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

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-20-2012, 10:16 AM

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/

ZNPaaneah

11-20-2012, 10:31 AM

...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...
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).

“Promulgating heresy”
“cultic practices”
“financial improprieties”
“deceitful recruiting”
“autocratic control”

They are able to publish these accusations in a book for any and all to read, certainly derogatory. How exactly was the LRC supposed to defend itself if they are not permitted to go to court? (I am referring to your extensive quote concerning the prohibition to lawsuits).

Also, please note, I am referring to the situation in 1978 and 1979. I was on campus at the time in Houston. I was not aware of any "financial improprieties" in Houston, nor did we engage in "deceitful recruiting" on the campus I was on. Everyone, both student and faculty, were well aware of the five or so brothers from the LRC and who they were. Also there was no control exercised on the campus work by the church, we were given full autonomy. Also I do not agree that we were involved in "cultic practices" as understood in the Jim Jones post era.

At this point I was completely unaware of the teaching of MOTA, if anything WN was regarded highly as a man of God who was a martyr, and WL was considered a close coworker of his. The teaching of the ground was borderline at that moment in history, if you want to argue that it was the basis for a sect I will cede that, but it has a lot to do with which locality and who was applying the teaching. We did not apply it in a divisive way on our campus, which is why I met with Campus Crusade and knew all the brothers on inter varsity. However, from what I gather we were the exception to the rule.

My point is not that these things are not valid points concerning Witness Lee and even concerning the LRC. My point is that from my very narrow vantage point, perhaps not the most significant vantage point, but still a valid stance, this book damaged our work in a daily way without being an accurate depiction of us. We discussed what to do about this for over 6 months before they said that they had decided to go on with the lawsuit and we agreed because it seemed like a reasonable response.

Just so we are clear, this book was used all the time on our campus to speak negatively about our work. The book didn't describe us fairly, as far as I was concerned. I could not deny the damage when this was discussed in the church. We did not push for any action to be taken, our response was that most people on campus were not talking to Campus Crusade or Inter Varsity anyway. We figured we had plenty of people to preach to that would never be influenced by them. Still, the discussions went on for six months, some were very vehement, and then they told us WL had reluctantly decided at the insistence of James Barber to sue. We had not pushed for this, but we understood the angst, and understood why this action was taken.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-20-2012, 11:00 AM

Because a charge of Defamation, by definition, is the promulgating of false charges - we need to hear for ourselves what charges are being levelled against Witness Lee and the Local Church in this book. With that in mind, allow me to provide a summary and excerpts from the various passages.

A Note on the Title:

Okay, we were Local Church members. We've heard the charges about the doctrines Lee's preached before, and probably bristled at them (at least, when we were ourselves a part of that fellowship). Nevertheless, the Title of this book was take from a quote by Witness Lee. If you've seen the cover in another post of mine, then you couldn't read the quote there as the print was too fine. The quote on the cover is: "To be a Christian simple means to be mingled with God, to be a God-man." - Witness Lee.

Now, that title and that quote ARE sensational (they grab a Christian's attention, that is for certain) - but the title itself certainly isn't defamatory. The quote is lifted from Lee's own published writings.

From the Preface: Why the Book?
"Local Church history is one of stormy relations with Christian churches critical of it's doctrinal posture, its internal social relationships, and its conduct in society. This book attempts to document Local Church doctrine and conduct. Our analysis and critique is based on many published writings of the Local Church's founder, Witness Lee, and on personal reports collated by the authors regarding Local Church interactions with communities nationwide. The authors have personally contacted Local Church (hereafter referred to as "LC" - to save my typing fingers) leaders and members for the purpose of collecting firsthand information. Additional information has come from correspondence with persons who have been members of the LC, who have had encounters with LC members or who have conducted interviews with LC participants." - pg 8.

Note: "We have earnestly sought a personal audience with Witness Lee in order that our understanding of his teachings and practices might once and for all be substantiated or corrected (DCP claims this was never done). Before the initial printing of The God-Men by (SCP), a certified letter requesting an appointment with Lee and with two LC representatives was sent to Lee's home. The receipt was returned to our office, bearing Mrs. Lee's signature, but with no reply. After a reasonable wait, we sent Lee a telegram, again urging him to respond to our invitation to dialogue. We received no response."

"...Researcher Neil Duddy went twice to Local Church headquarters in Anaheim, California, and spoke with Lee's two chief apologists. At the close of the second session... Duddy was told that Lee, for reasons of principle, does not respond to criticisms or questions from outsiders. LC executive Ronald R. Kangas was not inclined even to tell Lee that an SCP researcher had visited their headquarters.... the disposition of the LC toward such interaction was epitomized by Kangas's response to a question about Lee's extensive use of allegory "You're not spiritual. You don't understand"."

"The LC and Witness Lee were invited to read our revised manuscript and were given the prerogative of attaching a five page response to appear as an Appendix. Lee expressed his refusal to accept our offer in a certified letter dated May 22, 1979."

From what we have read here already, we see strong refutation (and presumably, physical evidence IE certified letters and telegrams) that DCP's story about "The authors and publishers ignor(ing) appeals from the Christians meeting in the local churches... & unsuccessfully "pleading" with the authors and publishers of these books" must be called into serious question. The burden of proof here in on the plaintiff - what evidence are they able to provide to refute SCP and prove that such appeals and pleadings took place?

ZNPaaneah

11-20-2012, 12:18 PM

OBW

11-20-2012, 12:32 PM

They are able to publish these accusations in a book for any and all to read, certainly defamatory. How exactly was the LRC supposed to defend itself if they are not permitted to go to court?I removed the personal reference from the quote for a reason. I am not challenging anyone. I am just speaking to the statement made.

- - - -

Not so certainly defamatory.

Counter to their claim of being wholesome and mainstream. Ugly facts to get out to the public. But defamatory only if proved to be false.

And on what basis were they not permitted to go to court?

If you say "Neil Duddy" then that would be false. Neil Duddy did not deny them the right to go to court.

If you say "scripture" then it would seem that it really did not stop them, so they were still permitted.

Who didn't permit them to go to court?

Since there is a facade of Christianity surrounding this whole fiasco, isn't there some kind of requirement to attempt to reconcile prior to declaring the other party a "heathen" and therefore be free to sue them? If so, then when did the LRC try to reconcile or discuss? What gave them the freedom within their own version of the scriptural mandates to sue?

The problem that surfaces here, and in virtually every case to come after, is that there was opportunity to discuss. But they (the LRC) refused. They charged the other side with refusing to discuss, but it is clear from the actual evidence that it is Lee, the LSM, and the LRC that refused to discuss. They simply sent ultimatums and initiated lawsuits. They want to force the problem to go away. There was never to be any discussion. Any negative statements would either go away or be sued.

Funny thing is that there has only been one major trial that went through to completion. And they lost. All the others in which they claim victory were the result of the opponent not having the depth of financial resources to withstand the continuing onslaught of discovery and delay such that they did not have the wherewithal to actually appear in court once the time for trial arrived. Duddy's judgment was essentially stipulated by the trial judge without consideration. There was no consideration of the correctness of the statements made in the book or the counter-charges made by the LRC. And the publisher of the Mindbenders simply agreed to a settlement to avoid bankruptcy. It is a technical victory — they had to say that the book was defamatory. But there was no actual weighing of the facts to determine whether that was the correct result. They gave up to survive. With an endless source of funds, they could very likely have won. Same for Duddy.

Only Harvest House got to a conclusion. And the LRC lost.

The statements in the Encyclopedia of [cults] were not of the nature as were in the God Men and Mindbenders. But those victories were through suffocation of the opponent rather than consideration of the merits.

BTW. I recall that there was some concern that at least one of the accounts in [the God Men, I think] was later refuted by the person who supposedly gave the account. If someone knows what I am talking about, can they provide the specifics. I have wondered whether it is possible that after the first publication of the book, the LRC carefully went out to get that person firmly back into the fold so they would deny the story.

It has already happened at least one time more recently when someone who made an account to someone who posts here was later brought back into the LRC fold and then asked to refute the account that was given so many years earlier. Since the telling of the account was out on the internet, they needed to try to squash it. Sounds a lot like the way that account surrounding the God Men went.

And, with reference to another discussion going on here, how so many recent accounts may not clear-up situations concerning Nee, Lee, an excommunication, and a trial. Memories get foggy. People want to gain favor with certain people. Or want to punish other people.

Last, several years ago, I read one of the books. I think it was the God-Men. After 14 years in the LRC, and about 18 years out (at that time), I think it is fair to say that I had a basis for assessment and I concluded that it was fairly accurate in its comments on LRC doctrines and teachings. Just like the recent discussions on the use of the term "cult" its applicability is in the eye of the beholder. And heresy is likewise in the eye of the beholder. And those are not topics on which courts can opine.

The accounts concerning particular actions were not readily confirm-able. But they were not outside of the kind of things that I know have been done. There have been two very real and factual accounts on these forums of the LRC separating families where there was nothing abusive, just lack of desire to be in the LRC, and even hiding the "insiders" from the ones excluded. One account was from a brother who posted on the Bereans for several years. The other from a sister who was a junior-high student when she and her mother and sister were whisked away to another city. Add to that the verbal assault on Jane Anderson and the stories in the God-Men seem quite reasonable. There is autocratic control. And cultic practices.

Think about Daystar and you have financial shenanigans.

And while I have no problem with the idea of not necessarily telling everybody everything from the outset, the idea that they continually deny the link between Christians on Campus and the LRC when asked about it is deceitful recruiting practices.

What is left?

Where is the defamation?

TLFisher

11-20-2012, 01:27 PM

UntoHim

11-20-2012, 02:40 PM

Ray, thanks for taking the time of starting this thread. I think it is worthwhile for us to review, mainly because the Local Church has changed quite a bit from the 70s (and somewhat for the better I might add). The bottom line, however, is that many, if not most, of the accounts, descriptions and criticisms found in this book were valid and largely accurate at the time they were written. I will repeat something I said from the outset:
Something to keep in mind is that both of these books were produced in th 70s at a time when The Local Church was somewhat secretive and extremely uncooperative towards all outsiders (Cult busters or no). The authors were forced to fill in a lot of blanks when it came to writing about the teachings and practices. So I don't think the "unscholarly" term applies as much as incomplete and or not fully accurate....and considering who they were dealing with it's a wonder they got as much information as they did. Not giving excuses, but these books need to be placed within the context of the time they were produced. Nevertheless, in the case of the Mindbenders, I don't think the Local Church should have been included with non-Christian cults such as the Unification Church and Hare Krishna, and in the case of The God-Men, I think the book cover played upon any prejudices the American public may have against Asian believers.
UntoHim, this book is nothing like what you have suggested here (perhaps you're relying on something you heard while you were within the "Local Church"?). Rather than being "unscholarly" or "incomplete", "The God-Men: An inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church" is in fact very well researched and thoroughly documents what Neil Duddy uncovers in his four years of research WITHIN the Local Church. Duddy also went out his way to check the facts with the men best equipped to give them to him: Witness Lee and the closest members of his entourage.
Ray, I don't think you carefully read what I wrote...at least this reaction from you indicates that you didn't. No worries though, this happens all the time around this place!:whack:

Anyway, I just wanted to remind everybody of the timeframe we are dealing with here. Even society in general has changed greatly from the 70s. This same goes for little sub-cultures like the Local Church. Again, it does not change the facts as they were presented in the book....so let's carry on, shall we?

alwayslearning

11-20-2012, 06:04 PM

"...Researcher Neil Duddy went twice to Local Church headquarters in Anaheim, California, and spoke with Lee's two chief apologists. At the close of the second session... Duddy was told that Lee, for reasons of principle, does not respond to criticisms or questions from outsiders. LC executive Ronald R. Kangas was not inclined even to tell Lee that an SCP researcher had visited their headquarters.... the disposition of the LC toward such interaction was epitomized by Kangas's response to a question about Lee's extensive use of allegory "You're not spiritual. You don't understand"."

"The LC and Witness Lee were invited to read our revised manuscript and were given the prerogative of attaching a five page response to appear as an Appendix. Lee expressed his refusal to accept our offer in a certified letter dated May 22, 1979."

IMHO this is what happened: Witness Lee brought his brand of Christianity to the U.S. and arrogantly promoted it while demeaning all others. Thing is: in America Christians are outspoken and there are apologists who will research your claims and publish their findings. They may even present counter arguments to your claims. They won't kowtow to you as some sort of MOTA with special authority who cannot be questioned. How did Witness Lee and the LC system react? They refused to sit down with these men and later sued them instead.

What the LC was able to do in the 1970s was bankrupt SCP and threaten others with expensive lawsuits if they did not settle. A couple of decades later they tried the same tactics with Harvest House who had deep pockets and a deep pocket insurer who would not cave in to the demands of the LC system. Litigation ensued and we got to see how it played out in court in real time thanks to the Internet - a communication tool that wasn't around in the 1970s.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-21-2012, 11:02 AM

Good morning saints,

Before we continue, I want to stop to go over the points some of you have raised. I want us to address the issues raised by both parties here in a thorough and balanced way, with respect for both parties.

If what we are doing here is giving this book the trial it was due but never received, then we need to take into account all the facts and stand not only for the defense (if that is the way we might naturally be inclined), but also for the prosecution.

Given that, let's look at ZNP's statement below:

“Promulgating heresy”
“cultic practices”
“financial improprieties”
“deceitful recruiting”
“autocratic control”

They are able to publish these accusations in a book for any and all to read, certainly derogatory. How exactly was the LRC supposed to defend itself if they are not permitted to go to court? (I am referring to your extensive quote concerning the prohibition to lawsuits).

First brother, I understand these events transpired while you were a part of the LC. Yes, you offer a first hand view that I don't have - but you must also confess, that being a part of the "body" of the prosecution at the time, your view is biased. Here your bias is exposed (and I say this gently, not in an accusing tone):

You have copied the allegations made by the prosecution: Promulgating heresy, cultic practices, financial improprieties, deceitful recruiting, and autocratic control - and reposted them as though they have already been proven (established) to be true. However, we have not yet (atleast) found any such allegations made within the book in question. Until the evidence (if it exists) is uncovered, we cannot arrive at the conclusion that LSM's allegations are true.

Also: When you say "I am referring to your extensive quote concerning the prohibition to lawsuits" - are you referring to my quote of 1st Corinthians 6:1-8? If your complaint is with that quote, then you will have to bring it to the Lord. The quote from 1st Corinthians does not stand alone in Scripture. The Lord on numerous occasions instructs us on how we are to deal with one another as brothers and sisters.

Matthew 18:15-17 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

Here, the Lord's direct instruction to His disciples is to deal with a brother who sins against you (which is what Witness Lee and LSM have alleged) between you and him alone. SCP has already supplied evidence that they attempted to have such one-on-one discussions, but were repeatedly rebuffed by the Local Church of Anaheim and by Witness Lee in particular.

1st Peter 2:18-25 "Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. ..."

Again, LSM alleges that SCP was behaving in an unjust way - but even if this is true, Scripture is clear: As "true" believers, LSM and Witness Lee are called to "suffer unjustly" - for "that is a gracious thing in the sight of God." In this case, one can argue that Lee refused to take up the cross, and suffer as Christ suffered - but rather sued for what he believed was his.

Again: Matthew 5:38-42 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."

LSM and Witness Lee allege, essentially, that SCP at the least behaved in an evil way towards them. Weren't the words of our Lord Jesus Christ clear? Turn the other cheek. This trial, this propensity to litigate, has been used by the wide Christian community to condemn LSM. This one event, more than any other, has caused PERMANENT damage to LSM's testimony within the Christian community. That is precisely because, I must assert, that Scripture couldn't POSSIBLY be more clear: Suing a brother in Christ is WRONG. It is a SIN. The only way to arrive at another conclusion is to disregard or dismiss the clear Word of God and to say it lacks authority. I don't believe you would say that ZNP - from what you've written elsewhere, I really don't - I think what I've heard from you here is only reactionary; a nerve has been hit, because you were a part of the LC in the time this happened. Am I right? Do we not agree that all of Scripture is God Breathed, and that no prophet wrote of his own volition, but as carried along by the Spirit of God?

Regardless: The point of this "trial" is not what God has to say on the matter. If it were, I think we would have to declare the defense the victor even before the trial began, because God would refuse to hear the case. The point of this trial is to give LSM what they say they wanted: A chance to appeal to Caesar. "Caesar" was an unbeliever - so the evidence that LSM brings forth as the prosecution (as well as the defense offered by SCP) must buttress arguments using secular law. That is not to say that Scripture cannot be used throughout the course of this trial - because in this case, I believe BOTH the Prosecution and the Defense recognize the Authority of the Word of God.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-21-2012, 11:19 AM

Not so certainly defamatory.

Counter to their claim of being wholesome and mainstream. Ugly facts to get out to the public. But defamatory only if proved to be false."

Hello Mike!

Well said, but let me add something to this, although I am not a lawyer.

My understanding is, for something to be considered defamatory, it must not ONLY be proven to be false, it must ALSO be proven (by the Prosecution) that the Defandant was negligent in publishing something as "fact". In other words, an honest misunderstanding will not make a libel or slander charge stick.

Think about this in terms of Journalism. Have you read a retraction in a newspaper before? Sometimes, journalists don't get their facts straight. Could they be sued for Defamation? Yes, *IF* it can be proven that they used only a single source to get the information they published, or if it can be proven that they had an agenda in printing what they did. For this reason, Journalists are instructed to use more than one source when printing an article. Newspapers stand to lose a lot if they print something false that results in financial damages. Was SCP negligent in what they printed? So far, it wouldn't seem so. They spent four years conducting research, and they interviewed current members, ex-members, and people who have had contact with the LC. They even tried to interview Witness Lee himself, and invited him to bring along two witnesses of his own. This they were refused (and they apparently have evidence of that), but they did make the effort.

On this basis, whatever claims are made in this book, I am not certain that we can say they were "negligently" made.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-21-2012, 11:23 AM

Ray, I don't think you carefully read what I wrote...at least this reaction from you indicates that you didn't. No worries though, this happens all the time around this place!

My apologies brother, I meant no offense! I was only saying that what I'd heard about the book doesn't seem to jive so far with what I've now read.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-21-2012, 11:34 AM

"...Researcher Neil Duddy went twice to Local Church headquarters in Anaheim, California, and spoke with Lee's two chief apologists. At the close of the second session... Duddy was told that Lee, for reasons of principle, does not respond to criticisms or questions from outsiders. LC executive Ronald R. Kangas was not inclined even to tell Lee that an SCP researcher had visited their headquarters.... the disposition of the LC toward such interaction was epitomized by Kangas's response to a question about Lee's extensive use of allegory "You're not spiritual. You don't understand".

This particular line has bothered me, and it's bothered me for one reason: RK is alluding to Scripture here. What he's alluding to is John 3:3 "Truly truly I say to you, unless one is born anew he cannot see the Kingdom of God."

I will assume that RK meant what he said - he wasn't saying this because he didn't want to discuss matters with Neil Duddy - he was saying it because he believes that Neil is incapable of understanding the language used by Witness Lee precisely because he hasn't been regenerated.

IF I assume this to be true, then I have to ask: What responsibility does RK have to an unregenerated unbeliever (or "nominal christian") who comes to him seeking the truth? Does he have the right to dismiss him, or does the Lord call him to do more? Would the Lord call him to witness to this man? To tell him HOW to receive the Holy Spirit? Isn't that our calling?

I would also ask, what standard is RK using here that allows him to determine that ND was an unregenerated unbeliever?

Just questions I want to raise - I will not provide my answers to them.

ZNPaaneah

11-21-2012, 11:45 AM

This particular line has bothered me, and it's bothered me for one reason: RK is alluding to Scripture here. What he's alluding to is John 3:3 "Truly truly I say to you, unless one is born anew he cannot see the Kingdom of God."

I will assume that RK meant what he said - he wasn't saying this because he didn't want to discuss matters with Neil Duddy - he was saying it because he believes that Neil is incapable of understanding the language used by Witness Lee precisely because he hasn't been regenerated.

IF I assume this to be true, then I have to ask: What responsibility does RK have to an unregenerated unbeliever (or "nominal christian") who comes to him seeking the truth? Does he have the right to dismiss him, or does the Lord call him to do more? Would the Lord call him to witness to this man? To tell him HOW to receive the Holy Spirit? Isn't that our calling?

I would also ask, what standard is RK using here that allows him to determine that ND was an unregenerated unbeliever?

Just questions I want to raise - I will not provide my answers to them.

These are valid questions but not for a law court. The Lord will be the judge.

The issue becomes this: if these two parties are unable to fellowship as brothers in Christ are they then forced to resort to the legal recourse afforded all citizens of the US?

Second, if they decide they are unable to fellowship as brothers, why is that? Who bears responsibility for this?

ABrotherinFaith

11-21-2012, 11:52 AM

ZNPaaneah

11-21-2012, 11:53 AM

First brother, I understand these events transpired while you were a part of the LC. Yes, you offer a first hand view that I don't have - but you must also confess, that being a part of the "body" of the prosecution at the time, your view is biased. Here your bias is exposed (and I say this gently, not in an accusing tone):

Biased in what way?

I thought I explained very clearly in the post you referenced. I had first hand experience of gospel contacts being poisoned by people using this book. So I knew that when I heard others complain that this book was damaging the work it was a valid complaint. On the other hand we felt it was not a major issue for us at the school I was at because we felt Campus Crusade and Intervarsity had minimal impact and very little respect in the school. We were speaking to ten or twenty new gospel contacts per week and we felt they could only poison a handful of contacts per year. We certainly didn't ever think that a lawsuit was the answer. This was decided by the Texas elders, specifically James Barber was the one who insisted on this approach.

ZNPaaneah

11-21-2012, 12:04 PM

You have copied the allegations made by the prosecution: Promulgating heresy, cultic practices, financial improprieties, deceitful recruiting, and autocratic control - and reposted them as though they have already been proven (established) to be true. However, we have not yet (atleast) found any such allegations made within the book in question. Until the evidence (if it exists) is uncovered, we cannot arrive at the conclusion that LSM's allegations are true.

Of course I can. I had first hand experience of people pulling aside gospel contacts on campus and using this book to poison them. Talking with contacts before and after these meetings is a very strong basis to make these claims. I had people relay first hand accounts of what took place in these talks.

If you want a fair and unbiased account, then you have to include the way this book was used, who published it, and why.

My personal opinion was that the lawsuit was a very big mistake. But the idea that this book didn't have an agenda or that it wasn't published out of jealousy is ridiculous. We had 5 brothers, intervarsity and campus crusade might have had 30 brothers and sisters. Our gospel was prevailing, reaching every corner of the campus. Their gospel was anemic and sickly, primarily composed of trying to dissuade our gospel contacts from listening or meeting with us.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-21-2012, 12:07 PM

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..."

I excerpted this directly from DCP's website, and directly there from the portion pertaining to the trial in question. This was published as their justification for the lawsuit. I just want to take a look at it again.

DCP here is alleging that the reasons that SCP printed their books were any one of the following:

1) They opposed the speaking that said that all believers should be functioning members of the body.

If you click on the reference link for SCP, you will see that it grew out of the Christian World Liberation Front (CWLF). It was a group of ex-hippies (or still-hippies) who came to Christ from lives that were tangled in the drugs and the counter-culture movement of that era. These were "Jesus People" - not Baptists or Catholics or Presbyterians. They were believers who WERE functioning members of the Body. They met in peoples homes and read the Bible together - they were not a part of ANY establishment and did not build their own "church". Remember that they were/are a parachurch organization: "Parachurch organizations are Christian faith-based organizations that work outside of and across denominations to engage in social welfare and evangelism, usually independent of church oversight. These bodies can be businesses, non-profit corporations, or private associations" (wikipedia). That being the case, I have to say this charge doesn't logically apply to SCP.

2) Some held a concept of the Christian faith that was strictly objective and doctrinal.

Strictly objective and doctrinal? As used here, I believe "Objective" means "(of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts" (wikipedia). And "Doctrinal" means "Concerned with a doctrine or doctrines" (wikipedia).
In the case of a secular lawsuit, Objective is a good thing. It disproves malicious intent. In the case of Doctrinal, I would think that would be hard to prove of a parachurch organization which presumably is made up of members who may come from different churches with different theological doctrines - but the case may prove me wrong. Let's keep an open mind on this one.

3. 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.

This statement would need to be proven, and perhaps it can be through the course of our reading.

At this point (just as an aside), let me point out that DCP is couching things in LSM-speak here quite a bit. It becomes apparent early on that this defense of their right to litigate is published for their own members, rather than for the public at large. I also find it interesting to note that they accuse SCP of relating what they do to "Eastern mystical teaching". I haven't encountered that charge by SCP (yet) - but IF true, I find it an interesting one. SCP, again, rooted in the counter-culture movement, had numerous members who were Saved from the eastern mystical religions found on the campuses in those times. In fact, SCP did a great deal of work exposing "gurus" - so they are intimately familiar with "Eastern Mystical Religions".

Now let me ask a question quickly - and I haven't seen this in the book: But what is the difference between calling on the Lord as is done in the Meeting Halls, and using a Mantra? Just a question.

4) Others were motivated by a desire to maintain some level of prominence in Christian work.

Does or did SCP have such a prominence? This is a charge that DCP would have to prove.

5) They felt threatened by a teaching that opposed the hierarchical clergy-laity system of today’s Christianity.

Again, this group didn't come from "that day's Christianity" - they were "Jesus people", folks that most straight laced, suit wearing, Sunday church going families (not that there's anything wrong with that) wouldn't know what to make of, let alone what to do with. They met in houses, read the bible together, went to many different churches, weren't affiliated with any particular church, didn't subscribe to any particular doctrine (that we've read or that I can yet find), and didn't have a hierarchical structure. This claim by DCP seems more than far fetched. On the contrary, the Jesus People sure sound like they did a whole lot of what the early members of the LC did.

ZNPaaneah

11-21-2012, 12:13 PM

1) They opposed the speaking that said that all believers should be functioning members of the body.

If you click on the reference link for SCP, you will see that it grew out of the Christian World Liberation Front (CWLF). It was a group of ex-hippies (or still-hippies) who came to Christ from lives that were tangled in the drugs and the counter-culture movement of that era. These were "Jesus People" - not Baptists or Catholics or Presbyterians. They were believers who WERE functioning members of the Body. They met in peoples homes and read the Bible together - they were not a part of ANY establishment and did not build their own "church". Remember that they were/are a parachurch organization: "Parachurch organizations are Christian faith-based organizations that work outside of and across denominations to engage in social welfare and evangelism, usually independent of church oversight. These bodies can be businesses, non-profit corporations, or private associations" (wikipedia). That being the case, I have to say this charge doesn't logically apply to SCP.

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. This analysis is far too naive.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-21-2012, 12:13 PM

Biased in what way?

I thought I explained very clearly in the post you referenced. I had first hand experience of gospel contacts being poisoned by people using this book. So I knew that when I heard others complain that this book was damaging the work it was a valid complaint... We were speaking to ten or twenty new gospel contacts per week and we felt they could only poison a handful of contacts per year.

Respectfully brother, your use of the word "poison" is a demonstration of the bias you hold. You say "poison", others might say "warn" or even "save". "Poison" implies that someone has been deliberately given something that will make them ill or kill them - whereas a warning given means someone is told to be wary in handling/dealing with something. That this book effected the ability of the Local Church to recruit new members, I have no doubt. What needs to be determined, however, was whether or not that warning was validly given, or had a right to be given.

Doesn't your presence here, and your long posts on Witness Lee being a False Teacher do the very thing that SCP was accused of doing?

ZNPaaneah

11-21-2012, 12:24 PM

Respectfully brother, your use of the word "poison" is a demonstration of the bias you hold. You say "poison", others might say "warn" or even "save". "Poison" implies that someone has been deliberately given something that will make them ill or kill them - whereas a warning given means someone is told to be wary in handling/dealing with something. That this book effected the ability of the Local Church to recruit new members, I have no doubt. What needs to be determined, however, was whether or not that warning was validly given, or had a right to be given.

Doesn't your presence here, and your long posts on Witness Lee being a False Teacher do the very thing that SCP was accused of doing?

I am not denying that I have a particular viewpoint, and if you wish you can call that a bias. My point is that there was no reason to be vague in that bias, I said specifically what it was.

I use the word poison because a person that we preached the gospel to and who prayed with us one day would not talk to us other than to say this group had talked to them the next day. That is not "warned". Also, if they had then shepherded this newly saved one I would feel less negative about it, but they felt their work was done by preventing us from shepherding this one. We preached the gospel to unbelievers, not people meeting with intervarsity or campus crusade, they talked to them, and now this person doesn't want to talk to any Christian. Yes, that in my understanding is poisoned.

SCP were prophets for hire. They were paid by a Christian group to come in and curse the LRC. What they did was similar to what Balaam did. Since Balaam is the poster boy for false teachers I have used him as an example of what Witness Lee did. So no, what SCP did is what Witness Lee did, which is what Balaam did, not what I have done. I do not see any similarity to my posts on this forum.

I believe they both used pernicious ways. I have gone into great depth of why I think WL used pernicious ways, I also have first hand experiences concerning this book but see little reason to share them here.

They both used fabricated words.

They both were motivated by covetousness.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-21-2012, 12:28 PM

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-21-2012, 02:34 PM

A Pause to State a Purpose

I want to skip ahead a little in the reading, just to page 20, to transcribe here what the author claims the purpose of this book was and was not. I ask that we read it without prejudice:

"In our treatment of the theological content of Witness Lee's teaching, we have attempted to restrict most of our critique to a separate chapter evaluating Lee's thought as a whole. Total separation of exposition and evaluation has not been possible, but where our appraisals occur, they should be evident. Our quotations from Lee's writings are intended as illustrations of his beliefs rather than as "proof texts" for any theological positions.

Several things we have not (emphasis the authors) attempted to do in this study should be noted:

1) We have not tried to answer such questions as "Is Witness Lee a Christian?" or "Are members of the Local Church saved?". Whatever one's personal opinions on such matters, both questions are biblically inappropriate for our present purposes. Christian men and women, even if sometimes misguided or ill-informed, do belong to Local Church congregations. The nucleus of this book is rather an attempt to answer the question: 'Does the doctrine of Witness Lee and the LC present a picture of God, Christ, the human condition, and Christian responsibilities in a needy world that is true to the content of biblical revelation? That is an answerable question which Scripture constrains us to address."

It is important that we read this. If the author is sincere about this stated purpose, then what we read later should meet this standard (and we'll see if it does). If this is true, then what we read should not be slanderous towards either the person of Witness Lee, or of any other member of the LC.

FYI the 2nd and 3rd statements which are NOT within the scope of this book are that it's "NOT an exhaustive catalogue of LC teaching" and it's "NOT a study of LC social dynamics", as they can only speak for the communities with which their correspondents interacted - although there seems to be a 'high degree of uniformity' between the communities surveyed, based on the observations and experiences of those who testified to the author.

OBW

11-21-2012, 02:42 PM

I use the word poison because a person that we preached the gospel to and who prayed with us one day would not talk to us other than to say this group had talked to them the next day. That is not "warned".But if the group that was being warned against had been the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons, you would have hoped they would not talk with those heretics the next day and would never have categorized it as "poison."

I'm not equating the LRC to the JWs or Mormons. But there are many who believe that the LRC is quite heretical in some ways, and "cultish" in others, although within the general bounds of Christianity. Should their warnings be insisted to be "poison" just because we don't think that badly about the LRC? Would you warn others about The Way, Garner Ted Armstrong's group, or some other extremely marginal group. Remember, someone doesn't think they are marginal. But would you want the people you warn to still be going to meet with them the next day?

The point is not that the assessment of the LRC is entirely correct, but that the result of their warnings is not something dire and subject to legal sanction. We might even "warn" people about the RCC. Do you expect them to sue you?

Argue why the SCP assessment is wrong. But looking at the result is meaningless because if their assessment was correct, I would want the result to be even stronger than it was.

In your earlier post you said: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. This analysis is far too naive.On what basis was their gospel determined to be "weak and ineffectual"?

Is the characterization of the motives for the book little more than a spin? Might they have countered that they believed that there was something sociologically dangerous about the LRC and they felt that an open exposure of the problems and errors they saw was needed?

Does the fact that a group that was evangelizing on the Berkley campus funded or requested the study evidence that it is tainted?

Was competition for converts so great that there was a battle for them? It would seem that the group that ultimately does not "keep" them, but instead steers them to other churches has no reason to compete. It is not so personal with them. But the other has a vested interest in the outcome. Numbers means more money. For Campus Crusade, funding generally comes from outside. Their existence on campus is almost always as a para-church mission group.

None of these questions determine whether the findings by SCP were correct, or were presented in a fair manner. But neither does the LRC's charges of "commissioned" or "in competition" direct that what was reported was false or misleading. There are other Christian groups on most campuses and they are not "competing" in the way that the LRC seems to think that they were with Campus Crusade.

In any case, while I might have doctrinal disagreements with the Baptists or the Methodists, I generally would not be fighting them on the campus (or anywhere else for that matter). And if there was a group of Buddhists on campus, I might not even fight them other than in the typical way of warning anyone that showed an interest in their group.

But if there was a group that I thought was somehow wandering into Eastern mysticism or other more serious error yet was putting on a front of being mainstream Christian, and attracting a lot of people, I might commission someone to look into them as well.

The point here is not that they were right in their assessment, but that they were not necessarily doing something unusual or even illegal. Just something that didn't sit well with the LRC.

As I mentioned the other day, I read The God Men a few years ago. I cannot say that it is entirely accurate on every point because I do not have the facts to say one way or the other. But what I do know is that they pretty well captured the sociology of the group, and reasonably questioned the origins of some of the practices. Their conclusions were not ridiculous or obviously flawed. There is some question as to whether their assessment of a private account of overt control was correct, or whether the account was later withdrawn in part due to that very kind of control. Unfortunately, something that is nearly impossible to prove one way or the other unless multiple personal witnesses are made and are not later withdrawn or alleged to be misrepresented. And, as I mentioned the other day, the LRC has a history of getting people to tell things different from the truth for the purpose of painting a picture that is not true to life.

ZNPaaneah

11-21-2012, 02:50 PM

I apologize if I have offended you, ZNP. I do welcome your input, I only ask that you consider how you testify to what you do. You are witness to the time, and your input is valuable...

Regarding your charge of SCP being a "prophet for hire" - can you substantiate this claim?

I can share my experience. I don't have any inclination to do a full on study as I feel this is little more than a footnote in history.

My experience is clearly quite different from most that post on this forum. During my freshman year I was very happy and very involved in college and had nothing to do with any Christian groups on the campus. During that time a brother from the LRC would visit with me and share the gospel. He usually came by Sunday night after the Lord's table, a time where everyone was ready to focus on getting work done for class the next day and hence a very good time to find me. When I did come into the church I felt that the school was very fleshly and the battle wasn't between the LRC and Christianity, or the LRC and the other Christians on campus. I felt the battle was between the Christians on campus and the atheists. During my freshman year one of my roommates had crowed about how this school was essentially "an atheist" school with virtually no Christian presence, which was unusual for Texas.

During my sophomore year I was essentially the only brother on campus from the LRC, though others visited regularly. I was excited to be a Christian and went to meetings of Christians on campus which were not at all affiliated with the LRC because you couldn't hold meetings unless you were on campus and except for me the LRC wasn't. As a result I knew the brothers and sisters in Inter Varsity and Campus Crusade. (I thought they didn't know me since I had changed a lot and had run in different circles, but during my senior year one brother told me "we knew who you were and we gave God the glory"). There was one brother in that group that I really admired. He was a great brother, he was working a job to put himself through school, and he was a top student.

By my senior year the entire atmosphere on campus had completely changed. The gospel was the focus of the entire campus. Every year the school has a special issue on April Fool's and that issue dealt with the gospel in every article, and the major articles were clearly about us, the ones from the LRC. I can give you numerous testimonies about how everyone on that campus knew who we were, but let me focus on this book, the God Men, instead.

We had a very prevailing gospel that year, virtually every day we were bringing someone on that campus to the Lord. We would preach and pray with them during lunch. Our table was open to all, so we often fellowshipped with other Christians on campus. We knew them and were all very cordial with one another. Then we learned that one person we had prayed with had been approached by some Christians on campus later and using this book they were convinced not to talk with us. We knew this because one of the brothers in the room at the time came and told us. That didn't bother me, we were praying with so many new ones that we couldn't take care of them all. If the brother who had shared this had then taken this new one under their wing and shepherded them I wouldn't have minded. We then went and asked this brother if this was true and he told us it wasn't. This is the same brother that I had admired so much a couple years earlier and had been an example to me. The other brothers were outraged, "he lied" and "we have to expose him", etc. I couldn't bear to do this. I wasn't going to make up a story like WL did, but I also wasn't going to expose him. I told them to forget it. They were stunned, I had never turned down a fight during my four years on that campus. My feeling was that this was a shame. We should have been working together, we should have been thrilled that what was a completely atheistic school less than four years ago was now a school where everyone was confronted with the gospel. But instead this wonderful brother, very solid character is reduced to poisoning new converts and then lying about it. Now you tell me if that is the testimony of someone who is under a genuine ministry? In that meeting he basically handed the new one a copy of the God Men and said "here, read this". What kind of gospel is that?

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-21-2012, 04:08 PM

In that meeting he basically handed the new one a copy of the God Men and said "here, read this". What kind of gospel is that?

A good question. Sounds like whatever was in that book, it presented a powerful testimony to that young man. Why don't we read the book together and find out what it said?

ZNPaaneah

11-21-2012, 04:36 PM

A good question. Sounds like whatever was in that book, it presented a powerful testimony to that young man. Why don't we read the book together and find out what it said?

If it "presented a powerful testimony to that young man" why does he refuse to talk with any Christians after that?

The testimony was that no one spoke the word to him for years, then when one group of Christians does others watch and immediately tell him "don't listen to them". That was the testimony. The very thing that we condemn WL, the LRC and LSM for. Paul says that we should not be conquered by the evil but rather conquer evil with good. By suing them they were conquered by the evil.

TLFisher

11-21-2012, 07:31 PM

Note: "We have earnestly sought a personal audience with Witness Lee in order that our understanding of his teachings and practices might once and for all be substantiated or corrected (DCP claims this was never done). Before the initial printing of The God-Men by (SCP), a certified letter requesting an appointment with Lee and with two LC representatives was sent to Lee's home. The receipt was returned to our office, bearing Mrs. Lee's signature, but with no reply. After a reasonable wait, we sent Lee a telegram, again urging him to respond to our invitation to dialogue. We received no response."

"...Researcher Neil Duddy went twice to Local Church headquarters in Anaheim, California, and spoke with Lee's two chief apologists. At the close of the second session... Duddy was told that Lee, for reasons of principle, does not respond to criticisms or questions from outsiders. LC executive Ronald R. Kangas was not inclined even to tell Lee that an SCP researcher had visited their headquarters.... the disposition of the LC toward such interaction was epitomized by Kangas's response to a question about Lee's extensive use of allegory "You're not spiritual. You don't understand"."

"The LC and Witness Lee were invited to read our revised manuscript and were given the prerogative of attaching a five page response to appear as an Appendix. Lee expressed his refusal to accept our offer in a certified letter dated May 22, 1979."

From what we have read here already, we see strong refutation (and presumably, physical evidence IE certified letters and telegrams) that DCP's story about "The authors and publishers ignor(ing) appeals from the Christians meeting in the local churches... & unsuccessfully "pleading" with the authors and publishers of these books" must be called into serious question. The burden of proof here in on the plaintiff - what evidence are they able to provide to refute SCP and prove that such appeals and pleadings took place?

The emphasis of this post is not about the book, but to show a track record of how outsiders and insiders too are responded to when asking questions or addressing issues.

http://static.harvesthousepublishers.com/uploads/corporate/2004_03_12_HHP_Q_and_A_Regarding_the_Lawsuit_3.pdf

In a news release dated June 20, 2003, Local Church spokesman Dan Towle stated, ―Harvest House Publishers and its authors chose to ignore our year–long efforts to resolve this issue.‖42 And on their website www.contendingforthefaith.org, in an article titled ―Facts about Pending Litigation with Harvest House Publishers and Authors,‖ The Local Church claims Harvest House Publishers and authors Ankerberg and Weldon ―utterly disregard[ed their] letters‖ and that there was an ―aggressive refusal to give timely consideration‖ to their appeals.

These allegations are seriously misrepresentative, for in fact, every letter from The Local Church received a timely and courteous response from Harvest House and Ankerberg and Weldon. For the sake of setting the record straight, here is a detailed chronology of what happened:

January 11, 2001—The Local Church Writes to Harvest House: The Local Church sent their first letter of complaint, which was only one page long, general in nature, and did not point to the specific problems they alleged were in the Encyclopedia. In a clear reference to a previous lawsuit filed by some Local Churches, they closed their letter with these words: ―We hope you know that this kind of writing has been ruled as libelous concerning us in the past.‖

January 19, 2001—Harvest House and Authors Respond to The Local Church: Because of The Local Church‘s reference to libel, and because of Harvest House‘s desire to maintain the highest of integrity in any matter in which libel might possibly be involved, Harvest House answered through one of its attorneys and asked for ―written information‖ that would help us to evaluate The Local Church‘s concerns and provide them ―with a meaningful response.‖ Response time: 8 days.

May 16, 2001—The Local Church Writes to Harvest House: Surprisingly, The Local Church took almost four months to respond to Harvest House‘s January 19 letter. In this one–page letter The Local Church indicated a desire to meet to discuss the book, but again, never provided specific explanations that would help Harvest House and the authors to know which statements in the Encyclopedia were allegedly problematic. In the letter, The Local Church referred to ―preparing to answer‖ via lawyers, and cited a 1985 lawsuit filed by the Local Churches. (In that suit, The Local Church obtained a default judgment—a judgment in which the losing party ―defaults,‖ or is unable to or does not defend itself. The ministry that The Local Church sued had to declare bankruptcy because it could no longer afford the cost of defending itself.)

Continued in Next Post

TLFisher

11-21-2012, 07:34 PM

June 4, 2001—Harvest House and Authors Respond to The Local Church: Harvest House and authors Ankerberg and Weldon answered directly, and for the second time, asked for specific details instead of general complaints: ―we are requesting that you provide us with a written explanation of your specific objections....we shall thoroughly evaluate it, approaching the evaluation with an open mind.‖ This letter also stated, ―If we feel that there would be any benefit in having a meeting as suggested in your letter, we shall certainly contact you to arrange for it.‖ That hardly constituted an ―aggressive refusal‖ to The Local Church‘s attempts to resolve the issue. Response time: 19 days.

November 20, 2001—The Local Church Writes to Harvest House: Nearly a year after The Local Church sent its first complaint letter and more than five months after Harvest House sent its second request for their specific objections about the text of the book, The Local Church finally sent a lengthy written explanation of what they viewed as errors in the Encyclopedia. Ironically, while The Local Church took 10 months to supply the information Harvest House and the authors had originally requested back on January 19, The Local Church firmly demanded that Harvest House respond to the lengthy compilation of allegations in a mere two weeks. The Local Church also closed the letter by emphatically stating, ―Your failure to do so will give us little alternative but to pursue legal action against you.‖

November 29, 2001—Harvest House and Authors Respond to The Local Church: Once again Harvest House replied immediately, explaining that the company ―has just moved its offices, and we are currently in the process of completing our transition. In addition, as I‘m sure you realize, during the holiday season, it is extremely difficult to devote the time necessary to a project such as this in order to truly do it justice.‖ Still, Harvest House promised to provide a response, and stated that ―the points made in your letter will be carefully reviewed and evaluated.‖ Response time: 9 days.

Contrary to The Local Church‘s claim that Harvest House ―utterly disregard[ed their] letters,‖ in every case, Harvest House sent a gracious and timely response. More importantly, because The Local Church waited until November 20, 2001 to detail their complaints, Harvest House and the authors were left for nearly a full year in the awkward position of not knowing how they should evaluate The Local Church‘s undefined complaints about the Encyclopedia. All the complaints in The Local Church‘s first two letters (January 11 and May 16) were very vague and never pinpointed which statements in the Encyclopedia were supposedly defamatory. While waiting for this information from The Local Church, authors Ankerberg and Weldon had, in fact, carefully reevaluated the Encyclopedia‘s chapter on The Local Church to ensure it was accurate, and confirmed that indeed it was.

To be continued

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-22-2012, 01:45 AM

Regarding your charge of SCP being a "prophet for hire" - can you substantiate this claim?

I can share my experience.

Not to beat a dead horse here my friend, but (since this is a mock trial), I must ask you again if you have evidence of SCP taking money in exchange for coming after Witness Lee and LSM? I do not even see that DCP alleges this, and that being the case, and your previous answer being what it was, I take it that you do NOT have such evidence.

Again, this being a mock trial, let's try to stick to the facts. We can't throw around accusations if they have no founding.

Thanks ZNP.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-22-2012, 02:11 AM

Hello all,
A quick semi related question:

How does Paul's appeal to Caesar fit into this. I ask because I have heard it used as an excuse for LSM to "appeal" to the courts.

Thanks,
A brother in faith

Hello Brother!

I see no one has answered your question, so I will try to do it justice here:

LSM needed to provide Scritural evidence to their supporters and detractors alike that there can be times when taking a matter before a secular authority is not only acceptable for a believer, it is even proscribed. The Scripture they use is from the book of Acts (see Chapter 25). Here we find that Paul has been held in a kind of protective custody for some years, and now a new man has been put in charge of the district - Festus. Festus hold's Pauls fate in his hands, and doesn't really know what to do with him. Festus is not a believer in Jesus Christ, and sees a political opportunity for himself in delivering Paul over to the Jews for trial in Jerusalem. Paul realizes his goose is cooked if he's sent back there, so in a last ditch attempt to avoid a tragic ending, he appeals to Caesar (as is his right as a Roman citizen).

Does this argument hold water?
You didn't precisely ask this question, but I think you alluded to it. LSM is trying to liken their situation in regards to publishings which cast them in a negative light to Pauls imprisonment by unbelieving Roman officials, while being charged with crimes by unbelieving Jews. You see, the common denominator in this situation that Paul is in, is that there IS no Christian brother making charges against him - rather, it's unbelievers. Further, no Christian brother is keeping him - he is surrounded by the unbelieving. Secular law is his ONLY possible resort.

That is certainly not the case with this trial, nor was it with the Harvest House trial which Terry has been sharing information on here. In both cases, LSM brought litigation against Christian brethren, which is forbidden by Scripture.

One might ask, "as American citizens, do we not have the right to bring a matter such as this to court"? To which I would answer: As American citizens, you ABSOLUTELY have the right to take this matter to court - just as you also have the right to practice Islam or Witchcraft or Satanism, or to use late-term abortions as a form of birth control, or to marry same sex partners or multiple partners (in a number of states, anyway), or to get divorced as often as you like, or to drink to the point of inebriation regularly.... Heck, there's a lot of things one can do as an American citizen... But seriously: citizens of Christs' Kingdom ought to know that they are held to higher standard.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-22-2012, 02:39 AM

A Source is Revealed

"One of our sources of information on Local Church practices was Max D. Rapoport, who served as Witness Lee's right-hand man for more than four years, ending in 1978. A forceful, dynamic personality, Rapoport provided leadership and counsel for the Local Church nationally and internationally. His responsibilities included directing leaders' training sessions, drafting church policy and managing church business affairs. Rapoport eventually became Lee's most intimate associate and favored confidante. Then, as president of the Anaheim Local Church and a member of the board of directors of Living Stream, Inc, Rapoport became convicted about Local Church practices and for eighteen months sought to instigate reform. He gradually slipped from his status as Lee's heir apparent and finally was publically denounced before the LC's in Orange County. A videotape of that meeting was sent to all the other LC's in the US. By that time he had left the LC, accompanied by a number of other disquieted members. Lee and LC officials have decried Rapoports defection and labeled him a lost son of perdition. Rapoport and his associates, however, have opted for biblical truth, sound practice, and open fellowship with all Christians.
In Rapoport's appraisal, "Lee's attempts to restate biblical teachings in nontraditional theological vocabulary have almost inevitably led to misunderstanding." Many times Lee speaks or writes to fit the need of the moment as he seeks to control the so-called "flow" and direction of all the LC's. Rapoport asserts, however, that Lee is not a "modalist". Nor, according to Rapoport, does Lee believe that "mingling" deifies the Christian convert, even though Lee's oral teachings, writing and illustrations appear to affirm both a modalistic Godhead and the deification of believers. Rapoport believes that Lee personally holds a more biblical view than many of his words indicate."

Well, I never knew Max. I only "know" what I've read on Bereans (http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?t=35391). For any unfamiliar, I would direct you there to the back-and-forth testimonies regarding the man. Whatever your ultimate conclusion, you cannot say that he isn't someone who would be "in the know". He *might* have had an axe to grind (or he might not, I've heard he won't speak about the matter of his quarantine, and is working with John Ingalls and a number of other brothers?) Whatever the case, he definitely is intimately familiar with Witness Lee and LSM.

ZNPaaneah

11-22-2012, 04:31 AM

Regarding your charge of SCP being a "prophet for hire" - can you substantiate this claim?

Not to beat a dead horse here my friend, but (since this is a mock trial), I must ask you again if you have evidence of SCP taking money in exchange for coming after Witness Lee and LSM? I do not even see that DCP alleges this, and that being the case, and your previous answer being what it was, I take it that you do NOT have such evidence.

Again, this being a mock trial, let's try to stick to the facts. We can't throw around accusations if they have no founding.

Thanks ZNP.

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?

ZNPaaneah

11-22-2012, 04:39 AM

One might ask, "as American citizens, do we not have the right to bring a matter such as this to court"? To which I would answer: As American citizens, you ABSOLUTELY have the right to take this matter to court - just as you also have the right to practice Islam or Witchcraft or Satanism, or to use late-term abortions as a form of birth control, or to marry same sex partners or multiple partners (in a number of states, anyway), or to get divorced as often as you like, or to drink to the point of inebriation regularly.... Heck, there's a lot of things one can do as an American citizen... But seriously: citizens of Christs' Kingdom ought to know that they are held to higher standard.

Excuse me, you are the one who was accusing me of bias?

The principle is relatively simple and straightforward, based on Paul's use of his Roman citizenship it is reasonable to say that we have the right to use our citizenship as well. The question is what do you do when you have two opposing principles? Paul said "is there no one that can judge between you? and "why not rather suffer loss?"

I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that "not suing a brother" trumps the principle of using your citizenship.

However, please note, it takes two to tango. If you wish to condemn LSM, and I am obviously on record doing so, then you should give the same judgement to the God Men, Inter Varsity, etc. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

ZNPaaneah

11-22-2012, 04:49 AM

Well, I never knew Max. I only "know" what I've read on Bereans (http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?t=35391). For any unfamiliar, I would direct you there to the back-and-forth testimonies regarding the man. Whatever your ultimate conclusion, you cannot say that he isn't someone who would be "in the know". He *might* have had an axe to grind (or he might not, I've heard he won't speak about the matter of his quarantine, and is working with John Ingalls and a number of other brothers?) Whatever the case, he definitely is intimately familiar with Witness Lee and LSM.

Since this is a "mock trial" I'll take this. Max R was "excommunicated" during the summer of 1978. Well before the LSM decided to fight the God Men with a lawsuit. Before the second "enhanced" version of the God Men came out in 1979 and before InterVarsity published it in 1981. It is very difficult to believe that events that took place in the years immediately after the excommunication of Max R. would be viewed in a favorable light by Max.

Again, I would argue that someone who was in the elder meetings in which James Barber insisted that the church sue and to which Witness Lee agreed would be a much more relevant witness to what happened and how. Since Witness Lee and his associates were thoroughly deposed I would think there is a record of these discussions somewhere.

ZNPaaneah

11-22-2012, 05:07 AM

But if the group that was being warned against had been the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons, you would have hoped they would not talk with those heretics the next day and would never have categorized it as "poison."

I do not object that they "warn" new believers about the LRC since they are "nervous", "unsure", etc. What offended me was that they didn't shepherd this one. You go to someone who has just prayed and received the Lord and tell them that group cannot be trusted, don't talk to them. OK, but why aren't you going to minister to this one? Is this your ministry, go around after we pray with new ones and poison them so they don't want to ever talk to any Christians? If the LRC did this we would castigate them. Likewise I already shared an experience where one of my new ones was going to the Moonies meeting so I went with him. This one continued to meet with us for years. My position is not hypocritical, I don't expect them to do anything more than I did.

I'm not equating the LRC to the JWs or Mormons.

Of course you are. You have used my feeling that the JW's are heretical and compared it with this brothers feelings that the LRC is heretical. In your analogy you are likening the LRC to the JWs and Mormons. However, this statement here shows you are too mealy mouthed to say it straight.

But there are many who believe that the LRC is quite heretical in some ways, and "cultish" in others, although within the general bounds of Christianity.

Well it is nice to know that you have been reading the thread "Is Witness Lee a False Prophet?" seeing as you have posted so often there.

Should their warnings be insisted to be "poison" just because we don't think that badly about the LRC?

To say you "poisoned" someone means that you killed them spiritually. If I have a new one who comes to me for fellowship about some marginal group that I am familiar with or that I am not. I would have fellowship with them, as I have done many times. And the next day the fellowship would still be open. That is a warning, that is fellowship. If the next day this new one decides "I don't want to have anything more to do with Christians, period", then that is poisoning, not warning, not fellowship.

ZNPaaneah

11-22-2012, 05:12 AM

On what basis was their gospel determined to be "weak and ineffectual"?

(this question referred to a post of mine where I said that Campus Crusade and InterVarsity had a weak and ineffectual gospel on our campus).

On the basis that they didn't preach. Their gospel comprised listing their organizations as Christian organizations on the campus and then people who were Christians would contact them. I had been actively involved with them for my first year, and then in frequent contact since then. Some of their members respected us since we were the only ones who actually preached the gospel on campus. This is why they were offended when they saw other members poisoning gospel contacts. Like me they thought we should be working together.

ZNPaaneah

11-22-2012, 05:20 AM

Does the fact that a group that was evangelizing on the Berkley campus funded or requested the study evidence that it is tainted?

Was competition for converts so great that there was a battle for them? It would seem that the group that ultimately does not "keep" them, but instead steers them to other churches has no reason to compete. It is not so personal with them. But the other has a vested interest in the outcome. Numbers means more money. For Campus Crusade, funding generally comes from outside. Their existence on campus is almost always as a para-church mission group.

None of these questions determine whether the findings by SCP were correct, or were presented in a fair manner. But neither does the LRC's charges of "commissioned" or "in competition" direct that what was reported was false or misleading. There are other Christian groups on most campuses and they are not "competing" in the way that the LRC seems to think that they were with Campus Crusade.

Good questions. Again, I don't have the inclination to do the research necessary to give them a reasonable answer other than to share my testimony which might help others.

However, since I am much more familiar with the LRC response and lawsuits and have judged that these things were shameful for Christians I can use that as a basis.

The "competition" as you put it between InterVarsity and the LRC was started by this book. You might not like the way the LRC "ended" it, but it is absurd to give Inter Varsity a pass since they "started" it.

I think there is a proverb that says something to the effect 'if you wring your nose you are going to get a bloody nose'. Inter Varsity wrung their nose and they got a bloody nose.

UntoHim

11-22-2012, 08:22 AM

None of these questions determine whether the findings by SCP were correct, or were presented in a fair manner.

As I mentioned the other day, I read The God Men a few years ago. I cannot say that it is entirely accurate on every point because I do not have the facts to say one way or the other. But what I do know is that they pretty well captured the sociology of the group, and reasonably questioned the origins of some of the practices. Their conclusions were not ridiculous or obviously flawed. .... And, as I mentioned the other day, the LRC has a history of getting people to tell things different from the truth for the purpose of painting a picture that is not true to life.

Let's try to stick with the facts and figures as they are presented in the book. Let's try to stay away from endless and fruitless arguments of what might have been the motivations and intentions of the authors. There are plenty of forums out there that concentrate on shooting the messenger by way of character assassination...this forum ain't one of those.

Let's try to stay with what IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN in the book. Let's give NFnL a little breathing room to present as much or as little as he wants, and address the issues one by one as they are presented. Keep in mind that NFnL did not write this book, he is merely presenting what is written and opening it up for discussion.

Lastly, I'm going to have to INSIST that certain posters stop making it so darned personal, and nitpicking every jot and tittle....it makes for a very tense atmosphere, and it makes for very tedious reading. Yes, we are dealing with very sensitive and controversial issues - but that does not mean we have to forget that we are brothers and sisters, and that others are watching and listening. Let's all try to be sensitive to THEIR sensibilities and THEIR time.

TLFisher

11-22-2012, 11:43 AM

A Source is Revealed

"One of our sources of information on Local Church practices was Max D. Rapoport, who served as Witness Lee's right-hand man for more than four years, ending in 1978. A forceful, dynamic personality, Rapoport provided leadership and counsel for the Local Church nationally and internationally. His responsibilities included directing leaders' training sessions, drafting church policy and managing church business affairs. Rapoport eventually became Lee's most intimate associate and favored confidante. Then, as president of the Anaheim Local Church and a member of the board of directors of Living Stream, Inc, Rapoport became convicted about Local Church practices and for eighteen months sought to instigate reform. He gradually slipped from his status as Lee's heir apparent and finally was publically denounced before the LC's in Orange County. A videotape of that meeting was sent to all the other LC's in the US. By that time he had left the LC, accompanied by a number of other disquieted members. Lee and LC officials have decried Rapoports defection and labeled him a lost son of perdition. Rapoport and his associates, however, have opted for biblical truth, sound practice, and open fellowship with all Christians.

Having never read the book, I have long believed the book could not have been written without insider information.
What I have bolded from Neitherfirstnorlast's post,is to single out as an example of a double standard. It was okay to circulate a video of Max being publicly denounced, but it was not okay when the audio of the Anaheim August 1988 meeting being circulated when the Anaheim elders gave their 16 points message. Whoever was responsible for circulating the tapes, it was John Ingalls and maybe his co-elders too were blamed for the tapes being circulated. Sorry LSM, you cannot have it both ways.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-22-2012, 04:17 PM

Having never read the book, I have long believed the book could not have been written without insider information.

Thanks for that Terry,

And please pardon my earlier interruption of your posts on the Harvest House lawsuit, I'd like more info (I am guilty of not following your links, I'm afraid).

Honestly, what amazes me the most is that I have never heard that Max was involved in any way with "The God-Men". I have seen many ex-members asked what became of him (see Bereans link I provided in the last post), and no one volunteered an answer. No one seemed to know. If LSM read this book, and obviously they did, and if Max's testimony is so easily dismissed, WHY WOULDN'T THEY TELL THEIR LOYAL MEMBERS THAT MAX WAS A PART OF THIS? That question needs to be answered, because as of right now, this lawsuit by Witness Lee is starting to look more like a snow-job.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-22-2012, 04:21 PM

Saints, I'd like to take a break right now and ask you people more in the know that I, for more background on Max Rapoport. I think establishing the credibility of this witness is crucial to the case at hand, as I believe his credibility has already been called into question.

I provided a link to a discussion about "Max Rapoport's So-called Rebellion", and from it I would like to insert a copy of some of the testimonies regarding Max here.

Sandee Rapoport, Max's wife has testified (11/10/05)

"Dear Bill W. (and others)

My daughter and I were told about this website.

Our family has never discussed this in a public way on the internet but after reading your testimony this morning, we were both in tears regarding your experience with the local church.* You are one among thousands of familys that were torn apart and destroyed by the LC.*

The devestating affect on the Saints is too painful to even given utterance to.* I just wanted you to know personally how sorry I am and how happy I am to hear that the Great Shepard of the sheep has led you back to himself and that your wounds are being healed and that your finding God is restoring your family life through a new situation.* I relate to your pain personally for I have passed through many of the things did.*

I found through praying for the leadership and all the saints in the LC that they truly do not realize what they have done and are doing. So instead of anger, have pity for them and pray that their eyes would be open to Christ and his great love for EVERY saint that he has died for.* Many people that had prayed for the destruction of our lives, have come out and come to us in love and apologized realizing what they were a part of.* So know that it is not impossible for your children to have their eyes opened. All in the Lord's timing.* Please feel free to email me if you need further healing. My family will be praying for you specifically and praying for the restoration of your relationship with your children.*

I am open to hearing from anyone, including any saints that we may have offended or hurt in any way during this time.
Your Sister in Christ,
Sandee Rapoport

You can reach me here:
http://thebereans.net/forum/index.ph...sa=send;u=1646 (http://thebereans.net/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=1646)

Jessica Rapoport's testimony is recorded here (11/11/05)

Hi Everyone,

My name is Jessica and I am Max and Sandee Rapoport's daughter.* I was 9 years old when my parents left the LC.* My mother encouraged me to reach out to adult children of ex LC members. So that is why I am logging on.* If there is anyway I can be a help to any of you please feel free to email me.* Although I was quite young when we escaped I was still quite affected in many ways as were all members of our family, immediate and extended.* My mother has asked me to give a short testimony on here regarding what I saw and felt and that is all I can really speak to so here goes....

I was one year old when my parents joined the LC.* Most of my experiences with the church were very positive. I loved going to Sunday school and especially remember marching up the stairs at the LC in Anaheim to sing to the Saints. What I most remember was the childrens' worship which still permeates my being today.* Praise God I was able to take the good from it all.* The thing that was most troubling and difficult for me as a child was how often my parents were gone. They were at the church meetings seven days a week. We were primarily left with babysitters.* When this occurs, you begin to question your value. Girls get their values from their fathers primarily and it was clear to me that the LC was top priority!* This was the most damaging part I believe.* Fortunately God is good and as soon as we left, my parents were with us day and night.

Another difficult aspect of it for me was that kids that were my friends, suddenly were not allowed to speak to me and in fact one told me that he couldn't play with me anymore because I was "of the devil."* I had no idea what that meant but I knew it was very bad and that I was losing a friend. I ran home and cried to my mom. This was especially painful for her because she realized that this was going to affect all of us.* Shortly after, we had paint and eggs thrown at our door and phone death threats. I kept thinking (who would do that to us) I never knew we had enemies.*

We then moved to Colorado to have a fresh start and because it wasn't safe for us in Anaheim.* Their marriage suffered greatly as well, but thank God he kept our family together, which is more then I can say for most families who got out.* We have survived and grown closer to each other and the Lord because of all of these things. Our family has moved on from this. I hold on to no anger, and no pain from these experiences. We are happy and healthy and that is my wish for all of you.* That you can move forward in your lives and see the experience as part of the journey that the Lord has set before you.* I know that some of the children blame God for their suffering and have turned from him.* Please know that God does not equal religion and that he loves you and has a plan and purpose for your life.* If you don't feel his deep love for you, please email me and I will pray for you specifically.

You can reach me here:
http://thebereans.net/forum/index.ph...sa=send;u=1649 (http://thebereans.net/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=1649) "

Jessica, being obviously intimately acquainted with Max, also had this to say in regards to the character of her parent's current view of the members of the LRC, in a post dated 4/18/06:

"Hi Count Me Worthy,

Yes, there is much speculation about my father and mother regarding their time in the L.C. but what does it all matter now. We (escaped, were thrown out, left, etc. call it what you will) with our family intact. God allowed so many of those things to happen and they were very painful for my parents mostly because they loved Witness Lee and the other Saints so much. You call people "brother and sister," but brothers and sisters are supposed to love you no matter what. When I was young I used to try to say mean things about the saints and Brother Lee because I saw the pain my parents were going through and my mom would get very angry and say, " don't you dare talk that way about any of them. They are my brothers and sisters!" I didn't understand because those "brothers and sisters" were praying for our deaths and threatening our family. I now understand that she loved them then and still does no matter what they did to her because they both feel in their hearts that people were just deceived and it's not their fault. They have embraced many people since then who have apologized for praying for our deaths. I understand it now, but it was strange then. If you knew my parents you would love them because they are real. Everyone who really knows them does. You can't help loving them because they will do anything for you and will always forgive you. They don't pretend they were perfect, they just are who they are. My parents hold no ill will for anyone in the L.C. past or PRESENT! They know we will all be together shortly with the Lord and all of this will fall away!"

Another member of Bereans, Octim, has testified (4/18/06)

"Jessica, I bumped into your dad after he had left the local church and what impressed me was how HAPPY he was! He was glowing with Christ! All the junk about Max this and Max that went out the window when I just talked to him. He was so genuine and real and loving. It made me immediately question what I had been told about "Max's rebellion". He was also the only elder that ever would show that its OK to have a sense of humor. So many elders would speak like professors, Max would speak like a excited college coach, cheering his team on! As a young person, I responded to that much better than a lecture.

Praise the Lord, Max has moved on and isn't bitter. I have been amazed at how these brothers that went through so much(John Ingalls, Al Knoch, Max) are NOT bitter! They would have a right to be, considering the slander that was spread. It just goes to show that the Love of Christ can wipe away anything."

Please people, what can you offer personally about Max? Please stick to first hand information and present the facts as you know them.

UntoHim

11-22-2012, 08:41 PM

I'm not sure if the heartburn I'm experiencing now is from too much stuffing or from thinking about how Max R. got jobbed by Lee and Company almost 35 years ago. I'm also not sure if you're going to get a lot of "personally" out of any of us out here in cyberspace... Mr. Max's short (albeit impactful) stint in the Local Church goes back to the early to late 1970s, so it's only us endanger LC dinosaurs who know (or care) about the events surrounding this error...errr...era.

But since you asked....

I think the quotes you have pulled from the BARM forum say A LOT....how many Christian groups, when you leave them (for any reason) would produce death-like threats and curses (from what was maybe weeks or months earlier, your close brothers in Christ) towards your school aged children? Really, this fact alone speaks volumes about the kind of atmosphere that was produced by Witness Lee, and by extension his most ardent followers.

TLFisher

11-22-2012, 09:48 PM

Please people, what can you offer personally about Max? Please stick to first hand information and present the facts as you know them.
I would direct you to send Indiana a PM.

TLFisher

11-22-2012, 09:51 PM

Please stick to first hand information and present the facts as you know them.

Max did attend Franics Ball's memorial service. Based on firsthand account, blended brothers Max knew either shunned him or didn't recognize Max after 30 years.

Cassidy

11-23-2012, 03:21 PM

"That is certainly not the case with this trial, nor was it with the Harvest House trial which Terry has been sharing information on here. In both cases, LSM brought litigation against Christian brethren, which is forbidden by Scripture."

NeitherFirst,

This does not make sense at all and is an example of abiding by the letter and not the spirit of the Bible. By this definition a neighbor can expand his property by moving your fence-line and if he professes to be a christian, or worse, claims that God told him to do it then you would by this definition above not take any action in the courts?

Of course you would and you would do it without hesitation and you would not wrestle with this doctrinal argument you are presenting now.

Christians, sometimes well-meaning and sometimes not, cannot hide behind the letter of the Scripture while violating the spirit of it. If it is right in your eyes that Duddy/SCP can write such a book then to be consistent you have to allow Witness Lee the moral right to refute it in the civil court of law if necessary.

There are laws we all must abide by in the land we live and if a Christian, or a Christian group, breaks those laws then he is subject to prosecution and consequences under those same laws.

UntoHim

11-23-2012, 03:44 PM

Witness Lee, and now his band of blended brothers, only follow the letter of the law when it suits them. Of course when somebody calls them on not following the letter of the law they whine and cry about how they are following the spirit of the law. Lee was HUGE about trying to have it both ways, and now his "continuation" has followed in his footsteps.

Thankfully, in this last money-grubbing go around the Local Church of Witness Lee got spanked hard...but not before wasting mu mu mu MILLIONS of the brothers and sisters hard earned money. Very sad indeed.

Cassidy

11-23-2012, 03:58 PM

"Now let me ask a question quickly - and I haven't seen this in the book: But what is the difference between calling on the Lord as is done in the Meeting Halls, and using a Mantra? Just a question."

The most outstanding difference is the object. It is scriptural to call on the Lord but it is vain to call on Krishna. It is scriptural to pray in the Spirit and allow Him to direct, lead, guide you, and saturate you. It is vain to "Om" into transformation.

Using your logic one could make a case against faith in Christ by asking "what is the difference between faith in Christ and faith in Buddha?" The answer is the same: It is the object that makes the difference, not the act of faith. Likewise it is not the calling on the Lord that is an issue but rather it is the object that matters.

There are other differences but this is the central one.

Yes, it was a question, yet an implied one.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-23-2012, 04:09 PM

"That is certainly not the case with this trial, nor was it with the Harvest House trial which Terry has been sharing information on here. In both cases, LSM brought litigation against Christian brethren, which is forbidden by Scripture."

NeitherFirst,

This does not make sense at all and is an example of abiding by the letter and not the spirit of the Bible. By this definition a neighbor can expand his property by moving your fence-line and if he professes to be a christian, or worse, claims that God told him to do it then you would by this definition above not take any action in the courts?

Cassidy, you are absolutely wrong. Any person who "moved a fence-line" to expand his property and then told me "he was a Christian" or "God told me to do it" would be a liar - not a Christian. Again Cassidy, you know a tree by it's fruit. Just because someone says they're a Christian, doesn't mean it's so. Calling on the name of the Lord is NOT a definitive sign of a Christian; far from it. Do you not know that in that day (the last day), many will call Him "Lord, Lord" - and if you've read your bible, you already know what He will say to them... "Depart from Me you workers of lawlessness, for truly I say to you: I never knew you." (Matthew 7:22-23)

...but Cassidy, I am glad you are still here and reading. May the Lord open your eyes to the Truth of His Word.

In Christ,

Ray

ZNPaaneah

11-23-2012, 04:27 PM

Cassidy, you are absolutely wrong. Any person who "moved a fence-line" to expand his property and then told me "he was a Christian" or "God told me to do it" would be a liar - not a Christian. Again Cassidy, you know a tree by it's fruit. Just because someone says they're a Christian, doesn't mean it's so. Calling on the name of the Lord is NOT a definitive sign of a Christian; far from it. Do you not know that in that day (the last day), many will call Him "Lord, Lord" - and if you've read your bible, you already know what He will say to them... "Depart from Me you workers of lawlessness, for truly I say to you: I never knew you." (Matthew 7:22-23)

...but Cassidy, I am glad you are still here and reading. May the Lord open your eyes to the Truth of His Word.

In Christ,

Ray

OK, now that clears everything up.

So, based on Paul's use of his citizenship as a Roman we as Christians have every right to use the laws that are written for all citizens.

However, we should not use the laws that allow us to sue others for libel if they are Christians, rather we should suffer loss.

However, no "Christian" would commit libel, because that means they are walking according to the flesh. Therefore it is OK to sue for libel even if the person you are suing claims to be a Christian because they are "lying".

We "know a tree by its fruit". Since their "fruit" is "evil" we can go ahead and use the laws even if they claim to be a Christian. What a wonderful loophole.

So glad you cleared that up for us.

Cassidy

11-23-2012, 04:30 PM

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-23-2012, 04:49 PM

Chapter 1

For the purposes of our study of this book, and in keeping within the rights of fair-use laws, I want to keep what I post down to excerpts from our book. For that reason, I will offer a brief synopsis of the chapter, and then go over some of the major points.

I would like to state that throughout this book are numerous references - in fact, the appendix at the back of the book cites no less than 295 references from which quotes have been taken. These references are not only of Lee's works - with page references. A quick count shows that there are around 20 of Lee's published titles here. I say this simply to illustrate the thoroughness of this investigation.

Chapter One is about why we should investigate our spiritual teachers, what we should use a standard to investigate their teachings, what might attract one to a particular kind of teaching, and what reasons we have in particular to investigate Witness Lee.

Why Should We Investigate our Teachers?

"Evangelical Christians regard the Bible as the authoritative source for teaching on morality and social propriety, as well as theology... Many of Paul's letters emphasize a need for orthopraxis in addition to orthodoxy, that is, for both "right doing" and "right teaching", guided by Scripture.

In his commentary The Epistles of John, John R. W. Stott notes the need for Christian communities to evaluate their teachers using Scripture as their base. Focusing on 1 John 2, Stott recommends the application of three tests, two of which are a social test and a doctrinal test. These enable a Christian community to recognize the sometimes alluring falsities of pseudopraxis and heterodoxy among it's teachers.

..1 John 2:9 "The one who says he is the light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. The one who loves his brother abides in the light and there is no cause for stumbling in him." An instructor whose relationships within the Christian community are consistently abrasive and fraught with strife, has, by biblical definition, run askew."

...1 John 2:24-25 "let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father." ...the apostle John required Christians to measure the teachings of their instructors by the apostolic teachings."
********************

It cannot be argued that Witness Lee and the Local Churches certainly have poor relationships with outsiders. Christian brethren have not only been the target of attacks from within Lee's writings, but also in the real world. I have heard stories of LC youth marching on Moody Bible College, telling them that "Babylon is falling", and we all know that the lawsuit launched against SCP was not the first and not the last LSM has cooked up. The authors have not cited any of these incidents - and I believe that's because they want the reader to look for themselves at their own teacher and his movement.

As for Lee's teachings, he is proud to say that he has been shown so much more than others, that he preaches a higher gospel, that he has recovered the 'high peaks", etc, etc. I only ask, is Lee saying that the Bible is insufficient in itself to reveal God's redemptive plan to men without Lee's ministry?

Cassidy

11-23-2012, 05:58 PM

OK, now that clears everything up.

So, based on Paul's use of his citizenship as a Roman we as Christians have every right to use the laws that are written for all citizens.

However, we should not use the laws that allow us to sue others for libel if they are Christians, rather we should suffer loss.

However, no "Christian" would commit libel, because that means they are walking according to the flesh. Therefore it is OK to sue for libel even if the person you are suing claims to be a Christian because they are "lying".

We "know a tree by its fruit". Since their "fruit" is "evil" we can go ahead and use the laws even if they claim to be a Christian. What a wonderful loophole.

So glad you cleared that up for us.

Precisely. According to the logic of Ray's argument any judgment requested in a civil court between believers, for whatever reason, is forbidden by Scripture. However, he argues that a Christian may sue another person, professing christian or not, if that person sins against him. Such sinning would indicate according to the argument he postulates that they are not a Christian, therefore there is a clear path to sue away. It is just to convenient.

Of course, that convenience will lead to falsely accusing genuine believers of being heathens, pagans, or false Christians. Accordingly, Duddy would only be justified writing a libelous or slanderous book against Witness Lee BECAUSE he believed Witness Lee was not a genuine Christian. In turn, LSM would only have been justified taking civil action if they believed that Duddy were not a genuine Christian. However, to the best of my knowledge, neither party accused the other of not being genuine Christians. That is where the doctrinal stance and argument taken by Ray breaks down in my view.

I personally believe there are circumstances where the civil courts play an important role in settling disputes among all its citizens. It is not the preferred route between believers but sometimes it is snecessary. It also recognizes that genuine Christians sin against God and others (including other Christians). Christians can lie, steal, move fences, covet, etc. That is just a fact. Unfortunately, sometimes a civil action is necessary.

UntoHim

11-23-2012, 10:27 PM

ABrotherinFaith

11-23-2012, 10:53 PM

Precisely. According to the logic of Ray's argument any judgment requested in a civil court between believers, for whatever reason, is forbidden by Scripture. .

I think you're missing an important element here...in an earlier post you used the a fence line as a possible point of contention.

Paul's appeal had to do with defending the gospel against unbelievers, the gospel, not secular matters. The point is, disputes between believers ought to be settled among believers and not in such away that would discredit believers in front of unbelievers. Here, it's any dispute since Paul doesn't qualify other than to call the disputes trivial. If a brother moves a fenceline and is adamant than, yes, rather than bringing him to court, despite how right you are, you should rather be wronged according to Paul. That's pretty clear. Of course reconciliation should be sought, there should be ones among the brothers who can settle such disputes. When a non believer makes accusations we have two possibilities, Christ's turn the other cheek or Paul's appeal to Caesar. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I am sure Paul's decision came after a lot of pray throughout the whole time he had been in prison.

ZNPaaneah

11-24-2012, 06:20 AM

In his commentary The Epistles of John, John R. W. Stott notes the need for Christian communities to evaluate their teachers using Scripture as their base. Focusing on 1 John 2, Stott recommends the application of three tests, two of which are a social test and a doctrinal test. These enable a Christian community to recognize the sometimes alluring falsities of pseudopraxis and heterodoxy among it's teachers.

..1 John 2:9 "The one who says he is the light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. The one who loves his brother abides in the light and there is no cause for stumbling in him." An instructor whose relationships within the Christian community are consistently abrasive and fraught with strife, has, by biblical definition, run askew."

...1 John 2:24-25 "let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father." ...the apostle John required Christians to measure the teachings of their instructors by the apostolic teachings."
********************

It cannot be argued that Witness Lee and the Local Churches certainly have poor relationships with outsiders. Christian brethren have not only been the target of attacks from within Lee's writings, but also in the real world. I have heard stories of LC youth marching on Moody Bible College, telling them that "Babylon is falling", and we all know that the lawsuit launched against SCP was not the first and not the last LSM has cooked up. The authors have not cited any of these incidents - and I believe that's because they want the reader to look for themselves at their own teacher and his movement.

I think these verse references are applicable and I think this forum is a testimony that we evaluate both the teaching and the practice.

That said I don't think it is an effective practice for the pot to be calling the kettle black. As for my personal experience there was no basis to say that we provoked a bad relationship with the Christians on my campus. The way in which this book was used on that campus would have been objectionable to anyone. So again, here they are pointing their finger at us and yet they have three fingers pointing back at themselves.

ZNPaaneah

11-24-2012, 06:23 AM

I personally believe there are circumstances where the civil courts play an important role in settling disputes among all its citizens. It is not the preferred route between believers but sometimes it is snecessary. It also recognizes that genuine Christians sin against God and others (including other Christians). Christians can lie, steal, move fences, covet, etc. That is just a fact. Unfortunately, sometimes a civil action is necessary.

Which is why Paul says "it is a shame to you" because they live as though there is not one person in the church able to judge between them. This is doubly shameful since it is our destiny to judge the world.

ZNPaaneah

11-24-2012, 06:27 AM

Paul's appeal had to do with defending the gospel against unbelievers, the gospel, not secular matters. The point is, disputes between believers ought to be settled among believers and not in such away that would discredit believers in front of unbelievers. Here, it's any dispute since Paul doesn't qualify other than to call the disputes trivial. If a brother moves a fenceline and is adamant than, yes, rather than bringing him to court, despite how right you are, you should rather be wronged according to Paul. That's pretty clear. Of course reconciliation should be sought, there should be ones among the brothers who can settle such disputes. When a non believer makes accusations we have two possibilities, Christ's turn the other cheek or Paul's appeal to Caesar. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I am sure Paul's decision came after a lot of pray throughout the whole time he had been in prison.

But now here comes the really thorny question. If there is a lawsuit between Christians, based on this principle you have just laid out that it is better to suffer loss, both parties are equally responsible. Duddy could just as easily have avoided the lawsuit by choosing rather to suffer loss as the LRC could by deciding not to sue. To prevent the lawsuit in this case all you needed was one party to choose to suffer loss rather than have a lawsuit. Neither party did that. Hence they will both have to stand before the Lord's judgement seat and answer for it.

Cassidy

11-24-2012, 07:25 AM

To sue or not to sue....that is NOT the question.

Ray, don't take the bait. All the lawsuits are only a symptom of a very serious and potentially fatal decease that has brought down many religious institutions, even Christian institutions. Discussions regarding the causes (and even the effects) of lawsuits are a smokescreen.

What bait? It was Ray who set up this scenario of a "mock trial" (his term not mine).

"If what we are doing here is giving this book the trial it was due but never received, then we need to take into account all the facts and stand not only for the defense (if that is the way we might naturally be inclined), but also for the prosecution."

If, according to his argument, Christians cannot sue other Christians for libel and slander then neither can they sue them for moving the property line. What Ray proposes is that a person who moves a property-line is a liar and therefore cannot be a Christian therefore he could and would sue them. That argument (genuine Christian or liar) is not one that either SCP or LSM based their dispute on.

Ray, I understand you would like to introduce the notion that LSM was wrong for taking action through the civil courts against SCP. However, you can't have it both ways. If you are going to take a doctrinal stance and level charges against LSM for suing SCP then you cannot give Duddy a pass for libel and slander AGAINST FELLOW CHRISTIANS which you will also find the Scriptures replete with such references. The logical execution of your argument is that Christians can sue other Christians but to maintain Scriptural compliance the plaintiff would need to call the defender a liar and by your definition this means the defendant is not Christian and therefore can be sued.

Your argument complicates your case. I am trying to help you out here. :)

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-24-2012, 07:35 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I really want to stay on track here. Please: I am trying to conduct an inquiry into the book - that's all I'm trying to do. If you want to believe that Lee had the right to sue Duddy, then fine, I'm giving you the opportunity to pursue that trial here - let's look at the book and see whether he could have won this case or not based on the evidence that is presented and not on inuendo or feelings.

Because I am trying to be thorough in my treatment of this book, I need the people who want to participate in this thread to keep an open mind. Imagine you were men and women of the jury. Would you be allowed to remain in the jury if you voiced a judgement before the evidence was even presented? No. And yet that is EXACTLY what you're doing when you accuse Duddy of printing a book that is "libelious and slanderous". At this point, we haven't established whether this book IS libelious and slanderous - that's what LSM has ALLEGED - but that needs to be proven in a court of law - and because this was a matter of public defamation, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (LSM). The only way to determine whether or not these allegations were true according to the definition of "Defamation" - the charge against SCP - we need to go through the book and see what it was that SCP printed.

People; Jurists and Judges are vetted before they're allowed to sit on a case. If you can't have an open mind, then you can't possibly render justice - because no matter what evidence is presented, or where it points you, you will stubbornly refuse to see it and only see what you want to see. Consequently, you would have to be removed from the case and the court room.

To Anyone Prepared to Dismiss the Authority of God's Word as revealed in 1st Corinthians 6:1-8:

I believe that the Bible is God's Word - and that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2nd Timothy 3:16).

If you are prepared to dismiss a clear instruction in Scripture given to the New Testament church as simple allegory, then what more can I say to you? What is Truth? God's Word is Truth - but when you allegorize it wherever you find it's revealed Truth uncomfortable, then no amount of Scripture will ever persuade you otherwise. That being the case, what profit is there in argument?

Please people: Order in the Court.

Cassidy

11-24-2012, 07:54 AM

I think you're missing an important element here...in an earlier post you used the a fence line as a possible point of contention.

Paul's appeal had to do with defending the gospel against unbelievers, the gospel, not secular matters. The point is, disputes between believers ought to be settled among believers and not in such away that would discredit believers in front of unbelievers. Here, it's any dispute since Paul doesn't qualify other than to call the disputes trivial. If a brother moves a fenceline and is adamant than, yes, rather than bringing him to court, despite how right you are, you should rather be wronged according to Paul. That's pretty clear. Of course reconciliation should be sought, there should be ones among the brothers who can settle such disputes. When a non believer makes accusations we have two possibilities, Christ's turn the other cheek or Paul's appeal to Caesar. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I am sure Paul's decision came after a lot of pray throughout the whole time he had been in prison.

ABF,

Yes, I use analogous examples to tamper the emotion and yet still address the underlying principles, hence the property line. I could have used a church property line for more relevance. In any case, Ray's position is that Christians cannot take civil action in court against another Christian under any circumstance, secular or not and that to move a property line constitutes the perpetrator a liar and not a Christian. As if Christians do not or cannot lie.

And you are correct about turning the other cheek for when our Lord was being abused he did not qualify his response, rather he just turned the other cheek. Also agree with ZNP, that it is a shame and that it will be finally settled at the judgment seat of Christ. It is better not to engage in civil action and better to try to work things outside the court system between believers or for that matter even with unbelievers.

Bringing this back to Duddy, he should never have written such a slanderous and libelous book and should have retracted it without objection. There is an abundance of Scripture on the topic of bearing false witness against another and one does not have to search to hard to find it.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-24-2012, 08:02 AM

Chapter 1 Cont'd: "Contagious Zeal"

This portion is on the need to reflect on the nature of zeal - that it is not, in itself, proof of orthodox Christianity.

"...'Zeal for Thy house has consumed Me', Jesus Christ's dramatic cleansing of the temple in Jerusalem reminded his disciples of that line from Psalm 69:9. Christ's zeal for God's house laid a foundation for the Christian church. It set a pattern of zeal for God's people to follow.
But the Bible also warns that zeal may be misplaced. Paul lamented over his Jewish kinsmen's plight: "they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened." (Romans 10:2). ...His counsel was to avoid such people.

The followers of Witness Lee both stress and exemplify the way of commitment and zeal in church life. They see themselves as "the Lord's overcomers," the "recovered church" of the last days. They are understandably excited about what they believe to be their unique participation in God's plan. For Christians outside their movement, however, the Local Church raises many questions that are difficult to answer satisfactorily.

By examining the Local Church movement closely, we hope to achieve an understanding of its teachings and practices. Thus we hope to discern whether those who follow Witness Lee's direction are zealous in ways that please the Lord and deserve our emulation, or whether their enthusiasm masks a departure from an authentic understanding of God."

Here we see SCP's stated purpose for the book. Is their statement unbalanced or unfair? Doesn't Scripture afterall admonish us: "test everything; hold fast that which is good." 1st Thessalonians 5:21.

Gong

11-24-2012, 08:18 AM

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-24-2012, 08:25 AM

Chapter 1 Con't: On the Difficulty of Treating Lee's Theology Fairly

"A particular problem of trying to summarize Local Church teaching is worth noting in anticipation of whatever response Witness Lee or his spokespersons may wish to make to this revision of The God-Men. The psychological dynamic or spiritual experience taught by the Local Church is described as a subjective experience giving a "standard of sprituality" that is "extremely vague and obscure". The experience of God is viewed as noncommunicable, noncognitive, nonpropositional. It is sensed, felt, even smelled or tasted...

...When the "vague and obscure" are absolutized, precision, their opposite, is depracated almost as a matter of course. For example, any attempts to approach biblical language as a vehicle of meaning, are routinely relegated by the LC to a status so inferior as to be virtual evidence of a "backslidden" condition. The stress is always on subjective experience. ( NFnL's note: "Get out of your mind, brother!")

...In all of Witness Lee's writings there is not a single major statement that is not elsewhere qualified in several different directions. Sometimes major statements are turned on their heads altogether by the affirmation of contradictory points."

I wanted to excerpt this bit because it shows that the author was familiar enough with Lee's written work that he recognized that giving it a thorough treatment was going to be difficult. He even wanted to offer Lee an opportunity to respond. Remember that SCP went to Anaheim twice and met with Lee's representatives, they sent a telegram and two certified letters, and sought an audience with Lee. They even went for "a third visit to the Local Church's Anaheim headquarters during a Sunday morning teaching session (which) provided an opportunity for our SCP researcher to introduce himself to Witness Lee. Dominating the conversation that followed, Lee expressed anger toward the SCP and defended his teachings. Yet he avoided any direct response to the researcher's questions." (page 10). SCP did what they could to meet with the man and allow him to speak for himself, or even to (at the very least) respond in writing. They were shut down and ignored, despite their due diligence.

As for those who yet revere the teachings of WL, the kind of assessment made here might make you uncomfortable. But is it unfair? We have said this very same thing about WL's teachings many times already on this forum.

Cassidy

11-24-2012, 08:25 AM

Cassidy

11-24-2012, 08:49 AM

UntoHim

11-24-2012, 09:52 AM

Cassidy, you're right, this is not a court of law.....so why are you using all the arguments and tactics of a high priced criminal defense attorney? I'm not sure who would be more proud of you right now, the late Witness Lee or the late Johnnie Cochran:eek:

Please, let's not take Ray's "mock trial" term too far. I think the idea is simply to have "an inquiry" into "An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church". It's not any more or any less than that. LET'S ADDRESS EACH SUBJECT/ISSUE as they come up, and for God's sake, we should not have to suffer through cries for a "mistrial" after every post. Remember the O.J. Simpson trial...that fiasco took nearly 6 months because the aforementioned Mr. Cochran was constantly interrupting the proceedings with all those "sidebar" conferences with the judge. I'm surprised that anybody knew what the whole thing was about by the time it got to the jury.

Anyway, let's forget about lawyers, judges and juries for the time being. I think the quotes of Duddy et al provided so far have enough fodder for us to discuss for quite a while. And as far as I can tell they are written in the English language, so no need for translation folks. I have been intimately familiar with the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church for the better part of four decades now, both within and out of the Movement - I find many, if not most of what has been quoted here spot on. Actually it's quite amazing, considering how little cooperation from Lee & CO they got, how spot on and accurate Duddy et al were.

I would ask all those who which to come to the defense of Lee and the teachings and practices, please argue the points at hand. Please do not argue about WHAT WAS NOT WRITTEN, rather feel free to address and even vehemently disagree with WHAT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN in the book.

Yes, I second the motion...order in court:whack: (that's supposed to be the guy with the gavel hitting the table and not one poster knocking the other over the head)

ZNPaaneah

11-24-2012, 10:01 AM

He already won this case.

Excellent point. A little way back someone stated "I believe that every word is God breathed". How about Luke 14:28-32.

Duddy lost the case based on US law. You want to enter the legal system then you play by their rules. Just like the Lord said, if you want to go to war you better count the cost first to make sure you can finish what you start.

The Law courts are not about "uncovering the truth" they are about "winning". This is why it is shameful for us, as Christians, to take our matters there. We should be about truth and justice. The legal system, just like all forms of war, favor those with the most resources (or in this case money).

The lesson from this book for me is Luke 14:28-32. If you want to go to war then you should make sure every i is dotted and every t is crossed. You should make sure your research is extensive, it is credible, and it is vetted. If he had done this then why "run out of money". You don't need a lawyer. The publisher would have a lawyer that would respond to motions, whenever they asked for your research you would pull out the files, make copies and give it to them. Surely the publisher can afford to make copies and send a lawyer to handle motions. As you have already pointed out the burden of proof was on LSM, not Duddy. If Duddy was without blemish it should have been LSM that ran out of money, not Duddy. Why does he need to "depose" anyone, he should have already done a thorough job of research before publishing the book. Since matters of orthodoxy and orthopraxy are out of the jurisdiction of the US courts it would really favor Duddy. The fact that he lost this case is, as the Lord said, going to cause all who behold him to mock him.

UntoHim

11-24-2012, 10:23 AM

ZNP and everyone.

Maybe we do have a problem with plain English here after all.

Any more posts that don't address what is actually written in this book will be deleted without further notice.

The book was written. It cannot be un-written. The Local Church did not "win" the case, they received a default judgement because Duddy and apparently the insurance company ran out of money and just did not show up for the trial. The Local Church's case was simply read into the record without challenge or cross examination. This is a fact of history. As people have noted, the "judgement" was purely civil and monetary in nature and had NOTHING to do with religious/doctrinal/socialogical issues addressed in the book.

Let's address the quotes provided by NFnL.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-24-2012, 01:14 PM

what is this suppose to mean?

"When the "vague and obscure" are absolutized, precision, their opposite, is depracated almost as a matter of course. For example, any attempts to approach biblical language as a vehicle of meaning,..."

"Vague": uncertain, indefinite, unclear.
"Obscure": unfocussed, imprecise.
"Absolutized": to make absolute, to make a priniciple universally valid.
"Precision": the quality of being exact and accurate (the opposite of vague and obscure).
"Depracated": to belittle, depreciate, held in disdain or contempt.
"As a matter of course": A logical outcome.

With these words defined, we can restate this sentence to say the same thing, here goes:

"When statements that are unclear and imprecise are made out to be universal principles, then it logically follows that statements which are exact and accurate will be held in contempt."

UntoHim

11-24-2012, 01:42 PM

...When the "vague and obscure" are absolutized, precision, their opposite, is depracated almost as a matter of course. For example, any attempts to approach biblical language as a vehicle of meaning, are routinely relegated by the LC to a status so inferior as to be virtual evidence of a "backslidden" condition. The stress is always on subjective experience.

I have included a crucial part of this quote that our friend Cassidy left out. To this very day Witness Lee's followers treat his private interpretations on an equal, and sometimes higher, plane than the actual "biblical language". This was apparently something that really stood out to Duddy et al. He also noticed how Lee berated and belittled Christian teachers, scholars and apologists that used the "biblical language as a vehicle of meaning" in a consistent manner. To Lee, the truth was a moving target....it was whatever he wanted it to be within any word, verse or passage. He could be a biblical literalist when it suited him, and at other times he could be quite liberal with the biblical language. Again, Duddy saw this in his teachings and called him on it.

Cassidy

11-24-2012, 03:43 PM

"Vague": uncertain, indefinite, unclear.
"Obscure": unfocussed, imprecise.
"Absolutized": to make absolute, to make a priniciple universally valid.
"Precision": the quality of being exact and accurate (the opposite of vague and obscure).
"Depracated": to belittle, depreciate, held in disdain or contempt.
"As a matter of course": A logical outcome.

With these words defined, we can restate this sentence to say the same thing, here goes:

"When statements that are unclear and imprecise are made out to be universal principles, then it logically follows that statements which are exact and accurate will be held in contempt."

Okay Ray. Let's assume your translation is what Duddy meant. The second does not necessarily logically follow the first. But nonetheless, what examples does Duddy provide to substantiate this position?

Thanks

UntoHim

11-24-2012, 07:43 PM

Come on Cassidy, my man. Is this all ya got?
We are not in English class. We are in a public forum. I am not going to allow you to let us get lost in the minutiae of word definitions. You are trying to bait Ray, and frankly I think you are above such tactics...or am I being too vague for you?

Look, we are just at the very beginning of this book. Nothing is going to be substantiated in the first few pages....else it wouldn't be much of a book, now would it? As with all good writers, Duddy is painting with some pretty broad strokes to begin with. You disagree with what is stated in the broad strokes? Great! No problem! Simply state your disagreement with the same broad strokes if you like. Address what is actually written and quoted by NFnL. But please, could you refrain from entering into hand-to-hand combat over the definitions of relatively basic words in the English language? I really hate to absolutize all this, but in order to avoid being obscure, and as a matter of course, I am forced into using precision in my wording....

Cassidy

11-24-2012, 09:11 PM

Hold on. Accusing someone of baiting is near to accusing them of trolling. I do neither. If Ray wants a serious review of this book/critique then he has a willing participant right here. If he doesn't, that is fine too. My feelings won't be hurt either way.

UntoHim, you say it is only the beginning of the book and broad strokes are to be expected. Fine, we will see if Duddy has done the due diligence and provides substantiation for his confounding and befuddled broad brush accusations. So, as Duddy unfolds his argument I will be looking for the examples his uses to substantiate these statements:

"When the "vague and obscure" are absolutized, precision, their opposite, is depracated almost as a matter of course. For example, any attempts to approach biblical language as a vehicle of meaning, are routinely relegated by the LC to a status so inferior as to be virtual evidence of a "backslidden" condition. The stress is always on subjective experience."

ABrotherinFaith

11-25-2012, 07:20 AM

But now here comes the really thorny question. ... they will both have to stand before the Lord's judgement seat and answer for it.

ZNP,
I don't see how this becomes a really thorny question. Paul's answer is clear cut. Believers should not bring believers to court in front of unbelievers. Thorns begin sprouting when we bring in our objections, our hypotheticals, our special cases.

@ Cassidy
Yes, I use analogous examples to tamper the emotion and yet still address the underlying principles, hence the property line. I could have used a church property line for more relevance.

The problem is that the two are separate. The "analogous" example isn't analogous because it's not what Paul addressed, not his concern. The believers are his concern and as such they were clearly told not to take each other to court. Unbelievers can take each other to court all they want. AFAIK I believer can even take an unbeliever to court. Our point of reference is Paul addressing BELIEVERS v BELIEVERS.

I agree, both will stand before the judgment seat (I'll be there along with the rest of humanity) and answer for their actions.

Why not just accept the injustice and leave it at that? Why not let yourselves be cheated?

Most of the time, the answer is simple: because we're right and their not. Unfortunately...

Cassidy

11-25-2012, 07:34 AM

ABF,

Based on UntoHim's request I will limit my responses going forward in this thead to commenting on Duddy's text. I believe the topic you are addressing and your points specifically are worthy of discussion but they will need to be conducted in another thread created for that purpose. Should you create such a thread with the approval of the host of this site then I will be happy to engage you there.

Thanks,

UntoHim

11-25-2012, 05:37 PM

...In all of Witness Lee's writings there is not a single major statement that is not elsewhere qualified in several different directions. Sometimes major statements are turned on their heads altogether by the affirmation of contradictory points."

I'm not sure about the "not a single major statement" part ....but Duddy et al where definitely on the right track. Many, and maybe most, of Witness Lee's teachings regarding some of the essentials were very questionable at best. Many of them had to be "qualified" with all sorts of twisted, convoluted provisos, addendums and exceptions. One that may be most applicable to our discussions here might be "man is becoming God - but only in life and nature and not in the Godhead". As has been noted from people in the past - exactly what part of God are we becoming that includes his life and nature but is not part of the Godhead?:loopy: As we delve further into this book I think we will find that it is this kind of unbiblical teaching that Duddy et al were concerned with.

TLFisher

11-25-2012, 06:49 PM

TLFisher

11-25-2012, 06:59 PM

Paul's appeal had to do with defending the gospel against unbelievers, the gospel, not secular matters. The point is, disputes between believers ought to be settled among believers and not in such away that would discredit believers in front of unbelievers. Here, it's any dispute since Paul doesn't qualify other than to call the disputes trivial. If a brother moves a fenceline and is adamant than, yes, rather than bringing him to court, despite how right you are, you should rather be wronged according to Paul. That's pretty clear. Of course reconciliation should be sought, there should be ones among the brothers who can settle such disputes. When a non believer makes accusations we have two possibilities, Christ's turn the other cheek or Paul's appeal to Caesar. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I am sure Paul's decision came after a lot of pray throughout the whole time he had been in prison.

As we have seen through LSM lawsuits (SCP, Harvest House, etc) Paul's appeal to Ceasar has been taken out of context. Paul's appeal was not about lawsuits with believers or non-beleivers, but about his life. If the issue was not about his life, why was Paul imprisoned for possibly years before appealing to Ceaser? So no, "appealing to Ceasar" is not about taking SCP to court.

If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar. Acts 25:11

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-26-2012, 09:43 AM

Chapter 1 Cont'd: On Lee's Warning Against Scrutiny of his movement.

"Nonetheless, as we begin our examination, we are well aware of Witness Lee's viewpoint on such an undertaking:

'In my entire Christian life I have never seen one Christian who, when he criticized and opposed the local churches, was ever blessed by the Lord from that time forth. I have observed that all those who have opposed the church life have become backsliders. There has not been one exception. Let them all be put to shame and turned backward. It is not a small thing.... If you hate the local church, you will have no more growth in life. There will be no rich reaping and no rich harvest.' (WL, Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms, 1972 pg 199).

Such a statement amounts in effect to a curse on critics of Lee's teachings. It portends evil to any members of LC fellowships with qualms about personal involvement. It is equivalent to a pronouncement that God Himself will blight those who oppose the LC... and it dovetail's with Lee's view that the LC is the only true church."

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

This quote should not be news to anyone familiar with Lee's writings. This same admonition is still repeated today - and accepted as Gospel truth by many (hence the warning not to even go on the internet, to watch "where you draw your water from", because you might be "poisoned". That's why many people from the LC today are still afraid to open this book (The God-Men).

You know, Paul ministered amongst the Gentiles - and was vigorously opposed. Plenty of missionaries around the world, both throughout history and right now, are working in fields absolutely opposed to the gospel message. Satan is working - ever working - to stop the spread of the gospel. Does the Bible tell us to cloister ourselves and stay then only with people of like mind? Or to fear challege of our beliefs?

No: "And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation" Mark 16:15.

And are we to worry about what we will say to those who "oppose" our message?

No: "...do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit." Mark 13:11b (see also Matt 10:19 & Luke 12:11)

We are always exhorted in Scripture to test our leaders, as well as ourselves. If we really believe we have the Holy Spirit within us, then what do we have to fear? Test all things, brothers and sisters.

ZNPaaneah

11-26-2012, 09:55 AM

Cal

11-26-2012, 10:01 AM

Chapter 1 Cont'd: On Lee's Warning Against Scrutiny of his movement.

"Nonetheless, as we begin our examination, we are well aware of Witness Lee's viewpoint on such an undertaking:

'In my entire Christian life I have never seen one Christian who, when he criticized and opposed the local churches, was ever blessed by the Lord from that time forth. I have observed that all those who have opposed the church life have become backsliders. There has not been one exception. Let them all be put to shame and turned backward. It is not a small thing.... If you hate the local church, you will have no more growth in life. There will be no rich reaping and no rich harvest.' (WL, Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms, 1972 pg 199).

Lee's mentality was to take the basic truth of the Church (and the local church) and identify his movement solely with it. Therefore to oppose his movement was to opposed God's very Church.

Well, of course, any Christian who genuinely opposed the idea of the Church itself would experience a decrease of blessing. What's fallacious about Lee's mindset is he reserved the status of Church only his movement and the groups in it. It was a kind of bait and switch mentality, what I have called equivocation--playing two or more meanings of a word or idea to an advantage.

It would have been the same error for him to say to oppose his teaching was to oppose salvation itself, since he believed his teaching embodied the idea of salvation better than was ever uttered. He didn't exactly make that error (though he came close), but he did make the same error with the matter of the Church.

As to Lee's never "seeing" anyone blessed by the Lord after criticizing his movement--was he omniscient? Really was he even paying attention? Few people's awareness of what was really going on around him was more limited than Lee's. And even if he was aware what went on outside his little world, would he have judged it objectively? I doubt it. His pattern and the pattern of his followers is to ignore their own failures and nitpick those of others. He saw exactly what he programmed himself to see.

UntoHim

11-26-2012, 10:09 AM

Cal

11-26-2012, 10:32 AM

Lee speaking:

'In my entire Christian life I have never seen one Christian who, when he criticized and opposed the local churches, was ever blessed by the Lord from that time forth.

Essentially, Lee considered being "blessed" to be to follow him in everything. Therefore, to oppose him or his movement in any way was to cease to be "blessed." It was black and white to him. No following him, no blessing. That's what he believed, so that's what he saw, or claimed to see.

It is this kind of speaking that I am essentially opposed to. Anyone can find their way out of Lee's theology with some study, but claiming that to leave and oppose him and his movement is to summon God's curse is beyond the pale and is a blatant attack on the conscience, mind and emotions of the listener.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-26-2012, 10:38 AM

Chapter Two: The History of the Local Church Pt 1

Overview: The history given here starts with Watchman Nee and goes through to "recent" times (the time of this books writing). Rather than quote the "background history", I will only briefly outline it in point form. If anyone wants further insight into what exactly was written, you can either ask me to post more on a particular time period, or you can buy the book for yourself on Amazon.

- WN born in China around the turn of the century and influenced by the reaction of some Chinese churches against Western missionary practices.
- WN (1903-1972) was the strongest influence on WL.
- WN disenchanted with "sterile formalism" of his Christian education, starts a "house church" modelled after the Plymouth Brethren type (1922).
- WN introduced to writings on the spiritual life (inc. Madame Guyon, Jessie Penn-Lewis, Andrew Murray, JN Darby)
- WN writes "The Spirital Man" (late 20's.) - here an overview of this book and the theology of it is given.
- WN moves to Shanghai, and starts his own church: "The Little Flock" (1928).
- 1938, "Concerning our Missions" and "The Normal Christian Church Life" published.
- WL had been taught about dispensations as a child, and about two natures within man (attended a Christian school, but wasn't converted until early adulthood).
- In 1927, WL was elected as a member of an executive committee of his denom, but he rejected it and left the denom.
- In the 1930's, WL enters the Little Flock - and begins ministering there the same year.
- 1940's - WL a "close and invaluable associate" of WN. Trained under WN from 1939 - 1942.
- WL imprisoned by the Japanese MPs in 1943, and had tuberculosis for 3 years after his release.
- WL back in Shanghai teaching 1946-1948.
- At a Little Flock worker's meeting in 1948, worker control over the local churches was established. From Leslie T. Lyall's "Three of China's Mighty Men" (published by the Oversea's Missionary Fellowship in 1973)* Duddy quotes: "It appears that 1948 marked a turning point in Mr Nee's church practices and the beginning of a hierarchical system of central control which differed little from the organization of denominational churches. There are those who believe that here we are witnessing the growing influence of Witness Lee, who later was to exercise such autocratic control over the churches in Taiwan."
- As the communists advance on the mainland, Nee appoints Lee as the leader of the Little Flock of Taiwan.
- A dozen years later, serious splits develop in Taiwan and Hong Kong. "Some of the Little Flock accepted Witness Lee's leadership. Others believed he had deviated from the teachings of Watchman Nee by introducing questionable doctrines and unscriptural forms of worship. A number of Little Flock leaders and assemblies in different cities of Southeast Asia cut their ties with Witness Lee."
- WL considered Taiwan his base until 1962, when he came to the US.
- Late 60's, LC starts to use the "Jerusalem Principle" (Acts 8:4). Whole groups of Christians emigrate to establish a church. About 70 emigrate from California to Huston in 1969, others went to Seattle, Chicago, Akron and Atlanta in 1970. By 1974 there were some 40 or 50 LC's in the US. In '79, approx. 50 to 60 in existence.

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

If there are disagreements about the order of events, let us know. I believe the author is trying his utmost to present the facts. His reference to Leslie T. Lyall's book is a new one to me. I haven't read it, and can't comment on it. It isn't any sort of expose on the LC or WN or WL, as far as I can tell - it seems to praise WN and two other Christian brothers - all three of whom had some fellowship and mutual respect - and speaks specifically about their movements. If you are interested in checking out this book, you can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Of-Chinas-Mighty-Men/dp/1857924932/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353950771&sr=8-1&keywords=Three+of+Chinas+Mighty+Men

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-26-2012, 10:41 AM

Which bible verses in Psalms is this teaching based on?

You'll have to ask Mr Lee that - the title is from Lee's book, not Duddy's.

OBW

11-26-2012, 11:27 AM

If it "presented a powerful testimony to that young man" why does he refuse to talk with any Christians after that?

The testimony was that no one spoke the word to him for years, then when one group of Christians does others watch and immediately tell him "don't listen to them". That was the testimony. The very thing that we condemn WL, the LRC and LSM for. Paul says that we should not be conquered by the evil but rather conquer evil with good. By suing them they were conquered by the evil.Your question is a good one. But without a lot of information, it is nearly impossible to answer.

The problem is that this is an anecdote. A specific event. Given the vast array of people, personalities, interests, etc., that there is one who might be interested in things Christian from one perspective, but not any other, then become deluded when they discover that this one perspective is flawed is a real possibility. There is much to be said for the wisdom of following anyone around to warn-off those they just talked to. And I would agree that the problems that were written of in The God Men were overstated. But was the overstatement out of malice and competitive conflict, or out of concern (even if partly misguided)?

The thing is, you can't assert that the others were happy to simply drive off potential or new Christians just because it appears to have happened once.

You say in another post that you were leading someone to Christ almost every day. If we assume 7 months of the year, 5 days a week (gone to meetings all weekend) that would be somewhere in the vicinity of 150 a year. Since there was still only you on the campus there, that means that virtually all of them went on to other places to grow. If it was just about competition, then why would they complain? It seems that they got almost all the first fruits of your labors. Do you think that they contacted virtually every one of your converts that year? If so, what happened to the rest of them?

This is not an attack on what you did or what you think is true about it. But as I look at it, I believe that there may be a different view.

Maybe they actually thought that there was something amiss with theology and practices of the LRC. Maybe they really did care for those that they were warning.

Now the book was written surrounding things happening in Berkley and not Houston, and maybe those things were quite different. But if your experiences were in any way similar to those in Berkley, then maybe the LRC response was at least as wrong as they claim the SCP was in what they wrote. Maybe their "we don't talk to anyone about things" attitude was consistent with the attitude of other cults and inconsistent with other parachurch organizations.

I know that some of the campus groups for mainstream denominations are designed primarily as a way to keep their young ones in the fold rather than as an outreach to the campus. But few of them are entirely that. Do you recall the "I Found It" campaign of the BSU back in the 70s? That was jointly reaching out to the unsaved and to the saved who were on campus and disconnected from their practical faith. Maybe not as robust as the Campus Crusade efforts at times, or those of the LRC. But no one wrote anything about them. Nobody had a "they've got more disciples" view of the others.

So maybe it really was what they wrote about. Maybe they really did believe what they were told about the practices, especially the kind of controlling that often went on. It was probably seldom as extreme as the separation of husband and wife because of perceptions of how much for the church one was (or was not). But that did happen.

Just maybe the SCP really took their understanding of scripture and stacked it up against what they could discover about the LRC and found it worse than lacking. Worse than just "dead." More like "off the reservation" and actively recruiting. I think I might have wanted to at least hear it. Maybe if this had come out before 1972 I wouldn't have a reason to know enough about the LRC to be having this discussion here. And wouldn't care.

Unregistered

11-26-2012, 11:28 AM

His reference to Leslie T. Lyall's book is a new one to me. I haven't read it, and can't comment on it. It isn't any sort of expose on the LC or WN or WL, as far as I can tell - it seems to praise WN and two other Christian brothers - all three of whom had some fellowship and mutual respect - and speaks specifically about their movements. If you are interested in checking out this book, you can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Of-Chinas-Mighty-Men/dp/1857924932/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353950771&sr=8-1&keywords=Three+of+Chinas+Mighty+Men

Leslie Lyall is significant in his own right. He knew J.B. Phillips (the Bible translator), helped begin Inter-Varsity in Britain, and married the granddaughter of one of Hudson Taylor's coworkers. His service in China was remarkable.
His obituary is here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/obituary-leslie-lyall-1320763.html

OBW

11-26-2012, 11:50 AM

Several posts back, I said I'm not equating the LRC to the JWs or Mormons.To which you later responded:
Of course you are. You have used my feeling that the JW's are heretical and compared it with this brothers feelings that the LRC is heretical. In your analogy you are likening the LRC to the JWs and Mormons. However, this statement here shows you are too mealy mouthed to say it straight.It is clear that you are not mealy mouthed. You are just plain arrogant. You intent to misread and insist that you are correct in your assessment is all too plain.

My purpose in mentioning how you would deal with the JWs and/or Mormons was in no way intended to state that there is an actual comparison with the LRC. It was to note that if there are those who honestly believe that the LRC is as off-the-mark in their own way as those groups are, would you assert that they should just be silent because they (the LRC) claim otherwise for themselves?

And the short of this is that you a walking around with a burr in you boots. You make everything about you. Every account centers on your uniqueness. Your actions. Your observations. Those are valid and they are part of the equation. But they are not THE view of everything.

I was not hemming and hawing at suggesting that the LRC is like the JWs or Mormons. I am consistently clear that they are not. For all their flaws, they are quite Christian. Not something else with a cloak of Christianity wrapped around them to deceive. Oh, there is plenty of deception. But it is not to hide a non-Christian religion.

Now, do you dare to claim that I am really saying something else? Will you continue and make stupidity into an outright lie? Are you so distracted by you imagination that you cannot actually deal with what I say and must assault what I did not?

UntoHim

11-26-2012, 12:29 PM

OBW and ZNP,
Please take your dispute to the PM system, or at least to another thread.
It's just plain unfair (not to mention just plain rude) to NeitherFirstnorLast. He has taken the time and energy to introduce a very serious thread regarding this early critique of the Local Church. This book deserves some serious discussion. If it can't happen here on this forum, where else could it take place?

There are many different forum boards with many different threads. There is something for everybody. Nobody has to participate in every thread...as a matter of fact it's better if you don't.

I've already issued a warning on this thread. Any post not relating to this book will be deleted. New posters and guests will get a break. You guys that have been around for years know better. If you want to debate then I will be more than happy to open up a thread and you guys can go at it.

ZNPaaneah

11-26-2012, 12:35 PM

Lee's mentality was to take the basic truth of the Church (and the local church) and identify his movement solely with it. Therefore to oppose his movement was to opposed God's very Church.

Well, of course, any Christian who genuinely opposed the idea of the Church itself would experience a decrease of blessing. What's fallacious about Lee's mindset is he reserved the status of Church only his movement and the groups in it. It was a kind of bait and switch mentality, what I have called equivocation--playing two or more meanings of a word or idea to an advantage.

It would have been the same error for him to say to oppose his teaching was to oppose salvation itself, since he believed his teaching embodied the idea of salvation better than was ever uttered. He didn't exactly make that error (though he came close), but he did make the same error with the matter of the Church.

As to Lee's never "seeing" anyone blessed by the Lord after criticizing his movement--was he omniscient? Really was he even paying attention? Few people's awareness of what was really going on around him was more limited than Lee's. And even if he was aware what went on outside his little world, would he have judged it objectively? I doubt it. His pattern and the pattern of his followers is to ignore their own failures and nitpick those of others. He saw exactly what he programmed himself to see.

This does appear to be the case. And his use of vague and indefinite references do appear to apply in this particular quote. However, to take a verse in Psalms which talks about the blessing God's people and link that to the New Testament church is not in and of itself enough to make this point. You have to combine this with other quotes in which he questions the legitimate standing of all other Christians and another quote where he claims that you only have the proper standing if you are "on the ground".

Unless you can put together these three quotes you are not nailing him down, he is merely using references to Jerusalem, and God's people and applying them to the "New Jerusalem" and God's family, the church.

There are valid Old Testament examples of God dealing with those that attacked His people.

All I am saying is that you are claiming that Witness Lee taught something, and you are pulling up quotes that can be interpreted that he taught something, but these quotes, by themselves don't prove it.

ZNPaaneah

11-26-2012, 12:39 PM

ZNP, I think that's the point....as usual with Witness Lee his rant is not based in the Bible at all.

Lee, and now his followers, were always under the delusion that nobody was going to call him on absurd statements like this. Later on, Ron Kangas and other editors made sure things like this didn't make it into print....too bad this was back in the day when Lee had no care whatsoever for what made it into print. He figured that if some outsider said anything about it he would just sue them. Worked pretty well until they ran into a publisher and their insurer with the guts and $ to stand up to them.

I went to the book in question, but am unable to find the quote based on "Page 199", I need to know which Psalm the message was about to find it. The Psalms were very clearly talking about a blessing to those that blessed God's people and a curse to those that cursed them. So I think this quote is "tied" the Bible loosely and feel it is foolish to not actually see the context of this quote based on Psalms.

That said, I agree that this is a good "rant" by Witness Lee that can be proven to be false. But you can't nail him down without the context and without other quotes that prove "God's people" refers to "his movement" or to churches "on the ground".

ZNPaaneah

11-26-2012, 12:42 PM

Lee speaking:

Essentially, Lee considered being "blessed" to be to follow him in everything. Therefore, to oppose him or his movement in any way was to cease to be "blessed." It was black and white to him. No following him, no blessing. That's what he believed, so that's what he saw, or claimed to see.

It is this kind of speaking that I am essentially opposed to. Anyone can find their way out of Lee's theology with some study, but claiming that to leave and oppose him and his movement is to summon God's curse is beyond the pale and is a blatant attack on the conscience, mind and emotions of the listener.

Those would be much better quotes. If you had a quote that said he was blessed by following Watchman Nee and that others would be blessed by following him, that would be a big one. I remember him saying something about T Austin Sparks speaking against the Local Church once when he came to China and that from that day the anointing left him. Now that quote, combined with this would be much more powerful. If you could then tie those two quotes into the teaching on the ground, then I think that would be proof.

ZNPaaneah

11-26-2012, 12:44 PM

You'll have to ask Mr Lee that - the title is from Lee's book, not Duddy's.

Well Duddy quotes Witness Lee teaching about the Psalms and doesn't provide the Psalm that he was teaching on when giving this quote? That is an excellent example of the shoddy research. The Psalm is the context of this quote.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-26-2012, 02:20 PM

Well Duddy quotes Witness Lee teaching about the Psalms and doesn't provide the Psalm that he was teaching on when giving this quote? That is an excellent example of the shoddy research. The Psalm is the context of this quote.

Okay, you're either being petty or obtuse. Duddy quotes Lee from a book Lee entitled "WL, Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms". The quote stands alone, but you're saying that Duddy has to do a full exposition of Lee's book as well in order to be able to quote from it?

Z, this quote from the book of Lee's is understood by all of us - including you - to be typical of Lee. Why do you insist on trying to torpedo a book you've never even read?

ZNPaaneah

11-26-2012, 03:33 PM

Okay, you're either being petty or obtuse. Duddy quotes Lee from a book Lee entitled "WL, Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms". The quote stands alone, but you're saying that Duddy has to do a full exposition of Lee's book as well in order to be able to quote from it?

Z, this quote from the book of Lee's is understood by all of us - including you - to be typical of Lee. Why do you insist on trying to torpedo a book you've never even read?

I asked you a simple yes or no question, you provided a quote that Duddy presumably made of Witness Lee's writings, he gave the page number but that is much less helpful than the Psalm. If you don't have it just say so.

I have found it. The quote is based on 2 verses psalm 128:5 and psalm 129:5

Psalm 128:5 The LORD shall bless you out of Zion: and you shall see the good of Jerusalem all the days of your life.

So you explain this verse from a New Testament perspective.

The second verse is 129:5 Let them all be confounded and turned back that hate Zion.

Here is Witness Lee's word, quoted by Duddy, with the verse context.

"Now let us go on to Psalm 128:5, “The Lord shall bless thee out of Zion: and thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy life.” The Lord’s blessing is out of Zion, and the good is of the city Jerusalem. In these Psalms of ascension, the concept is always of Zion, Jerusalem, the house and the city. “Thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem (the good of the city) all the days of thy life.” All my expectation is that I may see the good of the local churches as the city all the days of my life. I have been seeing it for forty years now, and I hope to see it until the day I shall see Him. The Lord bless thee, brothers; the Lord bless thee, sisters, out of the local churches! O what a blessing it is to see the good of the local churches all the days of our life! We have only tasted a little, but according to this taste, suppose that there should be no more church life. I believe that many of us would be weeping. What a barren desert that would be! But, praise the Lord, we are in God’s recovery; we are living in the local churches.

Now let us go on to Psalm 129. Here we have a contrast. Psalm 129 is a negative Psalm, yet it helps to enhance the city. Verse 5, “Let them all be put to shame and turned backward that hate Zion.” These are the real backsliders. The hate of Zion brings in shame and turning backward. Anyone who hates the local churches will be put to shame and turned backward. I have witnessed many like this. In my entire Christian life I have never seen one Christian who, when he criticized and opposed the local churches, was ever blessed by the Lord from that time forth. I have observed that all those who have opposed the church life have become backsliders. There has not been one exception. Let them all be put to shame and turned backward. It is not a small thing. The Psalmist continues, “Let them be as the grass upon the housetops, which withereth before it groweth up: wherewith the mower filleth not his hand; nor he that bindeth sheaves his bosom” (vv. 6-7). If you hate the local churches, you will have no more growth of life. There will be no rich reaping and no rich harvest. “Neither do they which go by say, The blessing of the Lord be upon you: we bless you in the name of the Lord” (v. 8). No growth, no rich harvest, no blessing.

We who have been in the church life in Los Angeles over the past years may look back over our history and see the condition of those who have opposed the local church. There is only shame and backsliding—no growth, no rich harvest, and no blessing. The Lord will vindicate Himself. He is for Zion; if you hate Zion, you are through. The Lord desires Zion. If you reject it, it is not a small thing, it is not a matter of doctrinal disputation. Let them all be put to shame and turned backward that hate Zion." (Chapter 21, Section 2, Christ and the Church revealed and typified in the Psalms, Witness Lee)

OBW

11-26-2012, 03:53 PM

Over the years, whenever this discussion comes up, there is some statement somewhere that goes something like this:
Duddy lost the case based on US law.There is one problem. To the majority of us, that means that the facts were actually reviewed, the merits of the case were weighed, and a decision was made.

But that was not the case. Instead, due to bankruptcy, the defendant was denied the ability to make their case. The LRC presented only its position without any rebuttal, testimony, evidence that would stand against it. Then the judge essentially made a ruling based on the default of the defendant. They didn't speak or present evidence, so they lost.

This does not make the evidence of the LRC bad, or insist that Duddy could have made his case in a full trial of the facts. Just that the effect of the ruling was to give victory to the LRC because of the inability of Duddy & co to prosecute their case.

The problem is not that Duddy was erroneously found to have libeled the LRC. It is that the ruling does not establish that any court has actually ruled on all evidence. The LRC went around waving their victory as evidence that the content of The God Men was libelous. But the ruling did not really say that. It actually said that for legal purposes, that particular book is treated as libelous. To the extent that money could be garnered to pay any award, they had to pay. And since they failed to prosecute their case, they were under restriction to simply resume publishing and selling the book.

But the actual status of the content of the book was not decided.

It is a technicality. Just like any number of procedural issues that can result in summary judgment for or against (or dismissal of a case) without actually weighing the facts and ruling on the merits.

Don't ask me for legal advice. I am not a lawyer. But common sense tells you that there is a significant difference between taking your facts and evidence to trial and losing and being declared to have lost because you didn't get to present your facts and evidence. Legally, you lose either way. But in the latter case, facts and evidence that would have won are ignored and you lose anyway just because you didn't present.

So my basic comment is that the trial of Duddy and his book does not establish anything as libelous in fact. Only for purposes of the law. The words of the book were not found to be libelous. They were declared so without consideration. And that was all that was needed, legally, to get rid of the book.

Cassidy

11-26-2012, 03:58 PM

Okay, you're either being petty or obtuse. Duddy quotes Lee from a book Lee entitled "WL, Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms". The quote stands alone, but you're saying that Duddy has to do a full exposition of Lee's book as well in order to be able to quote from it?

Z, this quote from the book of Lee's is understood by all of us - including you - to be typical of Lee. Why do you insist on trying to torpedo a book you've never even read?

NFnL,

Typical of Lee. Yes, it is. Loaded with scripture. Not the way you claim.

Well, now I am beginning to wonder whether Duddy read the book he is referencing because if the thought he intended to convey is that Witness Lee makes statements without biblical basis then he did not read the text in question.

Or if he did not intend to convey that thought but nevertheless you and others on this forum took it that way then perhaps we can lay the blame at Duddy's door for not explaining it well or leaving off the references to the Scripture that are so intertwined in the text that one can only surmise that was left off deliberately.

So let's clear the air of this allegation that Witness Lee does not have a scriptural basis. I have highlighted the Scripture references in blue:
"Now let us go on to Psalm 128:5, “The Lord shall bless thee out of Zion: and thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy life.” The Lord's blessing is out of Zion, and the good is of the city Jerusalem. In these Psalms of ascension, the concept is always of Zion, Jerusalem, the house and the city. “Thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem (the good of the city) all the days of thy life.” All my expectation is that I may see the good of the local churches as the city all the days of my life. I have been seeing it for forty years now, and I hope to see it until the day I shall see Him. The Lord bless thee, brothers; the Lord bless thee, sisters, out of the local churches! O what a blessing it is to see the good of the local churches all the days of our life! We have only tasted a little, but according to this taste, suppose that there should be no more church life. I believe that many of us would be weeping. What a barren desert that would be! But, praise the Lord, we are in God's recovery; we are living in the local churches.

Now let us go on to Psalm 129. Here we have a contrast. Psalm 129 is a negative Psalm, yet it helps to enhance the city. Verse 5, “Let them all be put to shame and turned backward that hate Zion.” These are the real backsliders. The hate of Zion brings in shame and turning backward. Anyone who hates the local churches will be put to shame and turned backward. I have witnessed many like this. In my entire Christian life I have never seen one Christian who, when he criticized and opposed the local churches, was ever blessed by the Lord from that time forth. I have observed that all those who have opposed the church life have become backsliders. There has not been one exception. Let them all be put to shame and turned backward. It is not a small thing. The Psalmist continues, “Let them be as the grass upon the housetops, which withereth before it groweth up: wherewith the mower filleth not his hand; nor he that bindeth sheaves his bosom” (vv. 6-7). If you hate the local churches, you will have no more growth of life. There will be no rich reaping and no rich harvest. “Neither do they which go by say, The blessing of the Lord be upon you: we bless you in the name of the Lord” (v. 8). No growth, no rich harvest, no blessing." Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms, Chapter 21

If Duddy had quoted all the text that Witness Lee had stated then we would not be having the debate about whether there was a scriptural basis. Of course there is a scriptural basis! Plain as the nose on his face.

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with ZNP's request for a reference.

UntoHim

11-26-2012, 04:01 PM

Cassidy

11-26-2012, 04:13 PM

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-26-2012, 04:34 PM

Duddy should have quoted Lee's entirely and then it would not lead to misunderstandings.

So then you and Z are arguing that this quote by Lee is a misunderstanding? Didn't Lee say: "'In my entire Christian life I have never seen one Christian who, when he criticized and opposed the local churches, was ever blessed by the Lord from that time forth. I have observed that all those who have opposed the church life have become backsliders. There has not been one exception. Let them all be put to shame and turned backward. It is not a small thing.... If you hate the local church, you will have no more growth in life. There will be no rich reaping and no rich harvest."

Are you now saying that Lee wasn't talking about his Local Churches? Please answer YES or NO.

Cassidy

11-26-2012, 04:38 PM

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-26-2012, 04:45 PM

Yes or No?

Then "No".

Thank you, Cassidy.

ZNPaaneah

11-26-2012, 04:48 PM

The "context" of the verses provided change NOTHING. What Lee says here is just as absurd, offensive and horrific as if it stands alone (in fact it's worse because he tries to use the Word of God to justify saying such things)....but I suspect you already knew that.

ZNP, if you are here to just be a roadblock I suggest you move on. You are wasting our time.

Originally this thread was started as a "mock trial". I could care less about this book, but I do care very much that the lesson learned from this case is not that he could have won the lawsuit, or that he didn't really lose the lawsuit, or that it was a technicality. To me the lesson is that the lawsuit was a mistake for LSM and for Duddy.

But then in mid stream you changed this thread. This was no longer a mock trial, and I was fine with that. Now we are looking at what was brought forth in this book that might be valuable. That is what I am doing. The quote provided would be valuable if it could be proved to say what Duddy was implying that it was saying. So I wanted to find the quote, which I did.

How is that "wasting your time"?

ZNPaaneah

11-26-2012, 04:51 PM

So then you and Z are arguing that this quote by Lee is a misunderstanding? Didn't Lee say: "'In my entire Christian life I have never seen one Christian who, when he criticized and opposed the local churches, was ever blessed by the Lord from that time forth. I have observed that all those who have opposed the church life have become backsliders. There has not been one exception. Let them all be put to shame and turned backward. It is not a small thing.... If you hate the local church, you will have no more growth in life. There will be no rich reaping and no rich harvest."

Are you now saying that Lee wasn't talking about his Local Churches? Please answer YES or NO.

I haven't given any opinion on the quote. If anything I have said that I was pretty much in agreement with Igzy but that this quote does not prove this is what he was saying.

In a court of law it is not about the truth, it is about what you can prove.

If you want to prove it you have to do your research. What constitutes a "local church" that can be a conduit for God's blessing. Are they required to be on the ground? I think these quotes are out there.

"There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, first, the person must prove that the statement was false. Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm. Third, the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement." (Wikipedia on Libel and defamation).

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-26-2012, 05:30 PM

Chapter 2 Cnt'd....

This next part is on the "recent" history of the LC, at the time of this books writing. This is the part that undoubtedly launched the lawsuit - as it does the most damage to the testimony of the LC. To the people in the Local Churches at this time, not immediately involved in these events, the allegations made here were undoubtedly shocking. To us, this is now history - and I have to ask us to treat it as such. What evidence could Duddy offer to the events he records here? We know he had the testimony of Max Rapoport, who was Lee's closest associate and right-hand man. Duddy also references a holding company I was not aware of - and a company name I hadn't heard of - perhaps some of you have? Of course, assuming most of us here already accept the testimony we are about to read as fact (because we've heard it elsewhere already from numerous credible souces), then we can imagine that subpoenas could have been issued and members of the LC who could corroborate the charges could be brought forth - but we cannot know what the outcome of this would be. Ultimately, we must remember that while Lee launched the lawsuit, it was also his legal team that continually "bought time" and dragged the process out for over four and half years until the other side bankrupted. If none of the allegations we are about to read are true, then dragging out such a lawsuit would not make sense. You would want to get to court as quickly as possible, and vindicate yourself.

That said, let's move forward. I will quote more fully here, as this is a part many would like to hear all about.

On Recent History

"Witness Lee's Anaheim headquarters house two separate branches of the organization, both legally incorporated. Lee is technically and legally not the head of the first branch, the Local Church, which he serves as a salaried, official consultant. The second legal structure, called the Living Stream Inc., is the ministry over which Witness Lee actually presides.

....Though Witness Lee is not legally at the helm of the Local Church organization, the presence and influence he wields there are equivalent to his presence and influence within the Stream ministry. Hence the two agencies are considered synonymous for the purposes of this book's theological and social commentary.

Besides the two agencies for the ministry, Witness Lee and other Local Church figures have also engaged in two business enterprises called Day Star and Fosforus. Lee has served as chairman of the board for both companies. His son, Timothy Lee, has served as president of Fosforus.

Day Star of California sold motor homes until the fall of 1975, when, having failed to maintain a subsistence level of sales, it registered as a suspended operation. Fosforus was a Taiwan-based factory that initially manufactured parts for the Day Star recreation vans. When the California enterprise folded, Fosforus began to make chairs which Local Church congregations and individual members were encouraged to purchase for meeting halls and homes. A sufficient market was not created, however, and Fosforus then embarked on the manufacture of tennis rackets... When that phase of operation also failed, Fosforus suspended operations but maintained its ninety-nine year lease on its property. An unregistered agency, Overseas Christian Steward, acts as the parent body for both non-functioning corporations.

In another financial operation, funds solicited from Local Church members for a meeting hall in Stuttgart, Germany, were diverted into American real estate. The $235,000 collected was withdrawn from German banks in the spring of 1978 because of their low 3% interest rate and invested in a six-apartment building located next to Witness Lee's home in Anaheim, California. Although that investment is appreciating, no apparent action has been taken to acquire the proposed Stuttgart meeting hall.

In the autumn of 1978 a significant split occured in LC headquarters: more than forty members of the Anaheim congregation withdrew, including two of Lee's top administrators. Around the nation, several hundred others have followed their example... LC elders, under Witness Lee's direction, have held special meetings for national and international leaders on how to deal with the defectors, particularly Max Rapoport, Lee's erstwhile heir apparent and former president of the Anaheim Local Church. From the "Max Conference" have stemmed rumors that Rapoport has been in league with the devil and is the betrayer Judas. In November 1978, however, Ron Kangas refused to acknowledge any attrition, describing the Anaheim dissidents as engaged in Local Church endeavors outside the Los Angeles vicinity. The Local Church has since responded to the defections by publishing a pamphlet entitled "The Belief and Practices of the Local Churches", hoping to dispel any derogatory publicity. According to former members, however, the pamphlet, which is couched in evangelical language, accurately represents neither the beliefs nor practices of the LC."**

**SPECIAL NOTE: Looking ahead into Chapter 3, there is reason given for Max's resignation/defection from the LC. We WILL get to it, but I'd rather not present it yet - to keep us on topic.

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

I don't generally delve into the history of the LC as regards financial issues. To me, it is not the issue it is to others - I don't see it as a blot on an otherwise spotless record, but rather only a symptom of a systemic disease. For this reason, I can't say that I've ever heard of "Fosforus". Have any of you? Nor have I heard of "Overseas Christian Steward". What have any of you heard about these organizations?

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-26-2012, 05:47 PM

I haven't given any opinion on the quote. If anything I have said that I was pretty much in agreement with Igzy but that this quote does not prove this is what he was saying.

In a court of law it is not about the truth, it is about what you can prove.

Then ZNP, if you're sincere about wanting to participate here in this "mock trial", please understand that "all the evidence" has not been presented. I didn't take the time to go through the book and gather everything I could on each topic individually to present to you. Frankly, I don't have the time to do that. There is a LOT left to read, and the book goes back to topics periodically to present supporting evidence. Any judgements you wish to render (IE: "sloppy research") really need to be left to the END of the trial. Judges don't allow hecklers to keep shouting "guilty!" while the trial is still underway - and they won't pronounce judgement until the last of the evidence is in and has been weighed.

OBW

11-26-2012, 06:01 PM

I don't generally delve into the history of the LC as regards financial issues. To me, it is not the issue it is to others - I don't see it as a blot on an otherwise spotless record, but rather only a symptom of a systemic disease. For this reason, I can't say that I've ever heard of "Fosforus". Have any of you? Nor have I heard of "Overseas Christian Steward". What have any of you heard about these organizations?Fosforus and Overseas Christian Steward were, as noted, part of the structure of the deal that was Daystar. LRC members were encouraged to invest in Daystar, the sales company. It then sent the money to Fosforus to build the motor homes. Only a handful were ever actually built, and not all of those sold. But whatever was built was sold to Daystar which could not dispose of the inventory because of the serious oil shortages at the time. It essentially went bankrupt, although it is possible that no actual bankruptcy was filed because they could not appear in court with investors who were solicited without following SEC requirements. For the most part, the members were asked to forgive the "debt" and lt it go.

The real kicker is that Fosforus actually made money. It build and sold motor homes at a profit — to Daystar. Nothing makes that absolutely clear. Or actionably clear.

But somehow, Lee managed to come up with several business deals over the years, dating back at least to the 50s, in which he made some money, then the churches bailed out the business when they ultimately failed. But this was not the primary investigation by Duddy. There are older threads on Daystar and some of the issues surrounding it.

It is a little funny that Max R's first appearances in the LRC were in the wake of Daystar to try to get people to let the investments just go away. And he was on the rise until it became expedient to dismiss him as some kind of snake that Lee needed to save us from. That was the point that Lee really became central as leader and the alleged separateness of the local assemblies began to disappear. I can't clearly assert that Lee just set it up to happen that way, or that bringing the sins of his (Lee's) own son to his attention made him expendable at just the right time. Shoot the messenger and sweep the sins under the rug.

Unfortunately, it had to happen again 10 years later. That time he had to "fire" John Ingalls and several others. The thing they wrote about those dear brothers makes The God-Man seem like nothing. Their story of rebellion was nothing if not a fabrication. Worthy of lawsuit and a judgment against them. But alas, those brothers had more integrity than Lee, RK, BP, and so many others.

ZNPaaneah

11-26-2012, 06:03 PM

Then ZNP, if you're sincere about wanting to participate here in this "mock trial", please understand that "all the evidence" has not been presented. I didn't take the time to go through the book and gather everything I could on each topic individually to present to you. Frankly, I don't have the time to do that. There is a LOT left to read, and the book goes back to topics periodically to present supporting evidence. Any judgements you wish to render (IE: "sloppy research") really need to be left to the END of the trial. Judges don't allow hecklers to keep shouting "guilty!" while the trial is still underway - and they won't pronounce judgement until the last of the evidence is in and has been weighed.

Really? How about "objection!" Lawyers object often, many times for no reason other than to make it difficult for you to speak. What about motions, these are designed to make you run around and do research and file petitions, and show up in court, and make one little mistake and the trial is thrown out.

Lawyers will object to evidence as to the relevance. They will object to the way in which it is entered as evidence. They will object to the credibility.

Do you really think OJ would have been found not guilty if the evidence that the TV viewers saw was shown to the jury? The first rule is to prevent the evidence ever being presented.

Don't you find it ironic that "frankly I don't have time to do that" is basically the same reason that Duddy ultimately folded?

Here on the forum we are focused on truth. Law courts are focused on "winning" which is often measured in dollars.

ZNPaaneah

11-26-2012, 06:11 PM

UntoHim

11-26-2012, 06:59 PM

ZNP and all,

One last time. Let's have no more talk of trials, lawyers, objections, etc, etc. I've asked nicely. I've threatened to delete posts. What do you guys want me to do? I'm not asking too much. There is PLENTY to discuss here without having to go off the beaten path.

Read the quotes provided. Comment on them. Agree with them, disagree with them. Yes, even bring up whether or not they were in context. (but if you do, please feel free to BRIEFLY explain what you believe to be the proper context. Just saying it's out of context is not good enough)

My dear mommy had this saying..."forewarned is forearmed".

:stayontopic:

Unregistered

11-26-2012, 07:16 PM

Over the years, whenever this discussion comes up, there is some statement somewhere that goes something like this:
There is one problem. To the majority of us, that means that the facts were actually reviewed, the merits of the case were weighed, and a decision was made.

But that was not the case. Instead, due to bankruptcy, the defendant was denied the ability to make their case. The LRC presented only its position without any rebuttal, testimony, evidence that would stand against it. Then the judge essentially made a ruling based on the default of the defendant. They didn't speak or present evidence, so they lost..

"Accordingly, the Court finds that the manuscript by Neil. T. Duddy entitled The God-Men (Exhibit 1) disseminated (published) in the United States, the book Die Sonderlehre des Witness Lee Und Seiner Ortsgemeinde published by Schwengeler-Verlag (Exhibit 3) disseminated (published) in Europe, and the book The God-Men, An Inquiry Into Witness Lee and the Local Church by Neil T. Duddy and the SCP published by Inter-Varsity Press (Exhibit 5) disseminated (published) in the United States and England, are in all major respects false, defamatory and unprivileged, and, therefore, libelous."

TLFisher

11-26-2012, 08:55 PM

Unfortunately, it had to happen again 10 years later. That time he had to "fire" John Ingalls and several others. The thing they wrote about those dear brothers makes The God-Man seem like nothing. Their story of rebellion was nothing if not a fabrication. Worthy of lawsuit and a judgment against them. But alas, those brothers had more integrity than Lee, RK, BP, and so many others.

One brother unknown to LRC once said, "there's a price to pay for integrity". Ingalls, So, Mallon, and those who left paid that price with their reputation. Who knows when the Lord will call these brothers home. One thing for certain, among LSM localites their names are smeared until the current age ends.

ZNPaaneah

11-27-2012, 05:48 AM

If you want to prove it you have to do your research. What constitutes a "local church" that can be a conduit for God's blessing. Are they required to be on the ground? I think these quotes are out there.

Here is an example which gets part of what you need.

"One has the Apollonian ground, one has the Petrine ground, one has the Pauline ground, and one even says that Christ is their ground. What are these grounds? We must be clear that they are all divisive. Only Corinth is the right ground. The ground of locality is the one unique and uniting ground upon which the church can be built. The unique proper ground of the church is the locality where the church is.
Today we have the same thing in a city such as Los Angeles. There is a church built upon the Presbyterian ground, a church built upon the Baptist ground, a church built upon the Methodist ground, and so many kinds of ‘churches’ built upon so many kinds of grounds. In one city, there are many kinds of ‘churches.’ Why is this? Simply because they are on so many different kinds of grounds. And all these grounds are divisive. "The Practical Expression of the Church," (Volumes 6 & 7 Booklet), 5 by Witness Lee

This quote does demonstrate that When Witness Lee says "Local Church" he is referring to his sect:

“If we do not have the local church [i.e. Church of Recovery] today, practically speaking, we do not have the church. The local church [i.e. Church of Recovery] is the practicality of the church. The church today is practically in the local churches.” (Lee, Witness, “The Practical Expression of the Church,” (Volumes 4 & 5 Booklet), 4.)

This quote shows that you can only get the blessing in the church on the Proper Ground:

"So first of all, we must know the unity, and we must know the proper unity. It is impossible to keep the proper unity in Babylon or in any of those divisive groups in Corinth. We must come back to Jerusalem, i.e., the ground of locality. If we are in Babylon, we must come back to Jerusalem. If we are in one of the divisive groups in Corinth, we must come back to the ground of unity in Corinth. It is impossible to have the proper unity in any divisive group. We must come back to the one unique ground of unity...
If you are absolute, you will realize that it is impossible to keep the proper unity in any kind of divisive group, regardless of how spiritual you are. You must keep yourself from anything divisive and come back to the ground of unity. If you are really absolute and mean business with the Lord, you will experience the Lord commanding the blessing of life upon you.

When we have the unity, there the Lord commands the blessing." (The practical expression of the church, chapter 11, section 2).

These quotes taken together proves that Witness Lee taught that God's blessing was only in his sect and if you met with any other denomination in Christianity you could not be blessed.

With that as the background, now read what Witness Lee said:

"In my entire Christian life I have never seen one Christian who, when he criticized and opposed the local churches, was ever blessed by the Lord from that time forth. I have observed that all those who have opposed the church life have become backsliders." (referenced in previous posts, from Christ and the Church revealed in the Psalms, based on Psalm 128 and 129).

Here is the thing, I have criticized Witness Lee openly, even publishing my opinion that he is a false teacher. Does that mean that I opposed the local church? Depends on your definition of the local church. I have criticized the teaching of the ground of oneness as a magic formula, a shortcut if you prefer, to being one. My criticism was that a teaching that should have focused on being one with all Christians in a city actually is used to teach that this group is superior to all others and the only "genuine" group. Looking at these quotes you can clearly see this pride and arrogance in this teaching. So then, this principle of God will bless those that bless God's people and curse those that curse God's people could be true and the basic teaching here, but without a doubt Witness Lee has twisted this teaching to build up a sect, a direct contradiction to the NT, and powerful evidence that Witness Lee is a false teacher.

Ohio

11-27-2012, 11:23 AM

I use the word poison because a person that we preached the gospel to and who prayed with us one day would not talk to us other than to say this group had talked to them the next day. That is not "warned". Also, if they had then shepherded this newly saved one I would feel less negative about it, but they felt their work was done by preventing us from shepherding this one. We preached the gospel to unbelievers, not people meeting with intervarsity or campus crusade, they talked to them, and now this person doesn't want to talk to any Christian. Yes, that in my understanding is poisoned.

In Ohio we had three cases of saints being kidnapped and held against their will, while paid de-programmers worked their "magic" on these ones. I have heard that some of these de-programmers used techniques learned in the military. The ones kidnapped were all adults. Don't they have the liberty, aka first amendment rights, to believe, to speak what they believe, and to assemble? The kidnappers and their de-programmers were never prosecuted because they were family members, and after such an ordeal, the victims had little ability to stand up for anything.

In every case, these two books, God-Men and Mindbenders, were cited as their basis for action.

Ohio

11-27-2012, 11:34 AM

But if the group that was being warned against had been the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons, you would have hoped they would not talk with those heretics the next day and would never have categorized it as "poison."

The LC was characterized as far worse than any JW or Mormon, and you should know that. Hey, JW's and Mormons are well respected as individuals and citizens. The Moslems and the Mormons, in fact, can even run for POTUS, and no one seems to care.

But ... otoh you know that LC folks were characterized with Jim Jones and the mass suicide. That was the sole intention of those books. Families were totally spooked about loved ones. Fear, not research or factual evidence, was the basic tool they used.

Listen, I lived through the hell of those two books and the damage it did to the gospel outreach to my friends and family.

Unregistered

11-27-2012, 11:39 AM

Listen, I lived through the hell of those two books and the damage it did to the gospel outreach to my friends and family.

Nevertheless, is it possible that God used those two books to prevent people from joining the LC's, and going through the harmful experiences so many of us have been through? Isn't it better that many never went down the negative road we went down, because those books stopped them?

So far, based on the quotes from The God-Men that have been cited here, I can't see how Duddy got it wrong. It sounds like a fair and accurate assessment. If those books were misused, I'm not sure it's his fault. I wish I had been rescued from joining this movement at such a young age.

Ohio

11-27-2012, 11:56 AM

Excuse me, you are the one who was accusing me of bias?

The principle is relatively simple and straightforward, based on Paul's use of his Roman citizenship it is reasonable to say that we have the right to use our citizenship as well. The question is what do you do when you have two opposing principles? Paul said "is there no one that can judge between you? and "why not rather suffer loss?"

I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that "not suing a brother" trumps the principle of using your citizenship.

However, please note, it takes two to tango. If you wish to condemn LSM, and I am obviously on record doing so, then you should give the same judgement to the God Men, Inter Varsity, etc. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Paul was set up for ambush by Jewish zealots.

It is one thing to use the law to attack your opponent as the plaintiff, and another thing to use the law to defend yourself as a defendant. The question is whether LSM was a plaintiff or defendant.

TLFisher

11-27-2012, 12:19 PM

"One has the Apollonian ground, one has the Petrine ground, one has the Pauline ground, and one even says that Christ is their ground. What are these grounds? We must be clear that they are all divisive. Only Corinth is the right ground. The ground of locality is the one unique and uniting ground upon which the church can be built. The unique proper ground of the church is the locality where the church is. Today we have the same thing in a city such as Los Angeles. There is a church built upon the Presbyterian ground, a church built upon the Baptist ground, a church built upon the Methodist ground, and so many kinds of ‘churches’ built upon so many kinds of grounds. In one city, there are many kinds of ‘churches.’ Why is this? Simply because they are on so many different kinds of grounds. And all these grounds are divisive. "The Practical Expression of the Church," (Volumes 6 & 7 Booklet), 5 by Witness Lee

Thanks for bringing this up ZNP. In the late 80's, one of the criticisms of the saints who departed from the Church in Anaheim, is they begun meeting separately. If you get to the heart of the matter they felt the local ground had been replaced by the ministry of Witness Lee. So from their perpsective, they never left the local ground. Same applies to other localities that parted from LSM fellowship.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-27-2012, 01:22 PM

... Lee managed to come up with several business deals over the years, dating back at least to the 50s, in which he made some money, then the churches bailed out the business when they ultimately failed. But this was not the primary investigation by Duddy. There are older threads on Daystar and some of the issues surrounding it.

Thanks for the input on this Mike,

You're right of course, Lee's business dealings were not the focus of Duddy & SCP's investigation - but I think it is noteworthy that they are mentioned here. Why noteworthy? Because, as I'd said, these business dealings are symptomatic of a larger problem - these business dealings of Lee really speak to the credibility and motives of the plaintiff.

How So?

Well, Lee teaches that the New Testament Church founded shortly after the Resurrection was built on the ground of oneness of locality, on no-clergy/laity divisions, on one-trumpet speaking, on pray reading the Word, on eating/drinking/breathing Christ, on calling on the name of the Lord, on mingling and blending, etc. etc. Right?

Lee also teaches that very shortly after the founding of the New Testament church, these practices began to be lost... that churches deviated from the Lord's Way, degraded, and became "Babylon". And the Lord wept. Right?

Then, Lee teaches, that the Lord began a 'recovery' in the 1500's, starting with Martin Luther - a Catholic Monk who 'recovers' "Saved by Grace through Faith". Martin Luther, Lee asserts, was the Minister of the Age (although apparently this was news to both Martin Luther and to those who followed him). After Martin Luther, the Lord begins a practice of raising up a new MOTA for every generation that follows, gradually 'recovering' more (again, news to every one who Lee claims to have been the MOTA - and absolutely opposed to the doctrines they taught). The final MOTA - and the one who recovered most of all, was (of course) Lee himself. Right?

What an incredible responsibility! Lee teaches that he is the culmination of the Lord's labour for His church - that the people who benefit from Lee's ministry will be richly blessed, be the overcomers, and will rule with Christ or be mingled with Christ as the God-Men! This is it, this is the generation that will see Christ return in Glory and be the Church that will be taken up by Him - His True Bride - Praise the Lord!! What an awesome task has been set before Lee!

...But it's only a part-time job?

Wait a minute, if Lee REALLY believed all the above, how could he dabble in business at the same time as taking care of all of God's Children on Earth? By Lee's own testimony, he had looked throughout the earth and found no one who was equipped as he was to take back the ground for the Lord. How could he be concerned with making chairs and recreational vehicles to raise funds when he has the weight of the world on his shoulders!? Unlike Paul, who made tents to pay his way, Lee was no itinerant preacher. Lee had money, was already pulling in a salary, but he wanted more?!

1 Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs."

Matthew 6:24 "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."

How can money motivate a man who REALLY believed these things about himself? Why lay up treasures for himself here, where moth and rust corrupt - if he REALLY believed he could lay up for himself a treasure in heaven? More importantly, where does the Bible say his heart must be, given that he displays this attitude?

This is something we MUST consider, when looking at this case - because motives speak to credibility - and the fact that Lee had business dealings outside the LRC greatly damages that credibility.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-27-2012, 01:46 PM

Chapter Three

Chapter Three is on LC Doctrine and Theology. I would like to rearrange part of what I present here, to better maintain the narrative. Accordingly, I would like to now present the part about Max Rapoport here - before getting into the spiritual matters of the LC.

"The problem of authority (its source and who wields it) is a significant test for healthy communities. Although Witness Lee decries church hierarchies, their forms and written constitutions, the Local Church is not a model of democracy.

Lee's voice has always been far weightier in the organization than anyone else's. Reliable sources say that Lee rules with a firm hand. Exercising deference to all of Lee's requests, the inner circle serves as a model for the obedience and submission encouraged among LC congregations. Although the LC denies that Lee is an autocratic "pope" and claims that Scripture is their paramount authority, there is some reason for skepticism. Among Stream Publications, editions of Lee materials predominate, with minimal contributions from other LC figures. The non-Lee materials are generally apologetic, presenting a defense of LC positions in accordance with Lee's desires.

Although the LC publicly supports the supremacy and authority of Scripture, Witness Lee's persuasive argumentation and spirited theology provide the accepted interpretation of Scripture. Any attempt to exercise biblical leverage on questionable issues by a member of the LC is overruled by Lee's authoritative interpretation, irrespective of it's accuracy. It was that style of authority which prompted Max Rapoport to resign his post as president of the LC in Anaheim. In the Los Angeles Times (December 11th, 1978 edition), Rapoport was quoted as saying that he attempted to encourage the exercise of biblical discipline in a case of moral indiscretion on the part of Witness Lee's son Phillip. Discouraged by Lee from applying scriptural discipline, Rapoport was subsequently removed from Lee's graces and gradually lost power and reputation. "

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

Following this portion, there is portion of where Lee interprets his authority to come from - based on his intepretation of Scripture. I want to stop here again though, as I believe there is plenty to discuss from above.

Do any of you have any cause to disagree with anything the author has pointed out here? Anyone have a copy of the LA Times article referred to from Dec. 11 1978? Perhaps it can be obtained on-line for cross-reference?

TLFisher

11-27-2012, 07:04 PM

In the Los Angeles Times (December 11th, 1978 edition), Rapoport was quoted as saying that he attempted to encourage the exercise of biblical discipline in a case of moral indiscretion on the part of Witness Lee's son Phillip. Discouraged by Lee from applying scriptural discipline, Rapoport was subsequently removed from Lee's graces and gradually lost power and reputation. "[/COLOR]

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

Following this portion, there is portion of where Lee interprets his authority to come from - based on his intepretation of Scripture. I want to stop here again though, as I believe there is plenty to discuss from above.

Anyone have a copy of the LA Times article referred to from Dec. 11 1978? Perhaps it can be obtained on-line for cross-reference?
Yes, I do. Some of what Max had to say I don't agree with. However there is some truth to the article. One estimate Max made I found of interest was Living Stream grossed $400,000 a year. This was 34 years ago in 1978. Since the accounting books don't get published and considering Max was in the know at that time, I wouldn't be surprised if he's not far off the mark.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-27-2012, 09:47 PM

One estimate Max made I found of interest was Living Stream grossed $400,000 a year. This was 34 years ago in 1978. Since the accounting books don't get published and considering Max was in the know at that time, I wouldn't be surprised if he's not far off the mark.

Actually, because LSM is a registered "non-profit", their Income Tax returns are available for public viewing - and I know I've seen some of them on-line at www.whataspin.com (http://www.whataspin.com) under "evidence". But this isn't pertinent to this case.

Would you be able to share (post) the article that you have from the LA Times, Terry?

TLFisher

11-27-2012, 10:02 PM

Would you be able to share (post) the article that you have from the LA Times, Terry?

I will share excerpts from the article, but I cannot post the article.

TLFisher

11-27-2012, 10:34 PM

"Rapoport emphasized in the interview that Lee himself lives frugally in an Anaheim duplex and has no vices. He also insisted there has been no intent to defraud by leaders and no links with any agencies.
"All of the people I know in the Local Church are real, born-again Christian, including Witness Lee", Rapoport said.

Earlier in the article it mentions how Max Rapoport began to be disenchanted when Witness Lee refused to act on Max's demand to remove Phillip Lee after Phillip was accused of an immoral act. As we know there was an eyewitness account to sustantiate the claim. Otherwise Max, Francis, and Gene wouldn't have found out. The article goes on to say attempts to Phiilip Lee were uinsuccessul (same applies to the CRI Journal from the Fall 1988 Journal where attempts to reach Phillip were unsuccessful). In the LA Times article Witness Lee said his son does not like to answer charges.

ZNPaaneah

11-28-2012, 05:28 AM

"Rapoport emphasized in the interview that Lee himself lives frugally in an Anaheim duplex and has no vices. He also insisted there has been no intent to defraud by leaders and no links with any agencies.
"All of the people I know in the Local Church are real, born-again Christian, including Witness Lee", Rapoport said.

Earlier in the article it mentions how Max Rapoport began to be disenchanted when Witness Lee refused to act on Max's demand to remove Phillip Lee after Phillip was accused of an immoral act. As we know there was an eyewitness account to sustantiate the claim. Otherwise Max, Francis, and Gene wouldn't have found out. The article goes on to say attempts to Phiilip Lee were uinsuccessul (same applies to the CRI Journal from Fall 1988 where attempts to reach Phillip were unsuccessful). In the LA Times article Witness Lee said his son does not like to answer charges.

Is there a claim in this book that the LRC is a cult, because it seems that Max's quote cannot be used to substantiate that.

OBW

11-28-2012, 06:41 AM

"Accordingly, the Court finds that the manuscript by Neil. T. Duddy entitled The God-Men (Exhibit 1) disseminated (published) in the United States, the book Die Sonderlehre des Witness Lee Und Seiner Ortsgemeinde published by Schwengeler-Verlag (Exhibit 3) disseminated (published) in Europe, and the book The God-Men, An Inquiry Into Witness Lee and the Local Church by Neil T. Duddy and the SCP published by Inter-Varsity Press (Exhibit 5) disseminated (published) in the United States and England, are in all major respects false, defamatory and unprivileged, and, therefore, libelous."And by simply repeating the verdict from the one-sided presentation of facts you mean what?

If you are assuming that the existence of a verdict means that the words are actually libelous, slanderous, and defamatory, then you are mistaken. It only means that for purposes of the law, this particular book will be treated as such. There was no finding of facts. Only a declaration based on the default of the defendant/respondent. The ruling is legally binding with respect to the book. It has nothing substantial to say about the actual content of the book. It does not even dare to profess that another would automatically be treated as libelous simply because they reported the same information. Note, I am not saying simply republish the book as-is. That is prohibited. If you don't understand the difference, go find a lawyer and ask for an explanation.

OBW

11-28-2012, 06:46 AM

In Ohio we had three cases of saints being kidnapped and held against their will, while paid de-programmers worked their "magic" on these ones. I have heard that some of these de-programmers used techniques learned in the military. The ones kidnapped were all adults. Don't they have the liberty, aka first amendment rights, to believe, to speak what they believe, and to assemble? The kidnappers and their de-programmers were never prosecuted because they were family members, and after such an ordeal, the victims had little ability to stand up for anything.

In every case, these two books, God-Men and Mindbenders, were cited as their basis for action.It is clear that some went way too far in trying to save their children and relatives from the clutches of various cults of the 60s and 70s.

I just hope that the fact that a particular account of the group's errors and ways is used as basis for the fear of the group is not presumed to make them complicit in such abductions and "deprogrammings."

Unregistered

11-28-2012, 06:47 AM

OBW

11-28-2012, 06:53 AM

The LC was characterized as far worse than any JW or Mormon, and you should know that. Hey, JW's and Mormons are well respected as individuals and citizens. The Moslems and the Mormons, in fact, can even run for POTUS, and no one seems to care.

But ... otoh you know that LC folks were characterized with Jim Jones and the mass suicide. That was the sole intention of those books. Families were totally spooked about loved ones. Fear, not research or factual evidence, was the basic tool they used.

Listen, I lived through the hell of those two books and the damage it did to the gospel outreach to my friends and family.Given the way that we keep reporting how the leadership does exactly what is told regardless its opposition to scripture, and the devoted following of Lee as MOTA, I'm not sure that the fear is entirely irrational. We know better (or at least think we do). But in their own way, they are as extreme as those suicide cults. Just not prone to that kind of action. And not taking a stand against the government (which is almost always an underlying problem in the suicide cults).

The Mormons have become understood, as they have moderated. But note that even there we find splinter subgroups that will stand-off against the government and fight to the death. Like a lot of far right Christian fanatics. The LRC is not in those groups.

But in terms of spiritual health, it is in many ways just as bad. It is unfortunate that the link to the wackos exists. But then some of the actions of Lee and the others are pretty wacko.

Ohio

11-28-2012, 06:54 AM

It is clear that some went way too far in trying to save their children and relatives from the clutches of various cults of the 60s and 70s.

I just hope that the fact that a particular account of the group's errors and ways is used as basis for the fear of the group is not presumed to make them complicit in such abductions and "deprogrammings."

This is why "cult" accusations are risky. They often lead to fear-based irrational conclusions.

UntoHim

11-28-2012, 08:00 AM

Is this the article? It's from the same date, concerning the local churches, but from a different paper. The byline indicates the article originated from the L.A. Times.
There's a lot of interesting information here, including testimonies from other ex-members.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19781217&id=ofdLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Du4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6767,820767

Yes, this is the article in question. It seems that this writer (John Dart) was syndicated, so it ended up in a number of different papers across the country.
If I remember correctly, it came out in the Sunday edition of the LA Times, which had the largest circulation west of the Mississippi. My dad read every inch of the Sunday Times, so of course he ran across this article. By then I was living in "the brothers house", but he still called me to come over to the house immediately. Two older brothers were "assigned" to come with me - I was a real talker and they wanted to make sure I didn't spill any beans. I think my parents came very close to going the "deprogramming" route. Actually if they had the money they probably would have.

In a ironic twist of fate, I found out that my godparents (back in the day when many american kids had them) were deeply involved with Max Rapoport in the gospel work there in the San Diego area before he came into the Local Church. Around the time of this article, while visiting my parents, my godparents came over to the house and as soon as they saw me, they proclaimed "So that's what happened to Max, we wondered what happened to him!" Of course by this time Max was persona non grata in a major way, so I kind of acted like I never heard of him. Only a few months earlier I would been able to proclaim that he was "Brother Lee's right hand man!".

I think this whole thing went down right around the time of the Jim Jones/Peoples Temple mass suicide, and since this was still very much in public's awareness, it greatly magnified the situation with the Local Church. There is no doubt that it caught the attention of many Christian apologists such as Duddy et al.

ZNPaaneah

11-28-2012, 09:39 AM

TLFisher

11-28-2012, 10:12 AM

PL didn't stop his licentious ways, so the turmoil in the 1980s is merely a continuation of this case. This forum is a continuation of the turmoils in the 1980s.
Well yes. Going back to the LA Times article from 1978. I had asked a brother I knew who ushered for the Church in Anaheim from 1976-1990. He told me he never heard of the article. Which isn't much of a surprise considering a emphasis on rejecting newspapers, magazines, tv, etc.

Cal

11-28-2012, 10:32 AM

I read this article years ago. It's fascinating to read now. It confirms everything I've learned and concluded about the LRC since. Note Lee's generalized and obfuscating responses. He sounds like Jim and Tammy Faye Baker being interviewed by Ted Koppel.

Ohio

11-28-2012, 11:05 AM

This article is hilarious. Max and Sal make Witness Lee pay the price. The excommunication of Max and Sal easily can be connected to the accusations of the Local Church being a cult, right at the time of Jim Jones. This article obviously got major play and as a result the LRC was blackballed from this day on. At the end of the article Max or Sal said they thought it was unlikely this would bring the group down. On the contrary I would argue this was the beginning of the end. PL didn't stop his licentious ways, so the turmoil in the 1980s is merely a continuation of this case. This forum is a continuation of the turmoils in the 1980s.

However, although I feel Witness Lee was reaping what he sowed, I also think it is a shame that one response to this article was to "deprogram" people, which is merely a case of legalized kidnapping. It is difficult for me to believe that the solution to the abuse of the LRC is the abuse of this practice.

I thought Max's attitude reeked of self-righteousness. Apparently he changed after this, but he takes no responsibility for his own actions, and then tells parents to hire deprogrammers for their kids. Articles like this help to fuel the fire WL lit about Max, and helped to maintain WL's pristine image within the Recovery.

Cal

11-28-2012, 11:15 AM

Ohio

11-28-2012, 11:26 AM

Really?? I don't pick this up at all. All I see is Max telling it like it happened. Granted, he didn't mention his culpability, but if he had meant to be misleading he could have taken swipes he didn't take. He didn't have to defend Lee's character and he did.

Max takes the attitude that "wow, praise God, I just escaped from a cult," rather than "I got swept along like everyone else, and did many things I now regret."

I know Max is now a hero on this forum, but he was a grown man in his 40's messing with the lives of college age kids and elders of churches.

The Lord told Pilate that the Jews had the "greater sin," and to me Max was used by Lee as Pilate was used by the Jews. The good thing is that I heard Max repented for his involvement (but he should have come to Chicago and Cleveland to do this), whereas Lee never did.

Unregistered

11-28-2012, 11:26 AM

I thought Max's attitude reeked of self-righteousness. Apparently he changed after this, but he takes no responsibility for his own actions, and then tells parents to hire deprogrammers for their kids. Articles like this help to fuel the fire WL lit about Max, and helped to maintain WL's pristine image within the Recovery.

What was Max supposed to say? What could Max have done differently that WL would not have used against him? No matter what Max said or did, WL would have taken advantage of Max's departure and built up his own image. If you were in the LC at the time, name one thing Max could have said that would have penetrated the LC mentality. Remember, Max didn't choose to leave originally, but rather it was Lee who drove him out. Just as with Ingalls and the other "rebels" ten years later, Max tried to deal with an unrighteous situation in good faith, and was cast aside. Lee bears responsibility for that.

I don't get the impression that Max is self-righteous here. Knowing the full story (or at least the story more accurately), I think that Max is being very honest about the situation. After what Max had been through, being promoted and sent around by Lee, then being expelled and slandered by Lee, I don't blame Max for warning people about the movement. He sounds appropriately disillusioned, like he's seen the man behind the curtain.

UntoHim

11-28-2012, 11:37 AM

But ... otoh you know that LC folks were characterized with Jim Jones and the mass suicide. That was the sole intention of those books. Families were totally spooked about loved ones. Fear, not research or factual evidence, was the basic tool they used.
Listen, I lived through the hell of those two books and the damage it did to the gospel outreach to my friends and family.

I don't think that characterizing the LC with Jim Jones was the sole purpose of the this particular book. Of course there was a natural link between the two because of the timeframe, but that was the LC movement's fault as much as any of the "cult-busters". The LC was very secretive in general towards outsiders, and extremely uncooperative with Christians apologists. It made us look bad in front of the general public, and even worse to those Christians seeking to understand the inner workings of the group, and to verify our claims that we were just "ordinary Christians".

We are just delving into the beginning of the book, but so far I don't see any attempt to use fear as a tool or anything like that. So far it seems they did do a lot of research. As I noted recently, everything that has been quoted so far is actually surprisingly dead spot on. It seems they spent enough time around the group to see through a lot of the coded language. It was around this time that the Local Church produced that little booklet "The Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches". This little tract was more of a work of fiction than a true description of the believes and practices. For example under the Q&A section, to the question "Who is your leader" the answer given is:Our unique leader is Christ. We have no official, permanent, organized human leadership. Furthermore, there is no hierarchy of any kind and no worldwide leader. We regard no person as infallible, and we do not follow anyone blindly. Duddy et al saw right through this smokescreen. They knew exactly who Lee was to the members and that he was the SOLE, unquestioned leader of the Movement.

I have a feeling that the more we delve into this book the more we will see that these guys actually did their homework. Yes, they probably made mistakes along the way, exaggerated certain things and maybe even did so in the wrong spirit, but in the end what we should be concerned with today is what they wrote true and factual? In some cases it may be, in other cases there may be some inaccuracies. But I think it will be worth our time and effort to got through it chapter by chapter and let the book speak for itself.

Thanks again to NFnL for taking the time and effort to guide us through this.

ZNPaaneah

11-28-2012, 11:44 AM

Max takes the attitude that "wow, praise God, I just escaped from a cult," rather than "I got swept along like everyone else, and did many things I now regret."

I know Max is now a hero on this forum, but he was a grown man in his 40's messing with the lives of college age kids and elders of churches.

The Lord told Pilate that the Jews had the "greater sin," and to me Max was used by Lee as Pilate was used by the Jews. The good thing is that I heard Max repented for his involvement (but he should have come to Chicago and Cleveland to do this), whereas Lee never did.

Completely valid observations. The way I read it, Max and Sal are driven out and 2 months later they are dissing WL in the paper. It was a tit for tat. No doubt this article fueled the hateful treatment of Max by some in the LRC (i never knew him nor did I ever read this article before).

And I agree that if you have this realization it is hard to feel this only became obvious to you after being shown the door.

Unregistered

11-28-2012, 11:46 AM

The good thing is that I heard Max repented for his involvement (but he should have come to Chicago and Cleveland to do this), whereas Lee never did.

How would Max have been received if he had come to Chicago or Cleveland to repent? Would he have been received in either of those churches? Should he have gone to those places and said "I repent of exalting Witness Lee, and following him blindly"? That would have undermined their stand.

What if he had gone to Chicago, where he had once stirred up the young people against their elders. Should he have repented in Chicago, when it was Witness Lee who had sent him there in the first place to stir up trouble? What repentance would have been received by the elders or the saints there? Would they have listened to Max describe how Lee was a deceptive and manipulative leader?

After I came into the LC (in the 80's), I would sometimes hear about this guy named Max. He was always to blame for the "rebellion" of the 70's. Not once did I hear an acknowledgment that Lee deserved responsibility for promoting him in the first place, or that Lee was the reason Max visited the churches (causing problems), or that Lee drove Max out. Max was always the villain.

Right now, at this moment, even after the recent turmoil in the Midwest, would either Chicago (now loyal to LSM) or Cleveland (loyal to Titus) welcome Max to give a message of repentance? Lee is still exalted by both localities (am I wrong?) - and Max's repentance would mean that Chicago and Cleveland have a lot to repent for as well.

ZNPaaneah

11-28-2012, 11:49 AM

I don't think that characterizing the LC with Jim Jones was the sole purpose of the this particular book. .

It seems based on the timing this article may have been what prompted Duddy to do his research, write the book, and get a publisher. By timing you have to consider the timing of this article with the book as well as the timing of Jim Jones and the general interest in cults.

Ohio

11-28-2012, 12:12 PM

What was Max supposed to say? What could Max have done differently that WL would not have used against him? No matter what Max said or did, WL would have taken advantage of Max's departure and built up his own image. If you were in the LC at the time, name one thing Max could have said that would have penetrated the LC mentality. Remember, Max didn't choose to leave originally, but rather it was Lee who drove him out. Just as with Ingalls and the other "rebels" ten years later, Max tried to deal with an unrighteous situation in good faith, and was cast aside. Lee bears responsibility for that.

I don't get the impression that Max is self-righteous here. Knowing the full story (or at least the story more accurately), I think that Max is being very honest about the situation. After what Max had been through, being promoted and sent around by Lee, then being expelled and slandered by Lee, I don't blame Max for warning people about the movement. He sounds appropriately disillusioned, like he's seen the man behind the curtain.

Of course, I was in the LC's at the time this occurred. I definitely commend Max for what he did with Philip Lee -- confronting him about adultery. I also sympathize with the family for how his wife was shamed by Lee publicly. Of course, WL used Max as a scapegoat for his own failed programs. He was a master at doing this. This is just pure politics -- fire the cabinet member to protect the President. Is not Max, however, accountable for the things he did? He should have mentioned that in the article.

You make Max sound like a victim here. Is he not responsible for the damages he caused? Self-righteous behavior always blames others for one's actions in an attempt save face. Max was a grown man. He knows better. Did he not rise to prominence within the Recovery by coercing the saints to forgive and forget their Daystar "investments?"

The comparison with Ingalls is not fitting. John attempted to protect the saints from the rottenness at LSM, whereas Max was active to spread it throughout the continent. John hurt no one, while Max left a trail of damaged young people. Max may have been duped into doing things, but he was still an accomplice, and that's how the legal system would judge him.

It's one thing for Max to warn others about the system, but something altogether different for him, soon after the Jonestown suicides, to tell parents to get deprogrammers for their kids.

TLFisher

11-28-2012, 12:29 PM

The comparison with Ingalls is not fitting.

Ohio, as I understood the comparison between John and Max, it was dealing with an unrighteous situation. This resulted with these brothers becoming persona non grata. The difference is how they went about it. As I understand Max tried to confront it while John tried a council approach. Being the LSM Manager, Phillip was in an extra-local position, but as we read in Speaking the Truth in Love, Ray Graver, Benson Phillips among others thought it to be a local matter and wanted no part of the fellowship John sought.
Years ago what I found interesting is when Paul Kerr, Stephen Kaung, Bill Mallon, Devern Defromke, John Ingalls, and Max Rapoport worked together on the Living Waters publication, I thought for Max to work with these brothers, past history must have been reconciled between them.

Ohio

11-28-2012, 12:34 PM

I don't think that characterizing the LC with Jim Jones was the sole purpose of the this particular book. Of course there was a natural link between the two because of the timeframe, but that was the LC movement's fault as much as any of the "cult-busters". The LC was very secretive in general towards outsiders, and extremely uncooperative with Christians apologists. It made us look bad in front of the general public, and even worse to those Christians seeking to understand the inner workings of the group, and to verify our claims that we were just "ordinary Christians".

I don't believe anyone, not LSM nor Duddy nor Sparks nor the Publishers, is "true, honorable, righteous, pure, lovely, or well-spoken of," (Phil 4.8) when it comes to these books about the Recovery. Many rotten, self-serving things were discovered by DCP during their discovery process. We should not in any way get the impression that Duddy or Sparks were sincere apologetics led by the Lord to serve His children.

I also disagree that the "the LC was very secretive in general towards outsiders." The churches in Ohio were very open to guests coming to check us out. We had nothing to hide. The Cleveland Press sent a reporter to investigate us and then ran disparaging front page articles on the CinCleve for a whole week. Perhaps you should change this statement to say "LSM was secretive..." or something you are more sure of.

TLFisher

11-28-2012, 12:35 PM

Ironically how history is revised as I paraphrase;
gifted brothers who left (such as Max, John,) was because they were not interested in the building up of the Body of Christ. Rather interested in creating a following. If you make immorality an issue, you're no longer on the Tree of Life, but on the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Ohio

11-28-2012, 12:46 PM

Ohio, as I understood the comparison between John and Max, it was dealing with an unrighteous situation. This resulted with these brothers becoming persona non grata. The difference is how they went about it. As I understand Max tried to confront it while John tried a council approach. Being the LSM Manager, Phillip was in an extra-local position, but as we read in Speaking the Truth in Love, Ray Graver, Benson Phillips among others thought it to be a local matter and wanted no part of the fellowship John sought.

Read my posts again.

I am not saying that there were no similarities here -- hey, Lee worked with both of them, used both of their services for personal gain, and then threw them both under the bus when things went sour. Yes, both John and Max confronted Lee and Son about their damaging activities at LSM.

But the Max/John comparison ends when we examine how they behaved when traveling around the USA visiting LC's. John worked with elders, Max shamed them into quitting. John edified the young people with the word of God, Max used Lee's programs to instigate fleshly uprisings in the young people. John nurtured love and harmony, Max created chaos and dissension. John used his authority to build up, Max used his to tear down.

Listen folks, I understand it was a difficult time for Max, and that he has gone on to serve the Lord profitably, but we should still be accurate to present a fair account of our history. God knows we have not had much of that under LSM.

UntoHim

11-28-2012, 01:50 PM

We should not in any way get the impression that Duddy or Sparks were sincere apologetics led by the Lord to serve His children.Well, we're just at the beginning of this book. I don't think we can make such a judgment as far as this book is concerned. I don't think it within the purview of this forum to be judging the entire life and times of Neil Duddy, I don't think there is enough time or interest for that. This book seems like it may be packed full of enough stuff for us to discuss for quite a while.

I also disagree that the "the LC was very secretive in general towards outsiders." The churches in Ohio were very open to guests coming to check us out. We had nothing to hide. The Cleveland Press sent a reporter to investigate us and then ran disparaging front page articles on the CinCleve for a whole week. Perhaps you should change this statement to say "LSM was secretive..." or something you are more sure of.
I was devout member of the Local Church of Witness Lee for around 20 years. I was in Orange County, the "headquarters", I lived and attended meetings for well over 10 years within 15 mins of the Ball Rd headquarters and Witness Lee's home. I lived with a number of what are now called "the blended brothers". I never lived in Ohio or the GLA, so if I said something about that area I would probably not be so sure. When I say the Local Church it is the Local Church of my experience. This is what I am sure of. Also, THIS is the Local Church that Neil Duddy researched and wrote about. I'm sorry that he didn't get out to the GLA, maybe he would have gotten a different impression. But the fact of the matter is that Witness Lee was THE leader, the ONLY teacher for the entire Movement, so Duddy naturally focused in on where Lee was based, and the followers that were in his immediate area.

Please, those of you who are going to get all riled up over what is in this book, feel free to skip this thread. Maybe it's not for you. There are many boards with many threads covering many different topics. That's the way the forum was designed and it was done on purpose. This way people can feel free to participate in the threads that are of concern and interest to them, but they are also free to just skip the ones that either don't interest them, or that they feel might by too contentious.

This is not, repeat NOT, a request that any particular persons refrain from participating in this thread. However, I will not let this thread be continually sidetracked by side issues that are not directly related to what is actually written in this book.

I hope ya'll understand.

Ohio

11-28-2012, 01:56 PM

Please, those of you who are going to get all riled up over what is in this book, feel free to skip this thread. Maybe it's not for you.

Who's getting all riled up? :truce:

Only thing that riles me up is a visit from Topiq. :thumbsdown:

UntoHim

11-28-2012, 02:28 PM

Cool. Then all you have to is stay on topiq! No worries! Carry on!

ZNPaaneah

11-28-2012, 02:37 PM

Of course, I was in the LC's at the time this occurred. I definitely commend Max for what he did with Philip Lee -- confronting him about adultery. I also sympathize with the family for how his wife was shamed by Lee publicly. Of course, WL used Max as a scapegoat for his own failed programs. He was a master at doing this. This is just pure politics -- fire the cabinet member to protect the President. Is not Max, however, accountable for the things he did? He should have mentioned that in the article.

You make Max sound like a victim here. Is he not responsible for the damages he caused? Self-righteous behavior always blames others for one's actions in an attempt save face. Max was a grown man. He knows better. Did he not rise to prominence within the Recovery by coercing the saints to forgive and forget their Daystar "investments?"

The comparison with Ingalls is not fitting. John attempted to protect the saints from the rottenness at LSM, whereas Max was active to spread it throughout the continent. John hurt no one, while Max left a trail of damaged young people. Max may have been duped into doing things, but he was still an accomplice, and that's how the legal system would judge him.

It's one thing for Max to warn others about the system, but something altogether different for him, soon after the Jonestown suicides, to tell parents to get deprogrammers for their kids.

Also, let's be real. 2 months after being booted out you are telling the whole world it was a "cult" with dangerous mind control? Did this just happen? Or were you the "heir apparent" to the leader of a cult?

UntoHim

11-28-2012, 02:46 PM

After I came into the LC (in the 80's), I would sometimes hear about this guy named Max. He was always to blame for the "rebellion" of the 70's. Not once did I hear an acknowledgment that Lee deserved responsibility for promoting him in the first place, or that Lee was the reason Max visited the churches (causing problems), or that Lee drove Max out. Max was always the villain.

Right now, at this moment, even after the recent turmoil in the Midwest, would either Chicago (now loyal to LSM) or Cleveland (loyal to Titus) welcome Max to give a message of repentance? Lee is still exalted by both localities (am I wrong?) - and Max's repentance would mean that Chicago and Cleveland have a lot to repent for as well.

Dude, you have to register so gems like this don't stay in the moderation que for hours or days. Igzy and I have lives....errrr, well Igzy has a life and I sort of, kind of have a life...and sometimes posts get past by and maybe even accidentally deleted. Please take a few minutes and register. It's quick and painless. Thanks for considering.

OBW

11-28-2012, 04:30 PM

The following reflects a combination of my understand from the 70s and what we have learned since:
Of course, I was in the LC's at the time this occurred. I definitely commend Max for what he did with Philip Lee -- confronting him about adultery. I also sympathize with the family for how his wife was shamed by Lee publicly. Of course, WL used Max as a scapegoat for his own failed programs. He was a master at doing this. This is just pure politics -- fire the cabinet member to protect the President. Is not Max, however, accountable for the things he did? He should have mentioned that in the article.

You make Max sound like a victim here. Is he not responsible for the damages he caused? Self-righteous behavior always blames others for one's actions in an attempt save face. Max was a grown man. He knows better. Did he not rise to prominence within the Recovery by coercing the saints to forgive and forget their Daystar "investments?"

The comparison with Ingalls is not fitting. John attempted to protect the saints from the rottenness at LSM, whereas Max was active to spread it throughout the continent. John hurt no one, while Max left a trail of damaged young people. Max may have been duped into doing things, but he was still an accomplice, and that's how the legal system would judge him.

It's one thing for Max to warn others about the system, but something altogether different for him, soon after the Jonestown suicides, to tell parents to get deprogrammers for their kids.This is a very real observation that matches what I was able to see from my perch in Dallas. I remember my dad having reservations about Max long before the thing went sideways. I recall the stories from those who were off in Anaheim building the Ball Road facilities. The number who simply dropped out from there. They dropped out from the center of the system, not the periphery. And it wasn't beaus they simply worked constantly and didn't get to meetings. There was poison in the air.

I recall a brother who had been a leading on in Dallas before moving to Anaheim giving an account of a run-in with Max and some of the ones who hung around him.

At this point in time, I am fine with accepting that Max was playing a part that was given to him by Lee. That some of it was just a personality thing that might have grated wrong on some people. But anyone who believed that the things that were being driven from Lee through Max were what was right or what was needed had a different need. And that is to have their heads examined.

It is not a lot different than the recent account of TC carrying out the excommunication of someone for Lee where he should have had the spiritual sense that there was no basis for excommunication. But they were all under orders in a sense.

I have this quandary as to whether to blame Max for being a perpetrator, or just being a blind follower. Was he just blind until he opened his eyes and saw? Or was he really that ambitious?

At this point in time, I am tending to lean toward "just blind." Why? because the evidence of the remainder of what little I can see of his life would seem to indicate that the claim that he had some tremendous drive to run some big organization has not materialized in any way. He has seemed to be willing to serve at some level.

Yes. His ability to get through to some of us is damaged. How could he have done what he did and then claim (and appear) to be so different? Can he be trusted? That is something we all have to decide for ourselves. I am not fully settled. But I am leaning toward the notion that he was just as caught up in the fog of Lee and the LRC as others, but his eyes were opened once he got away from the fog machine. That is where I lean.

But I think that Ohio has summed up the feeling of many who knew more than just the funny story that they sent out to tell. I was visiting Albuquerque when it was first revealed. It was quite shocking to me. There was this wolf running around among us.

And at some level it was true. But what was not told was that the presence of the wolf was by design of the shepherd. How's that for a story — a shepherd hiring a wolf to destroy some sheep so that the shepherd could put the sheep in a fenced barnyard and rule over them like a king (I know, the imagery is beginning to fall apart).

As for the calls for deprogrammers, that is too much. But given the times, when a grown man awakens to realize how deep he was in a group that had him so blinded that he could do what he did in the (alleged) name of Christ might scare them enough to think that deprogramming was the answer. The realities about such things were really not yet known or understood that well. If the events had been 10 years later, that might not have been his solution.

And it may have just been a kind of sour grapes response.

But who can say?

ZNPaaneah

11-28-2012, 04:42 PM

I have this quandary as to whether to blame Max for being a perpetrator, or just being a blind follower. Was he just blind until he opened his eyes and saw? Or was he really that ambitious?

At this point in time, I am tending to lean toward "just blind." Why? because the evidence of the remainder of what little I can see of his life would seem to indicate that the claim that he had some tremendous drive to run some big organization has not materialized in any way. He has seemed to be willing to serve at some level.

Based on what little I know it seems that Phillip Lee's lasciviousness was the "wake up pill" (as SCP would say) for Max. I think prior to that he was willing to "be trained" by Witness Lee, but that was the point at which he had to make a decision and he made the right one. From there it seemed things just got better for him as a Christian (unlike what we were taught about those that leave the LRC).

Still, you cannot be an elder, the "president" of the local church, a member of the Board of directors of LSM, and the chief spokesman/Public Relations guy for WL and not bear responsibility for your actions. If Witness Lee was the leader of a cult, then what does that make you? Blind doesn't cut it for me. Mistaken, in error, and responsible are words that I would feel are much more in line with the facts.

OBW

11-28-2012, 05:19 PM

Based on what little I know it seems that Phillip Lee's lasciviousness was the "wake up pill" (as SCP would say) for Max. I think prior to that he was willing to "be trained" by Witness Lee, but that was the point at which he had to make a decision and he made the right one. From there it seemed things just got better for him as a Christian (unlike what we were taught about those that leave the LRC).

Still, you cannot be an elder, the "president" of the local church, a member of the Board of directors of LSM, and the chief spokesman/Public Relations guy for WL and not bear responsibility for your actions. If Witness Lee was the leader of a cult, then what does that make you? Blind doesn't cut it for me. Mistaken, in error, and responsible are words that I would feel are much more in line with the facts.On the first paragraph, I think it is reasonable. But I'm not so sure about the second.

Just because Max was one of the blind followers using his obvious skills at the behest of the master puppeteer does not make him permanently responsible for what went on.

By the way, I take the "what does that make you" question personally. It makes me ( or rather made me) a loyal member of a cult. One in which a single man managed to orchestrate a phenomenal shutting off of the mental capacities of many very intelligent people. Cause serious Bible readers and even scholars to ignore the actual scripture and wander off into la-la land.

And I think you can say the same for Max. Maybe it would be reasonable for him to apologize for what he did. But those who are still there are mostly the ones needing the apology (along with the rest of the story). Many of us now outside can see that his life since has been different. Like so many others, including former LRC elders. The opening of their eyes is what I want to see. The telling of the truth. It seems that the lie primarily is still buried in the LRC. It is the most important artifact that remains shrouded in secrecy. Like the rituals to become members of the KKK or become one of the full-fledged Mormons. (The only likeness in these two groups is the secrecy surrounding their initiation ceremonies. No other parallels being made here.)

Yes. Max was responsible for what he actually did. But oddly, it may be that the ones that Lee and the LRC declared to be "damaged" by it are the only ones who were freed. To those who remained, it was just another war story to tell about how Satan was out to get "God's best."

TLFisher

11-28-2012, 06:41 PM

The LC was very secretive in general towards outsiders, and extremely uncooperative with Christians apologists. It made us look bad in front of the general public, and even worse to those Christians seeking to understand the inner workings of the group, and to verify our claims that we were just "ordinary Christians".

From the Christian Research Institute Journal Fall 1988 Issue:

During the lawsuit [against SCP] the saints were warned and pressured to keep silent, and many voluntarily kept silent for the sake of the Lord's Recovery. On some occasions when outsiders sought to interview saints, only special ones were selected who were 'safe' to be interviewed."

If you recall from the old Bereans.net forum, the posting member known as "Octim" in one of his posts said he was interviewed by Francis Ball, but was too candid to be considered "safe".

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-28-2012, 06:46 PM

Chapter Three Continued.... On Lee's Spiritual Authority

"A reputable source active in the Local Church for years says that the LC people believe Witness Lee to be the only oracle of God alive today. to disagree with the oracle is tantamount to being out of the Holy Spirit's leading.

"When I command in my spirit, the Lord commands with me, for I am one spirit with the Lord" (WL - How to Meet, pg 97). "....Is this my teaching? No! This is the revelation of God in the Bible. It was buried, it was covered for centuries, but by His mercy it has been discovered." (Ibid pg 94). (This follows a discussion of the relation of daily lives to quality of worship, using 1st Corinthians as the text).

Some LC people have privately confessed belief that Witness Lee is the apostle of this age. No spokesman for the executive branch of the Local Church has corrected that understanding, or tried to dissuade members from embracing that view. Lee himself believes that he stands in the line of apostolic succession, his authority commensurate with that of the twelve apostles. Lee claims to have received the apostolic mantle from Watchman Nee during their last meeting, when Lee was commissioned to supervise the Taiwan churches.

A striking anecdote illustrates Witness Lee's view of the complete sufficiency of his apostleship. Lee once told an elder that the church was like a car; it has only one driver at any given moment. And, he went on, nobody appreciates a back-seat drive. Passengers should cover their eyes, closer their mouths and never distract the driver. Lee demonstrated proper "passenger posture" by putting his hands over his eyes and mouth. During similar conversations Lee's climactic statement had been that, even if the car were headed for a cliff, driver and passengers alike should all go over the edge together."

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

Wow. That is quite an assertion of Lee's - it certainly sounds a lot like some old quotes Igzy posted on another thread... What was it? Oh yes....

“Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.” — St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: “The Book of Obedience”, Chapter 1: “There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope”).

Cal

11-28-2012, 07:38 PM

“Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.” — St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: “The Book of Obedience”, Chapter 1: “There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope”).

Isn't that insane? Yet if LCers were honest they would admit that they believe something approaching this. Maybe not for eternal salvation, but certainly for kingdom reward. But essentially they think as this dear, demented woman did--that loyalty to God's man means favor with God. A lie on several levels, for, first, there is no "God's man" and, second, loyalty should always be to the truth, not men.

Ohio

11-28-2012, 08:39 PM

Isn't that insane? Yet if LCers were honest they would admit that they believe something approaching this. Maybe not for eternal salvation, but certainly for kingdom reward. But essentially they think as this dear, demented woman did--that loyalty to God's man means favor with God. A lie on several levels, for, first, there is no "God's man" and, second, loyalty should always be to the truth, not men.

Not to disagree with you bro, but I now believe that our real loyalty should not just be to "truth," but to the Lord Himself. Perhaps I am over-reacting, but during the last quarantine, all the brothers I knew were "standing for the truth," yet fighting each other, and in reality, were not standing for the truth, but were standing for a man, some for Lee, and some for Chu.

Cal

11-28-2012, 08:45 PM

Not to disagree with you bro, but I now believe that our real loyalty should not just be to "truth," but to the Lord Himself. Perhaps I am over-reacting, but during the last quarantine, all the brothers I knew were "standing for the truth," yet fighting each other, and in reality, were not standing for the truth, but were standing for a man, some for Lee, and some for Chu.

Point taken.

Ohio

11-28-2012, 08:56 PM

I have this quandary as to whether to blame Max for being a perpetrator, or just being a blind follower. Was he just blind until he opened his eyes and saw? Or was he really that ambitious?

I don't think the answer is in either of these extremes. Was Max ambitious? Yes, definitely. He had a level of ambition which few of us even understand. Did Lee take advantage of that ambition? Sure. Max could do things which he could not.

To a certain degree the world's legal systems have had to struggle through these same concepts, and we should take note of their conclusions, because there is a certain amount of time-tested wisdom here. When crimes are committed, all perpetrators bear the same responsibility. One cannot use the defense that "he pulled the trigger." All are guilty of murder, not just the shooter, but the driver who drove the get-away car, the guy who gave the orders to kill him, and the guy behind the scenes who planned it all. All are guilty of murder.

Likewise, we must assign culpability to Max for what he did, whether Lee put him up to it or not. He was the promising understudy rising to the top of the heap. Max cannot claim he was completely deceived, just a blind follower, only a patsy setup to take the fall. Max knew what he was doing, even if he was not completely aware of the consequences of his actions.

UntoHim

11-28-2012, 09:02 PM

What Duddy had is what Duddy knew.
He went to Local Church meetings and found out that the Local Church really was The Local Church of Witness Lee. The teachings were Lee. The practices were Lee. The history of the Movement was defined by Lee. Lee, Lee, Lee. Duddy had eyes and ears. He saw what he saw and he heard what he heard.

Please Cassidy, don't be a game player. If you heard different let us know. If you saw different, let us know. Duddy wrote of the Local Church of Witness Lee back 35 years ago. Please, let us know different from you. What is your PERSONAL experience that can tell us a different story. I'm not asking for your full name, rank and Social Security Number here my man....just something we can hang our hat on. We all know what you DON'T BELIEVE...we've all seen what you DON'T believe for years. WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE? What do you believe about Witness Lee and the Movement he founded? We know what you DON'T BELIEVE about what others say. What DO YOU BELIEVE?

If what you have posted here on these forums all these years is all you have to offer then it is laughable. Seriously.

............................:lurking:

Cassidy

11-28-2012, 09:52 PM

If all Duddy had is what has been posted then Duddy had nothing. That is my question, did he have more than what was posted? Apparently you don't think so but maybe you are wrong, maybe he has a whole chapter on "apostolic succession". Does he? No? A paragraph? No? What?

Let's not confuse the train of thought here. You specifically asked us all to limit our entries to discussions about the content of this book on this thread. So I am doing that. We have been presented and dealing with Duddy's allegation about the so called "apostolic succession" belief of Witness Lee. And if there is any game playing it is the obvious attempts to protect the glaring deficits of this book by blocking serious inquiry about its content, or most probably if current trends continue, its gross lack of content.

Now, is Duddy offering anything more than what has been posted about this "apostolic succession". If not, let's just confirm that. Apostolic succession is a heresy and that you will find in LSM publications. Yet who knows, maybe Mr. Duddy hit pay dirt. Maybe he found the smoking gun. If so, let's see it. If not, then all he has is an anon comment, and that would be laughable for such a "scholarly work".

UntoHim

11-29-2012, 10:37 AM

Some LC people have privately confessed belief that Witness Lee is the apostle of this age. No spokesman for the executive branch of the Local Church has corrected that understanding, or tried to dissuade members from embracing that view.
A striking anecdote illustrates Witness Lee's view of the complete sufficiency of his apostleship. Lee once told an elder that the church was like a car; it has only one driver at any given moment. And, he went on, nobody appreciates a back-seat drive. Passengers should cover their eyes, closer their mouths and never distract the driver. Lee demonstrated proper "passenger posture" by putting his hands over his eyes and mouth. During similar conversations Lee's climactic statement had been that, even if the car were headed for a cliff, driver and passengers alike should all go over the edge together."
*****************
This book is NOT just about the published writings of Witness Lee (although that covers some of the "teaching" part of the review of the teachings and practices) Duddy et al suspected (and were correct in suspecting) that as with most groups like the Local Church of Witness Lee, there is a facade of orthodoxy put up for public viewing. Behind the doors of the meeting hall is where the real story can be discovered. And discover they did. It was probably even worse than they originally thought. In any event, they dug enough to find and report on what "some LC people privately confessed". Back in the day the notion that Witness Lee was the Apostle of the age was so drilled into the mentality of the entire Movement that there was no need for it to be in black in white...anymore than one would need to carry around their birth certificate to know that their father was their father. Things changed towards the end of Lee's life, when he had nothing to lose, he then allowed it to become official - in black and white.

The "striking anecdote" provided above is not very striking to those of us who know the real Witness Lee. It was his mindset, so it just came out of his mouth...all the time. Most of the time it was edited out or maybe smoothed over by Kangas and the other editors, so it didn't make it to print. But Duddy knew to dig further. He interviewed current and former members. He knew better than to just talk to a few elders and ministry leaders. This is how he found out about how Witness Lee was truly viewed by the average LC member, and it's how he found out how Lee truly viewed his position in the Movement.

Those of you with only "book knowledge", or only want to discuss what is published in black and white, may want to consider sitting this one out. This is about the teachings and practices AS THEY ARE ACTUALLY TAUGHT AND PRACTICED. This is the focus of this book, and this is what we should be discussing in this thread.

OBW

11-29-2012, 11:55 AM

The idea that Lee was an apostle was fully under way in 1973. I can't recall specific meetings or who said it, but by the time I went back to our old place in the early spring that year to return some things like choir music, I already had Nee and Lee down as apostles. I had only been around the LRC since the beginning of January, and by the time of that chance encounter with the Youth Minster at our previous church, within weeks of me turning 18, I was already steeped in "they are apostles" thinking. (Put the math to it if you must. I'm 57 now.)

Then I read some of the transcripts of the trial discovery where Lee was deposed. He was asked if he was an apostle. He responded with double-speak. He claimed that he told anyone he heard say that not to say it. In other words, he didn't really respond. When the lawyers kept trying to ask the question in different ways, the judge eventually ruled that the question had been answered. But it really had not. It only seemed that way.

But it was the way he said what he did that was most revealing to me. It was the carefully scripted response of someone trying to not lie while telling a lie. He never simply said "I have never said such a thing." Or "I always insist that there are no more apostles."

Of course, most of those kinds of things that he denied became absolutely true shortly after the verdicts came in. I believe that in that famous conference (wherever) in which he was so exalted by the crowd that he is quoted as saying something like "I kind of like it." At that point, he openly became exactly what he tried so hard to deny under oath in the trial.

OBW

11-29-2012, 12:01 PM

BTW. And interesting observation. When they announced in Dallas that "we" would be doing our own translation of the Bible, there were a couple of men present who nobody knew. A few meetings later, I believe it was Benson sort of bragging about how those guys had sort of opened their eyes really wide at hearing about a new translation. (It might have been Don. He can probably provide a better account. It is just a fuzzy memory to me now.) I believe that they were reported to have been taking occasional notes. Afterward, they left never to be seen again.

I have always wondered if their notes were part of what was compiled for somebody's book or other research. I cannot remember the time frame precisely enough. Of course, if someone knows when they announced the coming translation efforts, that would pretty well nail it down.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-29-2012, 07:34 PM

Getting (back) to the Facts

I had mentioned that Chapter Three deals with the Doctrine and Theology of the LC. The difficulties of nailing that Doctrine down is dealt with, however, a little earlier on - so let me go back and excerpt a little here from Chapter One....

"...The main body of this book is devoted to an exposition of what we understand to be the position of Lee and his movement on a number of traditional theological categories, along with our response to those positions. The areas of theology discussed are those considered essential to the structure of any well-balanced biblical theology. They are not picayune (petty) topics revolving around secondary or tertiary truths.

(this is however, difficult to do as)....It appears... that Witness Lee has hammered out a double-edged sword, one blade symbolizing biblical literalism, and the other extrabiblical teaching. The latter, although sheathed in biblical terminology, constitutes an unusual shading or, possibly, a twisting of Scripture.

The ramifications of that situation are two-fold. First, by using biblical terminology, the Local Church gains easy access into Christian communities where the Bible is revered. Second, when criticized or accused of unbiblical teaching, the LC is able to produce true biblical affirmations... Yet major emphasis is placed on unusual, obscure, or questionable points of doctrine.

The Local Church mentality evidently has no difficulty in accomodating contradiction in a variety of forms.... For example, Witness Lee says that "doctrine only works divisions among the Lord's children" and "the more we talk about doctrines, the more we will quarrel". (WL The Economy of God, pg 23). At the same time, he not only teaches but insists upon certain doctrines (such as "mingling" and "local ground") in a way that leads him to reject fellowship with every major Christian body in the world.

Another example of contradiction between word and action is found in LC techniques of proselytizing (gaining 'new ones').... Securing converts among people seeking "a New Testament-type church", the LC took people away from a number of already-established groups. The pattern was almost always the same:

"Contact was made with a group that had some ideas similar to those of the LC. There would be a great deal of talk about unity. Slowly the group would lean towards some kind of co-working with the LC. As soon as the LC was in a position to take a sizeable portion of the other group, some issue would be made. It didn't make any difference what issue. Just an issue. A stand with one side of the other was then demanded by the Local Church. They, of course, could no longer work together with a false church that had now shown its real colors. The ugly head of sectarianism had risen. No way would the LC accept that. Division resulted, and the LC took its spoils of victory away." (Jack Sparks)

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

I think the author's insights are keen, and the quote from Jack Sparks on the bottom (in italics) I think is most intriguing, given ZNP's testimony about what happened with Stephen Kaung's group in NY and their "absorption" into the LC.... I wonder which other groups the author might have had in mind? I debated leaving that italicized quote in, as it stands alone in the paragraph - but it was ZNPs testimony that caused me to leave it in.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-29-2012, 08:59 PM

A Sensuous Doctrine (Chapter 3 Cont'd)

"Lee's theology is a sensuous theology. Local Church theology pointedly refers to spirituality and knowledge of God in terminology drawn from the world of the five physical senses: members are exhorted to "sense", "taste", "touch", "feel", "drink" and "eat" the God who indwells the human spirit.

One immediate effect of that emphasis is to shift the basis of authority away from God's objective verbal revelation (the Bible) and toward personal, internal illumination.... Lee seems to regard the Bible as a pointer, a manual of limited value, showing the general direction of faith and doctrine. The Bible does not, in Lee's thought, provide an ultimate authority for practice or behavior because it is a reference source external to the human spirit."

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

I couldn't help but think, as I read this, of Cassidy (and I mean no disrespect Cassidy). Cassidy, who is still within the LC, typifies this mindset which was learned from Witness Lee. In particular, I would quote Cassidy regarding what he said about honoring 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 as following "the letter of the law, but not the spirit" (see post #45 in this thread). This kind of attitude towards Scripture allows for the reader to make His Word say what we want (or "feel") it should say - rather than what it plainly says. More importantly, this attitude, once properly fostered and cultivated in Lee's disciples, renders them unable to use God's Word to discern the validity of Lee's teachings, in favor of Lee's own authority. This is a dangerous place to be.

Ohio

11-30-2012, 07:09 AM

The Local Church mentality evidently has no difficulty in accomodating contradiction in a variety of forms.... For example, Witness Lee says that "doctrine only works divisions among the Lord's children" and "the more we talk about doctrines, the more we will quarrel". (WL The Economy of God, pg 23). At the same time, he not only teaches but insists upon certain doctrines (such as "mingling" and "local ground") in a way that leads him to reject fellowship with every major Christian body in the world.

NFNL, I know you were not in the LC's when I was, but let me mention one of Lee's starkest contradictions alluded to by this paragraph above.

I entered the LC's in the mid-70's. One strong theme then present was our need to "return to the pure word of God." This abounded in Lee's ministry, the local ministries, and daily conversation. Since I was raised in Catholicism, this was especially attractive to me. (Remember I was the altar boy who knew the mass in both Latin and English.) I was thoroughly convinced at the time that Lee and his ministry were entirely devoted to God's pure word. One statement that stood out, loud and clear, was Lee's repeated saying that "we don't need systematic theology, we just need the pure word of God!"

Fast forward 20 years to the "high peak" era, after the "Ingalls rebellion."

I was slowly beginning to realize that all we had by then was "systematic theology." God's economy and high peak theology must abound in every message, song, and meeting or we may get reported to headquarters. I remember one Sunday meeting when the elders were gone and I was left responsible for the meeting. We had a brother visit us from Southern Florida who stood up during our prophesying time and started out, "I don't know if you use the Holy Word for Morning Revival ..." Immediately I jumped up and declared, "Yes we do, we use HWFMR all the time." I didn't think twice before saying this. Who knows what kind of rumors would have started about us!

It had actually become dangerous to only use the Bible, even if it was the Recovery version. What had happened to us? All we had was systematic theology! How far had we fallen! The Bible had become a dangerous book in the hands of common saints. It must be properly interpreted! It must be accompanied by the ministry! I remember talking to an in-law of mine during the recent quarantine who also was from Florida. He told me succinctly that "coming back to the pure word of God" was nothing more than a "tactic of the enemy." He then related how Bill Mallon attempted the same strategy during the last rebellion.

ZNPaaneah

11-30-2012, 07:21 AM

Although it is the experience of many on this forum, within the LRC and for Duddy, it was not everyone's experience. I did just fine for 20 years without anything but the Bible. This could explain why I was never put in charge of a meeting of the church even though I did run training meetings for the FTTT. The beauty was I didn't owe anyone at "headquarters" anything. I wasn't paid. I knew too many saints in too many localities to worry that someone would take issue with my lack of kowtowing and I had been a full timer for almost 3 years and served in some capacity in LSM for about 15 of my 20 years while supporting myself. The people enforcing these rules were the brothers I had grown up with, I just did not care. If they booted me out for holding to the word that was fine with me. Also I had clashed with the Texas brothers in Houston, Irving and Odessa and every time they had been the ones to leave with their tail between their legs.

alwayslearning

11-30-2012, 07:50 AM

The Bible had become a dangerous book in the hands of common saints. It must be properly interpreted! It must be accompanied by the ministry! I remember talking to an in-law of mine during the recent quarantine who also was from Florida. He told me succinctly that "coming back to the pure word of God" was nothing more than a "tactic of the enemy." He then related how Bill Mallon attempted the same strategy during the last rebellion.

I would suggest that more or less this was the way it always was in the LC system but became more blatant and shamelessly promoted in the late 1980s with the New Way etc.

Prior to that Witness Lee was the "official" interpreter of the word. His ministry was published in book and tape form plus the Stream magazine. Regional conferences given by John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, James Barber, etc were basically repeats of Witness Lee's messages. Elders on Sunday mornings repeated Witness Lee's ministry.

IMHO all that happened in the late 1980s was to formalize as policy what already existed and to police and punish those who wouldn't comply. At the same time management of "the work" shifted from Witness Lee plus senior coworkers to Witness Lee plus his son and staff at the LSM.

Ohio

11-30-2012, 08:26 AM

I would suggest that more or less this was the way it always was in the LC system but became more blatant and shamelessly promoted in the late 1980s with the New Way etc.

Prior to that Witness Lee was the "official" interpreter of the word. His ministry was published in book and tape form plus the Stream magazine. Regional conferences given by John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, James Barber, etc were basically repeats of Witness Lee's messages. Elders on Sunday mornings repeated Witness Lee's ministry.

IMHO all that happened in the late 1980s was to formalize as policy what already existed and to police and punish those who wouldn't comply. At the same time management of "the work" shifted from Witness Lee plus senior coworkers to Witness Lee plus his son and staff at the LSM.

What you have said probably was true in certain part of the country, but not in the GLA. TC did not robotically repeat Lee, so we did have a sizable disconnect from LSM.

One irony in this whole ordeal, however, was that TC demanded that we be his tape recorders. After his conference messages, all the workers were to rehash his messages during testimony time. Many time, after he finished, no one had anything to say, so he would call on certain ones do this -- a strong message for future meetings. Whereas most LC's used the past training with WL as the content of their gatherings, we often used the last conference with TC. LSM field agents would report this back to headquarters, which is why TC was often at odds with Lee and his minions.

Ohio

11-30-2012, 08:44 AM

ZNPaaneah

11-30-2012, 09:48 AM

Which explains why you didn't get very far in the program, and why your old pals from Texas have done so well.

I wouldn't want to change places with them at the Lord's judgment seat. That is the only program I was ever concerned about.

TLFisher

11-30-2012, 12:47 PM

I entered the LC's in the mid-70's. One strong theme then present was our need to "return to the pure word of God." This abounded in Lee's ministry, the local ministries, and daily conversation. Since I was raised in Catholicism, this was especially attractive to me. (Remember I was the altar boy who knew the mass in both Latin and English.) I was thoroughly convinced at the time that Lee and his ministry were entirely devoted to God's pure word. One statement that stood out, loud and clear, was Lee's repeated saying that "we don't need systematic theology, we just need the pure word of God!"

Fast forward 20 years to the "high peak" era, after the "Ingalls rebellion."

It had actually become dangerous to only use the Bible, even if it was the Recovery version. What had happened to us? All we had was systematic theology! How far had we fallen! The Bible had become a dangerous book in the hands of common saints. It must be properly interpreted! It must be accompanied by the ministry! I remember talking to an in-law of mine during the recent quarantine who also was from Florida. He told me succinctly that "coming back to the pure word of God" was nothing more than a "tactic of the enemy." He then related how Bill Mallon attempted the same strategy during the last rebellion.

How is coming to the pure Word of God "a tactic of the enemy"? I can see how it would redirect our focus to God's Word instead of a minister's word. Rather we need to be rooted and grounded in the Word so As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; (Ephesians 4:14).
If there is the grounding of the Word it becomes transparent to discern the issue is receiving according to God's receiving (Romans 15:7) contrasting receiving according to preferences (Luke 6:32-33, James 2).
Another reason we need the pure Word of God as our solid spiritual food is
"For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant." Hebrews 5:13

Ohio

11-30-2012, 02:20 PM

How is coming to the pure Word of God "a tactic of the enemy"?

When coming to the pure word of God exposes the leadership in the Recovery, then it becomes to them a "a tactic of the enemy?"

It was another strong signal to me of just how far we had fallen.

NeitherFirstnorLast

11-30-2012, 03:51 PM

Scripture: Does It Mean What It Says?

"Because the epistemological schism (the theory of knowledge/learning/understanding which divides) affects Witness Lee's view of God's written Word, the Bible assumes a subsidiary position in his theology. The words of Scripture have meanings, including references to certain facts and events of history, but meaning in general and factuality in particular have less significance for Lee than 'the personal, subjective experience of Christ in the human spirit' (WL, The Knowledge of Life, pg 146). That experience can be opened up to us through reading the Bible, but it occurs through a process of spiritual osmosis having nothing to do with understanding what we read. (WL, A Time with the Lord, pg 8)....

Commenting on Romans 2:29 and 7:6, where the apostle Paul wrote that Christians are released from the law (the "letter"), Lee writes: "Now we know what the word 'letter' here refers to - it is the written Bible. Today we must serve the living Lord with newness in spirit, not according to the oldness of the written Bible....Everyone must admit that the word 'letter' in these passages refers to the written Scriptures. There can be no argument." (WL Christ vs Religion, pages 152-153)

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

Here we find evidence of Lee's disregard for the objective Truth of the Word of God in favor of subjective 'spiritual' leadings.

On an old thread of mine, I had once talked about picking up Jessie Penn-Lewis' book "The War on the Saints". Some had told me to be careful of what was written in this book, and I wasn't sure why - but I suspected it was because Penn-Lewis was someone held in high regard by Nee, who quoted her (I am told) quite liberally, on the subject of spiritual warfare. After reading the book however, I found a major disconnect. The disconnect is this: Penn-Lewis, were she alive to read it or see it, would have labelled Lee's theology as absolutely Satanic. The major thrust of Penn-Lewis' book is that the thing least to be trusted is "spiritual leadings" and "feelings" - she argued that these are tools the enemy (himself a spirit-being) is most able to use to convince even the most ardent believers of his lies.

My point is not that Penn-Lewis was right in her thinking (or wrong), but rather that Penn-Lewis and Lee are diametrically opposed in their thinking; and yet she herself (we were told) was one on whose shoulders Lee stood. What a lie! How many others did Lee claim to stand on the shoulders of, when in reality, those ones would be appalled by his theology. It seems that Lee liked dropping names - but one must wonder if he ever actually read the books. If he did, he must have thought no one else ever would (why bother, if he has the higher peak revelations, after all?)

If anyone is interested in reading "The War on the Saints" - it's available free here: ( http://www.hielema.net/Nederlands/Schrijvers/Penn-Lewis-Roberts/pdf/War-on-the-Saints.pdf).

alwayslearning

11-30-2012, 04:25 PM

What you have said probably was true in certain part of the country, but not in the GLA. TC did not robotically repeat Lee, so we did have a sizable disconnect from LSM.

One irony in this whole ordeal, however, was that TC demanded that we be his tape recorders.

Irony indeed! Once all the dust settles it's just the same thing on a different scale.

OBW

11-30-2012, 04:43 PM

Systematic theology is not necessarily bad. But with the LRC, the main problem is that for all the alleged doctrinal and practical errors of every other group, they just replaced those with different errors. And for much of it, the truth is that their error was in replacement of a non-error.

The claim of returning "to the pure Word of God" is just that — a claim. It sounds good. And a lot of people all over Christianity say it as well. And, just like a recent discussion here, it really come down to how you interpret the scripture. And everyone interprets it.

Even the Catholics.

My problem with the LRC's version of "returning to the Word" is that they (Lee) essentially littered their messages, books, etc., with scripture on everything except the actual point that was to be made, then made some assertion with some verse in proximity that didn't really say what was claimed — unless you simply accepted that it did because Lee told you it did.

Yes. We read a lot of the Bible. Our "sermons" had more scriptures in them. But in the end, they were no more correct than any others. And in many cases quite a bit less correct. I'm embarrassed that I was duped into accepting some of the statements made as being simply true. I understood rhetorical tricks, yet missed them all. Until years later.

Cassidy

11-30-2012, 05:28 PM

"Commenting on Romans 2:29 and 7:6, where the apostle Paul wrote that Christians are released from the law (the "letter"), Lee writes: "Now we know what the word 'letter' here refers to - it is the written Bible. Today we must serve the living Lord with newness in spirit, not according to the oldness of the written Bible....Everyone must admit that the word 'letter' in these passages refers to the written Scriptures. There can be no argument." (WL Christ vs Religion, pages 152-153)"

Here Duddy's shoddy scholarship shows up again as he selects only the parts of Witness Lee's comprehensive and balanced ministry to attempt credibility for his unfounded case.

Yet, even more disturbing is Duddy's apparent total lack of understanding of the inflow (Immanation) and experience of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. His argument is like that of the Pharisees who were very diligent to search the Scriptures, yet they would not find the life of God in them because they did not come to Christ. Witness Lee's ministry is all about the Bible as the foundation and framework for the experience of God's life moment by moment.

By the way, the quoted book "Christ vs. Religion" is a classic and full of biblical revelation and insight. I recommend anyone who has not read it do so cover to cover.

alwayslearning

11-30-2012, 07:42 PM

By the way, the quoted book "Christ vs. Religion" is a classic and full of biblical revelation and insight. I recommend anyone who has not read it do so cover to cover.

A classic?! :hysterical:

UntoHim

11-30-2012, 09:04 PM

Duddy found out that what Witness Lee meant when he said that Christ is vs religion he ment The Christian religion. And then Duddy found out that to Witness Lee The Christian religion was EVERY Christian denomination, group or affiliation that was not directly controlled by Witness Lee. This made things very neat and tidy for all concerned. If you were a Christian and you were not in The Local Church of Witness Lee, well then you were in something that Christ was "versus". And it's no wonder that Local Churchers were directed by Lee to "picket" the Moody Bible Institute with signs proclaiming "down with religion" and "God hates Christianity".

Did Lee and Company really think that people like Duddy wouldn't take notice of things like this? Apparently Duddy not only took notice, he then went inside the meetings halls of the Local Church and found out that this is what these people were taught on a day-in and day-out basis. Christians were NOT, repeat NOT to be considered your brothers and sisters in Christ. They were THE ENEMY. After all, Christ was VERSUS them! Sad. Very sad indeed.

TLFisher

11-30-2012, 10:00 PM

Did Lee and Company really think that people like Duddy wouldn't take notice of things like this? Apparently Duddy not only took notice, he then went inside the meetings halls of the Local Church and found out that this is what these people were taught on a day-in and day-out basis. Christians were NOT, repeat NOT to be considered your brothers and sisters in Christ. They were THE ENEMY. After all, Christ was VERSUS them! Sad. Very sad indeed.[/COLOR]

Unto, did they even know Duddy was going to the meetings?

TLFisher

11-30-2012, 10:06 PM

[COLOR="Navy"]
Duddy found out that what Witness Lee meant when he said that Christ is vs religion he ment The Christian religion.

That was never my thought when I read Christ versus Religion. An enjoyable reading. Ranks among my favorite of Witness Lee's books.

NeitherFirstnorLast

12-01-2012, 08:29 AM

Inspiration

"As a result of downgrading propositional revelation (the view that spiritual truths can be communicated in language comprehended by the human mind), Lee embraces a faulty view of the inspiration of Scripture. In discussing the psalms and their emphasis on the emotive experience of God, Lee distinguishes between pslams that champion the virtues of righteous behavior according to the law and those that advance the virtues of possessing the Spirit of God in the human spirit. In Lee's opinion, the former are peculiarities, expressions of men who did not experience a full spiritual transformation in their lives.... Consequently, Lee says that psalms emphasizing the law are humanly rather than divinely inspired (below this is a chart excerpted from Lee's Christ and the Church Revealed, pg 40 - showing which psalms are 'divine' and which 'merely human')...

...Lee's notion of a dual level of Scripture's inspiration means he must constantly editorialize on the difference between the "humanly inspired" and the "God-breathed".

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

This is the most damning aspect of Lee's teachings, that the Bible is fallable - that it has, ultimately, been corrupted by men. This is in no way a Christian teaching, but a teaching which comes straight from the cults and those opposed to Christianity entirely. It is the teaching of the Muslims, the teaching of the Mormons, and the teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses. If the Bible contains 'false human concepts', then it is entirely untrustworthy - and cannot be used as the yardstick of our faith. Indeed, none of it's revelation can be trusted any longer. Robbed of it's Authority, the Bible is indeed relegated to the status of a dusty tome, a peculiar souvenir of a time long past, no longer relevant in today's worship.

Opposing this heretical view, I would cite from a thesis by Dr Livingston:

" All the declarations of the Bible are, no doubt, equally divine... This proof requires neither long nor learned researches; it is grasped by the hand of a child as powerfully as by that of a doctor. Should any doubt, then, assail your soul let it behold Him in the presence of the Scriptures!”1 (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2004/04/06/jesus-christ-infallibility-of-scripture#fnList_1_1)

See How Christ Himself viewed Scripture:

He knew the Scriptures thoroughly, even to words and verb tenses. He obviously had either memorized vast portions or knew it instinctively: John 7:15 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%207.15).2 (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2004/04/06/jesus-christ-infallibility-of-scripture#fnList_1_2)
He believed every word of Scripture. All the prophecies concerning Himself were fulfilled,3 (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2004/04/06/jesus-christ-infallibility-of-scripture#fnList_1_3) and He believed beforehand they would be.4 (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2004/04/06/jesus-christ-infallibility-of-scripture#fnList_1_4)
He believed the Old Testament was historical fact. This is very clear, even though from the Creation (cf. Genesis 2:24 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Genesis%202.24) and Matthew 19:4 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2019.4), 5 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2019.5)) onward, much of what He believed has long been under fire by critics, as being mere fiction. Some examples of historical facts:

Luke 11:51 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2011.51)—Abel was a real individual
Matthew 24:37–39 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2024.37%E2%80%9339)—Noah and the flood (Luke 17:26 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2017.26), 27 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2017.27))
John 8:56–58 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%208.56%E2%80%9358)—Abraham
Matthew 10:15 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2010.15); Luke 10:12 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2010.12))—Sodom and Gomorrah
Luke 17:28–32 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2017.28%E2%80%9332)—Lot (and wife!)
Matthew 8:11 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%208.11)—Isaac and Jacob (Luke 13:28 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2013.28))
John 6:31 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%206.31), 49 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%206.49), 58 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%206.58)—Manna
John 3:14 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%203.14)—Serpent
Matthew 12:39–41 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2012.39%E2%80%9341)—Jonah (vs. 42 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/vs.%2042)—Sheba)
Matthew 24:15 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2024.15)—Daniel and Isaiah

He believed the books were written by the men whose names they bear:

Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Torah): Matthew 19:7 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2019.7), 8 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2019.8); Mark 7:10 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%207.10), 12:26 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%2012.26) (“Book of Moses”—the Torah); Luke 5:14 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%205.14); 16:29 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2016.29),31 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2016.31); 24:27 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2024.27), 44 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2024.44) (“Christ’s Canon”); John 1:17 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%201.17); 5:45 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%205.45), 46 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%205.46); 7:19 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%207.19); (“The Law [Torah] was given by Moses; Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.”)5 (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2004/04/06/jesus-christ-infallibility-of-scripture#fnList_1_5)
Isaiah wrote “both” Isaiah’s: Mark 7:6–13 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%207.6%E2%80%9313); John 12:37–41 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%2012.37%E2%80%9341) [Ed. note: Liberals claim that Isaiah 40-66 was composed after the fall of Jerusalem by another writer they call “Deutero-Isaiah”. The only real “reason” for their claim is that a straightforward dating would mean that predictive prophecy was possible, and liberals have decreed a priori that knowledge of the future is impossible (like miracles in general). Thus these portions must have been written after the events. However, there is nothing in the text itself to hint of a different author. See The Unity of Isaiah (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/isaiahdefense.html). In fact, even the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll was a seamless unity. But as Dr Livingston said, since Jesus affirmed the unity of Isaiah, the deutero-Isaiah theory is just not an option for anyone calling himself a follower of Christ.]
Jonah wrote Jonah: Matthew 12:39–41 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2012.39%E2%80%9341)
Daniel wrote Daniel: Matthew 24:15 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2024.15)

He believed the Old Testament was spoken by God Himself, or written by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, even though the pen was held by men: Matthew 19:4 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2019.4), 5 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2019.5); 22:31, 32, 43; Mark 12:26 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%2012.26); Luke 20:37 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2020.37).
He believed Scripture was more powerful than His miracles: Luke 16:29 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2016.29), 31 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2016.31).
He actually quoted it in overthrowing Satan! The O.T. Scriptures were the arbiter in every dispute: Matthew 4 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%204); Luke 16:29 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2016.29), 31 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2016.31).
He quoted Scripture as the basis for his own teaching. His ethics were the same as what we find already written in Scripture: Matthew 7:12 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%207.12); 19:18 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2019.18), 19 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2019.19); 22:40 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2022.40); Mark 7:9 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%207.9), 13 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%207.13); 10:19 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%2010.19); 12:24 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%2012.24), 29–31 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%2012.29%E2%80%9331); Luke 18:20 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2018.20).
He warned against replacing it with something else, or adding or subtracting from it. The Jewish leaders in His day had added to it with their Oral Traditions: Matthew 5:17 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%205.17); 15:1–9 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2015.1%E2%80%939); 22:29 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2022.29); (cf. Matthew 5:43 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%205.43), 44 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%205.44)); Mark. 7:1–12 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark.%207.1%E2%80%9312). (Destroying faith in the Bible as God’s Word will open the door today to a “new” Tradition.)
He will judge all men in the last day, as Messiah and King, on the basis of His infallible Word committed to writing by fallible men, guided by the infallible Holy Spirit: Matthew 25:31 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2025.31); John 5:22 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%205.22), 27 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%205.27); 12:48; Romans 2:16 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Romans%202.16).
He made provision for the New Testament (B’rit Hadashah) by sending the Holy Spirit (the Ruach HaKodesh). We must note that He Himself never wrote one word of Scripture although He is the Word of God Himself (the living Torah in flesh and blood, see John, chapter 1 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John,%20chapter%201)). He committed the task of all writing of the Word of God to fallible men—guided by the infallible Holy Spirit. The apostles” words had the same authority as Christ’s: Matthew 10:14 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2010.14), 15 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2010.15); Luke 10:16 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2010.16); John 13:20 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%2013.20); 14:22 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%2014.22); 15:26 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%2015.26), 27 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%2015.27); 16:12–14 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%2016.12%E2%80%9314).
He not only was not jealous of the attention men paid to the Bible (denounced as “bibliolatry” by some), He reviled them for their ignorance of it: Matthew 22:29 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2022.29); Mark 12:24 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%2012.24).
Nor did Jesus worship Scripture. He honored it—even though written by men.
The above leaves no room but to conclude that our Lord Jesus Christ considered the canon of Scripture as God’s Word, written by the hand of men.
Although some religious leaders profess to accept Scripture as “God’s Word,” their low view of “inspiration” belies the fact. They believe and teach that Scripture is, to a very significant degree, man’s word. Many of their statements are in essential disagreement with those of Jesus Christ. From the evidence of their books, we conclude that some Christian leaders are opposite to Christ in His regard for the authority, the inspiration, and the inerrancy of Scripture.
And now, the most important point.
III. Jesus Christ was subject to Scripture

Jesus obeyed the Word of God, not man. He was subject to it. If some leaders” view of inspiration were true, Jesus was subject to an errant, rather casually thrown-together “Word of Man.” Jesus would have been subject, then, to the will of man, not the will of God.
However, in all the details of His acts of redemption, Jesus was subject to Scripture as God’s Word. He obeyed it. It was His authority, the rule by which He lived. He came to do God’s will, not His own, and not man’s. Note how all of His life He did things because they were written—as if God had directly commanded. He fulfilled Old Testament prophecies about Himself. The passages are found all over the Old Testament. We cite here only a very few quoted in the New Testament: Matthew 11:10 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2011.10); 26:24 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2026.24), 53–56 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2026.53%E2%80%9356); Mark 9:12 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%209.12), 13 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%209.13); Luke 4:17–21 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%204.17%E2%80%9321); 18:31–33 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2018.31%E2%80%9333); 22:37 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2022.37); 24:44–47 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2024.44%E2%80%9347).
He Himself is the Word of God. All the words from His lips were the Word of God. (John 3:34 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%203.34)). If He had desired, He could have written a new set of rules and they would have been the Word of God. But, He did not. He followed without question the Bible already penned by men.
This is the sensible thing for every believer to do.

May all who read this adopt Jesus” attitude and become subject both to Him as Living Word (living Torah) and to the Bible as the infallible, written Word of God.

The holy Scriptures . . . make you wise to accept God’s salvation (Hebrew Yeshua) by trusting in Christ Jesus (Hebrew Yeshua HaMashiach). The whole Bible was given to us by inspiration from God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives; it straightens us out and helps us do what is right. It is God’s way of making us well prepared at every point, fully equipped to do good to everyone. – II Timothy, Chapter 3, Verses 15–17, Living Bible

Cassidy

12-01-2012, 08:57 AM

Ohio

12-01-2012, 09:05 AM

Great post NFNL and a great quote from Livingston. Thanks.

It's too bad my old friend Cassidy has such a low opinion of "scholars."

Ohio

12-01-2012, 09:09 AM

aron

12-01-2012, 09:19 AM

Ohio

12-01-2012, 09:28 AM

Exhibit A of Lee putting down scripture: the Psalms. Out of the great mass of Psalms, 150 in total, the vast majority are held by Lee to be "fallen concepts" and "natural", versus revelatory of God. Even some Psalms which contain revelation, according to Lee, only do so in the exact portions cited by the NT. See e.g. Psalm 34. The rest of the text is perfunctorily waved off.

Exhibit B: The book of James

Cassidy

12-01-2012, 09:45 AM

My how Lee had changed!

Over the course of the last 25 years, WL and his blended successors at LSM have violated nearly every principle set forth in that book.

No change whatsoever. Just detractors such as yourself regurgitating old lies and slanders recast in modern forums. Nothing new under the sun there.

Fact is, I have never heard, read, or watched a minister as committed to the infallibility of the Bible as much as Witness Lee. One may disagree with his interpretations and teachings but it is a lie straight out of the mouth of the Devil that he taught the Bible was fallible.

He did not. Ever.

"The entire Bible is God's breath. Each book of the Bible is God's revelation with every line and word coming from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Scripture is infallible. The functions of the Bible are: 1) it testifies concerning the Lord Jesus; 2) it makes man wise unto salvation and is the seed of regeneration in man; 3) it is the believers' spiritual milk and food; and 4) it makes the man of God complete."

Truth Lessons, Level 1, Vol. 1 Witness Lee

"The entire Bible is God's breath. Each book of the Bible is God's revelation with every line and word coming from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.] God used over forty men to write the Bible. Only the present 66 books are recognized as the word of God. These comprise the infallible word of God that we have today."

Lesson Book, Level 6: The Bible—The Word of God Witness Lee

NeitherFirstnorLast

12-01-2012, 09:52 AM

Textual Manipulation

"The grand illusion of Witness Lee's 'Christ vs Religion' is the view that Jesus completely rejected the religion of the Old Testament. By manipulating biblical data, Lee subtly links both liberal and conservative Christian camps to the New Testament Pharisees who espoused the Old Testament traditions. That strategem disconcertingly persuades readers that Jesus, while rejecting liberal and conservative Christians, heartily approves of and rejoices over the Local Church. To pave the way for that conclusion, Lee must manipulate the historical data in the gospel records.

Concerning John the Baptist, for example, Lee writes: "John acted in a way radically opposed to religion.... He had no religion,... he was versus religion,.... he said nothing about the ten commandments. He gave that up." (WL Christ vs Religion pg 9-10)."

(In saying this) Lee disregards the fact that John was jailed and ultimately beheaded because he exhorted the guilty, vindictive king, Herod Antipas, with the seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery". (Not to mention that John preached on Repentance* {see Luke 3:3-4 and Matthew 3:1-6}.

Later, Lee writes of Jesus: "In those days there was the holy place, the holy temple, the holy city, and the holy land - a four-fold holy sphere. Jesus kept himself away from every one of them." (pg 53). Why should Lee write in such a hyperbolic (exaggerated) fashion and make such an extreme assertion, when it is clear from the Gospel records that Jesus was circumcised according to the law, taught in the holy temple, and kept feasts in the holy city? Lee finds it expedient to subordinate the data of the written Word in order to validate his charges against non-Local Church Christianity and to substantiate his sensuous theology.

...Lee's appraisal contradicts Jesus' declaration in Matthew 23 that a pharasaical mind-set is sinful, secular, and antagonistic to God and his plan of redemption. Lee distorts Scripture in this case to validate the parallel he draws between the "religious" Pharisees of Christ's day and contemporary Christians. "What is it to be religious?... simply to be sound, scriptural and fundamental, yet without the presence of Christ." (pg 152).

According to Lee, only through alignment with the Local Church can one be truly in Christ's presence. the testimony of Christians outside the Local Church, however, is that one CANNOT be "sound, scriptural, and fundamental" APART from Christ.

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

*Repentance is the activity of reviewing one's actions and feeling contrition or regret for past wrongs.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repentance#cite_note-1) It generally involves a commitment to personal change and resolving to live a more responsible and humane life. In religious contexts it usually refers to confession to God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God), ceasing sin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin) against God in order to gain forgiveness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiveness) or absolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolution). It typically includes an admission of guilt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpability), a promise or resolve not to repeat the offense; an attempt to make restitution for the wrong, or in some way to reverse the harmful effects of the wrong where possible. (wikipedia).

To repent of a wrong, one must first know what 'is' wrong - one needs a standard which they recognize as authoritative - and that standard is found in God's Written Word, and particularly in His Ten Commandments. John preached the Law, to quote Lee: "there can be no argument".

aron

12-01-2012, 10:16 AM

As a result of downgrading propositional revelation (the view that spiritual truths can be communicated in language comprehended by the human mind), Lee embraces a faulty view of the inspiration of Scripture. In discussing the psalms and their emphasis on the emotive experience of God, Lee distinguishes between psalms that champion the virtues of righteous behavior according to the law and those that advance the virtues of possessing the Spirit of God in the human spirit. In Lee's opinion, the former are peculiarities, expressions of men who did not experience a full spiritual transformation in their lives.... Consequently, Lee says that psalms emphasizing the law are humanly rather than divinely inspired.

At one level "the law" cannot save us. But the OT exegeses on the law, such as in Psalms, may in fact contain degrees of "inspiration" and "revelation" about God's Christ which Lee never contemplated.

For example, in "Oh how I love Your law/Upon it I mediate day and night" in Psalm 119, there is an opportunity to see into the very heart of Jesus Christ, a human on earth who was utterly obedient to the Father in heaven, as declared in His divine law. John the disciple was able to lean against this Man in love, and in scripture we may have the opportunity as well.

Although some religious leaders profess to accept Scripture as “God’s Word,” their low view of “inspiration” belies the fact. They believe and teach that Scripture is, to a very significant degree, man’s word.

I would put it another way: Lee did believe in the divine inspiration of scripture. But he also believed his own inspiration could over-ride that of the writers of scripture. Using his interpretation of "God's economy", for example, he parsed away large sections of text, even including the NT (Jude, James, parts of Peter). Rather than being subject to the revelation of the Bible, he subjected the Bible to his own revelation. And likewise, rather than being restrained by the counsel and interpretations of godly men, he made his own logic and inspiration supreme.

And now, the most important point.
III. Jesus Christ was subject to Scripture

Jesus obeyed the Word of God, not man. He was subject to it. If some leaders” view of inspiration were true, Jesus was subject to an errant, rather casually thrown-together “Word of Man.” Jesus would have been subject, then, to the will of man, not the will of God.

However, in all the details of His acts of redemption, Jesus was subject to Scripture as God’s Word. He obeyed it. It was His authority, the rule by which He lived. He came to do God’s will, not His own, and not man’s. Note how all of His life He did things because they were written—as if God had directly commanded.

I agree; this is the most important part. Jesus was subject to the Word of God, to the degree and detail that only the OT writers could dream of. He lived the reality of all the aspirations of the poets who in their most inflamed inspirations declared how much they thirsted after God. Jesus fulfilled their dreams, and yours and mine as well. Why dismiss those declared dreams as "fallen concepts"?

It is not easy to obey God's word. In fact, it is impossible, save for the fact that by faith we see One standing in front of us who is doing just that. The Roman centurion recognized Jesus' complete subjection to His Father; Jesus marveled and said that in all of Israel He could not find such faith. Lee was effectively acting as our tour guide to sections of the OT commenting on obedience to God's word, and saying, "Don't worry folks, there's nothing here to see." I cannot but disagree, and on the strongest terms.

Cassidy

12-01-2012, 10:30 AM

"Concerning John the Baptist, for example, Lee writes: "John acted in a way radically opposed to religion.... He had no religion,... he was versus religion,.... he said nothing about the ten commandments. He gave that up." (WL Christ vs Religion pg 9-10)."

Technically Duddy is correct concerning what Witness Lee said about John the Baptist. Witness Lee did say the things being quoted here. The problem is Duddy's conclusions are based on a few statements and many omissions and did not include everything that Witness Lee said to provide the reader with context. Also, one statement above taken out of context which I will explain below.

Duddy makes it look as if Witness Lee just made anti-religion statements without any explanation to substantiate them. Duddy cuts out the most important part. Had Witness Lee only stated the above I do not think too many people, including me, would find that very compelling (and this book I consider a classic as previously stated) . With Witness Lee's complete explanation, the filling in of the "..." becomes much more compelling and by far a more interesting read. I know it is possible, but I do not think it plausible for anyone to read the whole explanation and not find it thought-provoking if not compelling.

I think Duddy had a major scholarly failing here. I highlighted Duddy comments in blue below. Also, Duddy's comment about John the Baptist and the ten commandments was taken out of context as Witness Lee explained that specifically in relation to John's introduction of Jesus as the Lamb of God (though this whole section is about that being outside of religion)

"Matthew chapter 3 relates to us the principle of the introducing of Christ—this also is absolutely outside of religion. John the Baptist was the one who recommended Christ to the people. He was born a priest, but he would not remain in the priesthood, he would not stay in the temple or even in the city of Jerusalem. We read that he was in the wilderness. He stayed in a wild place, and even he himself became wild. He wore camel's hair. The camel, according to Leviticus chapter 11, was an unclean animal. But John said in effect, "You say, according to your religious regulation, that the camel is unclean. Then I must be such a camel!" What would you say? John acted in a way radically opposed to religion. And consider his diet. He ate wild honey and locusts. He had no religion, and he had no culture; he was versus religion, and he was versus human culture. He was not in the temple. He had no altar to offer sacrifices, he had nothing related to religion or even to human culture.
Not long ago in Los Angeles a brother came to the meetings wearing a blanket. This blanket was a real test to some of the people. But John the Baptist wore camel's hair. The blanket was cultured, treated, and made with human hands, but the camel's hair worn by John the Baptist was absolutely raw. He was wild; he was really wild. This was the pioneer, the forerunner of Christ. It was he who stood there and, seeing Christ coming, exclaimed to the people, "Behold, the Lamb of God." It was he who said that he saw the Spirit as a dove descending from heaven upon Christ, and he knew that it was He who would baptize in the Holy Spirit. What can we say? He said nothing about the ten commandments. He gave that up. He said, "Behold the Lamb of God." He pointed to the One who would baptize in the Holy Spirit, and he said, "Repent!" John did not teach people about religion—he called on them to repent, to change their mind, to change their concept about religion and culture. He did not tell them to do something, he baptized them, he buried them, he terminated them. John said, "I baptize you in water, but He that comes after me will baptize you in the Holy Spirit."
What would you say? Jesus was recommended in such a wild way. Would you believe? Would you take it? He was recommended by a wild person in a wild way with nothing to do with religion. Hallelujah for John the Baptist! He was really good."

Christ versus Religion, by Witness Lee

ZNPaaneah

12-01-2012, 10:35 AM

Exhibit B: The book of James

"James was a very godly man, and, humanly speaking, he was quite wise. But in instance after instance we see that James was occupied too much with Old Testament matters. No doubt, he was saturated, soaked, with the feeling, flavor, and atmosphere of the Old Testament. We cannot find a strong indication with James that he passed through the Old Testament dispensation fully into the New Testament economy. Probably James had been baptized. However, according to his writings, I do not believe that he ever experienced a thorough termination and burial of himself along with all the things of the past, both good and bad," (Life Study of James, Message 13, page 1).

Now Ohio, you take that back, Witness Lee says clearly that James was "a very godly man and, humanly speaking, he was quite wise." He was just a little too occupied with the OT, didn't understand the NT, and perhaps never experienced a thorough termination and burial of self".

aron

12-01-2012, 10:37 AM

I would put it another way: Lee did believe in the divine inspiration of scripture. But he also believed his own inspiration could over-ride that of the writers of scripture. Using his interpretation(1) of "God's economy", for example, he parsed away large sections of text, even including the NT (Jude, James, parts of Peter). Rather than being subject to the revelation of the Bible, he subjected the Bible to his own revelation.

(1)I would like to add a sort of footnote here, rather than bogging down my previous post. Lee asserted that "God's economy" was what we should focus on. Since Paul didn't offer much commentary on the phrase "God's economy", Lee offered his own.

But I would like to make the point that "God's economy" as explicated by Lee is not inspired text but rather Lee's interpretion of text. And as a balancing interpretation I would offer Jesus' teachings on "oikonomia", which is usually translated as "stewardship" (see e.g. in parables in Luke), rather than "economy". Stewardship requires faithful obedience. Lee instead used his "God's economy" teaching to instead focus on "masticating the processed and consummated Triune God".

So my point is that you may think your teachings and practices are "from the Bible" when in fact they are a result of "fallen" and "natural concepts" overlaid on the Bible. That applies with me; it applies with all of our commentaries -- and it certainly applies with Lee.

ZNPaaneah

12-01-2012, 10:41 AM

"This is the most damning aspect of Lee's teachings, that the Bible is fallable..."

This is patently false. An outright fabrication. A damning bearing of false witness.

"The Bible is the Word of God. We believe that the Bible, word by word, is divinely inspired by God (2 Pet. 1:21), as the breath of God (2 Tim. 3:16). The genuine Christians do not have any doubt about this point. We must believe that the Bible is God's infallible Word."

Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life, The
Witness Lee

"Second, although every line and word of the Scripture is inspired by God, this does not mean that every word in this holy Book is the word of God, but we must be very careful in our understanding of this matter. In the Bible there are a great many words that are not God’s words. We may give several examples to make this matter clear...

In his Epistle James wrote in a godly way concerning many things: visiting widows and orphans, keeping oneself unspotted from the world, fulfilling the perfect law of freedom, saying, “If the Lord wills,” concerning the future, encouraging the believers to pray according to the example of Elijah. James’ word regarding these things may be godly, but it is not God’s word. Nevertheless, such a book is included among the holy writings, which were breathed by God, inspired by God." Life Study of James, Message 14, section 3).

Yep, a complete fabrication. Look at how much Witness Lee appreciated how this next Psalm exposed him, and this light shining on his personal situation was the light he needed. Duddy was too blind to see this:
"This shows us that Psalm 1 is good, but it was written with a wrong concept. The law was not given for us to keep for our prosperity. Instead, the law was given to expose us. The writer of Psalm 1, David, was exposed by the law as being a murderer and a robber of someone's wife. Because of what he had done, the situation with his entire family became a mess. Fornication and murder were among his children (2 Sam. 13:1-29), and rebellion came from his son, Absalom (15:7-12). The third psalm was a psalm of David when he was fleeing from his rebellious son. Thus, we should not highly appraise Psalm 1. It was written wrongly with a wrong concept, a human concept." Life Study of Psalms, Message 1, Section 1.

You see most people understand the idea of "the Bible being the word of God, divinely inspired word by word by God" too simply. Not Witness Lee, he got to the depth of this, for example:

"The book of Proverbs is recorded in the Word of God, but it is not the word directly from God. Rather, it is the word of many wise men, especially Solomon. In the same way, most of the Bible is not the word of God directly. However, much of the Old Testament is God's speaking, such as Genesis 1:3, where God said, "Let there be light." Although Proverbs is a book in the Bible, when we contact it by our natural man, it is not the word of God to us." (The Life Study of Proverbs, Message 6, Section 1).

Cassidy

12-01-2012, 10:47 AM

"James was a very godly man, and, humanly speaking, he was quite wise. But in instance after instance we see that James was occupied too much with Old Testament matters. No doubt, he was saturated, soaked, with the feeling, flavor, and atmosphere of the Old Testament. We cannot find a strong indication with James that he passed through the Old Testament dispensation fully into the New Testament economy. Probably James had been baptized. However, according to his writings, I do not believe that he ever experienced a thorough termination and burial of himself along with all the things of the past, both good and bad," (Life Study of James, Message 13, page 1).

Now Ohio, you take that back, Witness Lee says clearly that James was "a very godly man and, humanly speaking, he was quite wise." He was just a little too occupied with the OT, didn't understand the NT, and perhaps never experienced a thorough termination and burial of self".

James was occupied with OT thought and being in Jerusalem probably didn't help. Martin Luther wondered how the book of James ever got included in the Holy Writ. Nevertheless, the book of James serves a purpose and its inclusion is inspired Word of God.

aron

12-01-2012, 10:50 AM

What would you say? Jesus was recommended in such a wild way. Would you believe? Would you take it? He was recommended by a wild person in a wild way with nothing to do with religion. Hallelujah for John the Baptist! He was really good."

Christ versus Religion, by Witness Lee

You conclude your quote with a stress on being "wild". Perhaps, rather, John the Baptist wasn't so much "against religion" as he was against empty and hypocritical religious formalism. And if that is so, perhaps Lee had as much to repent of as any of the rest of us.

I don't think the answer is to be wild; but to be obedient. The pharisees trusted that their obedience was sufficient; it wasn't. Their hope was in vain, and their false hope was exposed as expressed anger when John and especially Jesus called them on it.

Ohio

12-01-2012, 10:53 AM

No change whatsoever. Just detractors such as yourself regurgitating old lies and slanders recast in modern forums. Nothing new under the sun there.

Fact is, I have never heard, read, or watched a minister as committed to the infallibility of the Bible as much as Witness Lee. One may disagree with his interpretations and teachings but it is a lie straight out of the mouth of the Devil that he taught the Bible was fallible.

He did not. Ever.

Of course not. No one would do that.

As with politicians, don't pay attention to what he says, but pay attention to what he does.

Lee proclaims allegiance to the infallibility of scripture and then spends the whole Crystalization Studies of the Psalms and James to show us how these books are not God's word, but faulty human religious sentiments.

aron

12-01-2012, 10:56 AM

James was occupied with OT thought and being in Jerusalem probably didn't help. Martin Luther wondered how the book of James ever got included But the book of James is no less infallible and serves a purpose and its inclusion is inspired Word of God.

Martin Luther also doubted the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews and put it at the end of his Bible, along with Jude, James, and Revelation. So your appeal to Luther regarding the epistle of James must be qualified.

Cassidy

12-01-2012, 11:01 AM

Martin Luther also doubted the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews and put it at the end of his Bible, along with Jude, James, and Revelation. So your appeal to Luther must be qualified.

Actually, I don't agree with Luther's conclusion about James. I agree with Witness Lee's position on this.

Ohio

12-01-2012, 11:01 AM

"James was a very godly man, and, humanly speaking, he was quite wise. But in instance after instance we see that James was occupied too much with Old Testament matters. No doubt, he was saturated, soaked, with the feeling, flavor, and atmosphere of the Old Testament. We cannot find a strong indication with James that he passed through the Old Testament dispensation fully into the New Testament economy. Probably James had been baptized. However, according to his writings, I do not believe that he ever experienced a thorough termination and burial of himself along with all the things of the past, both good and bad," (Life Study of James, Message 13, page 1).

Now Ohio, you take that back, Witness Lee says clearly that James was "a very godly man and, humanly speaking, he was quite wise." He was just a little too occupied with the OT, didn't understand the NT, and perhaps never experienced a thorough termination and burial of self".

Lee was faithful to point out the failures of every man on earth, including Peter, Paul, John, and James ... yet never once did he ever own up to his own failures. So it's no wonder we were convinced that he was the acting God, the ultimate consummated God-man, whose ministry reached the high peaks of the divine revelation.

ZNPaaneah

12-01-2012, 11:10 AM

Lee was faithful to point out the failures of every man on earth, including Peter, Paul, John, and James ... yet never once did he ever own up to his own failures. So it's no wonder we were convinced that he was the acting God, the ultimate consummated God-man, whose ministry reached the high peaks of the divine revelation.

The book of Proverbs does an excellent job of pointing out Witness Lee's failures. The Life study of that book is a joke. I think there are 6 messages total on 31 chapters (compared to 60 messages on 6 chapters in Ephesians) and it is the one book where he rarely even read the verses, instead he provides all kinds of confusing teaching about it without actually letting anyone read it. I think he was terrified to even try reading the verses knowing that he would be completely convicted. Hence his warning that if you read this book in your natural man it will not be the word of God to you. (Things have changed since WN shared that even if you read the Bible in your natural man you will still be washed by the word).

aron

12-01-2012, 11:23 AM

"The book of Proverbs is recorded in the Word of God, but it is not the word directly from God. Rather, it is the word of many wise men, especially Solomon. In the same way, most of the Bible is not the word of God directly. However, much of the Old Testament is God's speaking, such as Genesis 1:3, where God said, "Let there be light." Although Proverbs is a book in the Bible, when we contact it by our natural man, it is not the word of God to us." (The Life Study of Proverbs, Message 6, Section 1).

I see two complemetary methods of interpreting scripture, and one safeguard. The first method is to use our logic. Peter, I believe, appeals to logic when he presents the writings of David as foreshadowing the coming Christ Jesus, in his speech in Acts chapter 2. He says, in effect, that the declarations of David could only be fulfilled by his seed who came after him, who was Jesus the Nazarene.

Second is inspiration. A "voice within" says this contains revelation concerning God's Christ. Much of the elliptical and poetical parts of the OT (Psalms, Isaiah) can yield revelation if we pursue Christ there. Paul doesn't call it "the word of Christ" for nothing in Colossians 3:16. And the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews says, "We see Jesus" shortly after quoting "Your throne, O God, is forever", which might not be logically self-evident to some of us.

Lee used both methods. But he missed the safeguard: the counsel of godly men. If we simply rely on our logic and inspiration, we may eventually be led astray. We may get captured by our ideas instead of by Christ. We, all of us, need the counsel of others, else there will be none to "restrain the madness of the prophet". With his idea of "the ground of the church" I think that Nee lost the restraining safeguard of the counsel of godly peers, and when Nee departed the scene Lee likewise lost any external restraint. Eventually the Bible became a tool for Lee to use, rather than God's commandment to obey. Lee tried to be subject to God's Word, but rather it became subject to his "fallen and natural concepts". Then you end up with zany quotes like the one presented by ZNP above. See especially the underlined part.

Ohio

12-01-2012, 11:33 AM

Eventually the Bible became a tool for Lee to use, rather than God's commandment to obey. Lee tried to be subject to God's Word, but rather it became subject to his "fallen and natural concepts". Then you end up with zany quotes like the one presented by ZNP above. See especially the underlined part.

When did Lee ever say that a part of his ministry was opinion, personal preferences, human sentiments, etc? It's no wonder LSM was so obsessed with recording his every word of every passing day.

He elevated his own speaking to that of Jesus' own words. If we apply the Lee concept of the word of God, all we would be left with is the red letter words of Jesus in the red-letter edition of the Bible.

Cassidy

12-01-2012, 11:59 AM

I see two complemetary methods of interpreting scripture, and one safeguard. The first method is to use our logic. Peter, I believe, appeals to logic when he presents the writings of David as foreshadowing the coming Christ Jesus, in his speech in Acts chapter 2. He says, in effect, that the declarations of David could only be fulfilled by his seed who came after him, who was Jesus the Nazarene.

Second is inspiration. A "voice within" says this contains revelation concerning God's Christ. Much of the elliptical and poetical parts of the OT (Psalms, Isaiah) can yield revelation if we pursue Christ there. Paul doesn't call it "the word of Christ" for nothing in Colossians 3:16. And the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews says, "We see Jesus" shortly after quoting "Your throne, O God, is forever", which might not be logically self-evident to some of us.

Lee used both methods. But he missed the safeguard: the counsel of godly men. If we simply rely on our logic and inspiration, we may eventually be led astray. We may get captured by our ideas instead of by Christ. We, all of us, need the counsel of others, else there will be none to "restrain the madness of the prophet". With his idea of "the ground of the church" I think that Nee lost the restraining safeguard of the counsel of godly peers, and when Nee departed the scene Lee likewise lost any external restraint. Eventually the Bible became a tool for Lee to use, rather than God's commandment to obey. Lee tried to be subject to God's Word, but rather it became subject to his "fallen and natural concepts". Then you end up with zany quotes like the one presented by ZNP above. See especially the underlined part.

aron,

Yours is a reasonable explanation and your exhortation about safeguards through peer reviews is not missed.

However, there is nothing amiss by the underlined statement:

"In the same way, most of the Bible is not the word of God directly ."

The operative word here is "directly". He gives the explanation that Genesis 1:3 is a direct word from God "God said". What he means here is that God spoke most of the Bible through men moved by inspiration of the Holy Spirit using their own words to articulate the inspiration. They were imperfect men as are we all. What they said was often through a filter of their world view. God spoke to men within the context of their human existence. He did not seek to correct certain thoughts they may have because the word He spoke to them was introduced to the people of that time and place. He was not seeking technical accuracy nor was demanding a level of superior knowledge beyond what they could know at the time and place they lived. We can look back (and unbelievers who oppose God and His word often do) and find writers misunderstandings about a number of things. Yet, these are all for our correction and instruction in righteousness.

For instance, the book of Enoch is not considered canon. It is not considered Scripture therefore it is not included in the 66 books of the Bible. It is an interesting book but its authenticity is suspect. And yet, Jude quotes the Book of Enoch. So what should we do with that?. A book that is Holy Writ is quoting another book that is not. Is the Book of Enoch automatically validated as a legitimate work because of this? No, apparently not. Was Jude's understanding about the book of Enoch's authenticity essential to whether his book should be included in the Bible? No, it was not. If we reject the book of Enoch then should we reject the book of Jude? No, we should not. We simply acknowledge the fact that Jude was quoting something according to his understanding at the time. Rejecting the validity of the book of Enoch does not mean we are rejecting the infallibility of Jude and its inclusion in the canon of Scripture.

That same goes for James who was occupied with the law. Or the Psalms or any other book. We hold that all 66 books are the word of God and every word and sentence are infallible canon of Scripture but there is no conflict to embrace the Bible as infallible while acknowledging the bias, the worldview, or the errors that the writers may have scribed.

aron

12-01-2012, 12:02 PM

If we apply the Lee concept of the word of God, all we would be left with is the red letter words of Jesus in the red-letter edition of the Bible.

And God's speaking in the OT, I suppose. When God says "Let there be light" in Genesis 1, we should allow that, as "the direct Word of God", versus the fallen notions of man.

And then the OT portions directly quoted by Jesus. That we'll allow as "God's Word". But still, it comes out to a mighty thin Bible. Thank God for those footnotes!

ZNPaaneah

12-01-2012, 12:29 PM

aron,

Yours is a reasonable explanation and your exhortation about safeguards through peer reviews is not missed.

However, there is nothing amiss by the underlined statement:

"In the same way, most of the Bible is not the word of God directly ."

The operative word here is "directly". He gives the explanation that Genesis 1:3 is a direct word from God "God said". What he means here is that God spoke most of the Bible through men moved by inspiration of the Holy Spirit using their own words to articulate the inspiration.

Which is the way everyone else understands this. The problem is that Witness Lee then tweeks this to say some of the psalms were written "wrongly with a wrong concept". He then tweeks this to say that the entire book of James was "not God's word".

So instead of seeing that "all scripture is God breathed" to mean that it is inspired by God, it now means that God has a purpose to put all these words in this book and that thanks to Witness Lee we now know they are there to see if we truly understand God's economy. This is the most arrogant teaching imaginable. He was obviously blinded with pride and arrogance.

aron

12-01-2012, 12:31 PM

aron,

Yours is a reasonable explanation and your exhortation about safeguards through peer reviews is not missed.

What [Lee] means here is that God spoke most of the Bible through men moved by inspiration of the Holy Spirit using their own words to articulate the inspiration. They were imperfect men as are we all. What they said was often through a filter of their world view. God spoke to men within the context of their human existence.

Actually, I think I get, and mostly agree with this. The Bible was composed by fallible, partly ignorant men. But I would argue that there are at least potentially deep, deep, mystical revelations of Christ there, and that Lee did us a disservice by treating it as if it were a blank spot on a map: "Don't worry, folks, nothing there. Let's move along." In this way he elevated his interpretation above the very word of God itself. And his "move along, folks" wasn't incidental. The Book of Psalms is both the most voluminous book of the OT, and the most cited by the NT. Go through your Psalms Recovery Version sometime and notice the glaring absence of footnotes, and the numerous ones that pan the text as of no value, compared to the ones explicating "divine revelation".

So we get "the context of Lee's human existence", as you put it, vetting the Word of God for us. And I say we were cheated. Or is Lee somehow exempt from the cautionary words you impose on the Biblical authors?

For instance, the book of Enoch is not considered canon. It is not considered Scripture therefore it is not included in the 66 books of the Bible. It is an interesting book but its authenticity is suspect. And yet, Jude quotes the Book of Enoch. So what should we do with that?

I honestly am not sure about Enoch. It is an interesting kind of "grey area" document held to be revelatory by some, perhaps many, of those who composed (and read) our NT. While I acknowledge Enoch as 'suspect' in some ways (authorship & age), I hold that Lee's writings are likewise suspect. Were you to try Lee's works with the same keen-eyed skepticism that you try others, you might be more inclined to agree.

We simply acknowledge the fact that Jude was quoting something according to his understanding at the time. Rejecting the validity of the book of Enoch does not mean we are rejecting the infallibility of Jude and its inclusion in the canon of Scripture.

Likewise, Lee's OT exegeses are not infallible. Human concepts, both "natural" and "fallen", abound.

We hold that all 66 books are the word of God and every word and sentence are infallible canon of Scripture but there is no conflict to embrace the Bible as infallible while acknowledging the bias, the worldview, or the errors that the writers may have scribed.

Lee was also fallible, in behavior, in teaching, and interpretation. As such he is merely one voice among many. And I trust the experiences of the writers of the OT and NT more than the teachings of Lee; if nothing else, simply because they ARE presented warts and all. Lee, by contrast, was presented like "The great and powerful Wizard of Oz", smoke, mirrors, and all. Interesting that in the movie, the "wizard" was a humble itinerant snake oil salesman before he discovered the lucrative business of elevating himself above the awestruck masses. Or am I mis-remembering the movie? I do that sometimes.

aron

12-01-2012, 12:36 PM

So instead of seeing that "all scripture is God breathed" to mean that it is inspired by God, it now means that God has a purpose to put all these words in this book and that thanks to Witness Lee we now know they are there to see if we truly understand God's economy. This is the most arrogant teaching imaginable. He was obviously blinded with pride and arrogance.

Lee probably loved God, and believed God's word. Maybe he had more faith and love than some of us. Ultimately, he got caught by an idea, which he loved more than the Word itself; and it became a kind of "hidden reef" which shipwrecked him and many others.

Talk about a cautionary tale. David and Solomon have nothing on this guy.

Cassidy

12-02-2012, 08:12 AM

Which is the way everyone else understands this. The problem is that Witness Lee then tweeks this to say some of the psalms were written "wrongly with a wrong concept". He then tweeks this to say that the entire book of James was "not God's word".

So instead of seeing that "all scripture is God breathed" to mean that it is inspired by God, it now means that God has a purpose to put all these words in this book and that thanks to Witness Lee we now know they are there to see if we truly understand God's economy. This is the most arrogant teaching imaginable. He was obviously blinded with pride and arrogance.

ZNP,

Witness Lee believed and acknowledged that all of Scripture is God-breathed. He stated it directly and he underscored his belief with tens of thousands of messages covering every book of the Bible (James and Psalms included) on every christian topic. That is a level of commitment to Scripture that most Christians or ministers will never make including present company.

You seem to be advocating that all books be treated with equal weight or disregard the background of the writer or ignore contrasting it with other books in the Bible, etc. . I find nothing in the Scripture that says a minister or teacher must do that. If someone has a burden from the Lord to expound on certain Scripture more or less or not at all then they have the liberty before the Lord. However, each minister must follow the leading of the Holy Spirit on this matter. If you feel the book of James or Psalms were shortchanged in Witness Lee's teachings and have a burden from the Lord, then you should put pen to paper and write a study of your own on these books.

Cassidy

12-02-2012, 08:55 AM

"Actually, I think I get, and mostly agree with this. The Bible was composed by fallible, partly ignorant men. But I would argue that there are at least potentially deep, deep, mystical revelations of Christ there, and that Lee did us a disservice by treating it as if it were a blank spot on a map: "Don't worry, folks, nothing there. Let's move along." In this way he elevated his interpretation above the very word of God itself. And his "move along, folks" wasn't incidental. The Book of Psalms is both the most voluminous book of the OT, and the most cited by the NT. Go through your Psalms Recovery Version sometime and notice the glaring absence of footnotes, and the numerous ones that pan the text as of no value, compared to the ones explicating "divine revelation"."

Apparently, Witness Lee did not have the same burden for the book of Psalms has he had for the writings of Paul for instance. He had the liberty and responsibility to follow the leading of the Lord. There may be mysterious revelations of Christ in the Psalms (Witness Lee saw something of the Church there also) as you say that he did not recognize. That will be up to someone else I suppose to expound on.

So we get "the context of Lee's human existence", as you put it, vetting the Word of God for us. And I say we were cheated. Or is Lee somehow exempt from the cautionary words you impose on the Biblical authors?

Sure.

I would only object to the characterization of "cheated". There are at least a hundred messages on the Psalms and hundreds (maybe thousands) of references to them in other parts of the ministry. How many more would you have considered were needed?

"Psalms is the second book of poetry. Job leads us into the school of God to be educated to know God. The Psalms leads us into the Holy of Holies for us to fellowship with God through prayers, aspirations, meditations, desires, and praises."

I honestly am not sure about Enoch. It is an interesting kind of "grey area" document held to be revelatory by some, perhaps many, of those who composed (and read) our NT. While I acknowledge Enoch as 'suspect' in some ways (authorship & age), I hold that Lee's writings are likewise suspect. Were you to try Lee's works with the same keen-eyed skepticism that you try others, you might be more inclined to agree.

The point about the book of Enoch is that some of it is included in the book of Jude as a reference but the book of Jude is no less inspired by God and its inclusion of a non-canonical work makes it no less infallible. We can acknowledge the writer's (Jude) lack of understanding without dismissing the book of Jude. Same for James or David (who wrote most of the Psalms).

Likewise, Lee's OT exegeses are not infallible. Human concepts, both "natural" and "fallen", abound.

Correct. To more or less of a degree that is true for every man.

Lee was also fallible, in behavior, in teaching, and interpretation. As such he is merely one voice among many.

Sure.

And I trust the experiences of the writers of the OT and NT more than the teachings of Lee; if nothing else, simply because they ARE presented warts and all. Lee, by contrast, was presented like "The great and powerful Wizard of Oz", smoke, mirrors, and all. Interesting that in the movie, the "wizard" was a humble itinerant snake oil salesman before he discovered the lucrative business of elevating himself above the awestruck masses. Or am I mis-remembering the movie? I do that sometimes.

It was just a movie. Christmas season is here so you should be able to find it on the tube to refresh your memory. :lurking:

But, look, no one should elevate a man and all but a few will recognize that Witness Lee was a fallible man with shortcomings and failures. If someone followed Witness Lee hoping to find a perfect man they would have been disappointed. Their focus and emphasis was off. If they sought the Wizard of Oz then they should go to Oz, wherever that is for them.

NeitherFirstnorLast

12-02-2012, 09:07 AM

On Interpretation of Scripture (Sola Lee)

"The traditional reference point of Biblical Christianity - "Scripture interprets Scripture" - has been relocated by Lee. "Our spirit today is God's dwelling place. And, even more, the local churches are God's dwelling place. Hence, we must turn to our spirit, and we must to turn to the local church... our spirit and the local church are where we will receive divine revelation, where we obtain the explanation to all our problems." (WL Christ and the Church Revealed, pg 128-129)

The Written Word is not entirely written off by Lee...Although it is a shadow, it can lead to Reality... To help his followers use it, Lee presents a number of interpretive principles to use in his books. Two stand out: allegory, and personal revelation.

Some of Lee's books are structured entirely by the allegorical use of Scripture. For him, almost everything in the Old Testament is a symbol of something in the New Testament. Obviously, if one views the written Word as history and shadows, then to span one's ontological schism (strongly held belief of the nature of God and being) to the higher spiritual Reality behind the shadows requires something other than literal interpretation. Similarly, if one sees ordinary knowledge as outward, "soulish" and crass, one cannot use rational, verbal, objective knowing to... attain spiritual knowledge.

...Since language and history are of the mind, of the soul, of the lower level of knowing, such matters as the Bible's grammar and the original historical context and intent are inconsequential to Lee.

Lee teaches that Scripture is the Holy Spirit and that the interpretation of Scripture is spiritual, beyond rational understanding."

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

This understanding of Lee's means of interpretation differs completely from Cassidy's presentation of Lee's means. (IE: Cassidy's post to ZNP below: "You seem to be advocating that all books be treated with equal weight or disregard the background of the writer or ignore contrasting it with other books in the Bible, etc." Which statement most accurately reflects the facts here?

aron

12-02-2012, 09:55 AM

Apparently, Witness Lee did not have the same burden for the book of Psalms has he had for the writings of Paul for instance. He had the liberty and responsibility to follow the leading of the Lord. There may be mysterious revelations of Christ in the Psalms ... as you say that [Lee] did not recognize. That will be up to someone else I suppose to expound on.

Cassidy,

I appreciate your reasoned reply. My only response at the moment is that if someone else tries to expound on the Bible, within the "local church" environs, or does what you call elsewhere "another study", they will be labeled factious, devisive, ambitious, drawing others after themselves, etc. They will be immediately shouted down by the lackeys and sycophants who have clustered themselves around "the ministry".

"The ministry" as I have seen it simply allows no other voice than its own.

...There are at least a hundred messages on the Psalms and hundreds (maybe thousands) of references to them in other parts of the ministry. How many more would you have considered were needed?

Hundreds of more messages are needed. We have barely scratched the surface. Let me ask you a question: when Paul equates the Psalms as "the word of Christ", does he specifically point out some of them? Or does he anywhere intimate that some are especially profitable, and others less so? Or does he anywhere give a word that some of them are only useful to show us what God does not want?

Yet on those grounds, Lee dismissed the bulk of the text. He missed the boat on this one, and you and I both know that in today's "Lord's Recovery" if anyone mentions a possible lack, or deficiency in the "rich ministry" of Witness Lee in this regard they'll be hustled out the door so quick their head will spin.

UntoHim

12-02-2012, 09:55 AM

All this is a very excellent analysis of how Witness Lee viewed and taught the Bible. Much of his error stems from his lack of formal Christian/Scriptural education. Most good formal Christian educational institutions will give the serious student the interpretive and language skills that are needed to be a sound Bible teacher.

LEE: "our spirit and the local church are where we will receive divine revelation"
REGARDLESS of context, this is a false and dangerous statement, especially the part about "the local church", especially knowing what Lee meant by "the local church". By local church Witness Lee mean HIS CHURCH, where HIS PRIVATE INTERPRETATIONS reign supreme. He said such a thing knowing fully that all the "book rooms" were filled with over 90% of HIS written messages, HIS books, HIS video tapes.

...Since language and history are of the mind, of the soul, of the lower level of knowing, such matters as the Bible's grammar and the original historical context and intent are inconsequential to Lee.

Dead, spot on analysis. Witness Lee forced the Bible into the context of HIS interpretation instead of the other way around. He usually only brought up matters of grammar and historical context in order to use the Bible as a "proof text" for his private interpretation. A good example of this might be Lee's insistence that Isaiah 9:6 is saying that Jesus Christ is called God the Father. Duddy et al were not doubt aware of heretical teachings like this, so he could make statements like the one quoted here.

aron

12-02-2012, 02:34 PM

I did this with the book of Job, 77150 did this with Proverbs and I thought Aaron was working on this with Psalms.

I know of a couple of good, thick, recent, scholarly works on the Psalms which impressed me greatly, and were very profitable. Both are available on Amazon for 35 dollars from academic presses. Very, very satisfying reads. Of course, a lot of the essays are reviewing Greek, Syriac, and Hebrew languages, other scholarship, archeology, etc so much is "way over my head" but what I get is very enlightening. Not to mention that it's encouraging to see the work some capable people are doing out there. It really feels like God is working through His body of believers, when I read some of the results of these labors. God is opening His Word for us... what blessing.

I myself only dabble on the fringes as a rank amateur, but the field is so full of proverbial "low-hanging fruit" that it bountifully rewards labor, even to someone unlearned as myself. God loves to present His Son to us in His Word.

Not to mention that none of these scholars is pretending that they have the final word on the subject. If any of them tried they'd be laughed out of the room by their fellows. Peer review breeds humility, and care.

TLFisher

12-02-2012, 06:10 PM

Yet on those grounds, Lee dismissed the bulk of the text. He missed the boat on this one, and you and I both know that in today's "Lord's Recovery" if anyone mentions a possible lack, or deficiency in the "rich ministry" of Witness Lee in this regard they'll be hustled out the door so quick their head will spin.

As with many other Biblical commentaries, in writing the Life-Studies you'll find thousands of pages of text. However it's not exhaustive nor comprehensive. I find certain passages are simply passed over because it's not a positive nor confirming Word. Not to be completely critical, in my home meetings as we're reading through the Gospel of John and in reading RC Sproul's commentary on the Gospel of John, I'll reference Witness Lee's commentary on the Gospel of John. When reading a Biblical commentary, I do not want to put faith in one commentary as being accurate in interpresting the Word. Rather see if another writer corroborates the interpreted Word.

NeitherFirstnorLast

12-02-2012, 08:45 PM

Here I am skipping ahead some 20 pages, although we may go back later... I felt, after the last post I made on the "Does LSM hold to Apostolic Succession?" thread, that readers might want to know where 'Blended Brothers' Ron Kangas, Benson Phillips, and Bill Lawson got their ideas from.

Ecclesiology, the House that Lee Built (Chapter Three Cont'd)

"Although the crux of the Local Church's theology is the mingling of God and humanity, Witness Lee's ecclesiology (or doctrine of 'the church') is also momentous.

Local Church members claim to be the only true Christians, the only true Church. Lee justifies the founding of the Local Church by exegeting Old Testment prophecy and New Testament narrative. He devotes his book 'Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms'to demonstrate that only the Local Church, not the catholic (universal) Christian faith, is prophesied in many texts. Lee argues that Matthew 18:15-20 is a text alluding to the Local Church, as are all the letters of Paul that are addressed to cities. Throughout his writings Lee exalts the Local Church with such appellations as "God's dwelling", "God's beauty", "the place of God's blessing", and "the dispatcher of true salvation".

"Furthermore, the salvation of God's people comes out of the local churches. Psalm 53:6 'Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion'." (WL C&C Revealed pg 95). (apparently, Lee believed his Local Churches were also Zion).

...Lee deprecates "Christianity", using perjorative adjectives like "misled", "poor", "fallen", "lost", "mistaken", "pitiful", and "heathen" to describe religious non-local Church people.

"Do not try to be neutral. Do not try to reconcile the denominations with the local church. You can never reconcile them. Can you reconcile black and white? You can, but it will be grey; it will be neither black nor white." (WL The Practical Expression of the Church, pg 92).

Those who criticize the Local Church often find themselves admonished to heed the advice of Gamaliel: "Let these men alone; you might actually find yourselves to be fighting against God." Application of that Scripture on behalf of Witness Lee's movement is based on his assumption that the Local Church has the same relation to contemporary Christianity that early Christianity had to Judaism, namely, that it supersedes it. That attitude is expressed rather boldly within the confines of the Local Church. Public teaching on the matter has been somewhat more guarded; nevertheless, Lee has committed himself on several occasions, declaring that Christians of today occupy the spiritual position of Gentiles in New Testament times.
(alienated from the life of God)

"We are simply putting off religion, putting off Christianity. In the early days the church had to put off Judaism. Today we have to put off Christianity." (WL Ibid, pg 133).

"All Christians not in the local church are in captivity, in the wilderness of Babylon, and without much regard from the Lord". (WL C&C Revealed pg 198 & The Vision of God's Building pg 69-70).

"Today's remnant, however, can flee only to the local church." (WL Christ vs Religion, pg 115).

"Is this religion? No. Is this Christianity? No. Is this a kind of new sect? No. Then what is this? It is the church life, Hallelujah!" (WL, Christ vs Religion, pg 34).

"Some say that the church in Los Angeles is 'awful'. But it is still not 'awful' enough! We need to be more 'awful'. We want to frighten all of Christianity to such an extent that the whole universe will be shaken." (WL The Practical Expression of the Church, pg 138).

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

What can I possibly add to that?

ZNPaaneah

12-03-2012, 06:05 AM

aron

12-03-2012, 06:42 AM

Let's look at the application. Witness Lee shares that there are riches in the LRC but that for the last 39 years nothing of value has been published by other Christians. This is identical to the Lord's condemnation of Laodicea for "saying they are rich knowing not that they are blind". .
Jesus said, "You think you can see; therefore your blindness remains"

Look at Proverbs, in chapter 1 it says that "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom" and then in chapter 8 it says that the fear of God is to "hate pride and arrogance". .
Psalms 131 says "My heart is not proud, O LORD, my eyes are not haughty..."
In this phrase we can see both the triumph of the man Jesus, who on earth lowered Himself, and simultaneously see the fall of the angel Satan, who wanted to elevate himself.

Proverbs says that a fool despises rebuke, and it also says (3x) that a wise man has many counselors. The words of Proverbs and Psalms, among of course many other scriptures, are to counsel (and yes, rebuke) us. We should not minimize or ignore them. On the contrary, we cannot overstress them.

OBW

12-03-2012, 08:47 AM

Witness Lee believed and acknowledged that all of Scripture is God-breathed. He stated it directly and he underscored his belief with tens of thousands of messages covering every book of the Bible (James and Psalms included) on every christian topic. That is a level of commitment to Scripture that most Christians or ministers will never make including present company.

You seem to be advocating that all books be treated with equal weight or disregard the background of the writer or ignore contrasting it with other books in the Bible, etc. . I find nothing in the Scripture that says a minister or teacher must do that. If someone has a burden from the Lord to expound on certain Scripture more or less or not at all then they have the liberty before the Lord. However, each minister must follow the leading of the Holy Spirit on this matter. If you feel the book of James or Psalms were shortchanged in Witness Lee's teachings and have a burden from the Lord, then you should put pen to paper and write a study of your own on these books.An interesting argument.

First. You have no idea what Lee actually believed. And his spoken and written record do not aid in settling the issue. Lee spoke one way one time, and another way in other times. Yes, he said that he believed in the scripture as God-breathed. But the things he said about some of it was more like saying that Lee believed that some of the scripture was God-breathed, and some of it was not, but was allowed to be included so that, without any direct comment, it could be understood as wrong.

The problem for so many is the "without any direct comment" part. Scripture holds together quite well if you assume that it is all literally God-breathed as-is and is His intent and not His examples of what is not His intent. So, without some clear comment in the context of what is declared by Lee to be "not according to the divine revelation" or "not according to God's economy," I find the declaration that major portions of scripture, like James and much of the Psalms, is just man's vain thoughts, or just dead religion is to disrespect the direct speaking from God's breath.

Throughout the scripture there are ample cases where the sayings and deeds of evildoers, wicked, and even foolish, are identified and either chastised or warned against. But somehow, most of the letter from James, much of the Psalms, and some other writings within scripture have been singled out by Lee (and admittedly, a few others before him) to be somehow errantly in the canon of scripture, or somehow to be read in the mode of "opposite time" in which black becomes white and yellow becomes purple.

That kind of position on any part of the scripture is clear evidence of a mind and spirit that are not in tune with God. That kind of mind and spirit could never be a legitimate minister, and clearly not the singular "minister of the age."

Then there is the issue of not taking things at equal weight and not emphasizing all of scripture equally. I am not really opposed to that. I'm sure that no one would object to not giving a lot of study to some particular battle in the OT. Not saying to dismiss it or ignore that there may be principles or foreshadowing in it. But as a text of profound importance, it would not be the same as, say, Romans 8 or Matthew 5.

But there is imbalance that is not acceptable. Scripture is full of many things. Even within the NT (and without consulting James) there is much concerning our actions, living, and even works. And at the same time there is much concerning our belief and grace. Both are at work. I do believe that while imbalance in a particular ministry is not necessarily a problem. Sometimes we find that certain people see aspects of the full revelation better than others do. We should not dismiss their portion because it is lopsided or limited. We can gain from such a ministry.

But when there is such a lopsided ministry, it cannot be taken as "the ministry" and all others ignored. It can only be acceptable (or even just possibly acceptable) if it is used as something equivalent to "an important part of a complete breakfast." In other words, it is not the whole breakfast, and is not even part of the other daily meals. It is just what it is — a small part. And once a minister thinks his little part is the only part and that all others are irrelevant or even fallen, he has stepped into a realm in which whatever might be relevant from his ministry cannot save him. In terms of being a minster, he becomes bankrupt and is worthy of rejection. Not just because he is lopsided, but because in his concluding that his ministry is so singularly important, he ceases to serve God and instead serves only himself. He may think he is serving God, but he cannot be.

And for Lee, this is too evident when he twice casts others aside to protect his immoral son so that he can serve the LSM as chief bully. At this point, it is clear that Lee's service is about his belly, not God, scripture, or righteousness.

alwayslearning

12-03-2012, 08:49 AM

Cassidy

12-03-2012, 08:57 AM

That's wonderful! Do you also believe that the writings of Witness Lee are infallible Cassidy?

No, I do not.

OBW

12-03-2012, 09:21 AM

"The Bible is the Word of God. We believe that the Bible, word by word, is divinely inspired by God (2 Pet. 1:21), as the breath of God (2 Tim. 3:16). The genuine Christians do not have any doubt about this point. We must believe that the Bible is God's infallible Word."

Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life, The
Witness LeeHow many declarations of people, even under heavy scrutiny, have been found to be less than truthful. Some examples:
I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky

When I invented the internet . . .

I only want to consolidate the German people into Germany (a paraphrase based on historical fact)
When I consider statements like Lee made above, I do not know whether to accept that he was truthful but ignorant of the totality of his position, or willfully false. He could have simply been trying to use the "God is mysterious" argument to mask that he could teach contrary things while claiming to hold to the accepted teachings of orthodoxy. He also could have actually thought that he was somehow correct in his assertion. But even if he desperately wanted to hold to a Bible that "word by word, is divinely inspired" his very teachings contradict that position. He cannot accept that God spoke the words found in James and meant them. So even though there is nothing surrounding those "bad" words to declare them as the thoughts of the old covenant or of fallen religious man, Lee believes that is the case. So he must devise a construct in another part of scripture that does not actually refer to James or anything like what James wrote, and drag it to the rescue of his private consideration that God would never actually speak those words as authoritative, but rather allow them to be spoken by spiritual fools so that He could leave them as unidentified errors in theology.

The result is to declare his claim of "word by word" divine inspiration of scripture to be false. He believes in a scripture in which God allows error to be spoke and if truth, yet without contradiction until some specially-endowed minister like Lee comes along to set the record straight with a faulty construct devised in other parts of scripture to drag over to those errant portions and finally get God's word completed. In other words, the Bible wasn't really finished until Lee's commentary came along to fix the errors in how it was written down and pieced together. The notes about James' bad theology were missing. Same for much of Psalms. So until at least Luther, James was not properly seen as error. And even then it was not correctly stated. We had to wait for Lee to get the understanding correct.

That dog wont hunt. It is a three-legged stool that is missing two legs. I am reminded a little of the bit from Macbeth, act 5, scene 5, where Macbeth, speaking of the hollowness of life says
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.The connection is that all of these constructs of Lee are but a tale of the imagination, spun in a void of scripture, making a lot of noise for the faithful follower to hear, but meaning nothing.

alwayslearning

12-03-2012, 12:49 PM

No, I do not.

Which ones do you think are wrong?

Cassidy

12-03-2012, 01:28 PM

Which ones do you think are wrong?

Always,

You asked me if I thought they were infallible and I answered no.

Make your point and let's move on.

Ohio

12-03-2012, 01:43 PM

Always,

You asked me if I thought they were infallible and I answered no.

Make your point and let's move on.

His point is simple -- where have you acknowledged failures by WL?

Cassidy

12-03-2012, 01:45 PM

His point is simple -- where have you acknowledged failures by WL?

That was not his point and that was not even his question.

alwayslearning

12-03-2012, 02:00 PM

Always,

You asked me if I thought they were infallible and I answered no.

Make your point and let's move on.

Since Witness Lee's writings are fallible which items within his writings do you conside was being wrong?

Cassidy

12-03-2012, 02:10 PM

Since Witness Lee's writings are fallible which of his writings do you consider was being wrong?

Always,

My instinct told me I should have ignored your first leading question. I prefer a dialogue. If you have a specific writing you wish to discuss I will be happy to engage you. If the teaching in question is not related to this thread then with the permission of the host of this site you may open another thread and depending on the topic I may join you.

Thanks

OBW

12-03-2012, 02:47 PM

" . . . there is more justification in the Bible for head covering than for the ground of locality . . ."

And the general thought is that there is almost no justification for any kind of insistence on head covering.

So . . .

(Thanks, Ohio, for that great quote.)

OBW

12-03-2012, 03:49 PM

My instinct told me I should have ignored your first leading question. I prefer a dialog. If you have a specific writing you wish to discuss I will be happy to engage you. If the teaching in question is not related to this thread then with the permission of the host of this site you may open another thread and depending on the topic I may join you.I'm not sure it is worth pressing the point.

When asked about Lee and infallibility, you are quick to assert that he is not infallible. But from your actual statements and positions, it would seem that you have found no actual reasons to question anything Lee ever said or did. That makes your assertion of "fallible" to be little more than theoretical. In practice you have found him to be entirely accurate and trustworthy to have spoken precisely what God is saying in all cases.

I will declare plainly that I find things about virtually every ministry, from large national and global ministries to the people who minister in various local churches (that's local church in the unadulterated sense of churches that are found locally). The minister at one place we have attended declares plainly that they stand as a bastion of strength to defend the propositions of a pretty by-the-book DTS (Dallas Theological Seminary) version of "the truth." And while I find his preaching quite sound and refreshing, I cannot say that everything he says is entirely as I understand it. Further, I don't think that the DTS version of "the truth" is absolutely correct. And my son and daughter-in-law who both attended DTS would agree. I can give specifics if you would like.

But no matter how strongly I consider DTS theology to be either right, wrong, or in between, I do not sideline all other thought as if it is something to fear. In fact, it is the opening of other perspectives that I learned how wrong Lee actually is. How contrived his reading of scripture can be (and more often than just "at times").

But the LRC is frozen in place following the singular ministry of one (dead) man without even considering other ministries as at least supplementary. And please do not confuse arguing that Ron and Benson have their own ministries because theirs, at least at this point in time, are nothing more than rephrasing and restating Lee's. Except for certain very sectarian groups, you won't even find a severe limit on the range of ministries to be considered as you find in the LRC. Virtually no one out there is even suggesting that we should avoid all other ministries but theirs because those others are either redundant or wrong. Virtually all ministries understand themselves as little more than a part of the whole. Even Paul did not declare himself to be more than that.

But Lee did. (That Lee. He is soooo special. Even more special than Paul.)

In a favorite podcast (having nothing to do with the LRC or even theology), the author regularly quotes Thomas Jefferson: Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.I generally refrain from taking that approach, but there are times when I am tempted and on occasion do give in. This kind of "he's not infallible but no one has ever seen where it is true" position is running right up against that. It is entirely too contradictory to be sustained as rational. You would give yourself some credibility if you could actually say that you disagree with something Lee said, or agree that certain of his actions are not consistent with someone who would claim to be God's unique oracle.

alwayslearning

12-03-2012, 05:00 PM

My instinct told me I should have ignored your first leading question. I prefer a dialogue. If you have a specific writing you wish to discuss I will be happy to engage you. If the teaching in question is not related to this thread then with the permission of the host of this site you may open another thread and depending on the topic I may join you. Thanks

I thought we were having a dialogue on the infallibility of the Bible and the fallibility of Witness Lee's writings - a topic that you brought up in this thread. Since you agree that Witness Lee's writings are fallible a reasonable follow up question would be: which ones do you think are wrong? Please feel free to share these specific details with us.

NeitherFirstnorLast

12-03-2012, 07:17 PM

Chapter Three: Unique Theology - Lee on Salvation

I continue here reading from page 57 of The God-Men. May the Lord grant us wisdom to discern His Truth.

"(In Witness Lee's theology of Salvation) It could be said that people are not so much redeemed as they are replaced. The crux of Local Church teaching seems to be that God is working Himself into people and at times even replacing them with Himself...

The function of salvation is primarily to effect (or permit) that mingling, not to atone for sin. Although Witness Lee acknowledges the redemptive aspect of salvation, he explicitly labels it the "lower aspect". The "higher aspect" of salvation is the mingling of God's essence with the essence of humankind: Lee literally devotes volumes to its explication....

...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.

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

A short but not insignificant passage. This thought of Lee's puts much of my personal experience with the Local Church to mind.

The "church in Winnipeg" meets in a building just outside of the city limits. This building once used to be a denominational church, and had windows on the east side that were in the shape of a large cross. Apparently, when the Local Church moved in, one of the earliest orders of business was to sheet over that cross with brown aluminum siding.

1st Corinthians 1:8 "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

That one act (the covering of the 'shameful' cross) spoke volumes to me, and I repent, Oh Lord, that I did not react to this. The cross was never preached in the Local Church - although Nee wrote on it. It really was considered the "lesser aspect" of salvation - and what a wicked thought that is... Christ, when He prayed in Gethsemane, surely did not think it a 'lesser aspect'; and His suffering for our rightful punishment was not in anyways small! This is an insult to Him; a demeaning of what He did in favor of a theology that promotes us as His equals.

I must confess, and have since repented, that there was a time around Christmas - perhaps the very service that in other churches would have been called a Christmas service - when a family came in that we did not know. They were not of the Local Church persuasion, and were undoubtedly perplexed by the layout of the chairs and the lack of a minister. While they sat, after the hymns, one leading brother stood to 'share'. Do you know what he 'shared' that day? He shared on the "weak and pathetic Gospel of the virgin birth" he shared on the "pathetic baby in the manger". As this leading one 'shared', this family say in silence.... And then, respectfully and with a courage I am ashamed to say I did not have, the father of that family stood and spoke for Christ. He told us what the real significance of Christ's birth was, and what it meant to his family, to his children, to him. He spoke at some length, with a tremor in his voice, and then he sat back down. There was not a single look of remorse or repentance on the elders faces... only smug silence. Lord Jesus, how hardened were their hearts.

That man and his family left fifteen minutes later, his testimony met with no Amens or Hallelujahs, and was completely ignored. Forgive me Lord, what a coward I was.

Ohio

12-03-2012, 08:02 PM

Do you know what he 'shared' that day? He shared on the "weak and pathetic Gospel of the virgin birth" he shared on the "pathetic baby in the manger".

After I left the Recovery, it dawned on me one day that the only holiday the LC could really celebrate was Chinese New Year. I was absolutely against Christmas, and could spout off all the pagan origins of its many customs. But every year our church would have a special dinner, mainly for the Chinese saints, and meeting for Chinese New Year, in which the time was used to invite friends and then share the gospel. Both WL and TC and all the Blendeds promoted this.

Why did we never use Christmas or Easter to invite friends to hear the gospel. Was not Chinese New Year far more pagan than Christmas? From my earliest days in the Recovery, I was indoctrinated with anti-Christmas venom.

Most genuine Christians use the celebration of Christmas in this way. They focus on the reason for the season. They did every year what only our Chinese saints were allowed to do. It's no wonder that Caucasians have been exiting the LC's for decades.

ZNPaaneah

12-04-2012, 05:38 AM

Chapter Three: Unique Theology - Lee on Salvation "(In Witness Lee's theology of Salvation) It could be said that people are not so much redeemed as they are replaced. The crux of Local Church teaching seems to be that God is working Himself into people and at times even replacing them with Himself...

Quotes like this that tell me I can't take this guy seriously. This is a joke. The idea that salvation is more than redemption is too much for him to get. The idea that you can be "saved once for all" and that you can also go through a process of salvation is also too much for him to get.

No doubt Witness Lee emphasized the salvation of the soul and deemphasized redemption. This was done because the teaching in Christianity is often so focused on redemption they cannot see anything more than that. Case in point -- Duddy.

But it is total BS to say that we were taught we were not redeemed, or that "salvation is not so much redemption but being replaced"

ZNPaaneah

12-04-2012, 05:46 AM

The "church in Winnipeg" meets in a building just outside of the city limits. This building once used to be a denominational church, and had windows on the east side that were in the shape of a large cross. Apparently, when the Local Church moved in, one of the earliest orders of business was to sheet over that cross with brown aluminum siding.

1st Corinthians 1:8 "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

That one act (the covering of the 'shameful' cross) spoke volumes to me, and I repent, Oh Lord, that I did not react to this. The cross was never preached in the Local Church - although Nee wrote on it. It really was considered the "lesser aspect" of salvation - and what a wicked thought that is... Christ, when He prayed in Gethsemane, surely did not think it a 'lesser aspect'; and His suffering for our rightful punishment was not in anyways small! This is an insult to Him; a demeaning of what He did in favor of a theology that promotes us as His equals.

I must confess, and have since repented, that there was a time around Christmas - perhaps the very service that in other churches would have been called a Christmas service - when a family came in that we did not know. They were not of the Local Church persuasion, and were undoubtedly perplexed by the layout of the chairs and the lack of a minister. While they sat, after the hymns, one leading brother stood to 'share'. Do you know what he 'shared' that day? He shared on the "weak and pathetic Gospel of the virgin birth" he shared on the "pathetic baby in the manger". As this leading one 'shared', this family say in silence.... And then, respectfully and with a courage I am ashamed to say I did not have, the father of that family stood and spoke for Christ. He told us what the real significance of Christ's birth was, and what it meant to his family, to his children, to him. He spoke at some length, with a tremor in his voice, and then he sat back down. There was not a single look of remorse or repentance on the elders faces... only smug silence. Lord Jesus, how hardened were their hearts.

That man and his family left fifteen minutes later, his testimony met with no Amens or Hallelujahs, and was completely ignored. Forgive me Lord, what a coward I was.
[/INDENT]

1. I was taught that in the LRC they viewed a crucifix or cross as akin to an idol. This is why saints did not buy the jewelry and wear the crucifix, etc. I did not have the experience of anyone in the LRC being "ashamed of the cross" and please do not confuse a wooden cross on a building with what the NT refers to as "the cross". This is similar to not confusing the building with the church.

2. I don't see what one message by a leading elder in Winnipeg 20 years or more after Duddy's book about Witness Lee has to do with anything. I never heard such a message in the LRC, never heard Witness Lee share a message with that title.

You have had quite a bit of time to glean out the "gems" from this book and what exactly has this book said so far?

ZNPaaneah

12-04-2012, 05:48 AM

After I left the Recovery, it dawned on me one day that the only holiday the LC could really celebrate was Chinese New Year.

What about Thanksgiving?

OBW

12-04-2012, 06:22 AM

I realize that it appears that Duddy is just giving some uninformed opinion about what Lee is teaching. But based on my 14 years of in-house observation, I believe he has gotten the gist of it.

What really bugs me now is how 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. The actual Christian life, like the comment by Duddy on Lee's lowering of salvation (which is in scripture) and raising of mingling and replacing (which sort of appears once or twice, probably somewhat metaphorically) is spot on. For all of Paul's discussion in Romans 7 and 8 on how he was unable to fulfill the law on his own but is able to through agreeing with and walking by the Spirit, Lee only finds Satan in our flesh and our spirit as the key to success through no effort of our own. And Lee's goal has nothing to do with righteousness because it is of the law. He goes on to avoid reckoning because he can't do it. "Just let the mingling handle it" is probably the nearest thing to going along with that passage.

Like the discussion about a unique ministry or many ministries, we see how Lee's isolation and claim as sole minister of all that is worth knowing leaves his followers so far from the scripture that they so liberally quote as they learn error after error.

A this point in the discussion, it is worthy to note that many of the portions from Duddy that have been posted at first (once again) seemed a little harsh. But upon further reflection, I realized that they were quite accurate. The religion of the Lee and the LRC is about knowledge and terminology. It is built on recasting of clear words into "spiritual" words. It refuses to accept words for what they are and uses mantras like "you must not be spiritual" to continue to declare that their unfounded replacement of the scripture is the real deal.

I recall when Max once visited Dallas that, in reference to the Book of Mormon, he said that Satan wrote a counterfeit of the Bible but was embarrassed about it, so he buried it. Then Joseph Smith came along and dug it up and called it the Book of Mormon. I thought that was pretty funny.

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 decoder ring. It is not as simple as "every seventh word with an overlay of every 12th word" or something like that. Rather, the cipher is 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.

And while they do believe in salvation as you and I know it, that is not far from all. Even the rest that has a sound of similarity is actually different at some level. You think I am overstating it? Just talk to one of them about virtually anything. It takes very little time to reveal some aspect in which the clear word is cast aside because, based on "God's economy," it must mean something else. Or a single word is latched onto and becomes the focus of a single verse (or entire pasage). Much like discovering a "profound truth" about Christ being The Spirit in the midst of a discussion about the kind of resurrected body you and I will receive. It might be easy to dismiss this as an exception rather than a rule because it is so easy to find and others are not provided.

So, let's talk about abiding. The metaphor was a vine. We have to soak up this supply from the vine before we, as branches, can do anything. But the metaphor of a vine is a constant flow of nutrients and a constant effort by the branches. There is no waiting in plants. It is joint, together. If you think those verses are saying to wait until your tank fills up, you don't know plants. Plants don't operate on "I need some more supply before I start." Or more accurately, "I need every bit of what it takes to finish before I start." That is not the way of plants. For a plant, it is more like "Oh, here's a little sap. I must work with it. Do what I can. More sap will come."

In fact, if a plant waits for enough sap to do the job, there will be a build-up of sap that will probably dry out and the branch will die as a result. Based on that kind of analogy, Lee's "wait for the dispensing" is a sure-fire recipe for failure and spiritual death.

And that is one of his favorite decoder-ring overlays. A formula for death.