as an inherent means of spiritual growth. It is placing the interests of God before the interests of self. Believers do not deny or ridicule legitimate human desires. These desires, however, need to be continually prioritized according to God's purposes ( Matt 6:33 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-33.html) ).


Positively, sanctification is the growth in righteous attitudes and behavior. Good deeds ( Eph 2:10 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/ephesians/2-10.html) ), godliness ( 1 Peter 1:15 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-peter/1-15.html) ), Christ-likeness ( 1 Peter 2:21 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-peter/2-21.html) ), and fulfilling the demands of the Law ( Rom 8:4 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/8-4.html) ) are all ways of referring to the product of sanctification. The believer "presses on" by laying hold by faith on the promises of God ( Php 3:12 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/philippians/3-12.html) ), striving according to his indwelling resources ( Col 1:29 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/colossians/1-29.html) ).


The initial avenue of spiritual experience is the mind. Faith must have an object. God transforms believers from a worldly perspective and lifestyle by renewing the mind ( Rom 12:2 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/12-2.html) ). The Word of God makes us wise ( 2 Tim 3:15 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/2-timothy/3-15.html) ), for "faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ" ( Rom 10:17 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/10-17.html) ). We need the mind of Christ ( Php 2:5 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/philippians/2-5.html) ), by which we take every thought captive ( 2 Cor 10:5 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/2-corinthians/10-5.html) ).

The New Testament stresses moral, not ritual sanctification. Christ's atoning work put an end to the ceremonial foreshadowing of Israel's cultic practice. Jesus' reference to the temple altar in Matthew 23:19 was from the perspective of the practice he came to supersede.

A sanctified believer has assurance that he or she is Christ's. The call to sanctification reminds the Christian that he or she cannot presume upon justification.

Professing believers are to "pursue" sanctification ( Heb 12:14 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/hebrews/12-14.html) ). Apart from God's sanctifying work in human beings, "no one will see the Lord" ( Heb 12:14 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/hebrews/12-14.html) ). God will judge any person claiming identification with Christ while not actively engaged in pursuing sanctification ( Matt 7:21-23 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=Matthew+7:21-23) ). John bases assurance on a faith that perseveres in sanctification ( 1 John 2:3-6 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=1 John+2:3-6) ; 5:2-4 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=1 John+5:2-4) ). Though sanctification is never complete in this life ( 1 John 1:8-10 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=1 John+1:8-10) ), it is not an optional extra tacked on to justification.


*******************

Bradford A. Mullen: excerpts from http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/sanctification.html (http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/sanctification.html)

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 3 Cont'd: Lee on Sanctification

"Sensuous theology finds a major point of departure from orthodox theology in the subjective experience of God within the individual. Witness Lee's most detailed theological concern is in the area of sanctification. Progressive sanctification is for Lee a process whereby one can obtain a 'bigger and better' possession of God. Lee's constant exhortations to sanctification, however, and his explanation of how it comes about, have an elusive vagueness about them....

Although Lee has written volumes on the subject of sanctification, his basic steps for Christian growth appear to be simple. The mingled divine-human spirit "releases" new life into the soul (self) and body (satanic) after "killing" the body-soul complex. The new man in the spirit must overcome the old man in the soul. The God of redemption indwelling the spirit must overcome the created self lodged in the soul, removing it from the influence of Satan who inhabits the body....

In Lee's concept, if division between soul and spirit (see Heb 4:12) is not sensually registered in the Christian's daily experience, sanctification means nothing. Failure to experience that distinction means that the old self persists in the body-soul complex, and that God remains imprisoned in the human spirit (God subject to the will of man, and not sovereign). But once the division is experienced, the self and the body-soul complex are "killed" by the divine-human Spirit-spirit's passing through the heart and engaging in victorious battle with the soul. The "released" soul then floats up to "touch" the Spirit which subdues it, whereby the process of sanctification can begin. That process produces a two-way communication between "Reality" and the human being. That going up/coming down, passing to and from shadow (body/soul) and Reality (Spirit-spirit) is difficult. Lee admits that few people manage to effect it consistently.

...Nothing from the soul can be spiritual; the soul cannot desire God or receive things from God. In Lee's view, Christians should initially sense forgiveness, then grasp it with the mind. They should sense God's presence, rather than believe it (accept it with faith).

...Four aspects of the soul are to be denied:

1) The self... "the soul is simply the self. The self is the very centre of the human being and is the human being, and it is the self that must be crossed out... To deny the soul means that we turn from ourselves to the spirit." (WL The Economy of God, pg 100).

2) The mind (and doctrines which are of the mind). "One who is in the mind should refuse his intellect in all spiritual things; he should put aside completely such functions as thinking and considering and return to the spirit.... When he reads the Bible, prays, or speaks about spiritual things, he should refuse his thinking, imagining, theorizing and investigating..." (WL The Knowledge of Life, pg 83)

3) Morality (an effective willing of behavioral choices based on moral standards). For Lee, morality is neither of the law nor of grace. Indeed, humankinds' fall was into morality... "In my Christian dictionary there is not such a word as 'evil', nor is there such a word as 'good'! From the beginning to the end my Christian dictionary contains only one word - 'Christ'! I understand neither good nor evil. I do not want help to do good; I only want Christ!... Trying to do good is a real temptation and a great distraction from experiencing Christ." (WL TE of G pg 38).

"Eventually, there is no right or wrong, no yes or no - only Jesus!... There is no law, no teaching, no regulations - only Jesus!" (WL Christ vs Religion pg 63-64).

4) Natural (God-given) emotions, affections, and desires "Natural affection, natural love, and natural relationships have to be cut-off by the cross." (WL TE of G pg 119). "Whatever we can do in a natural way with our natural strength does not count in the eyes of God. We may love our wife naturally, but that love in the eyes of God means nothing. In the heavenly account, it will never give any credit. God wants nothing but Christ Himself." (WL The Stream, #15, No. 1 pg 20)

...For Witness Lee, spiritual maturity is a movement inward which leaves all outward tests and helps behind. "To determine whether a person has grown in life, we must observe the condition of his enlightenment within" (WL The Knowledge of Life pg 201). "The condition in the holy of holies typifies the condition in our spirit. When a man turns to his spirit, he enters into the holy of holies. He no longer lives according to the feeling of his soul, nor does he display anything before men. Everything is hidden; it is no longer on the surface, but deep within. At this time, his life attains the degree of maturity." (WL The Experience of Life pg 259).

**********************

Notice above, the differences as highlighted in red.

Whereas the accepted Christian understanding of Sanctification speaks of our "living according to God's design and purpose", through a "faithful life of service to the church and to the (unbelieving) world" by the "renewing of our minds", which creates in us a natural desire to live by the righteousness of the Law and to do "the good works which God determined beforehand for us to do".

Note especially that these good works are done "before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." Matthew 5:16b. Why praise 'your Father'? Because the work of Sanctification isn't done in us by us, but by the sovereign Triune God.

Lee's theology through subtilty teaches an opposing view.

Lee, is stating (and indeed, I've heard it taught), that our sanctification is something that cannot (and should not) be outwardly seen - it is inward. It is done by us (indeed, God can be 'trapped' in our spirits - unable to get out and do work). Natural desires and affections are of no use and must be eliminated. The law is not a standard of righteousness, but is void (there is no good and evil, no right and wrong), that good works indicate a lack of maturity - that the mind is not renewed but is to be denied.

Do you see where these extreme differences lead yet?

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 3 Cont'd: On the Fruit of Lee's Theology

We have shown how Lee's theology of Sanctification (and even Salvation) differs from the accepted Christian standard. The question must now be, what is the result of Lee's theology? How does Lee's interpretation of Sanctification affect his other doctrines? Before we resume our reading, please allow me to excerpt doctrine from the Word of God, to offer it in contrast to Lee's teachings on the matter:

The Bible - On the Qualification of Elders


Note: No elder will be a perfect man, but if he is clearly and persistently lacking in any of these qualities, he cannot serve in the church as an elder. An elder must be:

1. above reproach (lit. "blameless") 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7.

This qualification is the summation of all of the rest. It means that there is nothing in his life that would justify a legitimate accusation of misconduct or call his character into question.

2. the husband of one wife (lit. "a one-woman man") 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6.
Whether a man is single or married, he must be living a sexually pure life. For a married elder, it also means that he must be faithfully devoted to loving his wife (Ephesians 5:25; 1 Peter 3:7).

3. temperate (moderate, not given to excess) 1 Timothy 3:2.
In all areas of life, an elder must be calm, well-balanced, careful, and sane—one who at all times is capable of clear thinking and sound judgment.

4. sober-minded (a sensible, serious person) 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8.
This does not mean that an elder may not laugh or joke or play. It means he leads a disciplined life, not allowing frivolous activities to distract him from more serious and important concerns.

5. of good behavior (respectable, orderly) 1 Timothy 3:2.
The opposite of the Greek in this case is chaos (utter confusion). An elder's outward behavior must demonstrate decency, orderliness, and self-control.

6. hospitable (lit. "one who loves strangers") 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8.
An elder must be one who shows genuine kindness and hospitality, not only to the members of his church, but also to people he does not know well.

7. a lover of what is good (lit. "one who is inclined to do good") Titus 1:8.
Closely related to hospitality, an elder must be one who not only loves the concept of goodness, but also is prone to doing good to others.

8. able to teach (lit. "skilled in teaching") 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:9.
There is no biblical requirement that an elder have a formal education, but he must be an able teacher and defender of the truth (cf. 2 Timothy 2:2, 24; 2:15; Titus 2:7-8).

9. not given to wine (lit. "not a drinker" or "not addicted to wine") 1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7.
Though not an absolute prohibition, this is a serious warning that an elder cannot be preoccupied with alcohol or known as a drinker. Due to abuse, however, it may be advisable for elders to abstain from alcohol altogether in order to avoid offense or damaging influence (cf. Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8).

10. not violent (lit. not "a giver of blows," or "a striker") 1Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7.
An elder must be a man who solves problems and settles disputes peacefully, using persuasive words and calm demeanor, not his fists or other weapons.

11. gentle (patient, gracious, forgiving) 1 Timothy 3:3; 2 Timothy 2:24.
An elder must not be a man who holds a grudge or is slow to forgive. He must be one who will patiently bear with those who are needy, difficult, reluctant to change, or slow to learn.

12. not quick-tempered (he must be slow to anger) Titus 1:7; James 1:19-20
Anger in itself is not always a sin. There is a righteous sort of anger. An elder, though, must be aman who recognizes and controls his own propensity to become angry.

13. not quarrelsome (not argumentative) 1 Timothy 3:3; 2 Timothy 2:24-26; James 3:13-18
He must be a man who will defend the truth strongly, but in a peaceable manner. He must not be one who allows himself to become embroiled in hostile disputes or petty arguments.

14. just (righteous or upright) Titus 1:8.
He is a man who is known for doing what is right. He lives a life of practical righteousness, trying to reflect God's view in every decision he makes.

15. holy (lit. "devout" or "set apart to God") Titus 1:8.
An elder must be firmly committed to God and His Word. He must be faithful to the ministry and to biblical doctrine, not one who gives in to social, political, or religious pressure to compromise.

16. self-controlled (or self-disciplined) Titus 1:8.
He must be a man who is disciplined in terms of his response to physical desires for food, pleasure, comfort, money, sleep, sex, or anything else which could cause him to stumble.

17. not covetous (not a lover of money) 1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:2.
An elder cannot be motivated in the ministry by financial gain or greedy in his lifestyle. He is a man who will trust the Lord, be content with what is provided, and be thankful.

18. one who rules his own house well (a good manager and leader) 1 Timothy 3:4; Titus 1:6.
An elder must have proven himself a good manager of his children (if he has children), his personal finances, and his household in general.

19. having his children in submission with all reverence (having obedient, respectful, faithful children) 1 Timothy 3:4-5; Titus 1:6.
The children of an elder must not have a reputation for uncontrolled behavior or insubordination. Additionally, an elder must not be a harsh or brutal man, but must maintain order in his family through loving leadership, consistent biblical training, and proper discipline.

20. not a novice (not a new or immature believer) 1 Timothy 3:6.
An elder must be a mature believer, especially in relation to others in his particular church. If even a capable man is elevated to the position too rapidly, he will battle with pride.

21. He must have a good testimony among those who are outside (well respected even by unbelievers in the community) 1 Timothy 3:7.
An elder must have a consistently good testimony in all places and with all people (aside from those who would persecute him or accuse him falsely), even outside the church. He must be just, honest, peaceable, and loving in every context.

22. He must serve, not by compulsion, but willingly . . . eagerly (he must desire to serve) 1 Peter 5:2; 1 Timothy 3:1.
Elders must not be pressured into service if it is not their personal desire to serve in this capacity. An elder's desire to serve must be God-given and his motives pure.

23. not self-willed (not anxious to control others or to have his own way) Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:3.
An elder must not be a man who is anxious to dominate or control others. He must be a team-player, realizing that while he is a shepherd, he is also one of the sheep.

24. an example to the flock 1 Peter 5:3; Titus 2:7.
An elder will not be perfect, but he must be a man who will lead the church, by instruction and example, according to God's Word.

******************************

If we have understood Lee's doctrine of Sanctification correctly, then we must expect that he will reject these Biblical qualifications for eldership in favor of new, more spiritual qualifications that fit into the mold he has created. Indeed he has to reject them, as Lee himself does not meet the biblical standards set forth here enough to qualify as an elder. But let's read what SCP's inquiry into this matter found....

'qualifications for an elder' provided by Christ Fellowship Elders

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 3 Cont'd: Lee's Doctrine of Eldership

"...because sanctification is progressive, Lee can delineate certain elements of what seems to be a superspirituality. When analyzed, that spirituality is composed of:

1. An increase of the element of God;
2. An increase of the stature of Christ;
3. Expanding of the ground of the Holy Spirit;
4. Decrease of the human element;
5. Breaking of the natural life;
6. Subduing of every part of the soul. (WL The Knowledge of Life pgs 177-180).

...The select few who climb the pinnacles of sanctification are the elders of the Local Church... In practice, these superspiritual people constitute an elite possessing permanent authority under Witness Lee's direction. Such a group is under the anointing of the Holy Spirit and has the urim and the thummim. Thus they can obtain the judgement, the decision of the Lord. They will be able to judge and decide any matter that may arise...(WL The All Inclusive Christ, pg 122)

"At a certain point, something new must be started among you. Formerly, all you have enjoyed has been Christ as the lamb, as the manna, and at most as the rock with the living water. Now you must enjoy Christ in a new way, in a new stage... you must confess that it is rather difficult to pass this fifth item [the experience of Christ as the high priest so that we can assume the priesthood]. Not many groups of the Lord's children ever realize the priesthood." (Ibid, pg 133)

Local Church members must submit to the elders council, if their sanctification is to be deemed credible (pg 146). Submission to the elders entails obedience, a yielding of the prerogative to challenge them - even in situations where they are in error. (pg 151-152).

The elders... superspirituality is altogether subjective. It cannot be measured or expressed in terms commonly associated with righteousness and piety. By definition the elders are beyond objective judgement... they use their spirits to discern whether others are stagnating in the body-soul complex. (WL The Experience of Life, pg 332)...

A question will not doubt occur to many, however: "Who could evaluate a person's subjective experiences to sanction his entrance into that mystical body of elders, since there are no objective criteria on which to base that decision?"

*****************

Who indeed.

Lee disregards the notion that we are made "for good works", he must therefore also disregard the notion that such good works would evidence a true saving faith and become one of the criteria set forth in the New Testament for eldership. Because Lee's doctrine is all about the subjective experience of Christ, his doctrine of eldership must likewise flow through that lens. ...First one card falls, then another....

Local Church members are quick to deny that Lee is their ultimate authority, but if the authority of the Word of God is to be questioned where it differs from Lee's teaching on the Economy of God... and if Lee doesn't have objective criteria by which others can identify spiritual maturity, then who is left to decide where authority in the church is to be given? There can be only one answer to that question - it rests with Lee.

[UntoHim]

Local Church members are quick to deny that Lee is their ultimate authority, but if the authority of the Word of God is to be questioned where it differs from Lee's teaching on the Economy of God... and if Lee doesn't have objective criteria by which others can identify spiritual maturity, then who is left to decide where authority in the church is to be given? There can be only one answer to that question - it rests with Lee.

Good observation Ray. It's this kind of dynamic that allows for Local Churchers to throw around such absurd and bizarre terms as "the feeling of the body". When Witness Lee was alive "the feeling of the body" was merely the feeling of Witness Lee, this was plain enough to anybody with eyes and ears...even somebody like Duddy with limited access. Today, in the post Lee era, it becomes a little trickier to discern, but really the only difference now is that instead of a real pope, the Local Church has a paper pope - the printed messages of Witness Lee. The Local Church is a sect/religion based in and upon the person and work of Witness Lee. Now that the person is gone, all they have left is the work (aka "the ministry"). It's actually pretty sad.

[TLFisher]

If we have understood Lee's doctrine of Sanctification correctly, then we must expect that he will reject these Biblical qualifications for eldership in favor of new, more spiritual qualifications that fit into the mold he has created. Indeed he has to reject them, as Lee himself does not meet the biblical standards set forth here enough to qualify as an elder. But let's read what SCP's inquiry into this matter found....

'qualifications for an elder' provided by Christ Fellowship Elders

Some of the points presented, how do you measure whether a brother has qualified? Pont #2 is hard to dispute. Churches can either disregard this point in respect to eldership or take the stance; divorced brothers can be a deacon, but not an elder for sake of presenting a proper testimony.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Some of the points presented, how do you measure whether a brother has qualified?

This question might venture a little from the topic, but I think it's a fair one. You asked me, so I will respond...

Eldership is a serious matter, or should be, in any church. Elders are called upon to serve the church in many ways. Typically, elders are nominated and elected; they don't submit resumes. To be elected an elder, you normally have to be quite well known by the believers with whom you fellowship. Being well known on a personal level, it is not hard for those with whom you fellowship to assess your maturity, where you're at in your walk with the Lord.

I don't know if you were asking about my quote specific to Lee not meeting many of the qualifications or not, but I assume you were. That isn't something that comes from The God-Men book - it's something I wrote as a comment. I justify the comment by pointing out that Lee fails to meet the following criteria for eldership:

1) 1. above reproach (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7.

This qualification is the summation of all of the rest. It means that there is nothing in his life that would justify a legitimate accusation of misconduct or call his character into question.

There are plenty of accusations against Witness Lee, and whether one chooses to accept them or not is irrelevant - the accusations are made and they have merit. Nominating a person with such accusations outstanding against them for eldership would bring the church into disrepute.

3. temperate (moderate, not given to excess) 1 Timothy 3:2.
In all areas of life, an elder must be calm, well-balanced, careful, and sane—one who at all times is capable of clear thinking and sound judgment.

Witness Lee has demonstrated a temper on a number of occassions, it could be argued that he is not calm nor well-balanced nor careful.

5. of good behavior (respectable, orderly) 1 Timothy 3:2.
The opposite of the Greek in this case is chaos (utter confusion). An elder's outward behavior must demonstrate decency, orderliness, and self-control.

6. hospitable (lit. "one who loves strangers") 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8.
An elder must be one who shows genuine kindness and hospitality, not only to the members of his church, but also to people he does not know well.

Witness Lee is not kind or hospitable to Christians - excluding members of his own flock.

7. a lover of what is good (lit. "one who is inclined to do good") Titus 1:8.
Closely related to hospitality, an elder must be one who not only loves the concept of goodness, but also is prone to doing good to others.

Witness Lee disavows knowledge of good or evil, and cast aspersion upon even thinking along these lines.

8. able to teach (lit. "skilled in teaching") 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:9.
There is no biblical requirement that an elder have a formal education, but he must be an able teacher and defender of the truth (cf. 2 Timothy 2:2, 24; 2:15; Titus 2:7-8).

Depends upon one's view of truth. Certainly, when it comes to the Bible, Witness Lee was not qualified to teach on the Psalms or James. We could debate endlessly about the rest.

10. not violent (lit. not "a giver of blows," or "a striker") 1Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7.
An elder must be a man who solves problems and settles disputes peacefully, using persuasive words and calm demeanor, not his fists or other weapons.

Witness Lee did not use fists, but he did use law suits. This ought to give one pause - are not lawsuits a legal weapon? Certainly, he did not try to settle disputes peacefully with SCP.

11. gentle (patient, gracious, forgiving) 1 Timothy 3:3; 2 Timothy 2:24.
An elder must not be a man who holds a grudge or is slow to forgive. He must be one who will patiently bear with those who are needy, difficult, reluctant to change, or slow to learn.

Witness Lee and the Blended Brothers have still not 'forgiven' those who were 'rebellious' in the 70's and the 80's and the 2000's... they might say they forgive, but their attitude and unwillingness to talk indicates otherwise.

12. not quick-tempered (he must be slow to anger) Titus 1:7; James 1:19-20
Anger in itself is not always a sin. There is a righteous sort of anger. An elder, though, must be aman who recognizes and controls his own propensity to become angry.

Witness Lee had a temper.

13. not quarrelsome (not argumentative) 1 Timothy 3:3; 2 Timothy 2:24-26; James 3:13-18
He must be a man who will defend the truth strongly, but in a peaceable manner. He must not be one who allows himself to become embroiled in hostile disputes or petty arguments.

Disputes with Witness Lee often got ugly.

17. not covetous (not a lover of money) 1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:2.
An elder cannot be motivated in the ministry by financial gain or greedy in his lifestyle. He is a man who will trust the Lord, be content with what is provided, and be thankful.

We've been over this on a number of threads, what besides covetousness could have possibly motivated Lee to begin the DayStar company? Or to ask members of the Local Churches who lost their life savings to forgive him the debt he owed them?

18. one who rules his own house well (a good manager and leader) 1 Timothy 3:4; Titus 1:6.
An elder must have proven himself a good manager of his children (if he has children), his personal finances, and his household in general.

We've been over Witness Lee's son Phillip. Witness Lee's inability to deal with his son in the matter is enough alone to deny him an eldership.

19. having his children in submission with all reverence (having obedient, respectful, faithful children) 1 Timothy 3:4-5; Titus 1:6.
The children of an elder must not have a reputation for uncontrolled behavior or insubordination. Additionally, an elder must not be a harsh or brutal man, but must maintain order in his family through loving leadership, consistent biblical training, and proper discipline.

See above.

20. not a novice (not a new or immature believer) 1 Timothy 3:6.
An elder must be a mature believer, especially in relation to others in his particular church. If even a capable man is elevated to the position too rapidly, he will battle with pride.

Witness Lee used to teach that Watchman Nee told all of his followers that Witness Lee's spiritual growth could be likened to a man flying. If that isn't spiritual pride, I don't know what is. Even if this story were true, what is the sense in telling it? That's like me saying: "My dad used to say I was THE BEST. Man, am I ever good!"

21. He must have a good testimony among those who are outside (well respected even by unbelievers in the community) 1 Timothy 3:7.
An elder must have a consistently good testimony in all places and with all people (aside from those who would persecute him or accuse him falsely), even outside the church. He must be just, honest, peaceable, and loving in every context.

Witness Lee doesn't. We all know that.

23. not self-willed (not anxious to control others or to have his own way) Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:3.
An elder must not be a man who is anxious to dominate or control others. He must be a team-player, realizing that while he is a shepherd, he is also one of the sheep.

Wow. Witness Lee absolutely doesn't rank here. The man taught that he was the be all and end all of all the ministers on earth. Nope, he was certainly self-willed.

*************

You might debate me on the rest, but I think this says enough. Don't know if that answers your question, but it can be explored on another thread if you're so inclined....

[TLFisher]

You might debate me on the rest, but I think this says enough. Don't know if that answers your question, but it can be explored on another thread if you're so inclined....


Maybe in time unless someone else goes that route. The only thing I would debate you on is the inclusion of Witness Lee as an example. I had been reading one of his earlier books. Witness seemed to make a distinction a worker cannot be an elder. As a worker does not belong to any church.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 3 Cont'd: Techniques for getting "In the spirit"

We've explored the nature of Lee's sensuous theology - his doctrine that puts a demand to be 'spiritual' above every other command in Scripture. This next section goes into what we know he taught about how to get in touch with God and "mingle".

PS: I've been asked to be more clear when I quote The God-Men, as to when I am quoting, and when I am exposting on my own. I have tried throughout this thread to present quotes from The God-Men in blue, with interjections of my own (within those quotes) in these colors (umber). Any preamble in font size 1 is mine, and anything after my asterisks at the bottom of the quote (usually in black) is likewise mine. If I have to quote another author in my post-script, then I pick a different color. I hope this doesn't cause to much confusion!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The God-Men, page 67-68

"The techniques Witness Lee offers for jumping from the shadowy world to Reality are practiced most effectively by the corporate church. Although other activities includes singing and prophesying, the main techniques are "pray-reading" and "calling on the name of the Lord". Except, perhaps, for the church itself, what Lee calls "eating and drinking the Lord" is the primary "means of grace".

Pray-reading is also the Local Church's substitute for Protestantism's ministry of preaching and teaching. For Witness Lee, preaching and teaching are only of the soul; pray-reading is far better, being of the spirit. "We really enjoy pray-reading the Word together in the meetings. It is much better than preaching or teaching, because it includes breathing. When we pray-read the Word, we just breathe the Lord Jesus into us..... We come together not to receive some teaching, but to be breathed upon by the Lord Jesus - to take in the Lord Jesus by breathing." (WL How to Meet, pg 42)

*****************************

It should not surprise us, given what we've seen so far of Lee, that he would come to disregard preaching and teaching of the Word of God within a meeting. Preaching and teaching are grounded in the Bible, whereas Lee's theology leads ever away from the Bible to subjective experience - and by default leaves Lee with unquestionable authority in his own church.

I think expository preaching is essential to the growth of the Christian church. The Lord has spoke to me many times through the preaching of men who are truly after God's own heart... although finding such godly preachers and teachers is not easy. Preaching and Teaching are spiritual gifts, given for the building up of the Body of Christ.

Ephesians 4:11 – “It was He who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers...”

There are plenty of lists in the New Testament with gifts like these. What is so special about this list is that all these gifts have to do with one fundamental part of being God’s church – the Word of God. The work of all these people – apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers – are all to do with delivering the Word of God to people. The Holy Spirit uses people to deliver (minister) His Word to His people.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Witness seemed to make a distinction a worker cannot be an elder. As a worker does not belong to any church.

Did he?

The church isn't a building - it's every true believer of every age. Workers must belong to the church, if they are really workers (bondslaves) of Jesus Christ. To suggest that elders would be held to a higher standard, than those under whom they labor (as all elders in LSM Local Churches labor under Lee) is ludicrous. If anything, the standards must be higher for such a "worker", not lower - because greater responsiblity lies with one who claims that kind of authority.

[TLFisher]

Did he?

The church isn't a building - it's every true believer of every age. Workers must belong to the church, if they are really workers (bondslaves) of Jesus Christ. To suggest that elders would be held to a higher standard, than those under whom they labor (as all elders in LSM Local Churches labor under Lee) is ludicrous. If anything, the standards must be higher for such a "worker", not lower - because greater responsiblity lies with one who claims that kind of authority.

The worker belongs to the universal church. Within the local body, the worker doesn't belong to any church. Still there lies the contradiction between ministry and practice; how can a brother be a worker and elder?

[Cal]

No one "belongs" to anything or anyone.

The Bible says "all things are yours." But that doesn't mean a worker is owned by us like a car or house. It just means his ministry is a gift to us from God.

Neither are we owned by him. Neither are the churches owned by him. And neither are we owned by the churches or are they owned by us.

No one and nothing owns anybody or anything.

Really, guys. Take a step back and ask yourself where your premises come from. They are straight from the Nee/Lee playbook and they are not scriptural. You keep trying to figure it out and the reason you can't is because your fundamental assumptions are out of whack.

It's like you are debating what language eggs speak. But you forgot to consider whether eggs can talk.

[TLFisher]

They are straight from the Nee/Lee playbook and they are not scriptural.
Well Igzy, the forum is to discuss the Recovery movement and the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. As we know the ministry of Witness Lee is very much a common denominator in the local churches. Rare can you have a Christ centered conversation without the inclusion of "the ministry".
If we get into the teachings, most of which are scriptural. If we get into the practices, many are no longer scriptural. that includes the topic of discussion in previous posts.

[UntoHim]

The problem is that many, if not most, of Witness Lee's teachings regarding the core matters of the Christian faith are not scriptural at all, and this is what Duddy et al have clearly shown in the opening chapters of this book. They had rightly discerned that Lee uses the scriptures as mere "proof texts" for his make-it-up-as-you-go-along theology. Though these guys really did their homework, it was kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. I mean, you don't need a PHD in theology or anything to see just how warped and twisted Lee's teachings regarding salvation really are.

I think we will also find that Duddy et al will end up finding out that Lee's false and unbiblical teachings have translated into wrong and harmful practices.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

No one "belongs" to anything or anyone.


Sorry brother, but I think you misunderstood my point (?). What I was saying, (and I believe Terry was agreeing) was that a "worker" for the Lord belongs to the church Universal - he "belongs" to Jesus Christ the Lord. We who are redeemed are bought and paid for by the blood of Christ. This isn't a Leeism at all...

1st Corinthians 6:19 "Do you not know that . . . you are not your own?"

...I used a little "Lee phraseology" only to highlight to members still in the LC that the idea that Lee is either "above the Law" (qualifications for an elder) or somehow outside of it is ridiculous (actually, it's worse than that). For Lee to assert such a thing would show exactly where he is 'spiritually'. A servant is not greater than his Master. I assure you Igzy, I do not use the Lee/Nee playbook.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 3 Cont'd: Lee on Ethics - Doing what comes Spiritually


The God-Men, pages 70-71

"A sensuous ethic results naturally from a theology embracing sensuous sanctification. Witness Lee's ethic is based on the sensate experience of God rather than on conformity to Scripture. For Lee, holiness is irrelevant to matters of obedience, faith, fruitfulness, or moral action. It is a spiritual essence: possessing God's life.

"Holiness is not a matter of action, but a matter of nature, for holiness is God's nature. It is not what we do, but how much we have been mingled with God." (WL, The Vision of God's Building, pg 208). "It is because behaviour and life are things which definitely belong to two different worlds.... Some believers may be very reverential and devout before God; they dare not be disrespectful or loose in their behaviour and action. We cannot say these expressions are not good, but neither are they the growth of life." (WL, The Knowledge of Life, pg 184).

In no case... are the guidelines of Scripture to be consulted rather than turning inward. Lee considers the ethical standards found in the Bible as possibly helpful hints, but never definitive guidelines... Yet most Christians see that if sin were divorced from biblical judgements and if holiness were divorced from biblical criteria, it would be possible to "do good" and sin, or "do evil" but not sin. One can conceive of immature believers whose standard of conduct plunges far below the ethical code of the law, but who remain oblivious to the disparity. In Witness Lee's ethical system, sin is truly sin only when the Spirit convicts such a person and then he or she voluntarily disobeys that "leading".

According to Lee, a believer may be exemplary in conduct, pious, zealously serving God, abounding in gifts and power, but living an unspiritual, unethical life. "Even if you are scriptural, you are still wrong; if you are fundamental, you are still wrong.... There is no law, no teaching, no regulations - only Jesus.... Go to Jesus and ask Him. See what your living Jesus would say." (WL, Christ vs Religion, pg 63-64).

************************

Jesus Christ is Risen; He IS alive - and what He spoke is recorded in the book that you all have on your shelves at home. What He said wasn't left wanting for lack of footnotes until the mid 1970's. His Word is complete - finished - the canon of Scripture was closed; and whoever adds or subtracts from His Word is damned (Rev 22:18-19). If you want to know what He had to say, you need to read it for yourself - and you need to trust that He can lead you into all Truth without the help of any footnotes.

Don't trust your feelings "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" Jeremiah 17:9.

Do you know how many tens of thousands of saints have died to put the precious Word of God in your hands - in words you can read? Do you not know that it was the expository preaching from that Book that finally liberated thousands and began a Reformation that transformed the face of Christianity from an autocratic system headed by a man who claimed to be Christ's unique Vicar with absolute authority in the only "real church" on Earth to save a genuine Body of Believers willing to take up their cross for you... for us... for Him. Don't give another man (or his minions) that kind of power and authority. Christ is the head of Church; He can speak for Himself.

"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied." Matthew 5:6.

[Cal]

Guys,

Sorry if I misinterpreted. But part of my point was that if you use certain terminology you can strengthen certain premises which may be false.

An example is using the verb "belongs." Now, you may have meant by it "is a member of," but the term also conveys the idea of ownership. And I think this is one reason you hear the term used in this way in the Recovery, but rarely elsewhere.

LCers easily say things like, "brother so-and-so belongs to the church in Seattle," because they think of people as means to an end. But mainstream Christians wouldn't use that phrase, because of the idea of ownership it conveys. I think LCers have no problem with the idea of ownership the phrase conveys, because that's the way they think.

So when you start discussing what or who a worker "belongs" to, what are you actually talking about? What he is a member of? Or what owns him?

Are you talking about what you believe, or what LCers believe? Because, before I chimed in, both of you used the term "belongs" in sentences which seemingly were declaring what each of you believed.

There is a difference in saying someone belongs to the Church Universal and saying someone belongs to Jesus.

Not meaning to be difficult. Just making a small point, for what it's worth.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 3 Cont'd: Lee on Sin & the Gospel Message

The God-Men, pages 71-73

"Ultimately, believers are not obligated to obey any ethical standard beyond their ability to sense the leading of the Spirit within their own spirit. Consider Lee's description of a new Christian displaying a bad habit:

"...a brother tells him (the new Christian) that this bad habit is not pleasing to the Lord and that he must get rid of it immediately. He replies, 'When I pray, I am not aware that the Lord is displeased.' To prove his point, the brother then explains to him all the biblical truths concerning the matter. Finally, the new convert is convinced and compels himself to obey these truths... This results in failure, because his growth of life is not adequate.... Therefore, he continues to live in this bad habit. At this point, his conscience condemns him severely...." (WL The Experience of Life, pg 112).

Commenting on that illustration, Lee says the new convert's guilt (induced by biblical precept) is a "leakage of the conscience". Lee then cautions members not to "impart to others advanced knowledge" [biblical truths] which may cause a leakage of conscience (pg 113). Later in the discussion on conscience Lee writes that true knowledge of sin committed comes only from feelings that exist in the conscience, and does not mention the knowledge of sin gained through biblical precepts [Psalm 119:11 "I have stored up Your word in my heart, that I might not sin against You."]

Biblically, of course, God manifests perfect holiness because He is self-consistent, not because He obeys an extraneous higher law. Lee reasons that because Christians too are divine, they should not be bound by external moral laws.

In the context of evangelism and discipleship, Lee says that the message believers communicate is inconsequential. Union with God - being "put into" Him - is the crucial element. People's beliefs about God seemingly will not influence the degree of their fellowship with Him. (WL Christ vs Religion pg 89).

"Regardless of what teaching or message we use, as long as people are put into the triune God, that is quite sufficient." (WL Ibid, italics added).

*************************

No, it's not sufficient. If it was, Christ Himself would have used this simple "repeat after me: Oh Lord Jesus...." trick Himself.

I don't know what it was like in the LC back in 1977, when this book was first published. Did Lee teach people this same trick back then?

When I went to Anaheim for STT, I had an opportunity to go out with some members on a Saturday and do some door-knocking around the training centre. The two members I went with were second year full-time students, who had a burden to preach the gospel (as they had been taught to understand it, at least). What our goal was, was not to explain Christ to sinners, but to get them to 'call on his name'. A number of teams went out that morning, and while our team failed to get anyone to do this, the team a dear friend of mine went out with did meet 'success'. This friend, "R" came back overjoyed that he gotten a couple of young boys (early teens) to call out "Lord Jesus" three times with him. He believed he had gotten them Saved, by this evangelistic trick... that's what we were taught in the Local Churches - and the teaching came straight from Anaheim.

Do you see what Lee's Theology did?

Lee, in rejecting the notion of good and evil as fallen concepts resulting from the fall itself (eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil), does not teach his adherents to preach the gospel in the way Christ Himself preached it. Listen to what Christ said:

"From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 4:17 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew%204.17))

"I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance". (Luke 5:32 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Luke%205.32))

"The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here." (Matthew 12:41 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew%2012.41))

"Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish". (Luke 13:3 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Luke%2013.3), 5 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Luke%2013.5))

Lee didn't teach us to preach repentance of sin. Indeed, he admonished people not to even touch on what is sinful... let feelings show the person the way. Where did he get this idea, that teaching people to call Jesus "Lord" would save them, when they didn't even know who He was and had no intention of really letting Him be Lord of their lives? All they were really taught to do, was LIE.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 3 Cont'd: Lee, on the nature of the Church

The God-Men, pages 73-74

To Witness Lee, the church's essence is divinity. It is the Body of Christ; it is Christ; it is the new mode of the Godhead. - "...the church is one with Christ in life and nature. In other words, according to life and nature, Christ is the church. Christ is not only the Head, but He is also the Body, because the Body's life is Christ and the Body's nature is Christ. The Body is Christ and Christ is the Body." (WL The Practical Expression of the Church, pg 14)....

The Local Church experiences the blessings of God primarily when it assembles to form the corporate body of spiritual Christians. As Witness Lee sees it, individuals yearning to grow in godliness through a private devotional life seldom achieve deep levels of experience. Christians who focus on the Bible and the doctrines it contains will not "hear" from God.

...all of creation, the heavens, humankind and even the Trinity itself exists for that corporate body. The fulfillment of all things is the Local Church (ibid pg 7-10)

The true church has a proper government, says Lee, yet history has rarely seen it in action; only the churches of the apostolic age and of the Brethren type are biblical.

Often, in reading Lee, one might think church government unimportant, since he so consistently derides forms and organizations, offering in their stead "spontaneous" organic growth. In practice, however, he establishes an authoritative eldership of the "spiritually advanced". Lee counsels his followers not to censure the elders, who are entrusted with the ministry of God's Spirit, warning that "....as soon as you criticize him and dispute with him, his ministry toward you is finished" (WL The Knowledge of Life, pg 215)

Such authoritative leadership exerts great leverage in a church member's life, generating intense dependency on the leader's approval in both personal matters (home life, vocation and the like) and church affairs. To differ with a leader's counsel puts one in a "soulish" predicament, adrift from the spiritual flow of church life; submission provides security and approval.
**************************

I had to underline that last paragraph - it is so true. I don't think I ever confessed this, but I felt guiltier coming on-line the first time to look for you people (whom LSM calls 'the opposers') than I ever did at anything else. There was real fear in my heart, with sweat and shaking hands and heart palpitations and all the rest. I can't be alone in that. I was worried someone would find out, I had a real fear of "poisoning"; if the Lord hadn't made it so clear to me, I would never have had the courage to press on. It took years to move me, and it was all Him; and I Praise Him for it!

What about you?

[Cal]

I had to underline that last paragraph - it is so true. I don't think I ever confessed this, but I felt guiltier coming on-line the first time to look for you people (whom LSM calls 'the opposers') than I ever did at anything else. There was real fear in my heart, with sweat and shaking hands and heart palpitations and all the rest. I can't be alone in that.

What about you?

No, you aren't alone. There is probably nothing so overwhelming than the feeling that you may be violating God's government and incurring his judgment. The LC leveraged that to the hilt, even beyond the hilt.

It's interesting, though, that some people seem more susceptible to it that others. Some easily see through it and move on rather quickly. Others struggle with it for years. I think personality and temperament play a part in it.

Also, I believe ex-LCers often think they cannot find anyone who would understand and with whom they could counsel. So they go it alone, and it can be a very, very lonely path. I went through it. The only help I got were these internet boards.

I would like to say that there are probably Christian counselors that could help. But I never sought them. I just never thought anyone would understand or be able to help. It's that old lie from the Devil that one's problem is unique, in violation of 1 Cor 10:13: "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man."

[UntoHim]

Also, I believe ex-LCers often think they cannot find anyone who would understand and with whom they could counsel. So they go it alone, and it can be a very, very lonely path. I went through it. The only help I got were these internet boards.

AMEN to that brudder! The Internet was in it's infancy back when I was leaving, and there was almost nothing out there. I went to some of the ex cult member sites, but I could not relate to much of what was posted. Even after I had been out for years, I still found it hard to communicate with anybody regarding my experience in the Local Church.

Many thanks to my brother Paul Cox for all his fellowship and encouragement back in the day. Paul, don't make yourself so scarce my brother! I really miss your thoughtful (and sometimes hilarious) contributions to this little popcorn stand.:lurking:

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 3 ends with: Lee's Eschatology - We Win, You Lose.

The God-Men, pages 77-80

...Witness Lee and the Local Church believe that the Lord's parousia (Second Coming) depends on their spiritual performance... that the LC is the paramount reason for His reappearance....

"The Lord's recovery" is Christ's regaining of actual dominion over the earth. In the present age, the church is God's earthly agent. In fact, it is the church that deals with God's enemy and casts Satan out:

"The Church brings in the Kingdomz" (WL, The Kingdom & the Church pg 25)

"God's church today is the Local Church. Without it, God cannot recover the earth and Christ cannot return."(WL, C&TC Rvld, pg 177, 227-230)

"One day through the LCs the whole universe will know that God alone is the most high over all the earth." (ibid, pg 144)

More particularly, the Lord's recovery depends exclusively upon the 'overcomers', those few Christians who are truly spiritual and who compose the true church, for which Christ will return. Although Witness Lee encourages all LC members to work hard to merit the Second Coming, he seems to harbor the view that the true believers responsible for Christ's return are notably the select elders of the LC. Overcomers participate in the recovery through their ability to 'release' the spirit and to conform to the spiritual church. Only those Christians, only the LC, are the prepared bride of Christ.

Non-LC Christians will play an insignificant role in the apocalyptic last days.

"There will be many Christians who will lose the birthright... They have the birth of life, so they are the children of God, but they still need the growth of life, the maturity in life, for them to be the heirs of God... It depends on the transformation [supersanctification]... Through the transforming of our soul, we will have the real growth to enjoy the birthright, the full enjoyment of all that God is and all that He has planned and accomplished". (WL God's Purpose for the Church, pg 8)

In Lee's millenarian structure, the LC membership will receive God's fullest blessing in the events immediately preceding the advent of the New Jerusalem: the premillenial rapture of and participation in the marriage supper of the Lamb as Christ's bride. They will rule with the celestial Christ for the duration of the millenium.

Non-LC Christians will not recognize the Lord's Second Coming... such Christians are raptured after the tribulation; not being of the bride, they do not partake of the marriage supper. Rather, they remain on earth with Israel during the millenium under the government of the overcomers. God will reprimand those Christians.

Former LC members in New England testify that an official but still unpublished teaching states that the majority of non-LC Christians will be chastened and locked in a dark room during the marriage feast of the Lamb and his bride, which they will watch via closed circuit telecommunications."

******************

There is not one, but at least two insidious teachings here (and the third {that the LC is the only means through which men and women can come to Christ} flows from these two). The first is the teaching that we (humanity, or the church) can is some way determine when Christ returns by our performance.

The major flaw with that teaching is that it turns the focus of our attention from God to ourselves. Like the religion of the Pharisees and the Saducees, who believed they could 'earn' the coming of the Messiah through strict adherence to religious laws made by man, so too Witness Lee taught that 'spiritual' laws made by him (his dictated means of 'touching the spirit', pray-reading, fellowship, calling on the name of the Lord, meeting, etc. etc.) if strictly adhered to, would bring the Messiah back.

The second is Lee's teaching of what Christ's return would really mean.

Look at this quote from agodman.com (an appropriately named current LC members blog): "The Lord Jesus did not come as a King to rule us outwardly but He came as the bread of life for us to eat Him (http://www.agodman.com/blog/whenever-we-turn-to-our-spirit-christ-makes-his-home-in-our-hearts-through-faith-a-little-more/)! God has no intention that man would do things for Him or work for Him – God wants man to enjoy God, eat God, and drink God!"

This is a lie, for Christ said:

"Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:21-24

Lee puts the focus on this passage on the word 'spirit' - but 'spirit' is used only 3 times, and only once as part of an imperitive. The words 'worship' or 'worshipped' or 'worshippers', which is the ACTUAL focus of this passage (and the focus of the imperitive command given), is used 8 times.

"Worship Him who made heaven and earth" (Revelation 14:7)

"You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve" (Matthew 4:10).

The primary obligation of man is to worship and serve his Creator. It is therefore essential that we understand what this entails.

The word translated as 'worship' in the New Testament is:

Proskuneo: In the Greek New Testament this is the main word for worship. The word is common in the gospels (26 times) - people would often bow down worshipfully before Jesus. And it is common in the book of Revelation (21 times) because the angels and elders in heaven often bow down before God. Proskuneo can also be used in the sense of "doing obeisance" to kings and people in positions of respect (Matthew 18:26; Mark 15:19; Revelation 3:9).

There are other words translated as "serve" or "service" as it is rendered to God (those being the Greek Latreuo, Diakoneo, and Douleuo). Each of these three words deserves a full treatment which is beyond the scope of this post. Here, and very briefly, my point is that true worship, as Christ defined it, as the Bible and the religion God Himself created defined it, was utterly rejected by Witness Lee in favor of an entirely new definition.

Why?

-----------------------
References:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/proskuneo.html
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/worship-god--2
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/2004/true-worship-part-1
http://www.deusvitae.com/faith/outlines/worship1.txt



Suggested Reading:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/diakoneo.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/latreuo.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/douleuo.html

[ABrotherinFaith]

There is not one, but at least two insidious teachings here (and the third {that the LC is the only means through which men and women can come to Christ} flows from these two). The first is the teaching that we (humanity, or the church) can is some way determine when Christ returns by our performance.

The major flaw with that teaching is that it turns the focus of our attention from God to ourselves. Like the religion of the Pharisees and the Saducees, who believed they could 'earn' the coming of the Messiah through strict adherence to religious laws made by man, so too Witness Lee taught that 'spiritual' laws made by him (his dictated means of 'touching the spirit', pray-reading, fellowship, calling on the name of the Lord, meeting, etc. etc.) if strictly adhered to, would bring the Messiah back


Been hearing this lately, the God is LIMITED by our prayers, that He cannot act if we do not first bind on Earth, that Heaven it waiting for our prayers of authority. This just doesn't seem to be so clear cut to me, and sometimes seems flat out wrong.

Any thoughts to help me work through this?
Thanks
ABIF

[TLFisher]

Such authoritative leadership exerts great leverage in a church member's life, generating intense dependency on the leader's approval in both personal matters (home life, vocation and the like) and church affairs. To differ with a leader's counsel puts one in a "soulish" predicament, adrift from the spiritual flow of church life; submission provides security and approval.

NFNL, this is the concept I was raised up with. Maybe by the ninties, this was no longer so. It certainly was not my experience in the locality I was in. The authority rested in one, but at the same time the authority was by no means micromanaging the decision making of the saints in the locality

[TLFisher]

[COLOR="Navy"]AMEN to that brudder! The Internet was in it's infancy back when I was leaving, and there was almost nothing out there. I went to some of the ex cult member sites, but I could not relate to much of what was posted. Even after I had been out for years, I still found it hard to communicate with anybody regarding my experience in the Local Church.

Here too UntoHim. Througout the 90's, I thought I was alone in the concerns I had. It was as The Emporer's New Clothes being lived out. Everyone else had the vision to see the fine linen the emporer was wearing, and I saw nothing.
It was my problem alone regarding FOTPR, PSPR, the descrepancy between the ministry and the practice of the ministry, etc. Then came the BARM and this forum.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Been hearing this lately, the God is LIMITED by our prayers, that He cannot act if we do not first bind on Earth, that Heaven it waiting for our prayers of authority. This just doesn't seem to be so clear cut to me, and sometimes seems flat out wrong.

Good afternoon brother,

The answer to your question is addressed in three things: The nature of God, the nature of man, and the nature of prayer.

The Nature of God

The Bible teaches that God is a holy God. The idea behind the concept of holiness is "separation." It comes from a word meaning "to separate or cut off." God is separate, or cut off, from everything that is sinful and evil—He cannot tolerate sin. John wrote this truth in figurative language.
This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Jo&c=1&v=5#5)).
To say that God is holy means there is no trace of evil in his character.
In fact, He is good and upright and righteous...

Good and upright is the LORD; Therefore He instructs sinners in the way
(Psalm 25:8 (https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Psalm+25%3A8)).

Before the LORD, for He is coming; For He is coming to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness, And the peoples in His faithfulness (Psalm 96:13 (https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Psalm+96%3A13)).

...and His way is perfect...

This God—His way is perfect; the word of the LORD proves true; He is a shield for all those who take refuge in Him (Psalm 18:30)

The Nature of Man

The Bible teaches that since the fall, (a willfull disobedient act done in rebellion against God) all men are dead in their trespasses and sins. None are righteous.

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5)

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. (Isaiah 64:6)

But you might ask: "What of those who are in Christ? Do they not have the minds of Christ?" No brother, even Saved believers, great saints living and dead, are not made perfect in this life... Sanctification is a process. Even Paul said:

Romans 7:15-18 "I don't really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don't do it. Instead, I do what I hate. But if I know that what I am doing is wrong, this shows that I agree that the law is good. So I am not the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it. And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I can't." (New Living Translation)

The Nature of Prayer

Believers know that Prayer is communication with God - done for Worship, to give thanks, to Praise, to seek His will, to beg favor, and to even command with authority. We know from what Christ taught, that whatever we ask in His Name, will be done for us.
I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in My name. (John 16:23)

This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. (1 John 5:14)

But asking "in His name" is the same as asking "according to His will." The prayers of ours that He promises to answer therefore, are only the prayers we make in accord with Him - it is not simply about crying out "O Lord Jesus" before or during your prayer, nor is it a matter of ending your prayer "in Jesus Holy name". It is only prayer directed by Him, through the Holy Spirit. And whether we pray or not, God is still sovereign... He will do as He wills.

The LORD has established His throne in the heavens, And His sovereignty rules over all. (Psalm 103:19)


Now Imagine...

What if the Holy and Perfect and Righteous God intentionally limited Himself to act only when and on what imperfect and fallen and unrighteous man, even man in the unfinished process of Sanctification, chose to tell Him to.

Such a world would be, in essence, abandoned by God. It would be Hell on earth, subject to the whim of man and not of God. He would NOT be sovereign. We would all be damned.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Now Imagine...

What if the Holy and Perfect and Righteous God intentionally limited Himself to act only when and on what imperfect and fallen and unrighteous man, even man in the unfinished process of Sanctification, chose to tell Him to.

Such a world would be, in essence, abandoned by God. It would be Hell on earth, subject to the whim of man and not of God. He would NOT be sovereign. We would all be damned.

[/INDENT]

I'm with you, especially with respect to perfecting, regarding our relationship with God. The part of your post that I've quoted is the part that somewhat addresses my original question. How you've said it is close to how I see it: According to what I understand, the ministry of the LC is saying that God is limited by our prayers. I think that they would agree with the both of us in saying that only those prayers that are one with the will of God will be answered. I think the mistake is the idea that seems to follow, e.g. that those things would not have happened without having first been prayed about; that God / Heaven is waiting idly for us to find the will of God, pray it back to God, loose it here and thus affect the loosing of it in Heaven. This interpretation seems to give way too much (forced) inactivity to God. The grammar tense in Matthew 18:18 seems to be at the center of this interpretation.

It's God sovereignty that we do not know His will fully. This is why, I think, faith is so important. We can't know all the things God wills, and so as we pray, we must continually, simply, fatihfully say, "Your will be done." I don't think our not seeing God's will fully, authoritatively, in all our prayers PREVENTS God from acting, from moving, from accomplishing His will on Earth. Like you said, if this were the case, we'd all be damned. Nothing would get done.

[OBW]

This has always been a troublesome concept. Nothing happens without prayer. We have to pray. We must pray according to His will.

But when you couple that with the kind of certainty of preordination, the foreknowledge of God, etc., then there is potentially the kind of extreme predestination mentality that some of the most extreme Calvinists (more extreme than Calvin himself) seem to hold that it is going to happen the way it is going to happen. And there are verses to support that. (sort of)

So somewhere between "I can simply pray for anything and because I am a Christian I will get it" and "why bother, it is all going to happen according to his predestination" must be real.

Do we over-attribute His will? Do we incorrectly assert that every minute detail has His will on it? Is it possible that His will is more about us and our being than about particulars of otherwise irrelevant details. Maybe He doesn't care which job you take (assuming the options do not include robbing banks) but rather than you acknowledge and seek Him in your considerations. Maybe we really can move the hand of God. I do not diminish that even that may be known before hand by God. But that it went the way it did was not as much a matter of Him deciding how it would be and making it so, but knowing how our free will would choose to seek Him and to ask concerning our needs and He joyfully responds.

So, in this kind of context, what is "according to His will"? Is it possible that to pray according to His will is sometimes little more than to actually pray. To have a heart for something for which He is happy to agree and respond accordingly.

If His will is summed-up in "love God" and "love your fellow man" then his will is not necessarily something that is always predefined in terms of specifics, but is rather much more broad. There may be more than one "solution" to an issue. We can pray in any of those ways and be within His will. But some other option is not.

But most importantly to me, it seems that trying to define God's will before you pray is a kind of man-made limit on God. I think that it is better to pray outside this expanded definition of "will" than to be so narrow that we need to predetermine God's will before praying. It is true that a prayer not according to His will likely gets the "no" answer. But at least you are praying.

And, like another simplistic statement, it is better to ask and not receive than to not ask. If you ask, you may receive. If you do not ask, you will never receive.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 4: An Evaluation of Witness Lee's Writings

"How should Christians respond to the teachings of Witness Lee? What evaluation ought to be placed on his movement's doctrines and practices? The LC exclusiveness towards other churches confuses and annoys many people. Some feel challenged to examine themselves in the light of LC teaching, yet that teaching is often ambiguous or contradictory. The LC's sectarian approach to church life may offer a broad clue that its teachings are at odds with the mainstream of Christian belief. Lee's strong use of Scripture has often led Christians to overlook areas of his word that seem unclear or questionable but not blatantly wrong. Continuing problems between Christian communities and the LC, however, suggest a need for a second look.

Plowing through volumes of Witness Lee's materials... one sees many debatable points. Ambiguities begin to take on a recognizable pattern, assuming proportions that constitute definite aberrations. Few people outside the LC are likely to examine that copious literature with care. Christians who glance at Lee's teachings may conclude that he zealously communicates biblical truth, whereas intense scrutiny would reveal some systematic fallacies of his doctrines."

**************

35 years later, what has changed? The LC is still extremely sectarian - more so than any 'denomination' they abominate. Witness Lee's teachings have been called 'strong meat' by some elders, and not fit for the consumption of 'new ones' until they're well in the fold - emotionally, spiritually, and psychologically integrated into the group.

SCP is right, at first glance, so much of what we read and heard in the LC sounded so right... but getting in 'the meat' of their teachings revealed an altogether different and unexpected flavor.... and the problems, as the author points out, are systematic. The whole of Lee's theology was built on a single idea - everything he expounded flowed out of that. If he was wrong on that one foundational point, then everything he expounded and taught was likewise wrong... You could call it "the fruit of a poisonous tree".

[OBW]

Lee's strong use of Scripture has often led Christians to overlook areas of his word that seem unclear or questionable but not blatantly wrong.
. . . .

Plowing through volumes of Witness Lee's materials... one sees many debatable points. Ambiguities begin to take on a recognizable pattern, assuming proportions that constitute definite aberrations. Few people outside the LC are likely to examine that copious literature with care. Christians who glance at Lee's teachings may conclude that he zealously communicates biblical truth, whereas intense scrutiny would reveal some systematic fallacies of his doctrines.So Duddy, despite allegedly shoddy scholarship, sees what a 14-plus year member (former member) now sees in the teachings of Lee. A strong use of scripture, but not actually supporting his many patterns of unclear, questionable, ambiguous, etc., points and teachings.

And when Duddy admits that Lee's points do not seem "blatantly wrong" he is not saying that they are not wrong . . . just that they do not stand out as obviously wrong. If they were that obvious, then Christians who first see Lee's teachings would be wary and never get "caught" by "the ministry." They wouldn't become so accepting of the lack of support if it were obvious.

The teachings and ways of the LRC are subtle. They are not declaring that Jehovah is the savior but Jesus is not Jehovah. They are not declaring that the angel Moroni (is that "moron" with an "i" on the end?) delivered this message to the prophet Joseph Smith and that Jesus is now the brother of Lucifer.

No. They have taken as somewhat mainstream approach to Evangelical Christianity, complete with a mostly Calvinist view of salvation and methodically excised the bulk of the Evangelicals from it through a redefined emphasis supported by an altered lexicon of terminology.

They do assert that they have a "legitimate" equivalent of Joseph Smith to give them words from God that God did not give others because it is not simply in the scripture. But they are careful not to make that assertion to the Christian community at large. They just walk around with their secret handshake and coded phrases so they can speak what the rest of us consider normal Christian words and phrases, but with them condemn everyone else in secret.

Duddy got it right.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 4 Cont'd: Lee - the man and his Paradigm

I've given this section it's title - not Duddy, but it speaks to what Duddy is about to express here in this passage, in a word that was not yet captured by the english speaking world at large at the time the book was written. I don't know if everyone here knows what a "paradigm" is, so for the sake of those who don't, I will give you that definition here:

par·a·digm
/ˈparəˌdīm/: "A worldview underlying the theories and methodology of a particular subject."

"In a sense, we each have our own set of paradigms or glasses through which we view the world. These personal viewpoints of the "way things are" may cloud our ability to perceive or consider new or different ideas, especially if they seem to be in conflict with our perception of what is reality or "truth." - Grant M. Bright.

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."- Albert Einstein

"What you see depends on what you thought before you looked."- Eugene Taurman



The God-Men, pages 82-83

"Without calling Witness Lee's intentions into question, one can think of several factors that may have led him astray. One has to do with what theologians call 'hermeneutics', or principles of interpretation. Today, many theologians are discussing 'contextual hermeneutics", particularly relevant to cross-cultural communication of the basic tenets of Christianity, by missionaries. Do certain biblical themes elicit different responses in different cultures? If so, to what extent are those varied responses equally valid? Witness Lee is an Asian who relocated to the West at nearly sixty years of age. No doubt certain structural elements in his teaching (e.g., the deification (divinization, if you prefer) of humanity; introspective meditation) are Eastern cultural emphases that seem out of harmony with a Western view of biblical Christianity. Certain peculiarities in Local Church social practices also seem rooted in Lee's Asian heritage.

A second factor may have to do with the nature, methods of composition and purposes of Witness Lee's publications.... Most of Lee's books are derived from lectures delivered in LC training sessions... They were not intended to be theological treatises or essays....

Finally, Witness Lee's disposition toward writing and his method of teaching contribute to the strangeness of LC doctrine. Lee has a penchant for novelty in expounding biblical ideas. He seems to want to distance himself from Christianity in general and from traditional doctrinal positions and modes of expression in particular....

The authors of The God-Men recognize that Witness Lee may disagree with our systematization of his writings. Yet we think that if he were to reshape his oral teachings into systematic form, his own formulation would be congruent with the one we have suggested."

*******************

I wanted to insert my commentary on the word "paradigm" in the opening of this post, to emphasize that what Duddy is suggesting here isn't racism - it's a nod to the fact that one's upbringing, culture, language, family, interactions, and history affect one's view of the world... and that is going to have a very definite emphasis on our interpretation of the Bible. Any Messianic Jew could tell us Westerners that! What seems to be so 'novel' in Lee's 'Recovery' is undoubtedly partly due to the cultural paradigm through which he viewed the Bible - and that is also the reason so much of what we learned has an Eastern flavor to it.

Two men were walking down a busy city street. "Listen," exclaimed one. "What a lovely sound of a cricket." The other looked at him in puzzlement. "How can you hear a cricket amid this din?" he asked. The first man replied, "I’m a zoologist." He took a coin from his pocket and dropped it on the crowed sidewalk. Immediately, the people around stopped and began to look down. "We hear what we listen for," he explained.

Paradigm quotes courtesy of www.brightquotes.com (http://www.brightquotes.com)

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 4 Cont'd: Deconstructing Lee

The God-Men, pages 84-85.

"Consider one example of the need for evaluation of Witness Lee's teaching:

Evangelical Christianity in Western society has always accepted the doctrine of God's Spirit indwelling believers. Lee, however, constantly attacks all Christians for being "unspiritually guided". Such an attitude steadily erodes the relationship of the Local Church to the larger Christian community. LC enthusiasts single out the evangelical community to proselytize. The conclusion evidently drawn by LC people is that all forms of Christianity, evangelical included, are irretrievably degenerate; God has abandoned "Christianity" to work elsewhere (ie, in the LC), in a new and distinctive way:

"Do not think that the Lord is in the circle of Protestantism. He is outside the door. Judaism is Satanic, Catholicism is demonic, and Protestantism is without Christ.... There are only two things on the earth: Today's generation and the testimony of Jesus.... What is the testimony of Jesus? It is still the Local Churches." (WL, The Stream No. 14, #4).

We believe that, although Christianity is wrongly understood by Witness Lee, his distinction between the Local Church and Christianity is valid. Our study reveals that Lee's teachings do indeed differ in substantial ways from biblically orthodox Christian doctrine. Lee's writings intimate that we are in a new dispensation, and only the Local Church has been sensitive to God's new way of relating to humanity.

"We have the deep conviction that the Lord has turned the age from the age of religion, forms, doctrines and teachings to the age of the Spirit." (WL How to Meet pg 243)

"The new way of meeting is a way in the Spirit. It is not according to the teachings or doctrines of the Bible (of course it is not contrary to the clear words of Scripture), but absolutely according to the Spirit. Do not say, 'We must act is such and such a way according to the Scriptures.' In a sense I agree with you, but I tell you, that will kill you. The written code kills." (WL How to Meet pg 253)

Lee clearly sees himself as the harbinger of this "new way" (or dispensation) and, as such, his writings and ministry invite evaluation.

***********************

Lee's "distinction between the Local Church and Christianity is valid". That is a statement with which LC elders probably couldn't agree more; but I hope and pray and that the vast majority of "marginal members" are troubled by it. Indeed, I think they must be.

Witness Lee many times castigated Christianity, and even went so far as to say his movement was NOT Christianity. These same words have more recently been echoed by Ron Kangas, Benson Phillips, and others within the inner circle of LSM. Now, why would they say that on the one hand, but on the other, not assert a new identity for themselves? Why continue to call themselves Christians, if they hate all things Christian?

Could it be that Witness Lee and (now) his disciples, were/are testing the waters?

Consider: There are definitely some genuine Christians who meet in Local Churches - and the testimony of those ones are what gives the LC it's credibility. These ones might be extremely troubled, if, like the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses, the LC abandoned the word "Christian" and took their own name. The loss of these ones would be detrimental to the appeal of the LC.

At least, that seems to be the conclusion they've reached thus far.... but the fact that they've brought this matter up more than once over the years makes one wonder if there is, at some level, an agenda to cement and formalize the relationship between the administration of LSM and the congregants of the LSM Local Churches ('localities') across North America. If there is, then one must ask how better can one formalize that relationship, than by having your adherents formally renounce their Christian faith in favor of whatever name LSM decides to offer in its place?

[Cal]

I never read "The God-Men." I read "The Mind-Benders" and was not impressed, and more or less assumed that "The God-Men" was of the same quality. I was wrong.

Reading these quotes by NeitherFirstnorLast, I think it is safe to say that "The God-Men" is the best examination of Lee and his teachings ever published, and should be taken seriously. It's not perfect, but it is not libelous. At least if these quotes are any indication.

Note how Lee and LSM dealt with Duddy's honest, well-considered examination. They sued the parties responsible for it. And they did not win the case. "The God-Men" was never found libelous by a court of law. Duddy and SCP could not afford to go to court. Lee, et al, bullied them into submission by using the mammon of unrighteousness. That's about as bad as it gets.

LSM principle clearly is If you don't have the resources to play with us in court, then we have to conclude and expect others to conclude your evaluation of us must be false. In other words, when push comes to shove with them, it's all about the money.

[Cal]

For those of you who still tend to rationalize LSM's penchant for suing publishers of unflattering assessments of them, consider this.

What if, just maybe, Duddy's book was God's way of sending a message to Lee and his movement that they needed a course correction.

Maybe, just maybe, Duddy was doing God's work. After all, aren't we to consider the input of the Body and its members? Isn't this what the Body-life is all about?

What if a brother has such a problem with you that he was forced to go public with it in the church? And what if his problem with you echoed the feelings of other brothers and sisters who had said similar things? Wouldn't your suing them indicate a desperate closed-mindedness on your part, not to mention arrogance?

But, what if, on the other hand, you began to humbly fellowship with these brothers and sisters and honestly consider whether their ideas had merit. Even if you didn't always agree with them, you would undoubtedly gain valuable perspective. And you probably would not sue them, simply because the act of humbling yourself would take you out of such an adversarial realm altogether.

Lee and LSM, for all their talk of seeking fellowship, never really sought it. They just attempted to convince others to do things their way, and resorted to bullying when those parties did not fall in line.

Thus, maybe, just maybe, they missed the adjustment of the Body, and the current state of the movement is the fruit of that arrogance.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 4: Lee's Basic Misunderstanding

The God-Men, page 85

"We have shown that in Witness Lee's sensuous theology, the core tenets are derived from and focus on a believers inner subjective experience of God through impulses, intuitions, and feelings. Scripture, however, speaks of God as the external, infinite One whose Word is Truth...

Psalm 119:160 "The sum of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous rules endures forever."

Daniel 10:21a "But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth..."

John 17:17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth."

Ephesian 1:13-14 "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in Him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of His glory."

James 1:18 "Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures."

... thus (His Word) bears an innate value independent of human understanding or assessment of it's contents.

God's Word provides the platform for addressing human dilemmas and social issues. In contrast, Lee's theology seems myopic (nearsighted) in it's inability to address concerns beyond an individual's personal experiences. The Local Church not only fails to express social or moral conciousness but explicitly counsels its members to avoid any public awareness."

*****************

Is Duddy's assessment here valid? What yardstick can we use to measure the Local Churches "expression of social or moral consciousness"?

Let's define these terms first off, so that there are no misunderstandings:

Social consciousness is consciousness shared within a society. It can also be defined as social awareness; to be aware of the problems that different societies and communities face on a day-to-day basis; to be conscious of the difficulties and hardships of society.

Moral consciousness is an awareness of good and evil, of right and wrong.

The two together imply an awareness of societal needs in regards to it's condition - an awareness not only of what is right and wrong with society, but also of individual's basic needs - such as food, lodging, clothing - or intellectual and emotional needs, such as love, compassion, education, understanding, and of our righteous requirement to answer those needs as best we can.

Therefore, one who expresses an awareness on these levels, would (of course) react to these needs... they would compassionately respond to the members of the society in which they live. This is a BASIC Christian response: Consider what Christ said in Matthew 25:34-50

"Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Outside of the walls of LSM churches and amongst their own members, do we see Local Church members aware of societal needs and responding to them at all? Do we see a "Local Church response to Hurricane Sandy victims", for instance? We've certainly seen this among other Christian groups - and more. It is common amongst Christians (and notably absent amongst non-Christians) to generously fund and participate in non-profit / non-recruiting Outreach programs, Missions, Youth Groups, Soup Kitchens, building of Schools and Hospitals and homes for the homeless, establishment of Christian humanitarian groups (although later secularized - some outstanding examples from our history include the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and the Young Men's Christian Association {YMCA},etc.

If we cannot point to such an organization or effort, then perhaps we must concede that Duddy has indeed identified a glaring absence on the part of Witness Lee's Local Church. If so, and especially in light of Christ's stern warning in the above verse, then we must consider the implications of that lack of fruit.

[TLFisher]

Outside of the walls of LSM churches and amongst their own members, do we see Local Church members aware of societal needs and responding to them at all? Do we see a "Local Church response to Hurricane Sandy victims", for instance? We've certainly seen this among other Christian groups - and more. It is common amongst Christians (and notably absent amongst non-Christians) to generously fund and participate in non-profit / non-recruiting Outreach programs, Missions, Youth Groups, Soup Kitchens, building of Schools and Hospitals and homes for the homeless, establishment of Christian humanitarian groups (although later secularized - some outstanding examples from our history include the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and the Young Men's Christian Association {YMCA},etc.

Former members I know do get involved with charities. I believe there are several thoughts to consider while meeting with the local churches, the system kept saints too involved with Lee's ministry, there wasn't time to get involved. Second thought being the recovery is in the central line of God's move and anything else (giving time or money to charities) does not line up to God's economy. As a result there is a void in social consciousness.
Talk about morals in the local churches, you will be told you're on the wrong tree; the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Bring up cases of immorality and you will be told "it's not about right or wrong it's about life". Same applies wen talking about ethics or about righteousness.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Former members I know do get involved with charities. I believe there are several thoughts to consider while meeting with the local churches, the system kept saints too involved with Lee's ministry, there wasn't time to get involved. Second thought being the recovery is in the central line of God's move and anything else (giving time or money to charities) does not line up to God's economy. As a result there is a void in social consciousness.

About former members getting involved in charities, I do not doubt you. As for current members, I plead with you all to consider what this "void in social consciousness" by the organization you are involved with means.

Christ was clear: Those who do NOT feed the hungry, visit the lonely, clothe the naked, or give drink to the thirsty, are bound for eternal punishment. He was not speaking about some kind of 'spiritual' "feed them Christ/give them Christ to drink/ clothe them in Christ" nonsensical idea. He was speaking of practical needs being practically met.

James 2:15-17 "Suppose you see a brother or sister who has no food or clothing, and you say, “Good-bye and have a good day; stay warm and eat well”—but then you don’t give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do? So you see, faith by itself isn’t enough. Unless it produces good deeds, it is dead and useless."

Strong words that Lee despised, but words that God breathed into His Word - words accepted by the earliest members of the Church Universal as Truth. And yes, James refers here to brothers and sisters - but can we logically say then that the meeting of practical needs is reserved only to those within the Body of Christ? What of our unbelieving neighbors? Do we not know the parable of the Good Samaritan well enough that I needn't quote it here (Luke 10:25-37). In that parable Christ is telling us exactly who the neighbour we are commanded to love is - and here we see also that the religiously devout, so concerned with going about 'Gods work', did not have to time to stop and help the man beaten and wounded on the side of the road either.

If "God's Economy" prevents you from answering His clear call in Scripture, then it's high time to evaluate whether such a thing as "God's Economy" really exists. Read the Word of God, and read it without Lee's footnotes. Listen to what Christ says.


********************

From the Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (AD 100):
"Let us not merely call Him Lord, for that will not save us. For He says, 'Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will be saved, but he who does what is right." Thus, brothers, let us acknowledge Him by our actions...."

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 4: On Reading Scripture

The God-Men pages 85-86

"Scripture contains both general principles and particular guidelines. They govern Christian behavior on the corporate as well as individual level. Negating Scripture's significance, Lee's theology requires direct personal involvement in an issue before one is qualified to critique it. If the revelation of God's will in the temporal sphere is restricted solely to an individual's personal affairs, any Christian moral consensus regarding social justice, politics, civil liberties, etc. is obviously eliminated.

Biblical theology generally faces the question of what the Bible says about a given topic at three levels:

First, the boundaries of a topic are determined through a process of cross-checking relevant passages.

Second, passages are studied which discuss the appropriate personal subjective response to the topic.

Third, passages pertinent to the social implications of the topic are studied.

Witness Lee's theology is moored in the channels of the second level without investigating the other two aspects. Although Christian in intent, it (Lee's theology) is truncated and defective in both range and depth."

***********************

I have heard a person say here on this forum, in a thread long past, that one thing they appreciated that they'd learned from Lee was a 'disdain for theologians'. That was a sad commentary. Lee had a reason for disdaining theologians: He wasn't one, and he was never trained as one. If anyone could unmask Lee as being untrained and uneducated in Christian history and teaching and Biblical exegesis, it would have been someone who had that training and education.

If there are yet people out there reading this who believe that Lee "stood on the shoulders" of those who went before him, then you must also believe that Lee's teachings should be found in a 'less mature' form in the writings of those who came before Lee. Lee's teachings should be recognizable there - even if (as yet) undeveloped. I challenge you to look. I challenge you to search and to read for yourself... and see where that leads you.

May Jesus Christ our Lord bless you, and lead you into all Truth for His name's sake - that He might get the glory.

Amen.


*****************

Want to start reading what the really early church taught - in the apostolic age? Why not read The Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles). Although not included in the canon, it was considered for such - and although excluded, it was considered recommended reading. Think of it as the very earliest version of a New Believers Series.

Learn about the Didache here: http://thedidache.org/
Read it here: http://www.paracletepress.com/didache.html

[TLFisher]

If there are yet people out there reading this who believe that Lee "stood on the shoulders" of those who went before him, then you must also believe that Lee's teachings should be found in a 'less mature' form in the writings of those who came before Lee. Lee's teachings should be recognizable there - even if (as yet) undeveloped. I challenge you to look. I challenge you to search and to read for yourself... and see where that leads you.

Where does "standing on shoulders" fit in when Lee receives from a contemporary?
One former member well-versed in the ministry of Theodore Austin Sparks suggested Sparks spoke the same God's Economy in the 1950's which Lee spoke in 1963/1964.

[UntoHim]

I have been receiving T. Austin-Sparks messages from The Golden Candlestick ministry for years. Sparks may have mentioned "God's economy", but his definitions are biblically based, Witness Lee's "economy" is not biblically based. The Bible does not say that man is becoming God, the Bible does not say that we are going to be mingled with God, the Bible does not say that our eternal destiny is to be melted into some "mingling of divinity with humanity, issuing in a universal, corporate, mysterious person" (Lee - Footnote on Revelation 22:21) I am quite certain that Sparks never said anything close to this.

I would think that the kind of things Lee wrote here in this footnote did not escape Duddy et al. Lee's messages are filled with this kind of unbiblical teaching - for any half competent Christian apologist it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[TLFisher]

I have been receiving T. Austin-Sparks messages from The Golden Candlestick ministry for years. Sparks may have mentioned "God's economy", but his definitions are biblically based, Witness Lee's "economy" is not biblically based. The Bible does not say that man is becoming God, the Bible does not say that we are going to be mingled with God, the Bible does not say that our eternal destiny is to be melted into some "mingling of divinity with humanity, issuing in a universal, corporate, mysterious person" (Lee - Footnote on Revelation 22:21)

My reference to Sparks was strictly to God's adminstration which the recovery terms as economy. As far as man becoming God mantra, of course most of God's servants would not speak such a word. Let's take Ephesians 1:5for example, the word adoption is omitted in the Rcv version. Whereas in the NASB or Darby, it is not. By the adopted sense we are His sons and we are brothers of Jesus, but not how Lee's theology portrays sonship to be.

Ephesians 1:5
having marked us out beforehand for adoption through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Darby Translation

Predestinating us unto sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
Recovery Translation

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 4 Cont'd: Are His Ways & Thoughts REALLY Higher than ours?

The God-Men, page 86-87

"Witness Lee and his defenders tend to establish a teaching as mysterious & inexplicable, but then proceed to explain it in an unorthodox way. Consider Lee's doctrine of God. All Christians would agree that the Trinity is a great mystery, fully known only to God Himself, yet we have received in the Bible a revelation by which we can understand some truth about God's nature. Witness Lee, dissatisfied with historical trinitarian doctrine, repeatedly states ideas that sound both trinitarian and modalistic....

Some of Lee's teaching seems relatively harmless, if puzzling. For example, in commenting on Exodus 3:6, he says -

"This passage reveals that God as the God of the patriarchs is threefold. With the God of Abraham the emphasis is on the Father; with the God of Isaac the emphasis is on the Son; and with the God of Jacob the emphasis is on the Spirit." (WL, Concerning the Triune God, the Father, the Son and the Spirit - pg 11).

The implications of such a parallel are many but obscure, so one may shrug and go on. But what of the modalistic teaching Lee derives from the Gospel of John?

"After death and resurrection He became the Spirit breathed into the disciples (20:22).... The Son became the Spirit for us to drink in as the water of life (7:37-39; 4:10, 14)... In the heavens where man cannot see, God is the Father; when He is expressed among men, He is the Son; and when He comes into men, He is the Spirit." (Ibid, pages 8-9)

Scripture speaks of an indwelling by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three distinct persons, yet the Bible verses Lee has cited above do not support his assertions. Jesus remained Himself as He symbolically "breathed the Spirit" on His disciples; He was still there in bodiy form with them. Not did He give His Spirit before His glorification; the whole point of his upper-room discourse was that He would send the Spirit when His work was done. Although He promised to be present through the Spirit's work, Jesus used a third-person pronoun, rather than a first-person pronoun, to refer to the coming Spirit."

********************

This is one short passage on Witness Lee's Doctrine of God, which is actually examined much more thoroughly earlier on in this book. Up to this point, I haven't referenced that material (yet), as it touches on something that we've repeatedly heard from LC Outsiders - that Lee taught modalism. Duddy never goes that far; rather, in a statement much more consistent with our own 'insiders assessment', Duddy states that Lee seemingly taught both a trinitarian and modalistic deity - frequently contradicting himself.... but never unable to supply an answer to any question posed to him, regardless of whether or not either Lee himself or Scripture elsewhere contradicted him.

Now let me distance myself from that particular topic (Lee's unorthodox Doctrine of God) briefly, to touch on something that to my mind comes out of it: and that is Lee's penchant to constantly offer explanations for the unexplainable.

Throughout 'Christianity', that is, the history of the Church Universal, men (and women) have been 'touched by God' and have been used to illuminate for us not only theological truths but also to demonstrate genuine faith and obedience to our Lord. However, many of these men (and women) had differences in interpretations and understandings of exactly what the Scriptures taught (and I say this with the caveat that we must always remember 'In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity') .

Doesn't Isaiah 55:9 remind us how we ought to approach Scripture? "As the heavens are higher than the earth so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts."

Shouldn't a 'bible teacher' who is honest with himself acknowledge that there are truths contained in the Bible that he can only guess at... and shouldn't he consequently humbly approach Scripture, always seeking and growing in the truth but knowing that "Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely." (1st Corinthians 13:12 -NLT)

Is it pride that prevents a man from saying "I think", or "I believe", or "my understanding is", rather than saying he has all the answers? If so, what does God say about the proud? How does He view them, and shouldn't that proud man's teachings be suspected rather than exalted, given his penchant to so boldly declare that he knows (absolutely and without mistake) the mind of God?

[alwayslearning]

Shouldn't a 'bible teacher' who is honest with himself acknowledge that there are truths contained in the Bible that he can only guess at... and shouldn't he consequently humbly approach Scripture...

Is it pride that prevents a man from saying "I think", or "I believe", or "my understanding is", rather than saying he has all the answers? If so, what does God say about the proud? How does He view them, and shouldn't that proud man's teachings be suspected rather than exalted, given his penchant to so boldly declare that he knows (absolutely and without mistake) the mind of God?

IMHO this kind of arrogant attitude of Witness Lee and now the Anaheim Politburo is probably their biggest and most glaring problem. Contrary to the humility required they even boast that the Bible is not enough anymore. We need the Interpreted Word of Witness Lee. For all intent and purposes the writings of Witness Lee have become as authoritative and infallible as the Bible to them if not more so. This is the height of arrogance!

BTW, one of their chief complaints against Titus Chu that led to his excommunication is that he taught young people to go to the Bible text first in their study. This was anathema because in the LC system you are expected to go to the writings of Witness Lee first and foremost to make sure you have rose colored glasses on before reading the text itself.

If Duddy knew the half of what has gone on in the LC system since he wrote his first book he could do a 2nd volume that would make his 1st one seem mild in comparison. Because while the same problems existed way back then they became much more manifest and boldly proclaimed when the New Way was rolled out.

[TLFisher]

IMHO this kind of arrogant attitude of Witness Lee and now the Anaheim Politburo is probably their biggest and most glaring problem. Contrary to the humility required they even boast that the Bible is not enough anymore. We need the Interpreted Word of Witness Lee. For all intent and purposes the writings of Witness Lee have become as authoritative and infallible as the Bible to them if not more so. This is the height of arrogance!

Since you've posted on it, I'll add the phrase "the feeling of the Body". When I hear or read commentaries from blended co-workers who can "discern the feeling of the Body", I think "what pompous arrogance". It is no different from the Dark Ages, when only the clergy embodied discernment .

[UntoHim]

If Duddy knew the half of what has gone on in the LC system since he wrote his first book he could do a 2nd volume that would make his 1st one seem mild in comparison. Because while the same problems existed way back then they became much more manifest and boldly proclaimed when the New Way was rolled out.
I think it's quite amazing how much Duddy et al did get, considering how secretive and uncooperative Lee and his followers were back in the day. But hey, how much discernment do you really need to have about a group that marched around with banners proclaiming "down with Christianity!":eek: Also let's not forget that even back then Lee was proclaiming all sorts of absurd and bizarre things, such as man is becoming God, Satin dwells in our flesh and that the religion he invented was God's one move on earth. The Revelation trainings were in the mid-seventies and by then Lee was already boasting that "Judaism is Satanic, Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless".

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 4 Cont'd: We are Saved by Grace through Faith.

The God-Men, pages 88-89

"As a final comment on the theological inadequacy of Witness Lee's thought, we might consider his sensuous theology in light of Genesis 3: "And the serpent said to the woman, 'You shall surely not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it [the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'" (Genesis 3:4-5).

In the garden of Eden, Satan began by challenging and negating three cardinal truths about God.

1) He denied the reality of the curse of death.
2) He denied the truthfulness of God.
3) He denied the lovingkindness of God.

Then he (Satan) introduced a positive element in his deception by making false baited promises to Eve. He offered her the promise of wisdom, the promise of divinity and the promise of power. Satan thus twisted God's truth, focusing on Eve's understanding and perceptions of God. Did she believe God? No, she did not. Unbelief gave birth to disobedience.

Any authentic "recovery" (to recover a term of Lee's) must begin where the loss began - with faith and belief. The prologue of John's gospel declares, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name." (John 1:12). At the end of that gospel, John said that the real reason he documented the story was so "...that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:31).

In the New Testament, faith, obedience and experience of God are intimately related to eachother. Faith generally precedes the other two. It is not through our righteous works that a relation with God is "recovered". It is not through our obedience, but rather through the grace of God, and that by faith. The New Testament is clear about the priority of faith in conversion and Christian sanctification.

Yet the New Testament's witness to the significance of faith is muted by Witness Lee. In his theology, sensation and experience take precedence over faith. The danger of fraudulent theology was expressed by the apostle Paul in Colossians 2:18 "Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly [sensuous] mind."

Paul's admonition applies to leaders who claim direct revelation and consequent authority from God. Witness Lee claims to have "received [revelations] of the Lord" (1 Cor.11:23) which were neither audible nor visual nor mediated through spiritistic activity. Rather, his more-than-fifty revelations sprang from his own Spirit-spirit complex. Lee assumes apostolic authority to regulate Local Church procedures based on those privately received divine disclosures. (A Local Church in-house circular entitled "Revelations Received of the Lord Within the Period of 1920 to 1973" lists 46 such experiences of Lee's related to personal salvation and church emphases, and 22 related to church growth).

**********************

....Well, that's about as damaging a statement as Duddy has made thus far regarding Lee's credibility; and not just his credibility as "The" Minister of the Age, but even as "a" minister of the Word. And the evidence is damning.

By pointing just how far off the reservation Lee wandered in his handling of the Word of God and his ministering to the Saints, we see a clear picture of just what we were being subjected to. Not a New Testament ministry, but a New Testament heresy - clearly proscribed against in New Testament Scripture.

As we go through this book, it becomes easier to see just why it had the effect Lee and LSM claimed it did on campuses. It's not that the book called Lee's Local Church a "cult" (I still haven't seen that word even once anywhere in this book, and we're on page 89) or that the book made untruthful claims about what Lee was teaching. Rather, this book shone a light in a dark place... it exposed Lee; and how did he react to the exposure? Did he offer to correct any of what was printed? Did he offer to consider what was printed? Did he offer to meet with the people before the book was printed, and try to explain his theology to deal with any misunderstandings, if there were any? No.

"Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." John 3:20.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 4 Cont'd: Human Beings in Bits and Pieces

The God-Men, pages 89-91

"The diagram of Witness Lee's doctrine of humanity (see pg 50 - this is the diagram of the three concentric circles, you know the one) goes beyond the Bible's revelation of human nature. Lee's doctrine practically binds Local Church adherents to his interpretation of Scripture as the surest route to spirituality. The faculties of the soul (mind, will, emotion) are set over against the spirit (intuition, conscience, fellowship with God) in unceasing struggle. Hence, although the mind, in subordination to the spirit, may theoretically be used to discern truth, its acceptance of any ideas other than Local Church dogma (A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true) is understood as "soulish" de facto. Such a distinction between soul and spirit in their operation has no biblical warrant.

In fact, Old Testament nephesh ("soul") is frequently used in parallel relation to one's body or flesh, but is also closely united with the spirit or heart (see Psalms 63:8, 84:2, 73:21, Proverbs 23:15-17)....

....God created man as a "living soul", so constituted that the "life [soul] of the flesh is in the blood," (Gen 2:7, Lev 17:11) and is dependent on God for preservationas a living (soulish) being. Even God "has" (is) a soul (Lev 26:11, 30) - that is, He is a living person; human souls are made in His image....

....When the Scriptures mention one specific aspect of human personality, the word used often intrinsically includes other dimensions as well. For example, in Acts 27:37, when Luke said "two hundred and seventy-six persons" were on a ship, he used the word psyche for "person", obviously not meaning a disembodied "soul"..... hence one finds scant biblical justification for Lee's notion of a merged Spirit-spirit as the dispenser of God's will to the soul through intuition, feelings, the senses and noncognitive processes.* (note to view Appendix 2 for further details - and I quote from that following....)

The "nature of human nature" is a traditional topic of controversy in Christian theology. When the subject is referred to by theologians under its technical title of "anthropology", most of their discussions focus around two major positions or schools of thought. Some theologians postulate a trichotomous view of human nature (three-part humanity as Nee and Lee did)... Other biblical scholars opt for a dichotomous view (two-part {body & soul}). Although Bible interpreters are disagreed as to the exact scriptural position, few have confined the Holy Spirit to a particular part of human nature, as Witness Lee has done. Fewer still have set the components of human personality in opposition to each other, as Lee has done....

********************

I will end the quote there, and looking back over the passage I have to highlight the result of this theology - that one can and will be admonished to "not" think through Lee's theology. Thinking is "anathema" to spiritual growth, in Lee's view - and that leaves a person who follows Lee unable to question anything Lee teaches. The section I will quote from tomorrow gets more into this.

I must confess that I too embraced the idea of a tripartite man; and I can't say I've entirely given the concept up, but I no longer hold it as "gospel" truth, merely a view which can and should continue to be challenged. I note that Lee took the teaching quite a few steps further with his placement of God's role in communicating with man, and in the nature of the division between the elements. I also hope we all know that Witness Lee or Watchman Nee didn't invent the tripartite man idea, and neither did the Brethren....


THE HISTORY OF TRICHOTOMY

Most Biblical scholars in the early church saw man as a threefold (trichotomous) being. Even as late as Augustine (A.D. 354-430), the common view was that man was trichotomous - that he possessed a body, a soul, and a spirit. The words of Augustine substantiate this fact very plainly when he wrote in Faith and Creed:
"... there are three things of which man consists - namely spirit, soul, and body ..." [Faith and the Creed (XX:23)].
But as Latin Theology (i.e., Roman Catholicism) began to take hold, most theologians abandoned trichotomy and began to see man as simply a two-fold being of soul and body (with spirit being just another name for the soul). This idea, known as dichotomy, continued as the majority opinion down through the centuries and still is the common view held by the Roman Catholic Church and most of the Protestant churches that came out of the Reformation (i.e., the Dutch Reformed, the Lutheran, the Episcopalian, the Presbyterian, etc.) - all of which, interestingly enough, hold to a post-millennial approach to eschatology . It is interesting to note in this connection, however, that Martin Luther, the father (so to speak) of the Reformation, championed the view that man was trichotomous.
THE PLYMOUTH BRETHREN

It wasn't until the rise of evangelicalism in the 1800s [and most especially, the Plymouth Brethren, the group which is looked upon by most church historians as the parent body out from which evangelicalism sprang] and John Nelson Darby that trichotomy once again revived - and it's worth noting in this connection that along with a revived view of man as a trichotomous being, pre-millennialism also revived. Darby's teachings were popularized and gained wide acceptance and public acclaim in conservative church bodies throughout most of the 20th century. But with the rise of the modern ecumenical movement - i.e., the [I]political movement of Protestant and Catholic bodies together to "take the nation back for Christ and the church" - post-millennialism (which "politicizing" promotes) resurfaced along with dichotomy - which post-millennialism of necessity encourages.

History of Trichotomy courtesy of Brent Harris' book "Body, Soul and Spirit"

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 4 Cont'd: Lee vs the Bible

The God-Men, page 91

"Contrary to Witness Lee's concept of the spirit versus the soul and its faculties, the Bible appeals to believers in Christ to use their minds and wills to fullest capacity. God said to Israel, "Come now, and let us reason together." (Isaiah 1:18) He challenged Job to "gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to Me." (Job 38:3 & 40:7) Adam used his mind to name the animals. Rational worship is defined as offering our bodies to God according to minds renewed by Him (Romans 12:1-2). As John Stott states (in "Your Mind Matters"):

Now redemption carries with it the renewal of the divine image in man, which was distorted by the Fall. This includes the mind. Paul could describe converts from paganism as having "put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of it's creator" (Colossions 3:10) and as being "renewed in the spirit of your minds." (Ephesians 4:23). He could go further. A "spiritual" man, a man indwelt and ruled by the Holy Spirit, has new powers of spiritual discernment. He may even be said to have "the mind of Christ" (1st Corinthians 2:15-16). This conviction that Christians have new minds enabled Paul to appeal to his readers with confidence: "I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say." (1st Corinthians 10:15).

*********************

I just want to muse a little, before I get to my point in this passage... I woke up this morning with a memory from a conversation with a dear young sister, whom I met when she was College age (she later wound up going off for full-time training, and recently married an LC man in Texas.) This dear young lady once lamented that she didn't understand how the Lord could love her soul, it was so filthy and wretched. This sentiment was echoed by a young brother with whom I went to STTA; when he said that he couldn't understand why we would have a hope of resurrection into fleshly bodies, since the flesh was so corrupt and useless. Neither of these two dear Christians understood exactly why Christ came in the flesh - what He came to redeem - and why He valued man (woman) as He did.

We were created fully in His image, but Lee's rant against the mind (soul) and the body were so thorough that these two who had been raised in the LC could not see the Truth in Scriptures: That we are being wholly renewed by Him out of Love (and whether you are a trichotomous or dichotomous being, this truth applies to you). We are not being replaced by Christ, stamped out and remade into carbon-copies of Christ - or brought into an eventual oblivion where "everything" is Christ and nothing else exists. God is a God of relationships - relationships are His very nature. He craves a relationship - even a marriage, with us; what more intimate a relationship can there be? Who among us wants to replace our spouses with a carbon copy of ourselves? Do we not crave fellowship, partnership, intimacy, love, compassion, understanding, accountability, and care? I tell you we crave those good things, because He made us to crave them, even as He does.

Look how wrong Lee's theology was. Do you see what it did to people and the gospel message? Do you see it really had another aim - to take us captive to him.

Throw off the shackles, LC men and women. The Truth shall set you free.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 4 Cont'd: What Lee missed

The God-Men page 92

"In his interpretation of the Fall, Lee sees sin and Satan as residing in the "flesh" (meaning the physical body). That concept may reinforce the Local Church's view of salvation, but it trivializes the biblical concept of God's adversary (see the warning against this practice in Jude 1:8 "In the same way, these people—who claim authority from their dreams—live immoral lives, defy authority, and scoff at supernatural beings" NLT.)

By identifying the locus of sin and evil as the realm of physical existence, Witness Lee (also) blinds himself to the insidious reality of spiritual evil (eg. spiritual pride) and veers further towards Gnostic tendencies.

Scripture clearly calls the created world "very good" in God's sight (Gen 1:31). Though corrupted through the Fall (Gen 3:17), it is renewed and rendered valuable through Christ's redemption (Romans 8:19-23). The material world, fallen as it is, is the object of God's love; it will be purified and reconstituted as the everlasting home of His redeemed people. Human nature, then, in its entirety, is part of a good creation gone bad. Union with God in Christ does not deify us by adding some missing component. It enables us to be what God intended from the beginning; His own image on earth.

*********************

I am excerpting these portions to demonstrate to the readers the differences between what Lee taught and what we read in Scripture. A plain reading of the Biblical text does not validate Lee's interpretations at all - in fact, it puts his interpretations at odds with the Bible. We will explore the author's allusion to Gnosticism in the next portion.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Reference to Appendix One: Lee's Teaching in Historical Context

What follows is an excerpt from the first Appendix of this book, which points out the similarities between Lee's teachings and Gnosticism - a heresy that pervaded the early Church.

"The origins of gnosticism are not clearly known, but there is general agreement that threads of the teachings must have arisen somewhere in what is today known as the Middle East and Asia Minor—areas in which several cultures could converge and synthesize. Many scholars find the roots of gnosticism in Neoplatonism, which similarly devalues matter and regards the spirit as the true reality.

A minority of scholars believe it to be of eastern origin because of its similarities to Buddhist ideas of enlightenment, while others believe it has Mesopotamian or Jewish (mystical Kabbalism) roots. Gnostic groups became popular around the same time and often in the same places that Christianity did.

Gnosticism was widespread within the early Christian church until the gnostics were expelled in the second and third centuries AD. Gnosticism was one of the first doctrines to be specifically declared a heresy and gnostic movements were often persecuted as a result..." from Gnosticism: New World Encyclopedia.
**********************************

The God-Men, Appendix 1:

A survey of Christianity's long list of doctrinal deviations helps to place Lee's teachings more firmly in historical context. His basic shadow/reality cleavage is a minor variation of the matter/spirit dichotomy that characterized the heresy of Gnosticism, which flourished in the second and third centuries.

Platonism. One source of Gnosticism was Platonism, which also generated several schools of so-called Christian mysticism. Platonic philosophy was characterized by a kind of dualism which saw "essential reality" opposed to "manifest reality", and "spirit" opposed to "matter"....

The correspondence between Plato's language and Lee's teaching that the objective world is a "shadow" of "Reality" is almost too neat, but if we look at the changes that Platonic thought historically introduced into Christian theology, we can see that the resemblance is more than coincidence. (In "Being Human: The Nature of the Spiritual Experience" authors Ranald Macaulay and Jerram Barrs provide an excellent description of Platonic influences on Christian thinking. They cite Watchman Nee and Morton Kelsey as two examples of Bible expositors who have adopted the Platonic sacred/secular split".) According to one source, Platonically influenced theology faced problems about the relation of reason to revelation and experienced a noticeable tendency toward allegorical interpretations of the Bible (D.A. Rees, "Platonism and the Platonic Tradition, 1967). In addition, it's strongly otherworldly outlook was combined with a dislike of structured rules of behavior; it stressed "spirit" rather than the "letter" and attached minimal importance to forms of ecclesiastical (church) organization.

....In Gnostic theology, humans beings are composed of three parts: body, soul and spirit. The "outer portions" of body and soul are the province of evil cosmic powers, and an individual is thereby subject to their baleful influence. Enclosed in the soul is the innermost humanness, the pneuma ("spirit"), which is a portion of the divine substance, or the ground of reality. "The goal of Gnostic striving is the release of the inner man from the bonds of the world...." (Hans Johnas "Gnosticism" 1967)...

....For the Gnostic, as for the Local Church, the ultimate objective of life is to experience the God-self. That experience (or gnosis)is superior to both intellectual knowledge and faith....

With the concept of "mind versus experience" we arrive once again at the psychological root of doctrinal deviation.

*****************************
Given the similarities between Buddhist doctrines of spiritual enlightenment, and 'Christian' Gnosticism found in the 2nd and 3rd century Church, is it not possible to imagine that Lee would find something akin to a familiarity in these heretical teachings? This is not to suggest that his embracing such views was entirely purposeful.... rather, it is possible that he really thought he saw something in the Bible that wasn't there... that he put stresses on words or phrases that were uncalled for, even proscribed against.

Why would he do this? Could it be because he wanted to present something new, and because both he and his one-time mentor (Watchman Nee) and Nee's mentors in turn (the Exclusive Brethren)rejected 'historical' Christianity, they found that they needed to present a different revelation of truth? If so, we must marvel that Paul so clearly warns against these kinds of motivations in his first letter to Timothy; so clearly it is almost as though he was writing them to those of us who fell under Lee's teaching:

1 Timothy 1:3-7


I am writing to you now to reinforce the plea that I already made to you, when I urged you to stay in Ephesus while I went to Macedonia, that you might pass on the order to some of the people there, not to teach erroneous novelties, nor to give their attention to idle tales and endless genealogies, which only succeed in producing empty speculations rather than the effective administration of God’s people, which should be based on faith. The instruction which I gave you is designed to produce love which issues from a pure heart, a good conscience and an undissembling faith. But some of these people of whom I am talking have never even tried to find the right road, and have turned aside out of it to empty and useless discussions, in their claim to become teachers of the law, although they do not know what they are talking about, nor do they realize the real meaning of the things about which they dogmatize.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 4 Cont'd: On Lee's Doctrine of Mingling

The God-Men pages 92-94

"Witness Lee also tends to view God's creation of humankind as a... neccessity.... Lee stresses the "economy" of God's historical dealings as springing from God's desure to unify humankind with himself.

'Thus, the three Persons of the Trinity become the three successive steps in the process of God's economy. Without these three stages, God's essence could never be dispensed into man.' (WL, The Economy of God, pg 10).

Related teachings in Lee's writing lead on toward a distorted view of why God made the world. Did God create the world not only to enrich His creation with His own essence, but also to enrich Himself? Lee presents God as needing to absorb humanity into Himself through a process of "mingling"...

One LC publication is entitled "The Testimony of Church History Regarding the Mystery of the Mingling of God with Man." Surveying Christian doctrine, it cites many theological writers on the union of divine and human natures in Christ. It also deals with the union of believers with Christ, for which some writers have employed the term "mingling". Indeed, some have even called the latter union "deification". Bill Freeman expects his readers to be patient with Witness Lee's doctrine, since Lee is dealing with a mystery the same way others have done. (Freeman, Testimony of Church History, pages 5-6). Mysteries do defy definition, but one should be hesitant about using terminology that has largely been shunned by the church as heretical. Freeman acknowledges that the term "mingling" has been a "theological pariah" for centuries (pgs 14-21)...

Witness Lee and his disciples resemble some of the mystical writers of the Eastern churches. They overemphasize one side of the mysterious union of God with His people at the expense of equally true and important aspects...

The problem with the LC publication on mingling begins with its emphasis that a mystery (by definition) cannot be exhaustively expressed in rational or conceptual terms. As used by the LC, the proposition that "the mystery of union with Christ cannot be pinned down" turns into a polemical tool (a tool for attacking a doctrine). It is used to discredit traditional approaches to the mystery, not so much to acknowledge the mystery's unexplainable quality as to explain it in Witness Lee's terms.

*********************

Duddy's refutation of Lee's doctrine of mingling is balanced, fair, and succinct. He acknowledges that a version of what Lee teaches was taught in some of the early churches (in fact, Athanasius of Alexandria is frequently trotted out, with this very brief quote (offered without context, source, or time) attributed to him: "Christ became man so that man might become God, or gods, or divine, or exalted.*" The latter half of this quote, here in italics, is left out of LC literature.

But what did Athanasius mean by this statement?

Athanasius clarified this statement in his third treatise against the Arians: "To become as the Father is impossible for us creatures.'' "There be one Son by nature...we too become sons, not as He in nature and truth, but according to the grace of Him that calleth, and though we are men from the earth, and yet called gods, not as the True God or His Word.... We are sons, not as the Son, as gods, not as He Himself. '' (Orat 3.19-20; Robertson 404-405). Similarly, in Orat 1.37 he briefly noted that "we are children by grace, not by nature. We are like the Son not in essence but in sonship, which we shall partake from Him'' (De Syn 53; Robertson 479).

If we cannot be gods by nature or essence, in what way are we to be like God? "We are as God by imitation, not by nature'' (Orat 3.20; Robertson 405). Jesus did not mean "that we might be as God,'' but that we should imitate him (Orat 3.19; Robertson 404). "Albeit we cannot become like God in essence, yet by progress in virtue imitate God'' (Ad Afros 7; Robertson 492).

This treatise of Athanasius', now put in it's proper context, reveals all too clearly that Athanasius is not an ally of Lee's - but rather that he would reject completely Lee's theology: man cannot become God in life and in nature or in the Godhead; but can, through His grace, imitate His righteousness.

Now you know the REST of the story. ;)

Information on Athansius quotes in context supplied by http://www.angelfire.com/md/mdmorrison/hist/DIVINIZ.html

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 4 Cont'd: How (and How Not) to Read Scripture

The God-Men, pages 99-103

"Traditionally, certain general principles are recognized as useful for interpreting... the Bible. Other special principles must be used to interpret passages marked by extensive figures of speech or literary devices such as parables, allegories, Hebrew poetry, typology and prophecy.

With both sets of principles (general and special) the interpreter's goal is to deduce what the author intended to communicate, and what the first readers or hearers understood the words to mean. The general approach is:

(1) to take the grammar seriously, assuming the intended meaning for each word.

(2) to understand the cultural influences and historical background in which the words were written (and more and more my burden is that we don't do this enough - we gentiles are generally ignorant of Christ's own culture - the culture in which He lived, ministered, and spoke).

(3) to be aware of other relevant passages of Scripture that influence the meaning.

Each (special) literary device employed by authors of Scripture has its own special principle of interpretation... ie: Jesus' explanation of the parable of the sower.

Witness Lee's own interpretations of Scripture seem to vary in quality from valid insights to total repression of an author's intended meaning. His principles allow him rather indiscriminately to attribute typological intrepretations to various historical-narrative Old Testament passages, forcing them to prefigure New Testament events.

Witness Lee regards the entire Old Testament as a continual series of types on which he bases a high percentage of his teachings.... Lee frequently places great significance on a type's initial appearance in the Old Testament as normative for its interpretation, rather than examining its fulfillment in the New Testament antitype. Such teaching admittedly has a certain charm. It's fanciful applications are powerfully graphic... the dangers of the teaching are many, however, since both teacher and learner may miss the plain meaning of the Bible's words amid the profusion of typology.

In glossing over the plain meaning of Scripture in favor of unveiling a hidden spiritual meaning, Lee often renders the Bible's historical data inconsequential.... One encounters an obvious problem in utilizing typology so extensively and without restraint. No authoritative reference point exists for indicating whether the interpretation of the type is correct or incorrect. Witness Lee becomes the sole authority for determing the correct usage of types in the Old Testament. In exegeting Psalms, Lee feels thoroughly justified in finding there a prophetic type of the Local Church, not of Christianity.

In the long run, if that principle is consistently applied, the Bible loses its character as universal revelation and as the straightforward Word of God to humankind. It becomes instead a veiled and cryptic book of esoteric teachings that must be 'decoded' by an authoritative teacher who possesses the key... The danger of such teaching is even greater if the factual content of the Bible is handled loosely or inaccurately in an effort to score theological points.

********************

Reading this section, I am struck by the second principle of proper Biblical interpretation (in the Historical-Grammatical method). Understanding the context in which the Word was written.

Last year I attended Breakforth Canada, an international gathering of Christians from any and all denominations, for a weekend of shared worship, fellowship, and learning from various speakers. Three of the seminars I attended specifically were done by Joe Amaral, who wrote the book "Understanding Jesus: Cultural Insights into the Words and Deeds of Christ". Joe is not Jewish, but he married a woman who's father was a devout Christian pastor and Zionist. Joe met a woman at his father-in-laws who felt that the Lord was calling Joe to Israel. Joe thought the lady was crazy, but wanting to be polite he told her such a trip would be nice, but he couldn't afford it. She felt so strongly about the matter, she funded his trip... poor Joe! While he was there, Joe suddenly had a revelation: "Jesus Christ was a Jew!"

Yeah, we all laughed at him, and he laughed at himself. This is something we all know, but (most of us) never consider it significant when we read the Bible and the words of Jesus. How foolish. This book of Joe's is an excellent read, full of many insights that explain so clearly some of the things we read in Scripture that we gentiles simply scratch our heads at, or misread, or pass over without notice. I'd love to share from this book if I had time... and maybe elsewhere I will. For now, let me say that we ALL need to consider how much of our own paradigms have colored the Word... maybe we've removed Lee's glasses, but have we put on others?

Blessings, in the name of our Lord: Yeshua HaMaschiach!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7PXFVadYzs

***********************
Recommended Reading: Understanding Jesus by Joe Amaral http://www.amazon.ca/Understanding-Jesus-Cultural-Insights-Christ/dp/0446584762/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357268793&sr=8-1

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 4 In Conclusion: Everyone Else is Out of Step

The God-Men pages 104-105

"What shall we say about the Local Church's exclusive attitude toward other churches? We have uncovered some of its doctrinal roots in Witness Lee's teachings about God, about humanity, and about the way people come to know God. If our analysis is correct, we should not be surprised to discover that Lee's followers hesitate to fellowship with most Christians. Local Church teachings seem to conflict with orthodox Christianity at several key points*.

In his writings, Witness Lee depicts the Local Church as God's chosen vehicle for bringing "this age" to a close; it is the faithful manifestation of Christ's body in a perverse generation. Opposing the sad divisions in Christianity, Lee has ironically been instrumental in forming a new divisive sectarian denomination. He has cut himself and his churches off from the doctrine and practical life of sincere believers in Christ, holding out for their unity with the Local Church on what he perceives to be biblical principle.

Witness Lee's mentor, Watchman Nee, held views on church geographical locality and denominational affiliation that were definitely segragationist. Those views can be traced to Nee's close association with the Exclusive Brethren and Taylor Brethren groups in China. From such roots have sprung the isolationist policy of the Local Church in America."


*****************************

The association of Nee with the Exclusive Brethren should not be missed, and neither should what became of their exclusivist sect.

In reading on the "My Brethren" site, I found this quote from an examination of the Exclusive Brethren; let me remove "Brethren" from the quote, and insert "Local Church" in it's place... you see if the shoe doesn't fit.

"The first thing which strikes us on marking the piety of the Local Church, is its exclusiveness. The theory of those composing it is, that all the churches are wrong – that all sects are unscriptural – that Christendom is in ruins. Were it so, the natural conclusion would be, to set to work and build up what has fallen, and reunite what is scattered. But no. To end sectarianism, as John Duncan used to say, the Local Church began by making a new sect, and that sect, of all sects, the most sectarian.” –

William Reid, Plymouth Brethrenism Unveiled and Refuted 1876.

1876: One hundred and thirty six years ago the group that grandfathered today's Local Church was doing the exact same thing that the Local Church is doing. And how many localities will fracture and go their own way, and do the EXACT same thing? How many times will division be the result and exclusiveness reign supreme? When will the children ever learn? The kind of theology that is taught by these groups is the recipe for church disaster, not church growth - it's been prove time and time and time again. God does not get the Glory. Christ does not reign supreme; His desires - prayed so ernestly before His Father, are ignored and trampled under foot by men seeking their own glory.

Remember what Christ prayed: “My prayer is not for the world, but for those you have given me, because they belong to you. All who are mine belong to you, and you have given them to me, so they bring me glory. Now I am departing from the world; they are staying in this world, but I am coming to you. Holy Father, you have given me your name; now protect them by the power of your name so that they will be united just as we are. During my time here, I protected them by the power of the name you gave me. I guarded them so that not one was lost, except the one headed for destruction, as the Scriptures foretold.
“Now I am coming to you. I told them many things while I was with them in this world so they would be filled with my joy. I have given them your word. And the world hates them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. I’m not asking you to take them out of the world, but to keep them safe from the evil one. They do not belong to this world any more than I do. Make them holy by your truth; teach them your word, which is truth. Just as you sent me into the world, I am sending them into the world. And I give myself as a holy sacrifice for them so they can be made holy by your truth.
“I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message. I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.
“I have given them the glory you gave me, so they may be one as we are one. I am in them and you are in me. May they experience such perfect unity that the world will know that you sent me and that you love them as much as you love me. Father, I want these whom you have given me to be with me where I am. Then they can see all the glory you gave me because you loved me even before the world began!
“O righteous Father, the world doesn’t know you, but I do; and these disciples know you sent me. I have revealed you to them, and I will continue to do so. Then your love for me will be in them, and I will be in them.” excerpts from Jesus Prayer to the Father, John 17.



*to be explored in follow-up post.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

How Do Lee's Teachings Compare to Orthodox Christianity?

In my previous post, I quoted Duddy's statement (below).

If our analysis is correct, we should not be surprised to discover that Lee's followers hesitate to fellowship with most Christians. Local Church teachings seem to conflict with orthodox Christianity at several key points*.

On the page opposite this statement, there is a graphical comparison of LC teaching vs Christianity, to provide context to this quote. Let me transcribe that list here - so that those who believe that the the LC is (at worst) only another evangelical Christian denomination can see just how different it is from evangelical Christianity.


.................................................. ......................A Graphic View of Critical Issues............................................ ......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
................................................Wi tness Lee............................................... ...........The Bible............................................. ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source of Theology:..................... Sensations and impulses within a............................... Scripture.
.................................................s pirit-Spirit complex.

Reality: ......................................Higher spiritual reality plus a..................................... Spirit world plus the material world
.................................................l ower shadowy reality, (IE a sacred-.......................... equally real and valuable; hence, no
.................................................s ecular split.)........................................... .............. sacred-secular split.

Scripture:.................................. Not completely inspired; fallible.................................. Inspired, infallible, and authoritative.
.................................................a nd not authoritative.

Authority:.................................. Invested in Witness Lee as an.................................... Scripture.
................................................"Apostle of this age".

God:.......................................... Antimony (a contradiction) .......................................God is a Trinity: Three Coexisting Persons =
.................................................T rinity and a modalistic Godhead................................ One God.
.................................................F ather-is-Son-is-Holy Spirit.

Redeemed Humanity:................... Mingling: Fusion with God in essence............................ Creator/Creature distinction retained.
.................................................a nd identity.

Source of Ethics:........................ Impulses and sensations from the ................................Scripture.
................................................sp irit-Spirit complex.

Eschatology (end-times view): ......Millenial purgatory awaits many Christians...................... Full attainment of redemption and glorification
................................................wh o are "soulish".................................................. ..... at Jesus' Second Coming.

Church Structure &..................... One church per town/city............................................ No limitations.
Growth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

******************************

..............Now, ones first reaction (as a member or ex-member of the LRC) might be to argue that we (as individuals) maybe didn't embrace all of these teachings attributed here to Lee, so this must be false - but on some level, we did.... Earlier in the book each of these points was driven home with relevant quotes from Lee's writings - and who ever contradicted Lee (besides the man himself, of course)?

These are not minor differences such as might exist between denominations (in terms of ecclesiastical structure, form of a worship service, or even interpretation of Scripture (IE Calvinism vs Arminianism, and every point in between). Calvinists and Arminians can, after all, fellowship together (I know, I've done it) - but the LRC cannot fellowship with other Christians, due to the radical nature of the differences in their theologies. Perhaps it is for this reason that we ought to heed Lee when he makes statements about his movement like "This is not Christianity!" Don't sweep that under the rug as Lee simply being overly-dramatic. The man meant what he said, and I think he proved that he was right.

[countmeworthy]

I want to comment on post 324 everyone.

All church organizations have a strong sense of ownership of their flock or sheeple. Lee's ministry was/is no exception. Of course since we were "seduced" by Lee's teachings, the popcorn testimonials, the home fellowship meetings, where we read life studies together, & sang the LC church songs, we felt special.

Speaking for myself, I had never read the bible as a Catholic. I never went to a protestant church and it was through meeting the LC brethren at work, I came to know the saving Grace and Love of our Lord Jesus.

I took everything in, believed what I was told and never questioned anything.

Having been out of the LC institution 35 or more years, I have made my rounds.

I have sat under a number of strong, good bible teachers/preachers. I was involved in a couple of ministries.

My observation has been most die hard sheeple are very loyal to their pastor and do not question or dispute his teachings. I have witnessed people being kicked out or placed on "sabbatical", meaning they can attend the services but not allowed to fellowship or talk to anyone.

So today, while I pray, read, study, fellowship, teach the Word to youngsters in the Lord, and lead people to Christ, I pretty much stay away from the enclosed 4 walls of a church building.

I do read books, watch unorthodox but sound biblical teachings on you tube, speak positive affirmations and meditate on God's Beloved Word everyday.

This is my current up-to-date testimony. :)

Blessings all!!

Carol G

[TLFisher]

If our analysis is correct, we should not be surprised to discover that Lee's followers hesitate to fellowship with most Christians. Local Church teachings seem to conflict with orthodox Christianity at several key points*.

Given the time of the above quote, does it still apply today? Maybe to some degree depending on how much emphasis there is to make every meeting, conferences, etc would leave very little time to fellowship with non-LC Christians. Something I've brought up before from the home meetings I've been in the past; there had been reaching out to fellowship with Christians. By inviting them to a home meeting and having no hesitation to do so. Is this fellowship reciprocal? Would there be hesitation to accept an invitation to visit a non-LC home meeting?
Members and lurkers, please give your input.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Something I've brought up before from the home meetings I've been in the past; there had been reaching out to fellowship with Christians. By inviting them to a home meeting and having no hesitation to do so. Is this fellowship reciprocal? Would there be hesitation to accept an invitation to visit a non-LC home meeting?
Members and lurkers, please give your input.

Good morning Terry,

In answer to your immediate question: I think it's safe to say that everyone in the LC can testify that we often invited and hosted non-LC Christians at our home meetings; this was standard practice... but was it fellowship?

Isn't fellowship supposed to be about sharing with one another; our testimonies, our burdens, our joys? Isn't it about meeting eachothers needs both physically and spiritually, about praying together and pursuing truth together? Isn't it about learning from one another, sharing perspectives and insights by actively getting into the Word together? If it is, then you have to ask yourself: Does the LC Establishment (The official teaching of the LC - which is what this book is addressing) allow you to regard a non-LC Christian as someone who can meet your spiritual needs, someone from whom you can learn more of Christ? Someone who can offer a perspective that fills in more of the picture than you have? The answer is, of course not.

Non-LC Christians are to be recruited; in fact - I've heard it said that more than 80% of the members of the LC came to Christ elsewhere, they were brought into the LC as believers, not non-believers. You can't recruit them if you don't ask them in to your home meeting; home meetings were "the way".

Now, do all individual members of the LC think that they have nothing to learn from Christians? Of course not. But that doesn't mean that this isn't taught by the LC, and believed by the vast majority of it's membership. Christians are to be pitied in the LC; not learned from. They are to be recruited, not fellowshipped with.

Again, as individuals, our thoughts on the matter might be different - but it's very important to remember that this book is about the Official Party Line, not the exceptions to the rules.

As for non LC-Christians asking us to fellowship with them; I can testify that I was invited to fellowship with other Christians. Even a number of the Hutterite Colonies (think: Amish) I visited invited me in to fellowship with them... and I went; just as I went to the Bible studies here in our home town before I left the LC. The attitude of long-time friends of ours in the LC had to this was "why would you lower yourself to that?"

[TLFisher]

In answer to your immediate question: I think it's safe to say that everyone in the LC can testify that we often invited and hosted non-LC Christians at our home meetings; this was standard practice... but was it fellowship?

Isn't fellowship supposed to be about sharing with one another; our testimonies, our burdens, our joys? Isn't it about meeting eachothers needs both physically and spiritually, about praying together and pursuing truth together? Isn't it about learning from one another, sharing perspectives and insights by actively getting into the Word together? If it is, then you have to ask yourself: Does the LC Establishment (The official teaching of the LC - which is what this book is addressing) allow you to regard a non-LC Christian as someone who can meet your spiritual needs, someone from whom you can learn more of Christ? Someone who can offer a perspective that fills in more of the picture than youhave? The answer is, of course not.

NFNL, I have placed in bold what was my home meeting experiences when meeting with the Bellevue, Wa locality in the mid-late 90's. It was about sharing our burdens, sharing our joys, giving our testimonies, praying for one another, rejoicing as prayers were answered, etc.
Having met in other localities I see what I experienced a practice of the home meetings that has since been replaced.

[countmeworthy]

Given the time of the above quote, does it still apply today? Maybe to some degree depending on how much emphasis there is to make every meeting, conferences, etc would leave very little time to fellowship with non-LC Christians. Something I've brought up before from the home meetings I've been in the past; there had been reaching out to fellowship with Christians. By inviting them to a home meeting and having no hesitation to do so. Is this fellowship reciprocal? Would there be hesitation to accept an invitation to visit a non-LC home meeting?
Members and lurkers, please give your input.

It will be interesting to hear from current LC'rs or from someone who recently left or has strong connections to the LSM.

As former LCrs, we know from our past experience, the purpose for us to "fellowship" with non LC Christians, was to lead them to believe there was something better than degraded Christianity.

What many failed to do, thanks to Lee's teaching was to bond with them in CHRIST. Our motive for "fellowship" with them was to reel them in, to recruit them as Neitherfirstnorlast pointed out.

There is no qualm among us former LCrs. Personally I think the attitude of "we ARE the Lord's Recovery, a cut above the rest" still holds.

That is why I try to lift up and encourage ALL Christians, especially those in name only, to look to JESUS, the Author and Perfector of our Faith.

I believe we (the posters and those walking in God's Love and Truth) are all trying to point people to Jesus, whether it be by prayer, our example (walk) and / or the WORD of our testimony.

Carol G

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 5: The Local Church in Action

The God-Men, page 107

"Some Christians are attracted to the Local Church by the zeal and apparent spirituality of its members. Others encounter it primarily through its undisguised abrasive actions toward Christian communities. The Local Church, wherever it exists, seems to follow a similar pattern of antagonism and proselytism. Max Rapoport, who formerly conducted training sessions for Local Church extension programs, testifies that those sessions focused on the theme of "taking the earth". Implicit in that theme was the idea of wooing Christians. Rapoport himself participated in inducing seventy members to leave a California church and join the LC. He also trained LC members in New Zealand, where conflicts erupted in many Christian congregations."

******************

I am about to head off for Bible Study tonight, so I haven't much time to post - but I wanted to put this next chapter into perspective, because it seems again to lead exactly where our conversation is going - into the nature of the interactions between the Local Church and non-LC Christians.

Further to this topic, I wanted to relate a story about my time handing out RcV Bibles with Bibles for Canada, at the University of Manitoba campus. As you all know, BfC is the same as BfA; both are companies owned and operated by Living Stream Ministries. I said before that I wasn't initially told this by anyone at my Local Church (I still wonder if some of them understood that themselves, as I'd been told that Bibles for America loved to print the Recovery version because "it was the only version people actually read - and wore out!") Anyway, whether that was a deliberate lie told to me or a deliberate lie told to the person who told me this, I don't know... What I do know is that when we were given the Bibles to hand out, we were SPECIFICALLY told that we absolutely could not tell anyone that we were affiliated with any group whatsoever. If anyone asked, we were to tell them that "we are only simple Christians who meet to lift up the name of the Lord Jesus" or some such, NOT to say anything about the Local Church, about Witness Lee, or about how or where we meet - although we could direct them to Christians on Campus if they wanted fellowship.

We could debate night and day, maybe, about why this imperitive directive was given, but the fact is it WAS given. And that, dear brothers and sisters, is a deliberate lie, and it's inexcusable.

Christ said to the lying Pharisees "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44 (http://www.888c.com/zJoh08.htm#Joh0844).

Lying is a sin (Exodus 20:16 (http://www.888c.com/zExo20.htm#Exo2016), Leviticus 19:11 (http://www.888c.com/zLev19.htm#Lev1911)), and of Satan. Doesn't Christ also admonish His followers in Matthew 5:19 (http://www.888c.com/zMat05.htm#Mat0519)

"Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Can anyone possibly excuse lying, given what the Word of God says?

[countmeworthy]

To NFnL's post #330:

As I was reading your post, what went through my mind was "Jesus. did not lie or deceive anyone. ". Should we not be imitators of Christ?

This should tell us all, Jesus was/is not their first love. The LSM is. May we never leave our First Love, Jesus.

Carol G

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 5 Cont'd: The Recruitment Syndrome

The God-Men, page 108-110

"Many people who have joined the Local Church have undergone states of thought, feeling, or questioning and circumstances which we label the recruitment syndrome. This process helps explain why many people convert to the Local Church.

(Citing extensively sociologists John Lofland and Rodney Stark, and their book "Becoming A World-Saver: A theory of conversion to a deviant perspective" the author continues....)

The recruitment syndrome indicates a vulnerability to conversion.... it may not fit every type (case)... but accurately describes many. The factors which we identify with it are... a general absence of peace... a desire to possess "the mind of God" or achieve a divine purpose... an active seeking for a new approach... encountering a new group/perspective at a major turning point in your life (migration, career or school change, marital status or living arrangements).

Many people, including Christians, may pass through the predisposing stages of the recruitment syndrome several times during the course of their lives. Adults as well as youth are candidates for conversion when their lives encompass all four factors at once.

In the United States, 75 percent of the Local Church constituency has been gathered from Christian circles, including teens, collegiates, and adults (survey by SCP). A common pattern is for LC members to be warm, hospitable and engaging in their relationships with others, without revealing their Local Church affiliation. By investing time and energy, LC evangelists sometimes gain the confidence of Christian fellowships or entire churches. Then, typically, the Local Church people introduce an issue that causes a schism. The group who are siphoned off into an existing LC assembly or to form a new one are usually people characterized by the recruitment syndrome. Conversations and written communications with New Zealand Christians indicate that several churches there have been divided by a series of almost identical LC efforts.

************************

I only have one comment to make here - and that is that the "ideal conditions" for recruitment perfectly mirror where I was at when I first encountered a member of the LC. Now, was that God's plan or was it simple chance? I honestly don't believe in chance. I believe that God was working to bring me into a fellowship (which I needed) - even a wrongly centered one - precisely because I NEEDED fellowship.... but the fact that the LC people I met never revealed the true nature of the fellowship - it's focus - or the organization they were affiliated with is very telling. They might argue that they can't reveal their affiliation, as that might scare people off. But that admission reveals that they are very aware that their practices and their focus is something that should cause a person to do a double-take. It is a thoroughly dishonest thing to do, and makes their motives entirely suspect.

That said, I will say I learned a great deal about what the Church should be, in my time in the LC. I also learned that as much as the LC seemed to walk with God, their theology and practice just weren't biblical. They seemed to talk the talk, but their walk was a completely different matter... and in the end, they were so focussed on a single man and a single idea, that there was no opening them up to anything else. No one was listening for the voice of the Living God, because they were so obsessessed with the idea that when He spoke, He HAD to speak just like Lee... I really believe He's standing outside their door. And It's heart breaking. It really is.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 5 Cont'd: Recruitment and Beyond

The God-Men, pages 114-117

"A group that has had experience attracting individuals in the recruitment syndrome often uses recruitment techniques very effectively to expand its membership....

LC evangelists project a warm, friendly manner, listen carefully, affirm others enthusiastically and seemingly possess infinite patience. Pre-converts may accept such personal attention as evidence of a true and simple spirituality that allows God to resolve personal tensions, gives purpose for living and produces special servants of God. Usually, pre-converts are invited to dinner at the homes of members, where conversation revolves around the Lord, the glories of being a Christian, and how God is working through a fellowship of believers who "pray-read", "call on the name of the Lord" and feel the presence of God. When an invitation to attend the fellowship meeting is extended, it is generally accepted, partly to repay the time and attention lavished on the pre-convert.

The unity of thought and harmony of relationship in a Local Church meeting may strike the onlooker as quite impressive. Boisterous pray-reading may recall memories of joyful gospel singing. The heightened emotional pitch and activity of lively fellowship are pleasantly startling. The people read together, pray together and share their mutual concern for reaching others for Christ, with no variance of opinion or expression of disagreement. Harmony, commitment and God's presence seem to prevail.

Christian sociologist Anthony (Tony) Campolo of Eastern College in Pennsylvania has observed, as has Harvey Cox (in Turning East), that God seems immediately accessible at such meetings. A new comer who "experiences God" and also experiences a lessening of tension may begin to invest more time in the fellowship. A critical point of embryonic commitment is soon reached. Some pre-converts make a total commitment after attending only a few meetings, feeling that "life is becoming a manageable enterprise again"...

Most Local Church congregations are quite adept at retaining new converts... One person who did defect from their ranks credits LC people for being the most committed people he has ever encountered. They are willing to pay the price of committment regardless of the cost.

The LC maintains loyalty and affection in newly converted members through a number of social mechanisms which seem to result in a sacrifice of individuality and personal worth, withdrawal from society and exaltation of the group and it's charismatic leader. Sociologists have observed that the pattern is strikingly similar in a wide variety of groups."

***********************

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 5 Cont'd: Loyalty Mechanisms - Phase One

The God-Men, page 117

"A useful schema (model) for describing loyalty-producing mechanisms divides the process of commitment into two phases: an investment-divestment stage and a burial-resurrection stage (Rosabeth Moss Kanter, "Commitment and Community" pg 165-191).

In the first stage, a new lifestyle is created by investmenting one's time, talents, and money in a group while concurrently divesting oneself from one's former fashion of life, friends, and interests. The second stage focuses on the psychological dimensions of loyalty, as the the individuals goals and identity are immersed in and subsumed by group goals and identity. The stages often overlap, producing a fluid, natural movement to ever-deepening levels of commitment.

According to Max Rapoport, who once managed the national training sessions for Local Church leaders, the loyalty mechanisms used by most Local Church congregations follow that general pattern. Other ex-Local Church members agree."

*************************

There are some excellent references provided by Duddy here, to books written by respected psychologists and sociologists on the nature of groups similar to the LC, and how they work on the minds and hearts of the individuals they take as members. I would particularly recommend them to those among us still struggling to come to grips with what happened to them in the LC. I believe that the fact that these books are written about groups other than the LC will make what they have to say more palatable; to those who still hold their experiences and time in the LC so near and dear. Perhaps this treatment of the subject, being more gentle, will allow them to see things that they might otherwise close their eyes to.

With that said I have provided some links (embedded below), for those who wish to read further. These are free copies available on-line, with references and citations. I particularly recommend the first, as the similarities between this group and our own is rather striking.


"Becoming a World-Saver (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2090965?uid=3739432&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21101523799703)"
"Commitment and Community (http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HNkvPqXMbPwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=kanter+commitment+and+community&ots=rf3GpjKWcs&sig=5HwdQOTNDVDLtXCw3xVn-39rFxo#v=onepage&q=kanter%20commitment%20and%20community&f=false)"

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 5 Cont'd: Investment

The God-Men page 118

"The Local Church offers a host of time consuming activities and relationships for new converts to thrust themselves into. Members generally attend a Tuesday evening prayer meeting, and a Friday evening ministry meeting (held from 7:00 - 9:30 pm). On Sundays there is one meeting to observe the "Lord's Table" and another for worship and teaching. (Apparently the number of meetings and their days or structure have changed since this book was written; the schedule we had posted had been Tuesday night Ministry meeting, Wednesday nigh prayer meeting, Thursday night Home meeting, Friday night College meeting, Saturday morning brothers meeting, Sunday Lord's Day meeting / "prophesying" meeting ... and some Mondays I might visit a brother at 6 am on the way to work to read from the HWMR together. One could spend every day of the week immersed in the Local Church and Lee's word)..

Local Church emphasis on attending meetings automatically discourages the development of intimate friendships or creative activities beyond the sphere of Local Church influence. College students have been discouraged from attending extra-curricular events except to discuss "spiritual matters". According to Max Rapoport, "Intimate friendship even among Local Church people, is totally frowned upon." Relationships are generally developed only through personal interaction at meetings. During a 1978 conference in Texas, Witness Lee declared friendship to be soulish and unspiritual, confessing that he himself doesn't "have a friend in the world".

***********************
I'm fond of full schedules; I suppose they make me feel important.

I've been absent from posting this week, because I've found (the Lord has shown me) I'm investing too much time myself here lately. :( I must confess that my family has been craving more attention than I've been providing them, after my work hours are done. I have found that I really have to be intentional in my time management, and I don't mean focussing to cram more 'work' into my waking hours, but more sensitive to the needs of the those around me. Managing my time to ensure I have enough freedom to answer those needs as best I can... both aware of them, and responding to them; remembering it is my responsibility first and foremost to minister in my own house, as a husband and a father representative of Christ to His Church.

Ephesians 5:25-27 "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless."

Psalms 103:13 "As a father shows compassion to his children, so the LORD shows compassion to those who fear him."

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

The God-Men, Chapter 5 Cont'd: Divestment

The God-Men, pages 118-120

"Dedication to LC life gradually leads to giving up one's former life. Divestment can also take the form of drastic renunciation. We have noted, for example, that Local Church policy discourages members from watching television, reading newspapers, going to movie theatres or maintaining cultural interests. If members persist, however, they do not talk about it. Divestment helps a group to maintain a controlled environment where even alert, gregarious members are effectively isolated from the social milieu...

One Local Church mechanism used to generate (and test) loyalty in the divestment stage is "burning". Some time after joining a Local Church, converts may be asked to burn the physical possessions they are particularly fond of or that represent nonessentials. Unneccessary possessions are regarded as impediments to spirituality and any attachment to them as soulish and ungodly: "But God's intention with the seeking saints is to remove all material blessings and all physical enjoyments that they may find everything in God. Nothing in heaven nor on earth can be their enjoyment but God Himself." (WL:Christ & the Church Revealed, pg 129). One night on the shore of Huntington Beach, California, Max Rapoport and fellow LC members burned such things as their TV sets, radios, books, favorite clothes, wedding albums, athletic equipment and family photos. Apparently giving these things to the poor or non-member relatives is not in LC interests.

Holding the two annual Anaheim conferences during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays is also part of the divestment mechanism. The scheduling of conferences during major holiday seasons has the effect of separating Local Church people from nostalgic celebrations with friends and relatives... No secular or sacred holidays are observed by the Local Church, which also mutes the sentimental associations of anniversarys and birthdays.

Denunciation is a graphic divestment mechanism. For example, when Witness Lee denounced Max Rapoport during three days of public meetings, Lee told the church, and particularly Rapoports friends and associates, to renounce their ties with the apostate. Rapoport states that the psychological effect of these meetings contributed to the nervous collapse of one of his friends.

The demands of investment and divestment continue throughout one's membership in the Local Church. The original cycle is calculated to produce at least two lasting effects. First, "bridges are burned" behind a new member, making it extremely difficult to extricate oneself from the Local Church. Members who are heavily invested in the LC, generally do not maintain previous social patterns. Indeed, on leaving the LC many ex-members have experienced emotional difficulties in making a transition to non-LC life. Moreover, a number of current LC members, aware of the bridges they have burned, have told Rapoport they feel trapped in the movement. They feel uncomfortable about returning to a society they had rejected when joining the LC.

Another lasting effect of the initial investment-divestment cycle is the development of a sturdy psychological barrier between LC members and non-LC Christians. To experience God in an unorthodox way, LC members pay a price on both the theological and the physical level. As members invest in Lee's theological treatises, they divest themselves of any other source of spiritual enlightenment. They come to regard themselves as the only spiritual people whom God can use. The LC membership is continually exalted by Witness Lee as the sole focus of God's blessing and presence. Christians and Christianity are continually demeaned and derided.

**********************

I have heard bitter ex-LC members refer to Witness Lee as "Witless Lee"; but that he most definitely was not. Witness Lee was far more clever and calculating than most people, even those who are a part of his movement, ever give him credit for. Much of the loyalty producing mechanisms he employed were not of his own invention - but he recognized their effectiveness when he encountered them, and adopted them into his movement, to gain what he arguably sought all along: A loyal following of his own.

I have mentioned before that I see similarities between the Jehovah's Witnesses and the LC, but have you stopped to consider? Look at the investment and divestment mechanisms that SCP has outlined here:

Investment includes: An all-consuming schedule of activities, cementing your time and attention on the Local Church. An exaltation by the group leader of your own prominence and significance in "God's unique move".

Divestment includes: Renunciation of non-LC family ties and friendships, renunciation of non-LC hobbies and activities, abandonment of cultural norms or activities that keep one a part or aware of secular society, denunciation of Christians, Christianity, and any who dare to offer a dissenting opinion from Lee within the LC.

The Jehovah's Witnesses use the SAME mechanisms to ensure the loyalty of their members; and I encourage you to investigate the matter yourself if you doubt it. Why not visit Jehovah's Witness Recovery Forum (http://www.jehovahswitnessrecovery.com/forum/index.php) (<-- this is the link) and hear what their ex-members have to say.... and then look in the mirror.

Are you a current member, who knows - knows - that you can't reconcile what you've been taught in the LC with what the Bible teaches, but are afraid to leave? Are you an ex-member who still struggles with finding new fellowship in "Christianity", and unable to reconcile what you've gone through with what you always thought was "the Lord's Recovery"? Steve Isitt (Indiana) is a graphic example of what kind of psychological and emotional damage this group can and has wreaked on it's members.... but he's far from alone. What happened to Steve didn't happen by accident, it was done to him on purpose. One day, those who did it to him (and you?) will have to answer for it. I ask you to consider with WHOM will you be standing on that day. Will it be with the beaten and the broken, giving of yourself to do Christ's work of ministry and healing; or will it be with those who have beaten and broken them? Are you too emotionally and financially invested in their work to do anything other than stand silently by?

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 5 Cont'd: Maintaining Loyalty - Phase 2

The God-Men, page 121.

"The second set of loyalty mechanisms in the Local Church aims at repression of the individual and exaltation of the church and Witness Lee. Local Church members whose commitment has lasted more than a year usually enter into the psychological process of "burial-resurrection". To an outside observer, the burial-resurrection cycle seems deleterious (seems to cause harm or damage) to the individual. Participants, however, generally experience the burial-resurrection stage as a natural, even desirable flow of events.

Burial : Witness Lee teaches that the LC meeting is the true place of spiritual experience, where God's "best" revelation is channeled. Ex-members testify that failure to attend meetings brought social recrimination or pumblic harangue. Individual experience of God through a personal devotional life is not considered essential to true spirituality. Such de-emphasis on individual devotion eventually deflects believers from their identity as unique, gifted children of God.

Witness Lee teaches that it is sinful and unspiritual to think and act as an individual; the individual must disappear, dying as an entity of inherent value and significance. The apex of spirituality is the active participation of believers in meaningful experiences in large church meetings.

The "burial" of individuality is furthered by the fact that the elders and Witness Lee seem to exercise so much influence on matters of importance concerning individuals.

Many Local Church members, instead of praying, seeking insights from Scripture, soliciting counsel from mature believers and deciding issues for themselves, yield their prerogatives of decision making to LC elders. An individual may thus surrender his or her accountability to make responsible decisions in all aspects of life, including occupations, schools, relationships, finances, etc. Sometimes the elders have determined God's will for individuals or families without even being consulted for direction.

*****************

Thus begins the passage on Lee's use of the Biblical term "burial" (as in we have been crucified with Christ, and raised up with Him), VS Lee's subtle redefining of the term to mean something very different... something he was able to use to produce submission to himself and to his doctrines.

Looking back, one must wonder that any of us ever fell for what he offered. The spirit of his ministry (to "recover" at term of Lee's) was ever one of submission by conformity - and that conformity required financially "buying" into the ministry: through conferences, hefty and continuous book orders, fees for trainings, etc. With Lee's evident focus on the earnings of his ministry, it should not have surprised anyone that he sued SCP for a large sum of money. This book hurt Lee where he could be hurt the most, in his wallet; and that by denying him new potential converts from the campuses where his loyal students were recruiting. The lawsuit was all too obviously not about an attack on Lee's character, or the nature of the Local Church movement. If it were, then the face-to-face meetings SCP had long requested could have resolved it (or, if not, even a babe in Christ would have recognized that it is right to suffer offense as Christ Himself did {see 1 Peter 2:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%202:18-24&version=NASB)}). That however, would never have allowed Lee to "Recover" his financial losses, and he was far too proud to allow that to happen.

[OBW]

Looking back, one must wonder that any of us ever fell for what he offered. The spirit of his ministry (to "recover" at term of Lee's) was ever one of submission by conformity - and that conformity required financially "buying" into the ministry: through conferences, hefty and continuous book orders, fees for trainings, etc.While the process of having personal "standing orders" for continual automatic purchase of LSM materials had not become a practice (or at least not a common one) by 1987, the sacrifice I saw of people's lives to the continual production of books for our consumption was everywhere. Some local members (in Irving) were seldom seen because they were constantly at the presses. There is one sister who previously joined in with us here on this forum (and more so on the Bereans before) that eventually completely left town when she left the church so she wouldn't run into anyone.

[alwayslearning]

They self published their first manuscript in 77 and then went around to see who would buy it. They went to campus ministries and Inter Varsity bought it and republished an enhanced version in 1981. Hence my term "prophet for hire". If this is the mock trial how is it that you are not providing even the most basic background?

"Prophet for hire"? This is an interesting take on the world of publishing! Perhaps you are unaware that authors write manuscripts and then try to get publishers to buy it and publish it. Or they self-publish with hopes that a major publishing house will eventually publish it. Nothing unusual at all about this method. Commonplace.

[TLFisher]

Many Local Church members, instead of praying, seeking insights from Scripture, soliciting counsel from mature believers and deciding issues for themselves, yield their prerogatives of decision making to LC elders. An individual may thus surrender his or her accountability to make responsible decisions in all aspects of life, including occupations, schools, relationships, finances, etc. Sometimes the elders have determined God's will for individuals or families without even being consulted for direction.


The above quote is likely indicative of the 70's and definitely the 80's. During my teen years, when it came to college choices, career choices, etc the focus was very much centered around the recovery. Going to college in North Dakota was discouraged. Going into a career field not condusive for the LSM brand of church-life was discouraged. By the 90's, deferring decision making to elders was a thing of the past. That was my experience.

[alwayslearning]

The book was commissioned by either Inter Varsity or Campus Crusade. I don't remember which. These were campus organizations not affiliated with a particular denomination that were designed to steer believers to them. Their gospel was weak and ineffectual and they became jealous of the LRC gospel work. As a result they commissioned this book and once it was published they distributed it.

Really? Because I thought you said the manuscript was self-published and later Inter-Varsity bought it to publish.

And I think you are conveniently omitting a few essential facts. Both Inter-Varsity and Campus Crusade are long standing para church ministries that have had a tremendously positive impact around the world with young people. They are not affiliated with any particular church.

Christians on Campus is an offshoot of the LC system affiliated with and staffed by the LC in each location and also serve as outlets for LSM materials. Their goal is to recruit young people to join their church.

Instead of suggesting that Inter-Varsity and/or Campus Crusade were jealous of the LC system's campus work (far-fetched when you consider their size and reach) why not at least entertain the thought that they genuinely believed the LC system was a cult and wanted to warn people not to join it?

IMHO what has happened in the LC system since Duddy was first published only serves to confirm his concerns. Imagine if he had Witness Lee stating that he was the only oracle of God on the earth since 1945? Or imagine if he had the quote by Benson Phillips that if you leave the LC system you cannot be sanctified. Or how about material on the ouster of Titus Chu for not following the one publication policy of a publishing company 3000 miles away? He could have a heyday with this crazy stuff!

[ousmanou Joseph]

I AM OUSMANOU JOSEPH, A BROTHER OF LOCAL CHURCH OF YAOUNDE-CAMEROON. CAN YOU HELP ME TO HAVE THE ADRESS OF ELDER GUNTHER OF LOCAL CHURCH OF STUTTGART. THANKS. THIS IS MY EMAIL ADRESS: jousmanou@gmail.com

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 5 Cont'd: Getting Buried by Lee

The God-Men, pages 122-123

"In the Local Church, individuals retain value only as they support group goals and participate in group activities. Witness Lee devotes the final chapters of The All-Inclusive Christ to an exposition of true spirituality, the essence of which is subordination of individual goals to group goals.

"Without submission there is no army. When we enjoy Christ to such an extent, everyone of us will be submissive to eachother. We cannot do otherwise. True love is in submission. We we submit one to another, we are really loving one another. If there is submission among us, the authority of Christ is among us." (WL The All-Inclusive Christ, pg 190).

When evangelical Christians use the term "submission", they generally have in mind the biblical notion of "mutual, self-effacing deference (modest, humble, mutual respect)". But in Local Church parlance, "submission" means something else: a self-extinguishing repudiation of authentic individuality.

Although submission and burial with Christ are both biblical themes, Witness Lee's use of them is related to Local Church authority rather than to liberation from sin. <Consequently>, concerning the believer's burial, Lee writes:

"We have been buried with Christ; we have been finished! Do you realize how big a word 'burial' is? It would be good to write it in large letters and hang it in your bedroom - BURIED! Hang another in your dining room, another in your living room, and another in your kitchen. Everywhere there is a room - buried, buried, buried! I have been buried." (WL, Ibid pg 157).

New converts may actually welcome deeper indoctrination that binds them closer to the group and that gradually eliminates from conscious thought any conflicting ties or emotions. <But> Such submission leads to a unique psychological disposition. Confident that the church is composed of "buried" individuals, Lee admonishes members never to challenge an elder's decision, regardless of it's correctness, lest they lose God's blessing in their lives. Members neither challenge that teaching nor confront Lee personally without serious results. Max Rapoport's biblical challenge led to his excommunication.

...A submissive church is unlikely to challenge the authority structure, however questionable it's decisions or practices might be."

*********************

What Lee was building, not only in America but earlier back in Taiwan and China, was an autocracy (a system of government by one person with absolute power), not "the church". While Lee wrote and perhaps spoke of mutual submission; he in fact answered to no one - either inside or outside the Local Churches. Do you disagree? Can you point to an instance when Witness Lee himself submitted to the members of the Body of Christ?

No precious ones, the kind of organization Lee built had been built before within "Christianity" and the World - we see it's echoes throughout the ages.... there is truly "nothing new under the sun" here. Lee's exaltation of himself and his own movement as "the one true church" has been heard before, countless times - but more and more so in these latter days.

"But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness*, but denying its power. Avoid such people." (2nd Timothy 3:1-5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A1-5&version=ESV))

*Godliness: Dutifully and obediently fulfilling the righteous (good) requirements of God's Law through faith, trusting in the Atoning Work of Jesus Christ; eagerly looking for the return of the Master who bought us.

Some Ex-Holdemans' have a ministry for those who have been mislead by the many wolves in sheep's clothing that have preyed upon the Flock of Jesus Christ; Wolves who claimed to be building the "One True Church". I strongly encourage you to visit this site, and read what these false teachers have taught. Quotes from Witness Lee's ministry are provided on this website as examples of the "One True Church" mentality - along with quotes from other such 'churches' and 'church leaders'. None of these ministries offered Freedom in Christ, but rather bondage to the group and it's leader.

"Leaving a "one true church" is traumatic, and the healing process is slow. No matter which "one true" church a person leaves, the expelled usually struggles with residual fear and legalism, shock, depression, and the shunning by family members. It is very helpful to learn that all "one true" churches operate virtually the same to gain and keep extreme control over the behavior, thoughts, and emotions of their members. Many groups were started by a single man who believed, often through dreams and visions, that he had been called to reform Christ's Church."

Visit "Comparing the 'One True Churches' (http://www.theholdemans.com/Compare.htm)" Here.

[TLFisher]

When evangelical Christians use the term "submission", they generally have in mind the biblical notion of "mutual, self-effacing deference (modest, humble, mutual respect)". But in Local Church parlance, "submission" means something else: a self-extinguishing repudiation of authentic individuality.

New converts may actually welcome deeper indoctrination that binds them closer to the group and that gradually eliminates from conscious thought any conflicting ties or emotions. <But> Such submission leads to a unique psychological disposition. Confident that the church is composed of "buried" individuals, Lee admonishes members never to challenge an elder's decision, regardless of it's correctness, lest they lose God's blessing in their lives. Members neither challenge that teaching nor confront Lee personally without serious results. Max Rapoport's biblical challenge led to his excommunication.

...A submissive church is unlikely to challenge the authority structure, however questionable it's decisions or practices might be."

*********************

What Lee was building, not only in America but earlier back in Taiwan and China, was an autocracy (a system of government by one person with absolute power), not "the church". While Lee wrote and perhaps spoke of mutual submission; he in fact answered to no one - either inside or outside the Local Churches. Do you disagree? Can you point to an instance when Witness Lee himself submitted to the members of the Body of Christ?

In the local churches the term "mutuality" was used often, but never in conjunction with submission. I think in part this particular teaching on authority came over from Asia. That being; as the older person even when you're wrong, you're still right. In Stephen Kaung's messages on Watchman Nee, it was unheard of for a parent to apologize to the child as was the case when Watchman Nee' mother apologized to him. The custom being the parents never had to admit any error. This is where the teaching of never challenging an elder comes from.

In recent years I've heard a phrase pertaining to a brother, "just get right with the brothers". Meaning the requirement is on him to get right with the elders. An elder can overstep his boundary, but since he's the authority he erroneously feels no responsibility to get right with the brother or sister he offended.

If we use the Old Testament as an example, this is not the case. Samuel challenged Saul and Nathan challenged David. If we use a New Testament example, it does not say never challenge an elder but, "Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses."

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 5 Con'td: Resurrection of the Buried Believer

The God-Men, pages 123-124

"Local Church members regard their "burial" as a desirable state of affairs resulting in special measures of God's protection, care and affection. Sociologist, Pastor and Professor Anthony Campolo (www.redletterchristians.org (http://www.redletterchristians.org)) sees the end result as the passage from an individual ego to a group ego. The "buried" individual is "raised" anew to a greater form of existence, the group existence. Individuals are raised to a greater consciousness of group success, Campolo says, thereby adopting a perspective in which they receive stronger emotional benefits from group success than from private achievements. The individual ego is subsumed within the larger group personality, embracing its successes and sorrows. Members transcend their individual concerns, becoming thoroughly identified with church concerns. The member who no longer wrestles with submitting to authority, but consistently, willing exalts group goals, has been "resurrected" to a transcendent state.

Contented Local Church converts regard their passage through the investment-divestment and burial-resurrection stages as an honorable but arduous journey toward glorification. Former members say they seldom felt abused by Lee but did feel confused about themselves, perceiving their qualms about the Local Church as temptations to be unspiritual or disloyal.

***************

The tactics Lee employed to gain such loyalty of his membership were as effective as the tactics used amongst the other "One True Churches". And as the authors of that site note, it is our fallen human nature that allows us to willingly fall for such tactics.


"Human pride desires elitism. We like to belong to the “best” group. Children want to be accepted by the popular crowd. Teenagers want to be on the winning team or in the best clique. Adults want whatever marks them as being one of the prestigious levels of society. One of the gimmicks of a well-known discount store is to offer card membership to people in certain professions only; this makes people want to “make the grade” and shop there.


Christians usually try to steer clear of such obvious pride. But what happens when our Christian heart wants to belong to the best church? The one that is special? The one that is more spiritual, more godly? What happens to a Christian who goes looking for the “right” church? The “true” church?

Those of us guilty of this very subtle elitism were easily snared by the bait of one of the “one true” churches. We saw a group that looked so very pious in their clothing, their demeanor, their speech, their dedication that we suddenly wanted to be a part of this spiritual clique.
And as we began wearing their uniform, observing their restrictions, talking their talk, we were special. Though of course we spoke much about humility, we were still publicly portraying our heightened spirituality—just like the Pharisees with their broadened phylacteries and lengthened tassels.

There do exist false brethren, false apostles, and false teachers in the world and in the churches. There are entire denominations that have no part of the truth of Jesus Christ, and a modern evil is to combine them all into ecumenism. It is not wrong to want to worship with a church that teaches the Bible correctly. It is not wrong to desire to walk closer with Jesus. The pride of elitism comes when we unite with a particular denomination and then turn and denounce all the rest of the Christian groups as non-churches. This would be as arrogant as one child claiming to be the only heir of his father and denouncing all his siblings as illegitimate.

There is a one true visible church, an organism composed of all true believers everywhere on the globe. But there is no one true denomination, no one true organization. Jesus Christ evaluated the seven churches in Revelation as individual congregations and found some to be strong, some weak, and one dead. He looked at each congregation with its particular strengths and weaknesses individually. Each stood or fell on its own, without denominational umbrella coverage. What He did not do was recognize one denomination as His church. And that’s the first mistaken notion we must discard before we can be free.

We must stop looking for the “one true” denomination. It doesn’t exist. But the One True Church does."

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 5 Cont'd: Lee's Authority

The God-Men, pages 124-125

"Witness Lee's voice of authority carries Papal weight. Lee issues three written messages and one tape-recorded message weekly, distributed by Stream Publications to all Local Church assemblies for memorization and recitation by the teaching elders. Departure from Lee's original text would be severely criticized. (according to interviews with ex-members). {Note that today the HWMR, full of Lee's ministry, is what is required reading on a daily basis for devout members.}

Local Church elders and apologists are quoted as saying that Witness Lee is the embodiment of God's economy (authority/presence) on the earth today, just as the apostle Paul was in the life of the early church. Lee does not discourage that type of adulation. He does not dissuade members from confessing him as the oracle of God or the "apostle of this age" (ibid).

In "Against the Tide", a biography of Watchman Nee, Angus I. Kinnear describes Witness Lee's participation in Nee's church in China in 1947. Witness Lee was an "activist" with a "volatile temperament" who was "energetic and authoritarian, thriving on large numbers, and has a flair for organizing people". ("Against the Tide" pages 131-132)

Lee, Kinnear says, made certain structural changes in Nee's "Little Flock".

"The effect of so much energetic organization however meant that something of the earlier freedom in the Spirit began to be lost. A clock-in system was soon to be introduced at meetings which, together with a full index of believers' addresses, employment, family, etc., meant that your failure of attendance could be quickly followed up. The Lord's Table was "fenced" and you were formally introduced and wore a badge with your name. No longer might you be accepted simply on your own testimony that you were born again and loved the Lord. Witness Lee was careful of course to disown the concept of "organization", explaining that, like a cup containing drinking water, these arrangements were merely the vessels for communicating spiritual things. But he exhorted everyone in the church to be submissive. "Do nothing without first asking", he urged. "Since the Fall man does as he pleases. Here there is order. Here there is authority. The Church is a place of strict discipline." (pages 132-133).

Today Anaheim church members use the phrasae "catching the flow from the throne" to describe their attempts to sense the movement of God's Spirit in their large meetings. The "flow from the throne" clearly refers to Witness Lee's speaking as he teaches during the meetings (interviews with ex-members).

Local Church members have little opportunity to discuss with church leaders any major disagreements or dissatisfactions they may have. In most religious movements mechanism exists for internal criticisms to be channeled through certain officials, thereby averting open criticism of the charismatic leader or governing body. In the Local Church, however, there is no mechanism to express dissatisfaction, either privately or publicly. To raise questions is "negative"; to criticize is unspiritual and divisive. (inteviews with ex-members).

****************

It is fair to say, given the testimony of Angus Kinnear (son-in-law of T. Austin Sparks) , that Witness Lee's penchant for self-exaltation was already exhibiting itself back in 1947, many decades before his trip overseas to America. What wound up occuring on our shores was not some new failing of his, but was (rather) a monkey on his back from the very beginning... and one he seems to have continually fed, rather than wrestle with.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter 5 Cont'd: Fear

The God-Men, pages 126-127

"Periodically, Witness Lee humiliates specific Local Church members by naming them in public meetings as being "out of the flow", which members take to mean under the influence of Satan. Since Lee's dramatic utterances are in effect taken to be the voice of God, such accusations are a powerful blow to the individual, utterly destroying any vestige of self-value. Max Rapoport thinks Lee uses the harangues as object lessons to subdue potential dissonance in the church.

One example of this occured several years ago, when the president of a Local Church in northern California collapsed under the pressure of public humiliation and was admitted for psychiatric care in a local hospital. Lee had rebuked him for evangelizing "hippies", whom Lee considered repugnant and unworthy of Local Church membership. That man eventually left the church. Generally, however, members who are publicly belitted remain in the church. Lee's teachings contribute to their fear of leaving.

Witness Lee teaches that the Local Church will occupy a privileged place during the millennium, the thousand-year reign of Christ prophesied in the Bible. In contrast, almost all Christians outside the Local Church will remain in darkness and isolation during the millenium, after which they will join God and the Local Church in heaven. But those who are not fully spiritual should dread not only their millennial fate. Lee embellishes his teaching with anecdotes about deserters from Local Church who have encountered financial and physical crises, even death.

Although victims of Witness Lee's diatribes may be afraid to leave because of spiritual or physical consequences from visits of divine wrath, the prospect of remaining within church ranks is not all that appealing either. Publicly humiliated members endure a phase of being ostracized and alienated from social interaction. Rapoport and others report that being "singled out" has contributed to emotional disturbances among a few Anaheim church members who subsequently required hospitalization. For the majority, however, the public exhortations are viewed as an appropriate way to stimulate a higher degree of spirituality. Lee calls it "breaking of the outer man". He seems to be masterful at engendering an exalted group spirit while simultaneously making certain individuals extremely uncomfortable.

Finally, Witness Lee's teachings on sanctification may encourage a peculiar mentality of suspicion within the Local Church. According to Lee, a person's spirituality is sensed, "smelled", or intuited.

To conclude, the Spiritual Counterfeits Project believes that those social dynamics are a natural consequence of Witness Lee's sensuous theology. In his theological system there are no intrinsic restraints to prevent their abusive application. His theology strips the Bible of its authority to pinpoint theological or moral abuses and to correct them."

*******************

[alwayslearning]

It is fair to say, given the testimony of Angus Kinnear (son-in-law of T. Austin Sparks) , that Witness Lee's penchant for self-exaltation was already exhibiting itself back in 1947, many decades before his trip overseas to America. What wound up occuring on our shores was not some new failing of his, but was (rather) a monkey on his back from the very beginning... and one he seems to have continually fed, rather than wrestle with.

Indeed it is fair to say! And as Kinnear also points out he was an authoritarian. He tightly controlled "the work" once he went to Taiwan and of course once he came to the U.S. You did it his way or you were gone. Period. If you happened to be living in an LC owned house you and your family were shown to the curb in short order. No mercy for those who will not follow lockstep.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

This was offered up on another thread, and I thought it really belonged here as a kind of "concluding word" on this case. I offer this interview with Duddy, done many many years after the trial, to you brothers and sisters.

Neil Duddy and The Peculiar Teachings of The Local Church

In 1979, Swiss publisher Schwengeler-Verlag published a short book on a movement of six hundred churches known as The Local Church. It's title "Die Sonderlehre des Witness Lee" translates in English as The Peculiar Teachings af Witness Lee. About 4,000 copies were sold to German-speaking Europeans.

This book was contested in Swiss court by the Stuttgart, West Germany, Local Church, but the suit and subsequent appeal were dismissed. In 1981 the Local Church took the suit to Oakland, California. Schwengeler, and the two co-authors Neil Duddy and the Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) were the defendants.

We present this interview and article about the teachings of the Local Church and its leader Witness Lee as a service to our readers who are interested in the many variations of new religious movements found in the world today. Some, as in the case of the Local Church, have their roots in the Christian faith and can be misidentified as orthodox denominations unless close scrutiny is made of the teachings and organizational methods.

We also present this article as a tribute to the former editor of UPDATE, Neil Duddy and his wife Linda. They no longer live in Europe, and hopefully will find peace in their new world far removed from the several years of anxiety and pain documented in this article. However, the verdict of the court in the United States, as well as harassment on the part of the Local Church, will follow them into the future. We commend them to the prayers and concern of our readers, and ask for your own reflections about the situation in your country.

Here in Denmark, the Local Church makes prominent use of the verdict of the trial. They have translated The decision of Judge Leon G. Seyranian of the Superior Court of the State of California into Danish and German. They have also widely disseminated a reflection on Duddy's book prepared by J. Gordon Melton. an American scholar who appeared in court on behalf of the plaintiff against Duddy and the SCP. The Local Church is appealing to those who recognize the authority and power of the courts to assert their correctness in this matter. But while making this assertion in the name of the Christian faith. and claiming the authority of a civil body as their grounds. they continue to crudely judge other Christian expressions of faith and judge the holiness of other Christian denominations.

Introduction

The controversy which began with the publication of a book in German by Neil Duddy about Witness Lee and his denomination called the Local Church is another episode which demonstrates the central importance of the courts in deciding matters of religious conflict. In fact, because the book was judged to be libelous and fines of several million dollars levied against the defendant and the publisher, other authors who may wish to appeal to the reason of the public by writing about a group or their beliefs may be restricted by fear of similar action. When discussion of religion can be challenged in a court, and the terms for appearing on behalf of one's own defense are so extravagant, few will be so bold as to risk stating controversial opinions. The supremacy of the court and its civil authority even for deciding matters of religious doctrine was strengthened in this case.

The issue was libel. But the tactics used by the Local Church during the pre-trial preparations, and the witnesses called at the trial to testify about doctrine, denominational legitimacy and interpretation of difficult church teachings obscure the issue. Not only was a book on trial, but a serious and calculated defense of a religious body was undertaken in court. All attempts at extra-legal arbitration and out of court settlement were rejected by the Local Church. The defendant was pushed into bankruptcy by expenses incurred in preparation for the trial. Expert witnesses for the plaintiff included scholars of religion and clergymen of several faiths who argued about interpretation of scriptures and homiletic practices. Because a book printed in German was being tried in English, and conclusions about what had been written were argued only in the English language, discussion of the author's intention was hindered at several critical points. And, in a default trial (without the presence of the defendant) the court ruled that the Local Church and Witness Lee had suffered damages which cannot be erased but can be eased with the payment of several million dollars.

While courts are necessary for the protection of the rights of citizens, and have become the arena for disputes of all types between citizens with grievances against each other, they have also inadvertently become a tool in the hands of those who know how to skillfully employ the protections of the law. Courts have become an expensive arena beyond the access of many people who have serious grievances. They have become expensive propositions for people drawn into a dispute by another party. The time and money consumed by this most recent trial demonstrate this unfortunate aspect of modern legal institutions.

This interview does not intend to vindicate Duddy, Schwengeler-Verlag, or the Spiritual Counterfeit Projects. It returns to a discussion of religious doctrine and faith which was obscured in three intense years of emotional and economic ruin. This interview attempts to refocus the discussion of new religious movements on topics which are of a concern for Christians, questions of teaching, interpretation and authority.

No appeal is possible to the good will of the Local Church. The Local Church is intent, it seems, to use legal proceedings against any who criticize their teachings. The Local Church has initiated or threatened legal action in over twenty-five instances. Each court appearance, and each verdict resulting in financial reward strengthens this conviction to appeal to a civil authority rather than to dialogue with other Christians. Another book with sales of 80,000 copies in America was challenged, but the courts awarded only $150,000 in punitive damages. Now with an award of at least $4,400,000, the Local Church is firm in its conviction to ignore the reasoning of Christian critics and continue to appeal to the business of law.

We are concerned, however, that dialogue must continue with certain guaranteed freedoms. These cannot be argued for or defended only with teams of experts costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. We are also concerned with the current tendency to sue one's neighbor rather than to reason with him, to disagree, to have conflict and to suffer the pain of separation over irresolvable differences. To make a charge of libel about it something written from a particular religious viewpoint, and then to create obstacles preventing a fair trial by means of exorbitant legal expenses, emotional harassment and bevies of expert witnesses certainly impedes the process of dialogue between religions which seeks truth.

Interview

Update: You are hesitant to respect the claims of the Local Church that they are a legitimate Christian denomination. Would you please comment on this.

Duddy: Witness Lee's association with Southern Baptists and Plymouth Brethren (1904 to late 1920s) is used to identify him as a mainline Protestant Christian. But he is not consistent about this identity at all. On the one hand, he speaks with great reverence for his mother and recalls that she taught Bible stories every night. She was a third generation Christian, and was educated in a Southern Baptist mission school.
But Lee speaks of her in an exegesis of Matthew in quite a different way. Not only his mother, but millions of Christians are not real believers. They are tares among the wheat. They are "for Christianity, but they are not Christians." And, he claims that they are so numerous that it is difficult to find the wheat.

Update: Many Christian denominations tend toward an exclusivism, however. Only those who have received their particular baptism, and adhere to their particular scripture interpretations are to be saved. Why do you challenge Witness Lee on this point when there are other Christian bodies displaying the same tendency?

Duddy: As I said, there is a lack of consistency on this point. He is mainline Protestant when it serves his purposes, but he is condemning all Christian sects when he is speaking only to his Local Church members. For this reason it is difficult to relate to him as a fellow Christian.
For instance, Witness Lee was a disciple of Watchman Nee who started a Plymouth Brethren type of house church in Foochow in 1922. Nee was disenchanted with the formalism of his previous Christian education. But over the years Witness Lee has rejected even the Protestantism of the Plymouth Brethren for social and theological reasons. He has repudiated his own association with them. He says Brethren influence should be "washed off like salt." That's a rather strong, clear image, I think.
Elsewhere, when commenting on his early formation, Lee speaks of how he was "killed" by the teachings he was trained in. He repents of those teachings. By inference it is clear that he is speaking of his time in association with the Plymouth Brethren when he says, "After I was saved, I was brought in to an assembly of Christians to learn the good teachings of the Bible. I received teachings on prophecy and typology; but after seven and a half years, I discovered I had been killed by the teachings of the dead letter. I repented and came into the matters of the inner life."

Update: It sounds metaphorical to me, as if he is speaking of some inner transformation with veiled references...

Duddy: If it were only that, I suppose we could ask what he means in clear speech. But, at the same moment he is speaking of being killed by the Brethren, and criticizing the Brethren to the members of the Local Church, he testifies in court before Judge Seyranian that he himself is Plymouth Brethren. He also allowed for the testimony of expert witnesses as to his affiliation with the legitimate tradition of the Plymouth Brethren. This is the puzzling inconsistency that is disturbing.
He is also vitriolic in his criticism of other Christian denominations. This is more than symbolic language, I believe, because he is teaching members of the Local Church what they should believe about other religious expressions of faith. This teaching is motivated by his convictions that the Local Church, and here I emphasize he is not speaking about the Plymouth Brethren but is speaking exclusively about his own denomination, that it alone possesses the true faith.
He testified in court that denominationalism is not important. Millions of Christians are saved, he said to the judge, and they are all saved with different ways of church life. Whether they are Catholic, Protestant, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, the Brethren, they are all saved.
But, again, I can point to the opposite statements when he is educating his own people. It is one thing to speak in public to defend one's interests in a court of law. But quite another to speak before members of one's church and define the doctrines of faith. In this context he says something quite different, quite exclusive: "it is absolutely unnecessary to consider which kind of church to join. {Whether) Presbyterian, Baptist, Nazarene, Lutheran, Methodist or Episcopalian, there is only one church. That one church is the Local Church. Besides the Local Church there is no other church. The universal church is the ultimate consummation of the composite of all the local churches."
He is also in print declaring that practicing Roman Catholics are not to be saved. He teaches his members in classic anti-Catholic apocalyptic images, describing the Catholic Church as the eschatological whore of Babylon which, in the end, is cast in to the lake of fire.

Update: That's pretty strong imagery, but I am sure you know it is not original with Witness Lee. He sounds in the mainstream of a long tradition of anti-Catholicism. By extension, I suppose he can also be critical of other Christian denominations too. Isn't that a mark of exclusivist theology?

Duddy: Yes, but he goes further than most because in court he denies that this is what he teaches. In other words, when threatened he flees. But then he weaves theological explanations for what he means which raise deeper questions about his own integrity as a Biblical Christian.

Update: What do you mean?

Duddy: For instance, when questioned by the court about the meaning of his claim that the Local Church is the only church in the universe, he denied it. But his denial used language peculiar to the Local Church teachings, and so ought to be interpreted according to the use of the language in his own published teachings. This is where the problems begin for a Christian.
In court, he answered the charge of exclusivism by saying, "wenever taught this way. The Bible teaches that all the believers of Christ are his members. So all the believers of Christ universally are the Body of Christ, in a universal sense. Then the believers are living in different localities throughout all centuries. Wherever they are they, as fellow Christians, should come together to worship God. That gathering is considered by the Bible as a local church.
But, with his teachings about the validity of other Christian bodies for salvation, it is doubtful that he means just any other Christian gathering. He is referring to the gathering of people who believe in his teaching and organize within his Local Church. The universalism he speaks of is not a general universalism of Christian faith, but the universal domination of the Local Church. He has said that the universal church is realized in the local churches. In this context he can speak critically of all other denominations, and teach that the salvation they offer is not really salvation. But, it seems, he can also defend himself from any criticism because the language he uses sounds Christian. Without a deep knowledge of what he means with his words, one can facilely assume he is consistent with the general Christian understanding of the same words. But he's got his own interpretation of so many doctrines, that I doubt if he shares much with other Christian bodies.

Update: Can you give some examples from his theology that would in form us about this point?

Duddy: In my doctoral dissertation prepared for the Theology Faculty of Aarhus University, Denmark, I was concerned with Lee's understanding of salvation as presented in his writings and sermons. Even though a man can appear in court and in a few sentences answer yes or no to questions prepared by his attorneys, a thorough understanding of what he teaches, and the effect of those teachings upon future generations of members of his church, should be culled from more extensive sources. I do not accept his testimony in court, but that is a private matter. However, to demonstrate why I do not accept it, I have investigated his own works.
There are certain elements in his writings that cannot be merely passed over as symbolic. For instance, Lee teaches that the church is God, or is a part of the "organism of the triune God". He constantly teaches that the whole of God becomes the local church and the local church becomes God.
This is more than symbolic expression. His right to say this can be defended in court, but his ability to teach this, and what it implies, within the community of orthodox Christian churches cannot be defended. No Christian tradition, even given the leeway of poetry and artistic imagery, claims that the church is God, or that God comes into being through the church. God is. And the church, even in fundamental formulations of narrow sects of Christianity, is a body which results when sinful people turn to God through Jesus Christ. But no claim of similarity or equality can be defended according to Christian orthodoxy.

Update: Your point is clear, but why does this become such a concern for you? Many groups teach doctrines which differ from orthodox Christian teachings.

Duddy: Yes, but they do not claim to be Christian and non-Christian at the same time. They do not attack the churches on one occasion, and then sue for libel on another. But I don't want to speak af the particular legal situation which has affected me personally. There are more important implications for other Christian groups.
The formulations of creed and conciliar proclamations of the church fathers define the orthodoxy of the Christian faith. Lee's teachings are beyond that which is recognized by most churches. But, because his teaching asserts the uniqueness and eventual supremacy of the Local Church, and even goes so far as to elevate the teaching to a position equal to God, he can then turn toward the other Christian churches with harsh judgement. There is a social problem which results from his theological proclamations.
This problem has been experienced by the Christian bodies with some contact with the local churches. They seek to recruit members from already established denominations, influence members of established communions and seminaries, Bible colleges and fellowships. No ecumenical fellowship or respect for another Christian's faith seems possible for their general activity in society.

Update: What other theological differences have you found?

Duddy: One of the more interesting innovations is Lee's teaching that God should be eaten. This is curious because there are numerous Eucharistic denominations in which sacramental communion with God is highly esteemed But, Lee's teaching can be summarized by his own Americanism, "you become what you eat!"
In his writings Lee says that God is desirous of being eaten by us. If we tell God that we want to eat him he will be very happy. We are his eating and his assimilating vessels. Eventually, God will become us. Praise the Lord!
The only permissable conclusion is that if you eat God, you become God. This follows not only from this analogy, but in his teachings on regeneration, faith, transformation and glorification, Lee consistently points his listeners in this direction. Man becomes God. This is not only unorthodox for a Biblical Christian, but beginning with the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologies of eucharistic participation in God's life, it is unorthodox for even eucharistic Christian denominations.

Update: Perhaps you are overlooking the influence of Chinese religions or private revelations in the development of the Local Church teachings? There seems to be influences of personalistic spiritualism characteristic of animism.

Duddy: That's my contention. Lee is claiming Christian orthodoxy, but there are elements in his teaching that are clearly unorthodox and unfamiliar to other Christians. There are methods he uses in developing his doctrine that are quite unlike methods of other Christian groups. And, these differences influence his teachings and his ecclesiology.
If it were only a matter of unorthodox theology and inspired preaching I suppose it would not be a matter of importance for Christians. Just another religion appearing on the horizon. But, the Local Church is claiming to be a part of the orthodox Christian tradition without clearly establishing the claim to orthodoxy according to traditional Christian definitions. And, they challenge their critics not with theological discussion, but with legal actions.
Even their definition of Jesus is so different from what Christians mean when they speak of Jesus, that it is hard to understand how they can claim membership in the Christian body. Hard to understand, that is, until one balances that claim with their disdain for all other Christian churches, and their teaching that so many of those who are called Christian are really tares among the wheat, the true fruit of Christ being only the members of the Local Church.
Lee teaches that Jesus is God the Father, that Jesus is the Holy Spirit, and that Jesus is the triune God. If you don't believe this you cannot be saved. He makes it more explicit in a pamphlet en titled What a Heresy--Two Divine Fathers, Two Life-Giving Spirits, and Three Gods that if you don't believe that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father, you are a heretic and don't believe the Bible.
Undoubtedly, Lee is expressing here his own frustration with the divisions between Christian denominations that he experienced from his youth in China up until the present time. He is trying to contribute to an understanding of grace and the Trinity that creates unity, not division. But he does so simplistically. When he claims that those who hold the traditional concept of the Trinity "in actuality have three gods," he may attempt to clarify some confusing theology but he also moves beyond the basic faith of Christianity.

Update: His writings are voluminous, and his writings are actually based on his preaching. How do you suggest that one even approach some of the questions you raise? It seems like years of careful sifting of material would be necessary, not to mention the theological task of interpreting his position.

Duddy: There are many difficulties in understanding Lee's literature. Perhaps the most difficult of all is that one must first of all be in the "spirit" which Lee speaks of to understand anything at all. How you read the Bible, how you think about God, how you behave, all this is directed by being in the "spirit". But, this "spirit" is a creation of Lee himself, so he is putting forth the hermeneutical instrument at the same time he is criticizing any conclusion not consistent with his own method. It's a closed circle that doesn't allow for much discussion, dissent or critique.
This is Lee's anthropological contribution. There are three parts to human being--body, soul and spirit. This tri-partite division is not uncommon, but Lee assigns the three parts specific roles. As his theology evolved in the 60s and 70s, Lee taught that the spirit can replace the role of the soul, thereby replacing human thought and understanding among real Christians. The mind is in the soul, and it follows impulses and intuitions from the spirit, which is fused to God. By this time Lee was characterizing human thought as satanic, so if you miss the emphasis of spirit over and against soul and body, you miss the heart of his teaching. God is fused to the spirit, and the spirit conducts all aspects of Christian life, morality and social behavior, not the soul. But, anyone unfamiliar with this anthropology (or questioning its facticity) would be relating to Lee, and also trying to understand Christianity and the Bible with human thought. This is behavior which comes from the soul, not the spirit, so is discounted. Again, we meet the circular construction of Lee's teachings.
Conversion to his teachings is necessary for understanding them. Criticism of them amounts to a challenge by mere human thought, which is satanic, so is to be discounted. In this way discussion and criticism are impossible with the Local Church.

Update: It is curious that although you mention the local churches, you constantly refer to Witness Lee himself. Are the churches autonomous, or is he their actual leader?

Duddy: Anthropologists Morris Fred and Shih-Ming Tu argue that Lee is the charismatic leader of the movement known as the Local Church. The local church and the expert witnesses of the trial argue that he is not. I say he clearly is. Lee presents himself to the members of the churches as vox Dei, a medium through whom God speaks. The Local Church appears to agree, because they treat his own words in a fashion reserved for the Bible. That is, they use a method known as "pray-read" to hear his messages. "Pray-read" is a ritual in which the members shout or chant the Bible so that they can absorb the Spirit of God into their own spirits. They pray-read Lee's own words, and I conclude that similarly they seek to take his spirit into their own. However, the court disagrees with this conclusion.
To disagree with the court is not a small matter, but again, I believe it is a problem of words being manipulated without a full knowledge of specific sectarian meanings. To deny his charismatic leadership, Lee uses a self-effacing description of himself as "just a little man." This sound humble and admirable. But it is also his teaching, without any historical basis, that Jesus was "a little man." I firmly believe that this expression has religious significance to his listeners that we do not hear. He is not asserting only his humility; he is putting himself forward according to an image he created for reference to Jesus.

Update: Neil, you didn't appear at the trial. Could you explain the circumstances briefly that led to your decision to accept a default judgement?

Duddy: The Local Church presented as the topic of their complaint 46 paragraphs of the book I wrote. Each paragraph is subject to a pre-trial discovery process and examination during the trial. The defense lawyer for the Spiritual Counterfeits Project was paid to attend sessions during which persons were called to give evidence regarding a particular paragraph in the complaint.
This process took 145 days and bankrupted the SCP. It cost more than $400,000 to provide legal representation at the depositions. It would have cost me an additional $150,000 to mount a defense during the trial. I simply could not afford this.
I had gone through the process of deposition at the request of the SCP, the co-defendant. But, when they declared bankruptcy on the first day of the trial I was left with the task of mounting my own defense. The Local Church was not interested in time or money, it seemed, but for me it was a formidable task to organize thousands of pages of witnesses' testimonies. All efforts for an out of court settlement were rejected by the Local Church, and mediation by the Christian Legal Society was out of the question for the Local Church.

Update: There is also the language problem, a German book being tried in an American court whose language is English. Isn't this unusual? What sort of problems did you encounter?

Duddy: The court judged three works. The manuscript entitled The God-Men, the book Die Sonderlehre des Witness Lee Und Seiner Ortsgemeinde, published in Europe, and the book The God-Men, An Inquiry Into Witness Lee and the Local Church, published in the United States and England by Inter-Varsity Press, were found in all major respects "false, defamatory and unprivileged, and therefore, libelous."
But language was twisted and abused in order to substantiate certain claims, and to suggest an attempt on the part of the authors to prejudice the minds of the readers.
An example of this is the use of the word "violent". The Local Church charged in one complaint that I said "...the Local Church is especially characterized by violent encounters with Christian communities." This description is also included in a booklet published by J. Gordon Melton and distributed in English, Danish, and German.
We said that the Local Church had "stormy relations with Christian churches," which is easily demonstrable from their own publications. Lee encourages his members to recruit from Christian schools and churches, and to trouble Christian organizations. This is especially clear in his work The Kingdom where he encourages the church to be violent against Christianity (although we'll fall into the same trap of asking what he really means when he uses these words if he doesn't mean what they say).
But, for purposes of the lawsuit, the German word stürmisch was translated as violent, whereas it is obviously the word for stormy. The Local Church knew this meaning, and they knew the difficulty of having a trial in a German-speaking country as the dismissal of the suit in Switzerland demonstrated. The tell-tale sign is to be found in the Local Church translation of Melton's pamphlet into German. There they translate this word as gewaltsam, violent, knowing that the credulity of the German people would be stretched to think that a word like "stormy" constituted a serious crime of libel. So, by insisting on the word gewaltsam they have fabricated language which never appeared in Die Sonderlehre. The word we used was stürmisch, not gewaltsam. That is a very important distinction.

Update: In conclusion, have you any final point you would like to emphasize for our readers?

Duddy: In The God-Men I wrote that we did not attempt to answer such questions as "Is Witness Lee a Christian?" Such a question is inappropriate. The nucleus of our book was to ask if the doctrine of Witness Lee and the Local Church present a picture of God, Christ, the human condition and Christian responsibility that is true to the content of biblical revelation. Now, drained of all resources and emotional strength af ter several years of battle with an uncompromising Local Church ideology, I still suggest that the question of whether Lee is a Christian or not is inappropriate. But I suggest that his own actions and the actions in court encouraged by his professional staff raise legitimate questions about his understanding of the compassion and mercy or God, and the forgiveness of Jesus Christ which is revealed in Scripture. He has avoided every possible avenue of negotiation and reconciliation in order to prove a point. And, he has used resources and experts beyond ordinary means to do so. What is he really protecting? What message is he really trying to speak in the world?"


*********************

I can't say for certain what message Lee, and now LSM (who has continued to make lawsuits their practice - even establishing their own Prosecutorial law firm, AKA "DCP"), meant to get across... but I do know what message we've received; and it ain't Paul's four words "Christ and Him Crucified". No, folks. It's another four words, and to put that message in plain and vulgar language, I'd say what Lee said was "Don't f*ck with me."

[Elden1971]

While the process of having personal "standing orders" for continual automatic purchase of LSM materials had not become a practice (or at least not a common one) by 1987, the sacrifice I saw of people's lives to the continual production of books for our consumption was everywhere. Some local members (in Irving) were seldom seen because they were constantly at the presses. There is one sister who previously joined in with us here on this forum (and more so on the Bereans before) that eventually completely left town when she left the church so she wouldn't run into anyone.

Standing orders and auto shipments were common in 1978 and were rejected by many localities i.e. Rosemead, Denver, Boston etc This played a role in the demise of Max. By divine coincidence I was on a business trip to Denver when they did the unthinkable act of sending back their shipment, what chaos followed.

[aron]

Standing orders and auto shipments were common in 1978 and were rejected by many localities i.e. Rosemead, Denver, Boston etc This played a role in the demise of Max. By divine coincidence I was on a business trip to Denver when they did the unthinkable act of sending back their shipment, what chaos followed.

In my meeting hall the cellar was full of Rainbow Booklets. Boxes and boxes of them. Like one whole wall, four deep and four high. Literally thousands of booklets.

"Now get out there and sell! Sell! Sell!"

[Ohio]

In my meeting hall the cellar was full of Rainbow Booklets. Boxes and boxes of them. Like one whole wall, four deep and four high. Literally thousands of booklets.

"Now get out there and sell! Sell! Sell!"

Did you actually try to sell those Rainbow Booklets?

[TLFisher]

Standing orders and auto shipments were common in 1978 and were rejected by many localities i.e. Rosemead, Denver, Boston etc This played a role in the demise of Max. By divine coincidence I was on a business trip to Denver when they did the unthinkable act of sending back their shipment, what chaos followed.

I had heard the same of other localities (Eugene, Oregon for one). To send back any unsold publication was a personal insult to Phillip Lee and future publications would be withheld until an "apology" was made. One locality I was in, there was a designated brother or brother(s) who were the only ones authorized to speak with with Phillip as he was reputed to be volatile and easily offended.
Elden1971, are you suggesting the church in Denver sending back the shipment precipitated the entire locality being quarantined and Witness Lee sending Gene Gruhler to Denver in it's aftermath?

[TLFisher]

Did you actually try to sell those Rainbow Booklets?
I was still in high school early 1986, and our serving brother had us go door knocking with the rainbow booklets.

[Nell]

An historic oldie that some may be interested in. Some quotes and discussion.

Good morning saints:

I recently purchased this book, and at the time I am posting this, I have not yet read far into it. That said, I wanted to share it. This book, or more specifically the lawsuit launched against it by Witness Lee, is cited within the Christian community as more reason than any other to damn LSM. For this reason, I think we owe it to SCP to hear what they had to say - indeed to hear what Witness Lee and LSM didn't want any of us to hear. Because it was undoubtedly the tithes and offerings of Local Church members that were used to silence SCP's voice - making those of us who were a part of a Local Church in those days, party to that sin.

What God says: "When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!"

The Defendant: The Spiritual Counterfeits Project (also known as SCP) is a Christian evangelical parachurch organisation located in Berkeley, California. Since its inception in the early 1970s it has been involved in the fields of Christian apologetics and the Christian countercult movement. Its current president is Tal Brooke. In its role as a think-tank SCP has sought to publish evangelically-based analyses of new religious movements, New Age and alternative spiritualities in light of broad cultural trends.

The origins of the SCP are grounded in the Christian counterculture movement (also known as the Jesus Movement or Jesus People) of the late 1960s. As a parachurch organization, much like the Gideons, it is made up entirely of Christian lay-people, and not of clergy. In 1968 some staff members of Campus Crusade for Christ conceived of the need to contextualize the Christian message for radical and revolutionary university students. The key figures were Jack Sparks and his wife, Patrick and Karry Matrisciana (also known as Caryl Matrisciana), Fred and Jan Dyson, Weldon and Barbara Hartenburg. In April 1969 Sparks and his colleagues commenced their ministry at the University of California, Berkeley.

The Case: In 1977 InterVarsity Press released an 80 page booklet by the SCP called The God-Men: Witness Lee and the Local Church. It was updated and released as a full-length book in 1981 as The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee and the Local Church. This is the book from which I will be reading. This book presented the results of SCP's investigations into the theology and practices of the Local Church. The SCP findings alleged that the Local Church was promulgating heresy. The dispute between the Local Church and the SCP escalated into a lawsuit for defamation that was filed in Oakland, California in December 1980 and known as Lee v. Duddy.

Over a period of four and a half years the pre-trial preparations and depositions, involved expenditure that brought SCP into legal debt with their defense lawyers. The defamation trial was scheduled to commence on March 4, 1985. According to Bill Squires "the lawfirm representing us withdrew from the case" and so the decision was taken to file for a reorganizational bankruptcy in the Bankruptcy Court. Squires states, "that move imposed an immediate stay on the plaintiffs' action against us, thus ending the financial drain of litigation. On that day, SCP, while continuing its larger ministry, officially dropped out of the lawsuit."

The Charge against SCP: Defamation.
California Elements of Defamation

Defamation, which consists of both libel and slander, is defined by case law and statute in California. See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 44, 45a, and 46.

The elements of a defamation claim are:
publication of a statement of fact
that is false,*
unprivileged,
has a natural tendency to injure or which causes "special damage," and
the defendant's fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence.
Publication, which may be written or oral, means communication to a third person who understands the defamatory meaning of the statement and its application to the person to whom reference is made. Publication need not be to the “public” at large; communication to a single individual other than the plaintiff is sufficient. Republishing a defamatory statement made by another is generally not protected.

Statement from The Prosecution (taken from DCP's website): "Sadly, there were (in the late 70's) a few Christians who for various reasons opposed this speaking (that all believers should be living and functioning members of the Body of Christ). Some held a concept of the Christian faith that was strictly objective and doctrinal. Uncomfortable with the entirely Biblical stress on the need to experience the indwelling Christ, they labeled it as an un-Christian and even as Eastern mystical teaching. Others were motivated by a desire to maintain some level of prominence in Christian work. They felt threatened by a teaching that opposed the hierarchical clergy-laity system of today’s Christianity, encouraged all of God’s people to learn to speak for and serve God as priests, and presented a simple way for believers to meet together in the oneness of the Body of Christ...


Had issues concerning differences in understanding of the truths of the Bible been the extent of the accusations made by those opposing the local churches, this Web site would be limited to answering those issues. However, writers from one particular source, the Christian World Liberation Front (CWLF), a group formed in Berkeley to reach radical youth on the 1970s college campus, went further to falsely accuse Witness Lee and the local churches of cultic practices including financial improprieties, deceitful recruiting, autocratic control of members, etc. Their accusations formed the basis of two books:

The Mindbenders by Jack Sparks; and
The God-Men by Neil Duddy and the Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP).
Many of the members of the local churches made phone calls and wrote letters to the authors and publishers protesting the falsity of these books’ serious allegations. The authors and publishers ignored these appeals from the Christians meeting in the local churches. In addition, Witness Lee and the local churches also published booklets and articles to refute these opposers’ misrepresentations and accusations. After unsuccessfully pleading with the authors and publishers of these books to retract their libelous content, second, more damaging editions of both books, as well as a third book entitled The New Cults, were published.

Because no legal action was taken by the local churches to protest the first editions of these books, a second generation of books and articles were published by others based almost entirely on the misinformation in the initial few books. After suffering defamation for almost a decade, and having exhausted all less aggressive means of reconciliation, Witness Lee and the local churches followed the Apostle Paul’s precedent of appealing to Caesar, that is, the legal system, for protection from his religious opponents (Acts 25:11)."


With this history in mind, let us dive in to this book which LSM and Witness Lee label as defamatory, and - as a jury now made up of peers, let us hear the case that never made it before a judge. Let us arrive together at a verdict.

References
http://watch.pair.com/scp-duddy.html
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheLocalChurch
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/california-defamation-law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_Counterfeits_Project
http://www.scp-inc.org/