View Full Version : How Much To Throw Out?
Haven't you read Nees' Submission and Authority?
Authority and Submission should have been subtitled "How I Have Control Over You and There's Not a Darn Thing You Can Do About It! Ha Ha Ha!!"
:rollingeyesfrown:
InOmnibusCaritas
03-23-2015, 12:07 PM
Haven't you read Nees' Submission and Authority?
I can get you a pdf copy if you like.
Also, I can get you a copy of Lily Hsu's book, My Unforgettable Memories: Watchman Nee and the Shanghai Church, in mobi or pdf.
Yes, I have read S&A. Was taught it from young. Plenty of respectable Christian leaders teach this so we need to compare it with scripture. I must decouple my own anti-authoritarian sentiments from Biblical teachings. Maybe Nee was a despot and maybe that is wrong. I'm not too sure if it must always be so in all forms of LC experiment.
Yes, I have read S&A. Was taught it from young. Plenty of respectable Christian leaders teach this so we need to compare it with scripture. I must decouple my own anti-authoritarian sentiments from Biblical teachings. Maybe Nee was a despot and maybe that is wrong. I'm not too sure if it must always be so in all forms of LC experiment.
Nee's primary (at least the most often repeated) prototypes were Moses and Noah. Both of them had detractors in their own family who were judged for "speaking out." IIRC Meriam had leprosy for 7 days and Ham (really Canaan) was judged by Noah. The message to us was clear -- no one was exempt from condemnation who spoke an opinion about God's chosen vessel, not even one as close as a family member.
I see nothing in the New Testament which likewise identifies an individual as God's deputy authority, even though Rome used Peter and Anaheim used Paul. Moses never was a type of any NT minister, rather he was a type of Christ who built God a house. (Hebrews 3. 1-6) Jesus Christ alone is qualified to be the Minister of the Age, the Pope, the Oracle, the Acting God, the Vicar, or whatever title one might use. All other NT authorities are subordinate and plural in number.
Looking at Romans 13, it seems that our submission in this age to secular authorities far exceeds that of church authorities. (Hebrews 13.17)
The Bible encourages us to be leaders more than it encourages us to be followers. By leaders I mean those who set examples, serve and sacrifice for others, and who are willing to endure criticism, even from other believers, to be faithful.
The LCM never taught leadership. It just taught following. That's what A&S was all about, teaching how to be a follower--specifically of Nee. Later it was abused to press people into following Lee. No wonder the movement has no real leaders.
IOC, you strike me as someone with leadership qualities. Don't lose that.
On another note, I think most respectable teachers wouldn't touch A&S with a ten-foot pole.
awareness
03-24-2015, 08:05 AM
Yes, I have read S&A. Was taught it from young. Plenty of respectable Christian leaders teach this so we need to compare it with scripture.Hey it's been a while a go but I remember lots of scripture was used by both Nee and Lee in support of Delegated and Deputy Authority ... and for their Minister of the Age paradigm.
I've forgotten most of it but I can think of many OT examples off the top of my head. I'm sure you can too.
As far as "Plenty of respectable Christian leaders teach this," can you provide references?
Hey it's been a while a go but I remember lots of scripture was used by both Nee and Lee in support of Delegated and Deputy Authority ... and for their Minister of the Age paradigm.Yeah. Nee littered the work with scripture. But from the very beginning, he was rewording the scripture he used, and asserting meaning that was not visible even aftger he asserted it was there, so the significance of saying there was scripture is questionable.
awareness
03-24-2015, 02:38 PM
Yeah. Nee littered the work with scripture. But from the very beginning, he was rewording the scripture he used, and asserting meaning that was not visible even aftger he asserted it was there, so the significance of saying there was scripture is questionable.Good point bro OBW. There's as many using the Bible for their terms as there are those that's using the Bible ... Lee, a prime example.
InOmnibusCaritas
03-26-2015, 01:34 AM
Hey it's been a while a go but I remember lots of scripture was used by both Nee and Lee in support of Delegated and Deputy Authority ... and for their Minister of the Age paradigm.
I've forgotten most of it but I can think of many OT examples off the top of my head. I'm sure you can too.
As far as "Plenty of respectable Christian leaders teach this," can you provide references?
John Piper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvr_lV3thjU
Francis Chan: https://vimeo.com/19138092
At the lower echelon:
https://answersingenesis.org/answers/biblical-authority-devotional/should-we-submit-to-our-church-leadership/
Of course Nee comes on more strongly than Western teachers due to cultural differences. What Westerners consider as submissive is probably too rebellious for the Chinese. Neither is superior to the other actually. We are all coloured by our cultural heritage. How a culture expresses submission differs but the idea remains.
What I cannot accept is the pressure to obey leadership even if they are unbiblical or living in sin. Threats of "the curse of Ham" are often repeated. "Yes, it was Noah's fault. But Ham got cursed for defying the MOTA".
Here's something I'm throwing out with the dirty kitty litter! That the measure of spirituality is solely whether you're in the spirit or not. I know that Jesus said something like you'll know them by their fruit. He never said you'll know them by whether they are in their spirit. I posted the following in another thread and decided to copy it here because I realized that it shows me something that I need to throw out with the kitty litter. I believe fruit or behavior is the only measure of whether a person is one with the Lord. LSM wants me to believe that fruit or behavior have nothing to do with whether a brother is one with the Lord. I apologize for double posting.
"There was a Lord's Table meeting at a certain local church after which all proclaimed that "Christ had been experienced". Immediately after the meeting one "small potato" brother leaned over and told another brother that he was sorry for not showing up to help mow the grass; while a so-called "leading" brother walked by and ignored the waving and calls of a grieving brother who was seeking reconciliation because he was told by the "leading" brother that "his humanity is deplorable, his kids were not in the church-life, and that he was 150 pounds over weight and could no longer sit on the good furniture". Of the two, which brother most likely "experienced Christ" at the meeting?"
In the above story the behavior of the two brothers helps provide evidence of alleged validity of "experiencing Christ". The humble brother who confesses that he is sorry for not showing up to mow grass is nearer to the kingdom of God than the elder brother who ignores the suffering and grief of another brother he has offended.
InOmnibusCaritas
04-01-2015, 09:26 PM
Here's something I'm throwing out with the dirty kitty litter! That the measure of spirituality is solely whether you're in the spirit or not. I know that Jesus said something like you'll know them by their fruit. He never said you'll know them by whether they are in their spirit. I posted the following in another thread and decided to copy it here because I realized that it shows me something that I need to throw out with the kitty litter. I believe fruit or behavior is the only measure of whether a person is one with the Lord. LSM wants me to believe that fruit or behavior have nothing to do with whether a brother is one with the Lord. I apologize for double posting.
"There was a Lord's Table meeting at a certain local church after which all proclaimed that "Christ had been experienced". Immediately after the meeting one "small potato" brother leaned over and told another brother that he was sorry for not showing up to help mow the grass; while a so-called "leading" brother walked by and ignored the waving and calls of a grieving brother who was seeking reconciliation because he was told by the "leading" brother that "his humanity is deplorable, his kids were not in the church-life, and that he was 150 pounds over weight and could no longer sit on the good furniture". Of the two, which brother most likely "experienced Christ" at the meeting?"
In the above story the behavior of the two brothers helps provide evidence of alleged validity of "experiencing Christ". The humble brother who confesses that he is sorry for not showing up to mow grass is nearer to the kingdom of God than the elder brother who ignores the suffering and grief of another brother he has offended.
Fruits are manifested and visible for all to see. Thus, behaviour that points to love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control displays the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). "One with the Lord" is the way to produce the fruit (John 15:5). If a person claims to be one with the Lord but does not show its fruit, then the claim is false. So a person cannot be judged by how much he/she is one with the Lord (that is too ontological to judge). Rather, we are judged by whether we produce the fruit of the Spirit which points to whether we are one with the Lord.
So in your scenario, the elder brother is not one with the Lord because he does not show any fruit. The humble brother has a better case in this one.
Reading LSM with Discernment
In the past I had a sneaking suspicion that the verses quoted by LSM sometimes had little to do with some of their statements in the material they publish. So, I decided to check. I recently went to their website and found the outline of the first message in the full time training of the spring semester 2015. I took the first Roman numeral and compared the statement to the bible verses they quoted to determine how they compare. Here's the first statement.
http://www.lsm.org/outlines-archives/S15FTT01.pdf
I. The kingdom of God is God Himself—Mark 1:15; Matt. 6:33; John 3:3:
And here are the verses they quote.
Matthew 6:33New American Standard Bible (NASB)
33 But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be [c]added to you.
Mark 1:15New American Standard Bible (NASB)
15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
John 3:3New American Standard Bible (NASB)
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Can anyone understand how those verses support that statement? Dear brothers and sisters in the lord's recovery, please tell me how these verses support the statement that " The kingdom of God is God himself". I'm not disagreeing, I just want to know how these verses support the statement. It's obvious to me that these verses do not support the statement, so where does that leave the LSM wordsmiths? To me they are taking the opinions of WL as truth and then they try and find scripture that backs it up. None of the quoted verses come even close to supporting the statement in my opinion. To me this means that I cannot trust how the LSM wordsmiths use God's word, and that at least some of the statements they make are not biblical.
I'm throwing out a blind trust in LSM's use of scripture in support of some of their statements.
Freedom
04-02-2015, 09:54 PM
Reading LSM with Discernment
In the past I had a sneaking suspicion that the verses quoted by LSM sometimes had little to do with some of their statements in the material they publish. So, I decided to check. I recently went to their website and found the outline of the first message in the full time training of the spring semester 2015. I took the first Roman numeral and compared the statement to the bible verses they quoted to determine how they compare. Here's the first statement.
I've had this suspicion for a long time. At least once I attempted to verify certain outline points by checking the corresponding scripture, but I couldn't see any connection. I left it at that assuming that I couldn't "see" what the brothers were talking about.
Unfortunately the lack of scriptural support for outline points probably isn't of much concern to LC members. The Bible is interpreted according to the ministry, so everything revolves around that. I guess that's how they come up with a statement like The kingdom of God is God Himself. What is that even supposed to mean anyways? And why would it be significant? I'm assuming that they start with statements that Lee made on any given subject, then they attempt to support it, rather than develop outlines from the scripture itself.
Reading LSM with Discernment
In the past I had a sneaking suspicion that the verses quoted by LSM sometimes had little to do with some of their statements in the material they publish. So, I decided to check. I recently went to their website and found the outline of the first message in the full time training of the spring semester 2015. I took the first Roman numeral and compared the statement to the bible verses they quoted to determine how they compare. Here's the first statement.
http://www.lsm.org/outlines-archives/S15FTT01.pdf
I. The kingdom of God is God Himself—Mark 1:15; Matt. 6:33; John 3:3:
And here are the verses they quote.
Matthew 6:33New American Standard Bible (NASB)
33 But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be [c]added to you.
Mark 1:15New American Standard Bible (NASB)
15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
John 3:3New American Standard Bible (NASB)
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Can anyone understand how those verses support that statement? Dear brothers and sisters in the lord's recovery, please tell me how these verses support the statement that " The kingdom of God is God himself". I'm not disagreeing, I just want to know how these verses support the statement. It's obvious to me that these verses do not support the statement, so where does that leave the LSM wordsmiths? To me they are taking the opinions of WL as truth and then they try and find scripture that backs it up. None of the quoted verses come even close to supporting the statement in my opinion. To me this means that I cannot trust how the LSM wordsmiths use God's word, and that at least some of the statements they make are not biblical.
I'm throwing out a blind trust in LSM's use of scripture in support of some of their statements.
Iirc, when the Lord said, "the kingdom is at hand," He was referring to Himself as being at hand.
Unfortunately the lack of scriptural support for outline points probably isn't of much concern to LC members. The Bible is interpreted according to the ministry, so everything revolves around that. I guess that's how they come up with a statement like "The kingdom of God is God Himself". What is that even supposed to mean anyways?
Luke 9:12 says, "A man of noble birth went to a far country to receive a kingdom for himself, and to return". This helped me realize that a kingdom consists of two things: a king and a country. When Jesus was on earth, who was the king? The Father. The Roman Centurion sent the message to Jesus, "I also am a man under authority", meaning that he (the Centurion) was under the Caesar. Thus, Caesar was king and the Centurion was his extension, his domain, his "country". As, likewise, were the slaves under him: because the Centurion was under the king's authority, he could tell the slaves to "go" and "come" and "do this" and they did it. Caesar had extended himself, his kingdom, through the Centurion. The kingdom is thus the extension, or sphere of influence, or domain (i.e. country) of the king.
Likewise, while on earth, Jesus was fully obedient to the Father. The human race by sin was cut away from God and became subject to God's enemy, but Jesus, though incarnated in the flesh of sin, was fully compliant with the Father's will. That's why the Centurion said, "Just speak a word and my servant will be healed." Because the Father's will for the servant was health, and Jesus was the obedient "vector" for the Father's will to be carried out, "on earth as it is in heaven." So the servants under Jesus, the healing angels (see e.g. John 5:4 "an angel occasionally went down and stirred the waters of the pool, etc") were able to carry out the Father's will through Jesus' word. Why do you think Jesus was able to just speak a word, and the servant was healed? Because He was obedient, and thus the healing powers were obedient to Him. He was the true vector of the Father. When you saw Him, you saw the Father, personified. When He spoke, the Father spoke through Him. Etc.
Now that Jesus has been raised, He is truly made King of kings and Lord of lords. He has been given "the Name above every name, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth". But remember that while on earth, in the flesh, He never bossed around anyone who was with Him. He didn't "lord it over the disciples" (ca 1 Pet 5:3). Once, someone tried to get Him to adjudicate a family dispute and He said, "Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?" (Luke 12:14) What Jesus demonstrated was self-control, or complete obedience to the Father's will (I consider those as synonymous). Thus He was the personified kingdom of God, while on earth. But now He's the King, and we're the kingdom, or at least we should be!
In our obedience training, or discipleship, we're learning how to be rulers. Not rulers of others but rulers of our selves, our bodies, our behaviors, our souls and our passions. If we can't control ourselves, how can God control anything through us? If we aren't subject to God, and obedient to His will, how can we ever participate in His ruling? To me, a big "church" message here is that while we yet remain in the flesh, we're to be subject to one another in fear and trembling. WN's scheme of "everyone must line up behind someone else" is complete rubbish; that's of the world, an organizational drama of the fallen soul. WN's "normal church" model inevitably ends up with a Maximum Brother (or Sister) and a bunch of proverbial "small potatoes" lined up behind. And what soulish drama always follows: rebellions and storms and turmoils oh my! But we are all small potatoes here. Any small potato who elevates themselves to virtual kingship while here on earth, as the Deputy God, or Vicar of Christ, or somesuch, supposedly to facilitate the kingdom's arrival, and "maintain good order in the church", in fact distorts the process of the kingdom's arrival. At best we get misled and distracted, as man-pleasers and sycophants line themselves up, and at worst we become stumbled and divided, sometimes seriously.
To re-iterate, I believe that a kingdom consists of a king and a subject (or subjects). In the gospels it was the Father and the Son (and, obviously, the Holy Spirit and/or legions of angels [Matt 26:53]), and today it's the Son and us: "If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commands and remain in his love." John 15:10 NIV
I suspect that WL's "the Kingdom is God Himself" is his usual "blended smoothie". Everything is everything. The Father is the Son, the Son is the Spirit, the Church is Christ, the LSM is Christ, WL is Christ, you are Christ and I am Christ, this message is Christ, this book is Christ. Everything is God and God is the kingdom. We are all God in life and nature and God is everything. To me that's meaningless drivel - initially it seems so high and spiritual but actually it's void of any real content. Everything seems to be everything but in reality everything becomes nothing.
To me that's meaningless drivel - initially it seems so high and spiritual but actually it's void of any real content. Everything seems to be everything but in reality everything becomes nothing.The Church of the Immaculate Lexicon.
"If it sounds better, it must be better."
Caesar had extended himself, his kingdom, through the Centurion. The kingdom is thus the extension, or sphere of influence, or domain (i.e. country) of the king.This story of the Roman Centurion slave suggests that WL's idea of everything morphing into everything else was dangerously misplaced. At the end of the gospel account, Caesar was still Caesar, and the Centurion was still a Centurion, and the slaves were still slaves. In an operational sense, the Centurion did become Caesar's extension by conveying his will, and likewise the slaves became extensions of the Centurion. Likewise, we could say that Caesar manifested himself, at least somewhat, through his subordinates, but nobody confused their thinking and claimed that they were now someone else. Operationally they were indeed "one", and the Centurion and slaves were arguably extensions of the Caesar's will, and components of his domain, or kingdom, but nobody said, "Caesar is everything and everything is Caesar. I am Caesar, now, and you are me and he is you, and she is he, and they are you and... etc..." A story making it all a blended smoothie with everything being equivalent to and indistinguishable from everything else is a story that eventually dissolves it all into bland homogeneous mush.
The Church of the Immaculate Lexicon.
"If it sounds better, it must be better."
Or the Church of Elevated Phraseology... "Surely our words will lift us higher, and higher..."
Or the Church of Elevated Phraseology... "Surely our words will lift us higher, and higher..."How can we be wrong when we are so sincere.
(with appologies to Charles Shultz)
"Lord! Lord! Did we not take the ground in your name? Follow the Minister of the Age with the ministry of the age? And sue those who spoke evilly of your Recovery?"
. . . . (drum roll, plus the sound of an envelope being ripped open) . . . . And the winner of this years "Depart From Me" award is . . . .
InOmnibusCaritas
04-04-2015, 01:15 AM
"The kingdom of God is God Himself" is somewhat theologically tenable when viewed ontologically. However, the kingdom is properly the realm of God's rule, consisting of God's people, in God's presence (or place), and under God's rule and blessing. I strongly recommend Graeme Goldsworthy's trilogy. For an abridged version, read Vaughn Roberts' "God's Big Picture".
But on your point of LSM outlines, I agree. I used to think that I wasn't good enough to see the connection. Now I realised that I was simply hermeneutically out of sync with LSM. LSM is very comfortable with building multiple layers of interpretation so that at the end of day the outlines are several degrees separated from the Biblical text.
Family went to our first "Good Friday" service in probably 25 years at our community church and can testify that we adored and loved our Lord for the sacrifice of His precious humanity. We thanked Him for His suffering for us and we praised Him for being obedient to the Father's will. I think I experienced something weighty, genuine and human. The Lord as a 33 year old young man with human pain neurons throbbing from the physical blows, inhuman stretching of tendons, ligaments, muscles and joints, the ripping of sensitive flesh, human emotions of love, fear, hope, and the despair of having been rejected by His Father. He submitted to death, even the death of a Roman crucifiction. But even the strength of death, Hades and Satan could not snuff out the divine life. He allowed Satan a trivial victory of killing his human life for the joy of bringing real life to millions who deserved what He suffered. Who cannot love this young man!
I'm throwing out that only in LSM sanctioned churches can Christ be worshipped and the Father pleased.
My impression is that LC leadership doesn't necessarily deny that they are "ministry churches", however, they would take great offense if makes that claim about any LC. The way that I have seen them sidestep the issue is by taking about how "rich" Lee's ministry is, and saying that the saints feel that it is the only ministry worth using. It's a poor excuse for the real issue at hand. When the "One Publication" proclamation was made, I remember the BBs said something about how the saints knew that Lee's ministry had the right "flavor" and all other ministries (especially those that had co-existed in the LC) didn't have the right "flavor".
It's interesting to consider whether or not the exclusive use of Lee's ministry was really something that all the saints in the LC felt best about. If you took a vote, I don't know if that's what everyone really would have asked for, but I'm inclined to believe that most in the LC would go along with whatever is pushed by LC leadership. If the BB's were to start promoting a non-LSM ministry, those in the LC would probably go along with it. From the days before Lee's ministry was used exclusively, I've noticed that there is a common set of non-LSM books that many who were around in those days have. No doubt, those books were suggested reading material at a certain point in time. Therefore, I think it's deceptive for the BB's to simplify the issue by saying that Lee's ministry is the only ministry the saints feel good about.
Finally, if those in the LCM don't like the label "ministry churches", then the following questions need to be answered: 1) Why are there no recognized "local churches" that don't use Lee's ministry? and 2) Why has the LCM ceased to recognize certain churches that have stopped using Lee's ministry? The answers are clear, however, I have never heard those in the LCM give good answers to these types of questions. That is because they can't. They know the truth, but the promotion of a man and a ministry is more important.
Pre-church life I was given a copy of "The Economy of God" by WL and after reading a chapter or two my thought was "this guy sure repeats himself a lot" and gave it up as being too difficult to read to be useful. A few months later I asked my relative why he only read material by Lee and Nee and he said "I only have a limited time to read and only want to read the best stuff". OK, made sense to me to only spend your time on what you think is the best material...to each his own. After coming into the Lord's Recovery (LC-speak for "joining the LSM-controlled LC") I sensed that there was a strong undertow of opinion (but since it came from the elders it wasn't "opinion") that no other material was to be used in the prophecying or home meetings, or any other meeting where two or more saints were together. Oh, there were a few approved authors (long since dead) that you could acknowledge as having touched God's economy, but only in a superficial way. Something happened to my thought processes that made what I previously thought as redundant and boring writing to become what we all called "living". I think there were two parallel phenomena occurring in me. One, was a non-LSM-dependent revival of my love for Jesus fueled by a Spirit-led turning of my heart back to Jesus (I believe this could have occurred in any christian venue, but for some reason the Spirit chose for it to occur in a LC). A second thing I think was also occurring and that was a self-arousing neurotransmitter flush associated with my mind being able to "see" or "perceive" the connections among many of Lee's weird opinions, statements and beliefs. I think the best analogy is the satisfaction one feels when he learns the trick of solving a difficult puzzle or problem. Having learned the trick I could repeat it anytime when reading the ministry. From what I've read on this forum I think Awareness has the best understanding or at least explanation of this phenomenon.
I got the quote from another thread and posted my reply here because it is part of my testimony.
Freedom
04-21-2015, 08:11 PM
Pre-church life I was given a copy of "The Economy of God" by WL and after reading a chapter or two my thought was "this guy sure repeats himself a lot" and gave it up as being too difficult to read to be useful. A few months later I asked my relative why he only read material by Lee and Nee and he said "I only have a limited time to read and only want to read the best stuff". OK, made sense to me to only spend your time on what you think is the best material...to each his own. After coming into the Lord's Recovery (LC-speak for "joining the LSM-controlled LC") I sensed that there was a strong undertow of opinion (but since it came from the elders it wasn't "opinion") that no other material was to be used in the prophecying or home meetings, or any other meeting where two or more saints were together. Oh, there were a few approved authors (long since dead) that you could acknowledge as having touched God's economy, but only in a superficial way. Something happened to my thought processes that made what I previously thought as redundant and boring writing to become what we all called "living". I think there were two parallel phenomena occurring in me. One, was a non-LSM-dependent revival of my love for Jesus fueled by a Spirit-led turning of my heart back to Jesus (I believe this could have occurred in any christian venue, but for some reason the Spirit chose for it to occur in a LC). A second thing I think was also occurring and that was a self-arousing neurotransmitter flush associated with my mind being able to "see" or "perceive" the connections among many of Lee's weird opinions, statements and beliefs. I think the best analogy is the satisfaction one feels when he learns the trick of solving a difficult puzzle or problem. Having learned the trick I could repeat it anytime when reading the ministry. From what I've read on this forum I think Awareness has the best understanding or at least explanation of this phenomenon.
I got the quote from another thread and posted my reply here because it is part of my testimony.
In many ways, I can relate to your post. First of all, I still don’t fully understand what causes people to go off the deep end in regards to Lee’s ministry. I readily agree that there has to be some psychological explanation to this phenomena. Let’s face it, the vast majority of those in the LC now haven’t met or received direct help from Lee, therefore, their loyalty lies in how “helpful” they find his printed ministry.
It’s hard to pass off the Witness Lee fanaticism in the LCM as mere “appreciation” of his ministry. What compels someone to collect a whole wall of WL books? Most who have such a collection probably haven’t even read most of those books, or if they have, don’t have anything to show for it. It’s more of an obsession than anything else. If someone really wanted to study the Bible, I could see having a bookshelf full of various reference materials. Having hundreds of WL books doesn’t amount to anything more than being a WL expert (assuming the books have actually been read).
At one pointed in time, I was attempting to become a WL “expert” by reading the Life-Studies. I actually found the Life-Studies a bit more interesting than other of Lee’s books. There was one book I tried reading several times and I could never get past the first chapter. Like HERn mentioned, it also didn’t take me long to realize that not all of Lee’s books were something that I needed to read. I eventually stopped reading the Life-Studies, because I never felt them to be of any practical use. I got to the point where I knew exactly how Lee would interpret a given part of the Bible, but there never really seemed to be any use in knowing that. The Life-Studies also got to be pretty repetitive. It seemed to me that once you’ve read a few, you’ve read them all.
When I was younger, I did feel that because I was a church kid I was somehow “indebted” to Lee and therefore, it was in my best interest to read at least some of his ministry. It never became anything more than that. The side motive I had for reading Lee’s ministry is that I wanted to “impress” others with what I was reading. When I look at my experience with Lee’s ministry, however, I cannot understand why anyone would want to obsess themselves over it. Sure they might like it, and I can understand that, but there is a line that has to be drawn somewhere. People in the LC have gone far beyond just appreciating it. They “collect” all his books. They recite his ministry, they declare it, they “respeak” it and they pray-read it. It all brings certain questions to my mind. Are the people who are doing this really that appreciative of Lee, or are they just trying to fit in with everyone else who is doing it? I don’t have the answer, but even at the height of my appreciation of Lee’s ministry, I never felt the need to go that far with it. Those ideas was something completely external, mainly being pushed by older brothers. I still don’t understand what it is that compels people to get that fanatical about Lee. Maybe we will never know...
awareness
04-22-2015, 08:29 AM
A second thing I think was also occurring and that was a self-arousing neurotransmitter flush associated with my mind being able to "see" or "perceive" the connections among many of Lee's weird opinions, statements and beliefs. I think the best analogy is the satisfaction one feels when he learns the trick of solving a difficult puzzle or problem. Having learned the trick I could repeat it anytime when reading the ministry. From what I've read on this forum I think Awareness has the best understanding or at least explanation of this phenomenon.
Great to hear from you again HERn. You've been missed in your absence. This forum is way tooooo male dominated. We need feminine voices out here. Sorry if I'm too male to release my inner anima. I should work on that. And I'm not sure how much I understand the phenomenon you speak of.
I have to admit that I was completely intoxicated with Witness Lee, as long as I believed God was behind him.
When elder Mel Porter opened my eyes to the fact that God wasn't behind Lee, considering I had devoted my whole life to his movement, that hurt down to the bone.
It always hurts when we discover we've been wrong. It's more than sobering.
So far, in life, I've been wrong so many times I no longer trust myself. I suppose that's why I'm now so evidence obsessed.
Great to hear from you again HERn. You've been missed in your absence. This forum is way tooooo male dominated. We need feminine voices out here. Sorry if I'm too male to release my inner anima. I should work on that. And I'm not sure how much I understand the phenomenon you speak of.
I have to admit that I was completely intoxicated with Witness Lee, as long as I believed God was behind him.
When elder Mel Porter opened my eyes to the fact that God wasn't behind Lee, considering I had devoted my whole life to his movement, that hurt down to the bone.
It always hurts when we discover we've been wrong. It's more than sobering.
So far, in life, I've been wrong so many times I no longer trust myself. I suppose that's why I'm now so evidence obsessed.And that is why so many won't leave. They can't say those three little words — "I was wrong." They can't be wrong, so they can't leave.
Great to hear from you again HERn. You've been missed in your absence. This forum is way tooooo male dominated. We need feminine voices out here. Sorry if I'm too male to release my inner anima. I should work on that. And I'm not sure how much I understand the phenomenon you speak of.
Yo awareness ... I thought he told you he was not a sister. You just messin' with him or what. (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=38974&postcount=17)
And that is why so many won't leave. They can't say those three little words — "I was wrong." They can't be wrong, so they can't leave.
Funny, Jesus started His public ministry with that same word: "Repent". Then, some of the people said, "No, He's surely not talking about us; He's talking about those sinners over there."
In many ways, I can relate to your post. First of all, I still don’t fully understand what causes people to go off the deep end in regards to Lee’s ministry. I readily agree that there has to be some psychological explanation to this phenomena. Let’s face it, the vast majority of those in the LC now haven’t met or received direct help from Lee, therefore, their loyalty lies in how “helpful” they find his printed ministry.
It’s hard to pass off the Witness Lee fanaticism in the LCM as mere “appreciation” of his ministry. What compels someone to collect a whole wall of WL books? Most who have such a collection probably haven’t even read most of those books, or if they have, don’t have anything to show for it. It’s more of an obsession than anything else. If someone really wanted to study the Bible, I could see having a bookshelf full of various reference materials. Having hundreds of WL books doesn’t amount to anything more than being a WL expert (assuming the books have actually been read).
At one pointed in time, I was attempting to become a WL “expert” by reading the Life-Studies. I actually found the Life-Studies a bit more interesting than other of Lee’s books. There was one book I tried reading several times and I could never get past the first chapter. Like HERn mentioned, it also didn’t take me long to realize that not all of Lee’s books were something that I needed to read. I eventually stopped reading the Life-Studies, because I never felt them to be of any practical use. I got to the point where I knew exactly how Lee would interpret a given part of the Bible, but there never really seemed to be any use in knowing that. The Life-Studies also got to be pretty repetitive. It seemed to me that once you’ve read a few, you’ve read them all.
When I was younger, I did feel that because I was a church kid I was somehow “indebted” to Lee and therefore, it was in my best interest to read at least some of his ministry. It never became anything more than that. The side motive I had for reading Lee’s ministry is that I wanted to “impress” others with what I was reading. When I look at my experience with Lee’s ministry, however, I cannot understand why anyone would want to obsess themselves over it. Sure they might like it, and I can understand that, but there is a line that has to be drawn somewhere. People in the LC have gone far beyond just appreciating it. They “collect” all his books. They recite his ministry, they declare it, they “respeak” it and they pray-read it. It all brings certain questions to my mind. Are the people who are doing this really that appreciative of Lee, or are they just trying to fit in with everyone else who is doing it? I don’t have the answer, but even at the height of my appreciation of Lee’s ministry, I never felt the need to go that far with it. Those ideas was something completely external, mainly being pushed by older brothers. I still don’t understand what it is that compels people to get that fanatical about Lee. Maybe we will never know...
I came into the church life in a very sweet locality were the lead elder was able to keep the LSM ministry hounds at bay. Oh, we were an LSM church; we took the morning revival, promoted the annual trainings, the regional conferences and even the video trainings. But, there was never an emphasis on these things. The emphasis was on the home groups, doing things together, we could even joke around about lots of things. For sure WL was highly elevated and respected and only his books were read. Although our locality sent people to the full-time training we never had a full-time serving one. We would support the full-timers in other LSs, but never had one. Looking back, I think that partly saved the church from the fanatical control administered through Anaheim via the recently trained full-timers. On a side note, before we started attending that LC the lead elder had been a full-timer who was a trainer of some sort and even right now is serving as a trainer, but not at Anaheim. We crossed paths with this brother when we were visiting before we joined and found him to be one of the most stiff, legalistic, thoroughly constituted, absolute dead brothers I've ever met. But, the words of WL could spew forth like a broken sewage main! All the saints agreed that when he was the lead elder he was very controlling and a real downer for the church life. After he left the new lead elder was very different and really cared for the sheep more than the ministry.
The LC we just left was totally the opposite. It was a LSM-franchised church from the beginning. The leading elder was full-time and his wife was employed by LSM. It was created by one of the migration calls and seemed to attract those ambitious brothers from other localities that were hoping to get an elder position. I enjoyed watching the brothers compete with each other in who was the most absolute and constituted. I attended a local brothers meeting at times and once a question came up re: some spiritual issue and the first comment out of the leading one's mouth was that he thought there was something WL had had written on the subject. No one ever asked the question of what does the bible say about this issue. The bible was not a resource for spiritual guidance for them because they believed the writings (ministry) of WL superceded the bible. The bible was not used to evaluate the teachings of WL; it was the teachings of WL that were used to explain the bible! It was ministry first and the bible second. Not a healthy, normal orthodox way to live the christian life in my opinion.
Freedom
04-22-2015, 08:22 PM
I came into the church life in a very sweet locality were the lead elder was able to keep the LSM ministry hounds at bay. Oh, we were an LSM church; we took the morning revival, promoted the annual trainings, the regional conferences and even the video trainings. But, there was never an emphasis on these things. The emphasis was on the home groups, doing things together, we could even joke around about lots of things. For sure WL was highly elevated and respected and only his books were read. Although our locality sent people to the full-time training we never had a full-time serving one. We would support the full-timers in other LSs, but never had one. Looking back, I think that partly saved the church from the fanatical control administered through Anaheim via the recently trained full-timers. On a side note, before we started attending that LC the lead elder had been a full-timer who was a trainer of some sort and even right now is serving as a trainer, but not at Anaheim. We crossed paths with this brother when we were visiting before we joined and found him to be one of the most stiff, legalistic, thoroughly constituted, absolute dead brothers I've ever met. But, the words of WL could spew forth like a broken sewage main! All the saints agreed that when he was the lead elder he was very controlling and a real downer for the church life. After he left the new lead elder was very different and really cared for the sheep more than the ministry.
The LC we just left was totally the opposite. It was a LSM-franchised church from the beginning. The leading elder was full-time and his wife was employed by LSM. It was created by one of the migration calls and seemed to attract those ambitious brothers from other localities that were hoping to get an elder position. I enjoyed watching the brothers compete with each other in who was the most absolute and constituted. I attended a local brothers meeting at times and once a question came up re: some spiritual issue and the first comment out of the leading one's mouth was that he thought there was something WL had had written on the subject. No one ever asked the question of what does the bible say about this issue. The bible was not a resource for spiritual guidance for them because they believed the writings (ministry) of WL superceded the bible. The bible was not used to evaluate the teachings of WL; it was the teachings of WL that were used to explain the bible! It was ministry first and the bible second. Not a healthy, normal orthodox way to live the christian life in my opinion.
I have had mixed experiences as well with the different LC's that I been to. Some are really not all about the ministry and then there are some that are. There are some leading brothers that really care about the well-being of members and others could only care about their own image (mainly by helping to get everyone in line with the ministry). I think that because of the mixed experiences I have had, it makes it hard to completely "trust" any LC franchise.
I went through 9 months of living hell while making my departure. I had nightmares and woke up my wife cursing and yelling. I'm sorry to say that there were many nights that I could not sleep without a talk with Jack Daniels or Jim Beam. I'm so much happier now, no more nightmares. I'm in a church where everything is simple, the brothers are genuine, no one is competing to be the most absolute, and the dear pastors are gentle shepherds taking care of the flock without being controlled by a denominational headquarters. Jack and Jim still drop by for visits, but not as often.
awareness
04-23-2015, 01:39 AM
Yo awareness ... I thought he told you he was not a sister. You just messin' with him or what. (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=38974&postcount=17)
Gosh ... more male domination.
My bad .. His handle should be HErn ... But got it now ...
Chalk that up as one more wrong ... Can I get anything right?
The bible was not used to evaluate the teachings of WL; it was the teachings of WL that were used to explain the bible! It was ministry first and the bible second. Not a healthy, normal orthodox way to live the christian life in my opinion.
The LC saints would say, "no" to this statement, but in practice that's how it worked. Ministry first, bible second.
My bad .. His handle should be HErn ... But got it now ...
No, it shoulda been HISn. Then we'd a got it clear from jump...
I came into the church life in a very sweet locality were the lead elder was able to keep the LSM ministry hounds at bay. Oh, we were an LSM church; we took the morning revival, promoted the annual trainings, the regional conferences and even the video trainings. But, there was never an emphasis on these things. The emphasis was on the home groups, doing things together, we could even joke around about lots of things. For sure WL was highly elevated and respected and only his books were read. Although our locality sent people to the full-time training we never had a full-time serving one. We would support the full-timers in other LSs, but never had one.Here is the evidence that a church that is not 100% gung-ho for the full enchilada can remain in the LSM fold. But the key is probably that they don't speak against the things the group (the LSM synod of the LCM) holds dear, like LSM materials only (a variant on KJV only), and supporting the full timers.
awareness
04-23-2015, 06:35 AM
And that is why so many won't leave. They can't say those three little words — "I was wrong." They can't be wrong, so they can't leave.
Which is why I'm so impressed with Lisbon. At such an age in his life, after 40 yrs in the LC, he could say "I was wrong." WOW! It blows my mind. How he did that I just don't know. Not many can do that. But it is encouraging that others in the LC have a chance to come to such an admission.
And throw that whole system out.
No, it shoulda been HISn. Then we'd a got it clear from jump...
My handle has nothing to do with gender. It's an acronym of sorts that only those who know me well could decipher.
My handle has nothing to do with gender. It's an acronym of sorts that only those who know me well could decipher.
I was trying to be funny. Sorry. :o
I was trying to be funny. Sorry. :o
Hi bro Aron. No apology needed, I wasn't offended, but thanks for being sensitive. The acronym stands for "highly educated redneck". At first it was going to be HERN, but a brother told me that redneck was one word so I changed it to HERn.
The acronym stands for "highly educated redneck". At first it was going to be HERN, but a brother told me that redneck was one word so I changed it to HERn.
Well most of the posters here seem to be of the thinking type. Then we like to inflict our thinking on others. People who are "feeling" oriented usually find some other outlet for their passions.
Not making a value judgment there at all. Sister Dorcas and the little old ladies of the church in Joppa (Acts 9) were not seen promoting a lot of theology, but they sure loved one another. I'm just saying that every one is different, and that's of God's arrangement. Everyone can serve, and glorify God.
Glad you landed on your feet in a Christian community. A lot of us were "sold out" or "wrecked" for the LC life and didn't know what to do when the rug got pulled out... an LC acquaintance of mine has been out for years, and can't meet anywhere. He was rejected as unfit building material (had too many issues, but don't we all?) yet since he's "seen the ground" he refuses to get any help from "fallen Christianity" and now he's in limbo.
an LC acquaintance of mine has been out for years, and can't meet anywhere. He was rejected as unfit building material (had too many issues, but don't we all?) yet since he's "seen the ground" he refuses to get any help from "fallen Christianity" and now he's in limbo.
More "fruit" of the greatest ministry and theology ever to grace the planet. :rollingeyesfrown:
Glad you landed on your feet in a Christian community. A lot of us were "sold out" or "wrecked" for the LC life and didn't know what to do when the rug got pulled out... an LC acquaintance of mine has been out for years, and can't meet anywhere. He was rejected as unfit building material (had too many issues, but don't we all?) yet since he's "seen the ground" he refuses to get any help from "fallen Christianity" and now he's in limbo.
More "fruit" of the greatest ministry and theology ever to grace the planet.
We as the children of God must exhibit unconditional love towards all our brothers and sisters. This is a strong proof that we are of Him, (I John 4.7-14) and that His Spirit dwells within us. LSM, on the other hand, has only a conditional love, i.e. they will "love" you as long as you are "sold out" for their program.
Conditional love is not real love at all, as the Lord clearly told us, "If you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them." (Luke 6.32, 27-28)
Witness Lee exhibited notable instances where he not only could not love his enemies, as the Lord instructed, (But I say to you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which spitefully use you.) but neither could he love those by his side. All brothers were expendable such that Witness Lee, his family, and his ministry would prosper.
All brothers were expendable such that Witness Lee, his family, and his ministry would prosper.
A bit of autobiography: when I began to post online, I still considered myself quite positive toward the ministry of WL. My only critique in my first post, as I remember, was that they had an attitude of superiority which I realized was both unscriptural, and unwarranted. I had at that point been meeting with "Christianity" again for some time, and had found Christians whose living put the LCs to shame as far as "worldliness" was concerned, even "soulishness". They maybe didn't have the high peak doctrines, nor did they claim them, but the expression was real, both individually and corporately.
But when I first went into the LC I had no basis of comparison. The only "fellowship" I really knew was of the barflies down at the local watering hole. The LC seemed like heaven. It was fun plus it provided structure. So years post-LC, even with some basis for comparison, I was still favorably inclined toward the theology. What really changed for me was the Nigel Tomes article on plagiarism. I've been in and out of academia for most of my life and to copy someone else's work without attribution is sloppy at best and quite immoral at worst. When I see it in academia and/or research it really bothers me that a career is more important than truth.
Well, I write this to make a point, that the financial shenanigans of the Lee family that followed are quite understandable in this light. One poster (YP0534) found that Lee was copying 19th century Sunday School lessons. The Daystar thing was a total money grab - even if the OPEC crisis didn't hit, they were poorly mechanically constructed, and way too expensive. They were designed to fail. But it didn't matter because it brought short-term employment for an adult son.
As Ohio put it, conditional love is not real love at all. The LC love was toward extraction of resources from individuals. Once they lost utility, in this program, they were discarded.
My question, which I don't have an answer to, is how to show love toward such a program? I didn't start off writing online as a "bitter ex-member", but it seems my posts have become increasingly strident of late. That kind of bothers me.
Plus, a few years ago I chanced upon a forum in England where LC members were posting WL material. I made some critical comments and they said that I was dark, miserable and so forth. Slagging the poor deceased prophet who had given his all for the Lord and the church! Shame, shame! I simply said, "You have a publication called 'Affirmation and Critique'; why get so upset if I both somewhat affirm your ministry and critique it as well?"
They didn't respond, but I never forget what it felt like to have someone characterize me as such a vile creature! What a shock! So I really don't want to fulfill their prophecy. I want to be able to point out the truth, but without losing the real truth of God's love for us all in Christ Jesus.
On that count I may have failed as badly as WL did. Anyway, the question is there in front of me. How do we show love, in such a case?
My question, which I don't have an answer to, is how to show love toward such a program? I didn't start off writing online as a "bitter ex-member", but it seems my posts have become increasingly strident of late. That kind of bothers me.
On that count I may have failed as badly as WL did. Anyway, the question is there in front of me. How do we show love, in such a case?
God loved Israel, so He sent prophets to her. That's the starting point for all critique. People got hurt in the LCM, and that became my incentive to speak up on their behalf.
There's no easy answer, my friend, and sometimes I am looking for it too. Above all I try to be fair and balanced, to quote a newscast, but for me that's important. Unfortunately for me, I get it from both sides. Why is it LC'ers, past and present, only deal in extremes?
I didn't start off writing online as a "bitter ex-member", but it seems my posts have become increasingly strident of late. That kind of bothers me.
I think it's part of the process. Recall that progression of emotions after suffering a devastating loss:
Denial---Anger---Despondency---Acceptance
I think recovering from the LCM has a parallel trajectory. Only it's more like:
Confused Guilt---Angry Guilt---Freedom---Angry Freedom---Confident Freedom
I noticed as I began to see how the LCM had manipulated me that I went through various stages of anger and indignation. It was often expressed in my posts. As I go on I become less angry and more determined just to help people reach freedom themselves.
TLFisher
04-24-2015, 01:12 PM
We as the children of God must exhibit unconditional love towards all our brothers and sisters. This is a strong proof that we are of Him, (I John 4.7-14) and that His Spirit dwells within us. LSM, on the other hand, has only a conditional love, i.e. they will "love" you as long as you are "sold out" for their program.
Conditional love is not real love at all, as the Lord clearly told us, "If you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them." (Luke 6.32, 27-28)
Oh Ohio, when I visit the local churches, how do I wish to be proven wrong there would be unconditional love instead of the conditional love I see being expressed.
As is the case, what is usually expressed is making distinctions between the Local Churches and rest of Christianity. "The ministry is so rich." To a case specific are attitudes towards brothers who are no longer wanted.
Miriam in the book of Numbers was treated far more favorably than former leading ones.
"So Miriam was shut up outside the camp for seven days, and the people did not move on until Miriam was received again."
If it were Local church practices, Miriam would have been cast out and the tribes would have moved on without her. It's these practices of conditional love and being ministry-centric that needs to be thrown out.
I think some brother and sisters, when they leave the local churches have an aversion to one man speaking (clergy laiety). I have an aversion to a church driven by a ministry publication. Even in the current state of the local churches, you could say there's a clergy laiety system driving it. Locally with Holy Word for Morning Revival and Extra-locally with the Blended brothers speaking at various conferences/trainings.
God loved Israel, so He sent prophets to her.
You know, I was thinking about the question of how to show love to the grim, self-absorbed types. The ones who have no idea how to dialogue. Who already have the answers: everybody but them is in darkness. I realized that it's really the same as with everyone else. If you don't have anything to give, what difference does it make who you are talking to? And if you do have something to give, why not be like Paul, who said to present your gift whether "in season or out of season"? (2 Tim 4:2) Why not be like John, who was willing to write the churches in Asia and tell them to repent? In other words, if you have something to say, and it's a revelation from God, then trust the revelation. Don't worry about the situation. Just minister the Christ you have. God is a businessman. Don't worry about the increase, just hold forth what you hear Christ speaking.
My thought here is that this discussion really isn't about 'what's wrong with the LC' or 'what was WL really doing with situation A, B, or C' but rather 'what is Christ showing us today'...
That's the starting point for all critique. People got hurt in the LCM, and that became my incentive to speak up on their behalf.But it has to be God speaking through you. If you are the one speaking then you are Moses hitting the Egyptian on the head with a shovel. That may seem justified, because you see the abuse and want to address it, but ultimately the situation really doesn't improve. You've merely added another criminal (yourself) to the saga.
But if you speak because God Himself is speaking, and unfolding His revelation before your eyes, and it is now imperative that you open your mouth, He will address the situation. And His love will be there.
Was it Amos who was the sheep farmer living among the sycamore trees, when the word of God came to him? "Go and speak to My people." So when he went, they laughed at him. "Go back to your sheep."
He replied, "I'd be very happy to be with my sheep. But God sent me here."
Our God is a God of revelation. The cloistered LC, with their deceased oracle, will get increasingly grim, self-absorbed, and eccentric, probably. Their revelations will get increasingly marginal. But if we are connected to the Body (i.e. the non-cloistered "rest of Christianity"), we probably will be able to access the visions and dreams that God is pouring out in His Spirit. In my case, it may be seeing Christ dialoguing with His Father in the Psalms. Someone else may see something else. This is what will profit us. We are not here to slag people but to hold forth revelation.
I think it's part of the process. Recall that progression of emotions after suffering a devastating loss:
Denial---Anger---Despondency---Acceptance
I think recovering from the LCM has a parallel trajectory. Only it's more like:
Confused Guilt---Angry Guilt---Freedom---Angry Freedom---Confident Freedom
I noticed as I began to see how the LCM had manipulated me that I went through various stages of anger and indignation. It was often expressed in my posts. As I go on I become less angry and more determined just to help people reach freedom themselves.
Yes I've felt indignation. But I myself am imperfect, so my indignation is not a vehicle for God's correction. So I have to let it go, the quicker the better.
But I do see your point. It's a process. I just don't want to linger in it. People can get stuck in anger and it's a poisoned well.
People got hurt in the LCM, and that became my incentive to speak up on their behalf.
But it has to be God speaking through you.
Each of us is on our own journey. I spoke up because others were hurt and, due to bad teachings, they remained quiet. They left the program quietly, leaving the rest of us with only insiders to explain what happened. For years I believed them, except for a little hiccup back in the mid-80's related to Phil Comfort.
Then about 10-12 years ago, "it" all hit the fan. I was badly beaten up by my leader in a fit of rage. LSM was breathing out threatenings toward TC and the GLA. A close friend was brutally shamed by TC, leaving the full-time work completely. Then I read Thread of Gold and Speaking the Truth in Love. My eyes were then opened to the abuse I had witnessed to for 30 years, and I then reached the conclusion that this program, which I gave my life to, "produces bullies out of beloved brothers." The disease was systemic and apparently incurable due to deep-seated pride.
I began to speak for others who could not or would not. Initially I was chastised by those who knew me, but I think eventually some of them even realized what I have said was right. For years we talked God, love, oneness, church, etc. yet in the end, we didn't even know how to treat one another with common courtesy.
Well most of the posters here seem to be of the thinking type. Then we like to inflict our thinking on others. People who are "feeling" oriented usually find some other outlet for their passions.
I appreciate the thinkers...but at a party I would rather have more feelers than thinkers in the room! :party:
Just wondering whether our Lord Jesus was a thinker or feeler? Probably, 100% thinker and 100% feeler.
Just wondering whether our Lord Jesus was a thinker or feeler? Probably, 100% thinker and 100% feeler.
I'd argue that He was the only true 100% thinker. The rest of us have a veneer of logic to cover our fear. It's the proverbial "fig leaf" that we hide behind. Like frightened octopi, we eject inky clouds, attempting to obscure ourselves. We menfolk aren't really more logical than the weaker sex, just more determined to cover up our irrationality.
And Jesus was logical. How many times did He say, "Have you not read the scriptures that say 'X'? How then do you claim 'Y'?" But Jesus' logic wasn't clouded by fear. He was the truly rational human, who could both feel and think. No matter how the terror of the dark pressed on Him, He remained truly and fully functional.
Well most of the posters here seem to be of the thinking type. Then we like to inflict our thinking on others. People who are "feeling" oriented usually find some other outlet for their passions.
Not making a value judgment there at all. Sister Dorcas and the little old ladies of the church in Joppa (Acts 9) were not seen promoting a lot of theology, but they sure loved one another. I'm just saying that every one is different, and that's of God's arrangement. Everyone can serve, and glorify God.
Glad you landed on your feet in a Christian community. A lot of us were "sold out" or "wrecked" for the LC life and didn't know what to do when the rug got pulled out... an LC acquaintance of mine has been out for years, and can't meet anywhere. He was rejected as unfit building material (had too many issues, but don't we all?) yet since he's "seen the ground" he refuses to get any help from "fallen Christianity" and now he's in limbo.
This makes me very angry and sad for that brother. The Nee/Lee/LSM/BBs system has been constructed such that even if you choose to leave the LSM LCs you have been brainwashed to believe that every other expression of Christianity is either the harlot or one of her daughters. How convenient! Where is the love and kindness? Most denominations (yes dear LC saints your LSM LC is nothing more than denomination claiming not to be a denomination) never poison the well by saying if you leave us and go to the (insert denomination here) you will be meeting with the harlot or her daughters in a place condemned by God and where the Spirit is absent and your Christian life will die and you will not be able to go on with the Lord. I don't know what to say to help this brother who can't meet anywhere else. This Nee/Lee/LSM/BBs teaching must be satanic if it stumbles a little brother like this to fall away from grace and the precious love of the Lord expressed through his body. I wonder how many are like him? I am lucky in that I came to Christ outside of the Witness Lee Recovery and knew that the Spirit works wherever He wills...kind of like the wind. If you get saved in the LSM LC and are taught that God is only pleased if you meet with them, and then you leave and can't find a home anywhere else and the spark of faith dies whose fault is that? It's not the fault of the dear stumbled brother, it's the fault of the Nee/Lee/LSM/BBs system!
It's these practices of conditional love and being ministry-centric that needs to be thrown out.
Hi bro Terry. When I first touched the church life I was turned back to Jesus and was Christ-centric. And for several years I stayed Christ-centric while attending the local churches. But, the last LC I was in was just what you said "ministry-centric". There is an incurable sickness within the leadership of the recovery that cannot be healed without public confession and public apologies and requests for forgiveness. Notwithstanding Indiana's belief, it is obvious to me that the LSM hirelings will never confess and never ask for forgiveness.
TLFisher
04-27-2015, 12:47 PM
Then about 10-12 years ago, "it" all hit the fan. I was badly beaten up by my leader in a fit of rage. LSM was breathing out threatenings toward TC and the GLA. A close friend was brutally shamed by TC, leaving the full-time work completely. Then I read Thread of Gold and Speaking the Truth in Love. My eyes were then opened to the abuse I had witnessed to for 30 years, and I then reached the conclusion that this program, which I gave my life to, "produces bullies out of beloved brothers." The disease was systemic and apparently incurable due to deep-seated pride.
Around this time Ohio, even before the "Phoenix Accord", A Pacific NW elder at the time was reputed as pointing to the Midwest where the next "storm" would come from. Where does he come up with that thought? Certainly wouldn't draw it up himself unless it was a byproduct of Anahiem fellowship.
At any rate with several households I know of having migrated to the NW from Ohio and Michigan, logic indicates word would eventually travel back to their former localities.
TLFisher
04-27-2015, 12:51 PM
There is an incurable sickness within the leadership of the recovery that cannot be healed without public confession and public apologies and requests for forgiveness. Notwithstanding Indiana's belief, it is obvious to me that the LSM hirelings will never confess and never ask for forgiveness.
Until there is private and public confession, pride is difficult to cure. As I see one of the symptoms that leads to pride is the deputy authority teaching and practice.
As Ohio has often said, the system produces bullies out of good brothers.
Freedom
04-27-2015, 10:49 PM
Until there is private and public confession, pride is difficult to cure. As I see one of the symptoms that leads to pride is the deputy authority teaching and practice.
As Ohio has often said, the system produces bullies out of good brothers.
I never expect to hear any sort of confession. In fact, in many ways, the LCM is too far gone for that. LC leaders and the blended may be able to get away with not addressing these issues over the short term, but they will just keep making the same mistakes. History will repeat itself and with each new generation, there will be new sets of outcasts and "negative ones". As long as the same teachings and practices exist, there will be people hurt by the LCM. The bigger the LCM gets, the more public the splits and wrongdoings will become.
awareness
04-28-2015, 04:15 AM
I never expect to hear any sort of confession. In fact, in many ways, the LCM is too far gone for that. LC leaders and the blended may be able to get away with not addressing these issues over the short term, but they will just keep making the same mistakes. History will repeat itself and with each new generation, there will be new sets of outcasts and "negative ones". As long as the same teachings and practices exist, there will be people hurt by the LCM. The bigger the LCM gets, the more public the splits and wrongdoings will become.
This has been going on since the inception of Christianity. It's nothing new. Let's go beyond it ... Let's throw it out ...
TLFisher
04-28-2015, 02:27 PM
I never expect to hear any sort of confession. In fact, in many ways, the LCM is too far gone for that. LC leaders and the blended may be able to get away with not addressing these issues over the short term, but they will just keep making the same mistakes.
My feeling is many LC elders have bought the fabricated message LSM has been selling for the last 25+ years. Many of the current blendeds had a role in the late 80's turmoil. They've been operating on damage control for so many years now, they can't possibly offer any confession....not without sacrificing their personal reputations before the brothers and sisters in the local churches.
The only one on record who had confessed to anything publicly was Minoru Chen.
As for the LC elders, they may have the thought if they disagreed with the blendeds, they would suffer loss with their locality. History indicates when an elder dissents with LSM, the majority of the locality for whom the elder serves, is supportive for their elder or elders.
I recently received an email from a dear LC brother (not a leading one but was recruited into the recovery by Max R.) apologizing for anything that he might have said that caused me enter into death (his words) and begging us to return to the church life where the genuine expression of God exists. I've copied my two responses. The second was an attempt to soften the first.
"Hi brother x! It is so good to hear from you, and yes we love you and your family. You have nothing to ask forgiveness for!! But, for the sake of your weak conscience I forgive you for any and every sin you may have committed (although I know of none). And if that is not enough I proclaim your absolution from every sin through the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ! Now tell satan to go to hell (he is after all a lord of only the dirty flies)!
Our break with LSM controlled churches was the sovereignty of God and has nothing to do with you and was very hard to go through considering all the dear saints. For our emotional health and to prevent communicating negative things we kept secluded. We are very happy and feel the Lord's love and approval as we meet with the dear saints in X Church, this is our home. We have no interest in returning to the LSM controlled local churches. X is doing excellent, X is happy to be out of the local churches and I'm learning to love and fellowship with brothers who are not infected with the pride and arrogance of knowing the so-called high peak truths. I have come to believe that there is only one oracle of God and that is Christ Jesus, and only one minister of the age and that is the apostle Paul, and one New Testament ministry which is contained solely in the bible. So where does that leave Nee and Lee? They are dear brothers who have have helped many to love Jesus, they are not on the level of Paul, and not even of Luther. Where does that leave the blended brothers? They are the ones that encourage the saints to use the writings of Lee to evaluate the bible, rather than using the bible to evaluate the writings of Nee and Lee. Where does that leave the dear local elders? I am afraid that some are pointing the dear seeking ones to a man and his writings, rather than to the Lord Jesus and His person.
I imagine that my response disappoints you, but I have a clear conscience and the assurance that the Father is pleased. Now as to the local church superstition that bad things happen to those who leave the recovery so far we have not been hit by a car, lightening, depression, or financial collapse, and contrary to the false teaching of x we are still going on with the Lord, loving His people, worshipping His person, enjoying His word and being sanctified by His Spirit. I recommend that you take a look at www.localchurchdiscussions.com if your conscience will allow.
with love from your non-LSM-LC brother,"
My second response a few days later.
"I realize that my last note was probably a shocker for you and was pretty strident so I wanted to make sure you know that I still value our friendship. I could probably count on one hand the men in the recovery that I would want to remain friends with and you would be number one on that list! But, I'm ok with any feeling you might have to stay away from me! I've been through the grieving process of leaving the recovery and am making new friends with other christian bothers that I believe are as genuine people and lovers of Jesus as you are. Outside of x you're the only one that knows how X and I feel. I emphasize X and I because there are rumors that I've forced X to take a way she didn't want to take. We are 100% in agreement and our marriage is doing even better since we left. There have been some brothers who tried to come between me and my wife who I believe were unknowingly being used by satan. Have you ever noticed how many screwed up marriages and families exist in the recovery? Some of the leading brothers are absolutely crazy! They equate a spouse's leaving the recovery on the same level as renouncing our christian faith and a justifiable cause for a wife to separate from her husband. I better stop here before I start preaching!! Have you read anything on www.localchurchdiscussions,com yet?
Take care, thanks for being a friend and enjoy the time in the x.
You ex-recovery friend,"
Unregistered
05-02-2015, 11:45 PM
HERn - I do not personally know who he is and only know him by this HERn in this forum.
I came to this forum over a year ago and in recent few weeks I read it more often.
What HERn said in the two letters, I myself have almost identical experience and realization concerning (1) leaving 'the once intended to be true local churches', and (2) the living afterwards -which is closer to our dear saviour Lord Jesus Christ and our Father in heaven.
And the bible comes alive and enlightening progressively over the days and weeks and months and years - for over 20 years and continuing ...
And yes, I (we) over the years meet members of Christ we have not known before. We see this Jesus whom God raised from the dead and made Lord and Christ, is the one building the church. Christ is the head of the body. Every member obey Christ and the body is builded up in love (God's love is holy).
To the dear member of Christ whom HERn's letters addressed, may the Lord bless you with more abundant life.
His sheep hears His voice.
UntoHim
05-03-2015, 07:02 AM
To Unregistered,
Thanks for being a faithful reader of the Forum. Please consider registering by emailing your desired UserName to LocalChurchDiscussions@Gmail.Com
Once you become a registered Member your post will no longer have to go through the moderation que and will appear on the Forum immediately. Also you will enjoy the benefit of being able to send and receive Private Messages from the various Forum Members.
As a family we did something today that I felt pleased the Lord. Our church has a sister church in Haiti that we visit annually with medical workers and supplies and things. They also have a support program for kids that provides meals, uniforms, tuition, books, and basic health and hygiene care. I think the church goal was to support 100 kids. We selected a 10-year old girl and I felt that the Lord was pleased and cherished that our family would help one of the "least of these". I'm throwing out the LSM LC practice of focusing on the middle class and above college students to the neglect of the poor and simple.
Freedom
05-03-2015, 08:05 PM
As a family we did something today that I felt pleased the Lord. Our church has a sister church in Haiti that we visit annually with medical workers and supplies and things. They also have a support program for kids that provides meals, uniforms, tuition, books, and basic health and hygiene care. I think the church goal was to support 100 kids. We selected a 10-year old girl and I felt that the Lord was pleased and cherished that our family would help one of the "least of these". I'm throwing out the LSM LC practice of focusing on the middle class and above college students to the neglect of the poor and simple.
HERn, I appreciate a lot of the things you have posted about. It's good to see how someone has moved on beyond the LC. So many who are suck in the system see no way out. Many of those who leave might feel they have no hope left or they don't see any path forward. I'm sure that some have been in the system so long, that they couldn't envision anything else. Whatever situation that someone may be in, I think that it is important to realize that there are positive alternatives that are worthy of devoting time and energy to.
Here are two positive things I've learned in the LRC; singing lustily, and being able to share things with a group of people. Of course, one could learn those things in many places, but for some reason the Spirit chose for me to learn them in the LRC. In my men's SS class I am able to make short concise contributions (don't worry so far none of the LC jargon or peculiar doctrines/teachings have come out!). When we sing hymns I'm not embarrassed to sing with a bit of gusto and feeling.
Here are two positive things I've learned in the LRC; singing lustily, and being able to share things with a group of people.
Same here. When I began to meet at the local community church, the pastor asked me to come up front and introduce myself. I was loud and to the point. And the point was Jesus Christ.
awareness
05-04-2015, 07:46 PM
Here are two positive things I've learned in the LRC; singing lustily, and being able to share things with a group of people. Of course, one could learn those things in many places, but for some reason the Spirit chose for me to learn them in the LRC. In my men's SS class I am able to make short concise contributions (don't worry so far none of the LC jargon or peculiar doctrines/teachings have come out!). When we sing hymns I'm not embarrassed to sing with a bit of gusto and feeling.
The Church of Christ (Campbellites, so called -- no musical instruments ... just a cappella) would just love you.
I think another thing I'm going to keep is the notion that every member of the body of Christ has a contribution to make towards the benefit, growth and comfort of all. When I was down in the LC trenches I really believed this and I still do. This despite the fact that for MANY of the brothers I knew in the LCs fellowship and help only went one way...from them to me. For these brothers there was a definite hierarchy that governed fellowship or help...it could only go from someone more absolute or constituted towards those who were less. So it essentially worked like this; Barber to Nee to Lee to the top blendeds to the not-so-blended coworkers to the elders and full-timers to the non-elder leading ones to the responsible ones to the serving ones then to the various small potatoes (and even among them I sometimes observed a hierarchy of length of time in the recovery or age or who brought you in or who your parents were or if you went to the full-time training). The reason this thought came to mind was because in our men's SS class there are some very young men that don't say much and I've thought maybe we loquacious oldies should stop at three comments so the younger ones can contribute. I'm throwing out the LC practice that suggests fellowship only flows downhill.
The Church of Christ (Campbellites, so called -- no musical instruments ... just a cappella) would just love you.
I know them well. In college there was a church of Christ (crossroads group that eventually went to Boston) that had a strong work on campus called "soul talk" bible studies. I had a part-time job with one of them who believed that you had to be baptized to be saved AND that the baptism had to be in their church of Christ baptistery! He said you could only "touch the blood of Christ" in a church of Christ baptistry!! Not too far removed from the notion that you can only touch God's economy and current move on the earth in the LSM-controlled LCs is it?
The Church of Christ (Campbellites, so called -- no musical instruments ... just a cappella) would just love you.
There are other groups like that as well. The Mennonites come to mind.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/singacap.html
Amcasci
05-05-2015, 08:12 AM
I think another thing I'm going to keep is the notion that every member of the body of Christ has a contribution to make towards the benefit, growth and comfort of all. When I was down in the LC trenches I really believed this and I still do. This despite the fact that for MANY of the brothers I knew in the LCs fellowship and help only went one way...from them to me. For these brothers there was a definite hierarchy that governed fellowship or help...it could only go from someone more absolute or constituted towards those who were less. So it essentially worked like this; Barber to Nee to Lee to the top blendeds to the not-so-blended coworkers to the elders and full-timers to the non-elder leading ones to the responsible ones to the serving ones then to the various small potatoes (and even among them I sometimes observed a hierarchy of length of time in the recovery or age or who brought you in or who your parents were or if you went to the full-time training). The reason this thought came to mind was because in our men's SS class there are some very young men that don't say much and I've thought maybe we loquacious oldies should stop at three comments so the younger ones can contribute. I'm throwing out the LC practice that suggests fellowship only flows downhill.
Such is our sinful self. "The rulers of the Gentiles Lord it over them but it shall not be so among you." Sadly it is too often so among us.
Last night at our "one another group" the elderly brother that served with Wycliffe for the Chockabos said that when he was serving in South America one of the new brothers told his relatives that he could not participate in the worship of the "bird from above" because "his Lord inside" (Jesus) would not allow it. I think the Lord Jesus loves to save and rescue those in raw primitivism. This older brother gave his working years to bring the reality of God's Son Jesus Christ to a tribe that was not even on the radar screen of LSM. I'm throwing out the notion that only LSM sanctioned employees are serving the Lord.
I'm throwing out the notion that only LSM sanctioned employees are serving the Lord.RK said that only LSM sanctioned employees were building up the body of Christ. Everyone else was doing "absolutely nothing." He specifically singled out Billy Graham, and repeated, "absolutely nothing."
RK said that only LSM sanctioned employees were building up the body of Christ. Everyone else was doing "absolutely nothing." He specifically singled out Billy Graham, and repeated, "absolutely nothing."
If RK really believes this, then the darkness in him is indeed great...too great for me to trust anything he says. I'm throwing out RK's opinions.
awareness
05-12-2015, 08:12 PM
RK said that only LSM sanctioned employees were building up the body of Christ. Everyone else was doing "absolutely nothing." He specifically singled out Billy Graham, and repeated, "absolutely nothing."Just like Nee and Lee Billy Graham wasn't what he appeared to be. And neither is RK. Looks to me, now, like a pot calling the kettle black. Don't we put others down trying to push us up? That need comes from insecurity. Showing, RK is actually insecure about the Recovery Movement. That's encouraging to me. Maybe RK is not completely out of his mind. There's still hope for him. We should pity him ... and pray for him.
RK said that only LSM sanctioned employees were building up the body of Christ. Everyone else was doing "absolutely nothing." He specifically singled out Billy Graham, and repeated, "absolutely nothing."
This got me to thinking about Billy Graham's ministry. I believe he was one of the first modern evangelists that actually brought together various Christian denominations to pray for and participate in big evangelistic meetings. And from what I understand the dear seeking ones ended up in many different denominations, not just Southern Baptist. Also, I think Billy was one of the first modern evangelists to racially integrate the evangelistic meetings. I believe BG is a testimony of unity compared to WL who fostered exclusion, division, suspicion, and criticisms among God's many people.
I'm beginning to see that there is a controlling culture in the WL local churches that is unrecognizable until one has been out of it for many, many months.
TLFisher
06-12-2015, 01:24 PM
RK said that only LSM sanctioned employees were building up the body of Christ. Everyone else was doing "absolutely nothing." He specifically singled out Billy Graham, and repeated, "absolutely nothing."
Very easy to say. Since post World War II, how many men, women, and children did Billy Graham's speaking issue in salvation? Thus adding to the Body of Christ.
The quote I have to offer to Ron Kangas is this:
But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.”
Luke 9:50
I was thinking about the LSM-local church's adulation of WL and remembered my days back in college when I met with the Navigators. We were all very appreciative of Dawson Trotman the founder, but we never called him the minister of the age or God's oracle. I think Awareness has it right about WL having a grandiose personality.
» Listen Up!
La Gloria de Dios
Beautiful Father-
Daughter Duet (español)
Ricardo & Evaluna Montaner
Thanks UntoHim, that was beautiful!
At the small men's breakfast this morning at my community church I shared some of my recent history of leaving a group known as the lords recovery that follows the teaching of WL and one of the men said he met a Chinese man on campus that week with a similar name and the shared scripture back and forth. I told him that he was a fulltime worker on campus in the group that I had just left. He said they shared scriptures back and forth, but that he noticed something strange in that the LC brother never seemed to "hear" or receive what he shared. And I told him that I experienced that often with "professional" LC full timers and elders, that fellowship was only one way...downhill from a more "absolute" brother to a lower brother, and that fellowship was mostly one direction and not mutual.
Interesting how someone not associated with the LC would detect that kind of attitude. That attitude and practice is one of the things that showed me the hypocrisy among the leaders in the movement. They preached that there was no hierarchy and no division among the saints, but there was and it showed in how they interacted with one another. I think reading a sociological study of the movement would be fascinating! Does anyone know if there is such a study?
TLFisher
06-20-2015, 12:29 PM
I think reading a sociological study of the movement would be fascinating! Does anyone know if there is such a study?
Attached is the best I had seen. ;)
Attached is the best I had seen. ;)
That was an excellent scholarly review of the movement shortly after Sparks poked the bear and stirred up a hornets nest. I wonder if the rest of the dissertation is available? I think the 1968 date may be wrong because there are 1972 references cited in the document. Very enlightening and helps me understand some of the problems I have observed.
Freedom
06-20-2015, 05:44 PM
At the small men's breakfast this morning at my community church I shared some of my recent history of leaving a group known as the lords recovery that follows the teaching of WL and one of the men said he met a Chinese man on campus that week with a similar name and the shared scripture back and forth. I told him that he was a fulltime worker on campus in the group that I had just left. He said they shared scriptures back and forth, but that he noticed something strange in that the LC brother never seemed to "hear" or receive what he shared. And I told him that I experienced that often with "professional" LC full timers and elders, that fellowship was only one way...downhill from a more "absolute" brother to a lower brother, and that fellowship was mostly one direction and not mutual.
Interesting how someone not associated with the LC would detect that kind of attitude. That attitude and practice is one of the things that showed me the hypocrisy among the leaders in the movement. They preached that there was no hierarchy and no division among the saints, but there was and it showed in how they interacted with one another. I think reading a sociological study of the movement would be fascinating! Does anyone know if there is such a study?
I was involved with LC campus work, not as a full-timer, but as a student. It's interesting that your friend so quickly noticed that there was something different about the LC campus worker he met. I know all too well what the attitude is with recruiting people campus, but I never heard much regarding how people viewed us. All I knew is that they would contact us and then quickly disappear.
What I found interesting is that there seemed to be little desire to invite other Christians to our campus Bible studies. Those I knew seemed mainly interested in finding those who had little to no Christian background. Why? Those types were easier to work on. Christians could ask intelligent questions, or stop and ask why a certain version of the Bible was being shoved down their throat.
As your friend indicated, the only desire among LCers on the campus is to find people who they could provide "downhill" fellowship to. Those who will swallow anything and everything. Unfortunately LCers are too blinded to realize what they are really doing. They think that only they posses the truth, thus no one else could possibly have anything important or significant to say. So they tolerate others and listen passively and wait for the opportunity to inject the teachings of WL.
I think what Jesus spoke to the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:15 also applies to the "work" that LCers are doing, especially on the campuses:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
One thing I learned from the thesis was that shortly after Sparks challenged Lee's exclusive doctrine of the ground and the co-workers started to speak messages along the same line the practice and requirement of using outlines for the co-workers messages was started. Seems like that practice is continued even today. Who writes and approves the outlines used in the winter and spring trainings?
Today in our community church we prayed for our grieving brothers and sisters in Charleston and for our country. Did any of the LSM-LC pray for them? I'm sure individual saints prayed.
TLFisher
06-21-2015, 04:58 PM
Today in our community church we prayed for our grieving brothers and sisters in Charleston and for our country. Did any of the LSM-LC pray for them? I'm sure individual saints prayed.
As for local churches, probably not since it's not according to their view of God's Economy.
Individually, yes at least on Facebook I saw there was prayerfully lamenting.
TLFisher
06-21-2015, 07:10 PM
I find it interesting from the Open Letter of the Church in Los Angeles to the Church in Hong Kong (10/12/70), the LA elders (Samuel Chang, James, Barber, Bill Mallon, and John Ingalls) categorize the charges of "establishing his own totalitarianism by means of the structure of his own work to control the meetings in various places" and "centralized control of both workers and finance".
James Chen was accurate of what he told the saints in Hong Kong, but it was many years before Chen's charges became transparent in North America.
shortly after Sparks challenged Lee's exclusive doctrine of the ground and the co-workers started to speak messages along the same line the practice and requirement of using outlines for the co-workers messages was started. Seems like that practice is continued even today. Who writes and approves the outlines used in the winter and spring trainings?
What would probably be the definitive account of Local Church (LC) beliefs and practices would be a chronological narrative of when various "storms" and "rebellions" occurred, and the subsequent doctrinal promulgations under the cover of "Bible Studies" (or "Life Studies" in their parlance). For example, I bet that if you looked at what LC events occurred prior to the Revelation Life Study training you would find something that led Lee to conclude that any problems in the LC was due to the various assemblies not being absolutely identical. Therefore he was able to read into the letters to the various Asian churches in Revelations 2 and 3 and see the "present need" of being absolutely identical. That, he said, would solve all our problems, right?
And so forth. Each training, each outline, was designed to meet a "present need" in the Lord's Recovery movement. Of course we all do this to some extent - we read into, and onto, the eternal Word our own temporal thoughts, values, dispositions, and understandings. Our own subjective history colors our assessment of the "present need", and we then read it into scriptures to find the answer. This is how we have the Worldwide Church of God of Herbert Armstrong, the Millerites and the Great Disappointment, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, the Mormons, the Christian Scientists, and sor forth. Nee and Lee were no different. They saw what they wanted to see. First it was to shake off the Western yoke, then it was to consolidate control, and on and on. Everything was done on the fly - there was no master plan. Just find whatever you have to, in order to meet the "present need". Life is nothing but exigencies for us mortals. Get through today. And that includes the self-proclaimed "seer of the age". No different, I bet. Was Lee getting caught smuggling gold part of some master plan? No - he was just trying to make it through another situation. Trying to keep the cash flow solvent. Just another day in the life.
Anyway, a double-stranded history of the years 1975 to 1995 showing Lee's various "flows" and the various "storms" that accompanied them, along with the development of LC thought in various Ministry trainings, outlines, and RecV footnotes would be nice. I think it would make a nice Amazon e-book. It would have a narrative structure, controlled by chronology (time). Without such a structure it is hard to get a clear picture: you get various statements at various times, which mean whatever people want them to mean today, just as they meant whatever Nee and Lee meant for them at that time. We cherry pick the Ministry to find statements that back whatever agenda or interpretation we're currently promoting. Just like Nee and Lee did to the Bible.
What would probably be the definitive account of Local Church (LC) beliefs and practices would be a chronological narrative of when various "storms" and "rebellions" occurred, and the subsequent doctrinal promulgations under the cover of "Bible Studies" (or "Life Studies" in their parlance).
And so forth. Each training, each outline, was designed to meet a "present need" in the Lord's Recovery movement.
Anyway, a double-stranded history of the years 1975 to 1995 showing Lee's various "flows" and the various "storms" that accompanied them, along with the development of LC thought in various Ministry trainings, outlines, and RecV footnotes would be nice.
This is so true.
I remember being at the "Timothy" training ~1981, which was after the so-called "Max Rebellion." We all marveled that the word was so timely to "inoculate" us from some future storm in the aftermath of what the LC's were just forced to pass through. I was totally clueless as to the actual facts of the "storm," so I bought into the "up-to-date ministry" completely, thinking that God had a special word to exactly meet our present need.
We really were His Recovery! :rollingeyesfrown:
Lisbon
06-22-2015, 01:25 PM
I'm not sure where this belongs but Sunday I went back to my LC. Actually I had been wanting to go for some time but felt too hypocritical. I'm certainly quite a hypocrite and don't see much way out at present. I met two elders just as I walked in the front door and was greeted very warmly by one and not that badly by the other. Actually had a very good visit. Many said they missed me and I had good conversation with several.
But the meeting! So poor. No Prayer, one poor song. To begin with there was so much noise that the song was drowned out by the talk. The song was a poor choice but probably the choice of Anaheim, don't know. The intro Bro stood and asked for the verses to be read following his five minute talk.
There were 30 speakings with the piano going off only two or three times. Their talks were mainly short. Quite a lot of one minute gaps which would not have been tolerated in the years past. I sat opposite the leading elder, who never spoke, and wondered if he was considering what I was thinking.
Almost no testimonies, just reading the HWFMR.
There were around 250 in the meeting about the same number we had in 1975. Sad. Forty years, little increase. Of course we now have eight other meeting places in the metroplex with I would guess 1500 to 2000 total attendees. The population of the metro is around 6 million.
One more thing of significance, the LC now has another meeting near the heart of the city where the yuppies live. Remember, no high, no low, no rich, no poor! With the Pope's blessing it's OK. Huh?
I don't think my daughter sees any difference. It's scarey. We're all that way. The RCC thinks they're so proper and the other 100,000 sects. I think the Lord needs to open our eyes too. Oh Lord!
Lisbon
I don't think anything happens spontaneously when it's from LSM and the BBs.
the LC now has another meeting near the heart of the city where the yuppies live.
It's all about getting the yuppies. White, middle class, educated yuppies. That was what I was taught 20 years ago by the FTTA trainers and I don't think it's changed.
We were taught this, point-blank, in meetings of several hundred "college-age trainees". Go for the whitebread Middle American. They weren't subtle about it: if you could get a big, husky, corn-fed American boy off a college campus, you were a fisher of men, first class.
Me, I had the bad habit of dragging in all the poor and miserable detritus of the world. The bums and losers. I just couldn't resist; I related to them so well. How did Paul call it? The "scum and offscouring" of the world.
On the other hand, I must confess that they put up with me for several years. Maybe they thought they could yuppify me.
Freedom
06-22-2015, 10:37 PM
Anyway, a double-stranded history of the years 1975 to 1995 showing Lee's various "flows" and the various "storms" that accompanied them, along with the development of LC thought in various Ministry trainings, outlines, and RecV footnotes would be nice. I think it would make a nice Amazon e-book. It would have a narrative structure, controlled by chronology (time). Without such a structure it is hard to get a clear picture: you get various statements at various times, which mean whatever people want them to mean today, just as they meant whatever Nee and Lee meant for them at that time. We cherry pick the Ministry to find statements that back whatever agenda or interpretation we're currently promoting. Just like Nee and Lee did to the Bible.
I would love to see someone do this. It would essentially prove that Lee's ministry was a conglomerate of his innuendos about then-current LC events which he disguised as the "up-to-date-speaking".
It's all about getting the yuppies. White, middle class, educated yuppies. That was what I was taught 20 years ago by the FTTA trainers and I don't think it's changed.
We were taught this, point-blank, in meetings of several hundred "college-age trainees". Go for the whitebread Middle American. They weren't subtle about it: if you could get a big, husky, corn-fed American boy off a college campus, you were a fisher of men, first class.
Me, I had the bad habit of dragging in all the poor and miserable detritus of the world. The bums and losers. I just couldn't resist; I related to them so well. How did Paul call it? The "scum and offscouring" of the world.
I've been called a lot of things in my life, but this one stands out ...
.. Lee's ministry was a conglomerate of his innuendos about then-current LC events which he disguised as the "up-to-date-speaking".
The core of my argument is that we all do this, to some degree. We can't help it. We try to present "the truth", but our version of the truth is always colored by our needs, wants, dispositions, opinions of how it ought to be, etc. All of Lee's teachings came out of this same fountain. But he sold it to us as "God's oracle." According to him, LSM put out the pure word of God, cut straight by the ministry of the age.
Nonsense. He was just trying to manage the day's events, just like the rest of us. And the witness of history is what gives his management and teachings and speakings proper context. If we can see a pattern of events and the spoken and written ministry that accompanied them, then the story of Witness Lee and the Local Church, and Lord's Recovery movement will have needed perspective.
The same thing happened for me, with looking at Watchman Nee's ministry in historical context. When I saw the backdrop of Chinese resentment against Western imperialism, with the Boxer Rebellion and so forth, then the "localism" of Nee with its emphases on Brethren teachings and Inner Life practices, and its appeal to the native Chinese Christian community with its Asian cultural ethos, makes sense. From there the focus was expansion of the Little Flock activities, consolidation (i.e. the Jerusalem principle), and control (i.e. handing over). And Nee's message when the Communists took over was also about managing an organizational response to government power. It was all exigencies. The truth was whatever you needed it to be today.
The particular example of the requirement for the Asian churches in Revelation 2 and 3 to be "absolutely identical" in the RecV footnotes would probably be informed by the events of the Local Church/Lord's Recovery movement leading up to that training. When you see a) the situation and b) Lee's response to the situation, then suddenly the footnote, or the outline, or the message makes sense. It now has context.
TLFisher
06-23-2015, 07:25 AM
What would probably be the definitive account of Local Church (LC) beliefs and practices would be a chronological narrative of when various "storms" and "rebellions" occurred, and the subsequent doctrinal promulgations under the cover of "Bible Studies" (or "Life Studies" in their parlance).
I recall in the late 90's there was a HWFMR that came out about rebellions. At the time I thought it was a reference to the late 80's. In retrospect, maybe it was a subtle preemptive word regarding the Great Lakes area?
I don't think anything happens spontaneously when it's from LSM and the BBs.
Except for their condemnation of "poor, poor, degraded Christianity" and the brothers and sisters serving as clergy.
TLFisher
06-23-2015, 03:31 PM
Except for their condemnation of "poor, poor, degraded Christianity" and the brothers and sisters serving as clergy.
Reminds me, one of the brothers in the brothers house I was in, his first training was the 94 Summer Training. Poor poor Christianity was one of the few quotes he passed on from the training.
Except for their condemnation of "poor, poor, degraded Christianity" and the brothers and sisters serving as clergy.
I want to confess and apologize to the body of Christ that I participated in condemning Christianity and the clergy.
I'm sorry that I could not find the thread where the Chandler-Village Church-divorce issue was posted, but I just read about where the elders of that church apologized for being controlling. Don't any of you LSM accolytes hold your breath waiting for the BBs or elders to apologize. Remember that the lords anointed is right even when he is wrong, and that we cover the sins of the leaders. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/may-web-only/matt-chandler-apologizes-for-village-churchs-decision-to-di.html
Thanks to Igzy for the idea used to create my signature.
TLFisher
07-10-2015, 12:40 PM
Remember that the lords anointed is right even when he is wrong, and that we cover the sins of the leaders.
Let's rephrase it,
remember those who claim to be the lords anointed are right even when he is wrong, and that we cover the sins of the leaders.
Lisbon
07-13-2015, 07:31 PM
Above Awareness indicated that Mel Porter was not so 'in' in the past. In 1973 or 74 I heard of some problem with Porter but then never heard more.
Recently I heard he was in some kind of leading position in either Arizona or Colo. Does anyone know his situation at present.
Lisbon
Above Awareness indicated that Mel Porter was not so 'in' in the past. In 1973 or 74 I heard of some problem with Porter but then never heard more.
Recently I heard he was in some kind of leading position in either Arizona or Colo. Does anyone know his situation at present.
Lisbon
I think he is in south Florida. An elder told me that Mel supported me writing a letter to RK complaining about the behavior of other elders in my locality. I wrote a draft letter and asked the elder if he would sign it with me and he said no. To me this was a major red flag because he urged me to write the letter but would not sign it with me. I am so glad that I am not a part of that self absorbed sect of Christianity known as the lords recovery.
awareness
07-13-2015, 09:18 PM
Above Awareness indicated that Mel Porter was not so 'in' in the past. In 1973 or 74 I heard of some problem with Porter but then never heard more.
Recently I heard he was in some kind of leading position in either Arizona or Colo. Does anyone know his situation at present.
Lisbon
I'd like to know that too bro Lisbon. I only know what I've been told after leaving, from others that ran into the same problem I ran into with Mel. One of them was an elder with Mel when he gave me the ultimatum to take his personality or get out. He was there. I can picture him in my mind's eye, sitting to the left of me, while Mel was in my face. Then five years later, the same thing happened to him, and to others I was close to before and during the LC.
Apparently the fallout of high quality brothers leaving the LC in Miami caught Lee's attention and he fire Mel, if I can call it that.
Somewhere during that time I heard that Mel was in Tampa. So when I was visiting a friend in Tampa I tried to call him. I got his voicemail. I so wanted to think him for blowing me out of the LC.
But somewhere along the line Lee, and/or company, rehired Porter. I saw that in Oct 2006 -- I think bro Ohio was there when it went down -- Mel was a signatory on Titus Chu's excommunication encyclical, as representing "U.S.A."
He's got to be an ignorant old fart by now. He was ignorant back then. I really can't believe that Lee would put such a spiritually ignorant person in charge. It was a big factor in breaking my trust in Lee. That led to eventually breaking all my trust into smithereens. I've never been the same. Thanks Mel! :thumbup::hurray:
I'd like to know that too bro Lisbon. I only know what I've been told after leaving, from others that ran into the same problem I ran into with Mel. One of them was an elder with Mel when he gave me the ultimatum to take his personality or get out. He was there. I can picture him in my mind's eye, sitting to the left of me, while Mel was in my face. Then five years later, the same thing happened to him, and to others I was close to before and during the LC.
Apparently the fallout of high quality brothers leaving the LC in Miami caught Lee's attention and he fire Mel, if I can call it that.
Somewhere during that time I heard that Mel was in Tampa. So when I was visiting a friend in Tampa I tried to call him. I got his voicemail. I so wanted to think him for blowing me out of the LC.
But somewhere along the line Lee, and/or company, rehired Porter. I saw that in Oct 2006 -- I think bro Ohio was there when it went down -- Mel was a signatory on Titus Chu's excommunication encyclical, as representing "U.S.A."
He's got to be an ignorant old fart by now. He was ignorant back then. I really can't believe that Lee would put such a spiritually ignorant person in charge. It was a big factor in breaking my trust in Lee. That led to eventually breaking all my trust into smithereens. I've never been the same. Thanks Mel! :thumbup::hurray: It's interesting to note that the letter attributed to Clement (First Clement 94-95AD), the 3rd Bishop of Rome, chastises the congregation in Corinth for ousting their elders. This is the first glimpse of Rome attempting to control other churches.
While Lee espoused the "local church" it was never local and it is not local today. He consistently tried to control all of the churches world wide which is what led him into problems abroad and at home. That is why you have someone like Mel in the leadership of a local church---it was Lee's attempt at having control which superseded any level of spirituality.
The same problem happened in Detroit with RK, HA, and TS as elders. RK and TS came from Eldon hall and were taught by Lee. They had no business being elders but they were self anointed when they arrived. TS left the church, divorced and who knows what happened to him. RK didn't migrate with us to Ft. Lauderdale but took the opportunity to move back to Anaheim where he is a big honcho in the LC.
This is an inherently significant problem with non-democratic congregations. Yes, democracy and the congregational model (Cambridge Platform 1648) can be messy but when you have one leader whom everyone follows it can lead to all kinds of machinations. When a "God (Lee)" appointed elder such as Mel is in charge and he really believes he is the anointed one in a locality there is going to be trouble. Imagine what it must be like if you are someone walking around thinking that you are the voice of God in a city such as Ft. Lauderdale or Miami. What power you have, what insight you have and what will befall those who go against you as you carry out God's(Lee) mission in your locality.
It's interesting to note that the letter attributed to Clement (First Clement 94-95AD), the 3rd Bishop of Rome, chastises the congregation in Corinth for ousting their elders. This is the first glimpse of Rome attempting to control other churches.
While Lee espoused the "local church" it was never local and it is not local today. He consistently tried to control all of the churches world wide which is what led him into problems abroad and at home. That is why you have someone like Mel in the leadership of a local church---it was Lee's attempt at having control which superseded any level of spirituality.
The same problem happened in Detroit with RK, HA, and TS as elders. RK and TS came from Eldon hall and were taught by Lee. They had no business being elders but they were self anointed when they arrived. TS left the church, divorced and who knows what happened to him. RK didn't migrate with us to Ft. Lauderdale but took the opportunity to move back to Anaheim where he is a big honcho in the LC.
This is an inherently significant problem with non-democratic congregations. Yes, democracy and the congregational model (Cambridge Platform 1648) can be messy but when you have one leader whom everyone follows it can lead to all kinds of machinations. When a "God (Lee)" appointed elder such as Mel is in charge and he really believes he is the anointed one in a locality there is going to be trouble. Imagine what it must be like if you are someone walking around thinking that you are the voice of God in a city such as Ft. Lauderdale or Miami. What power you have, what insight you have and what will befall those who go against you as you carry out God's(Lee) mission in your locality.
Great post!
The "open" branch of the Plymouth Brethren, in response to Darby's centralized control, enacted the principle of unanimity for all serious church decisions. While it too has its drawbacks (it can easily be sabotaged by a few dissidents), it is an attempt to make decisions only after all the congregation has arrived at one mind via the prayer of each.
Lee's proposed solution to all the "evils" of denominationalism was autonomous "local" churches, each let by elders / shepherds. Today the LC's have become a far worse denomination than any of the ones they long have condemned. What kind of hypocrisy is that to declare to the world that all control is local? During the heyday of the "new way," Lee had become a far worse Pope than the one he had condemned his whole lifetime.
While in the LC's, I personally participated in two migrations to startup new churches. Over time I watched Titus Chu manipulate and nearly destroy two prosperous LC's via his full-time worker relocation programs. His primary concern was making sure that every satellite LC remained steadfastly under his dominion. The condition of the actual saints or the church seemed to be the last of his concerns.
The "denominations" aren't that bad! Went to a parents meeting where the pastor introduced the recently hired youth directors. Both gave testimonies to God's salvation and care in their lives AND passed out a survey asking how they could better serve the high schoolers. In the so-called recovery all you need to do is graduate from the FTT and you are "ordained" to serve. At least in this E-Free church parents were invited to hear the testimonies of those who would be influencing their children. In the so called recovery it's all about full-timers having attended the FTT. I praise God for leading me out of this self absorbed tiny Christian sect.
Another thing about the deputy authority nonsense and the wholesale twisting of scripture re: Ham uncovering his fathers nakedness being used as an excuse to hide the sins of a spiritual leader is WHAT ELSE ARE THEY HIDING? There have been many godly spiritual men and women leaders whose lives did not require that their lieutenants hide their sins. And there have been many so-called spiritual leaders whose ministries were proven to be false by the revelation of fraud, theft, manipulation, nepotism, greed, lies, self promotion, etc. (I left out sex so as not to set Awarness off:D). I want to ask WHAT ELSE ARE THEY HIDING? If the gross sins of other leaders have testified of their false teachings, then why can't the saints see that the sins of their leaders might also be a testimony of false teachings? I guess the answer is that if you're deceived to think that your leader is the MOTA, oracle of God, or God's last New Testament Apostle, then you can be intimidated to keep quiet and ignore the screaming testimony of the leader's sin.
I'm throwing out the deception that the sins of a leader have no relevance to the validity of his ministry.
TLFisher
07-18-2015, 12:41 PM
Another thing about the deputy authority nonsense and the wholesale twisting of scripture re: Ham uncovering his fathers nakedness being used as an excuse to hide the sins of a spiritual leader is WHAT ELSE ARE THEY HIDING? There have been many godly spiritual men and women leaders whose lives did not require that their lieutenants hide their sins. And there have been many so-called spiritual leaders whose ministries were proven to be false by the revelation of fraud, theft, manipulation, nepotism, greed, lies, self promotion, etc. (I left out sex so as not to set Awarness off:D). I want to ask WHAT ELSE ARE THEY HIDING? If the gross sins of other leaders have testified of their false teachings, then why can't the saints see that the sins of their leaders might also be a testimony of false teachings? I guess the answer is that if you're deceived to think that your leader is the MOTA, oracle of God, or God's last New Testament Apostle, then you can be intimidated to keep quiet and ignore the screaming testimony of the leader's sin.
I'm throwing out the deception that the sins of a leader have no relevance to the validity of his ministry.
You have covered a lot here, but with the current leadership, I would say:
A. They have a stewardship to Living Stream Ministry to be faithful stewards in order to run a efficient publishing business. Unfortunately, transparency is not one of their qualities.
B. Having had a role in two turmoils, leaders at LSM have their own reputations to preserve even if it means being disingenuous to the local churches.
Can anyone direct me to the reference of the WL quote in my signature?
Freedom
07-27-2015, 03:12 PM
Can anyone direct me to the reference of the WL quote in my signature?
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=411
Under the heading :
CONFERENCE AND ELDERS’ MEETING IN PASADENA
November 1988
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=411
Under the heading :
CONFERENCE AND ELDERS’ MEETING IN PASADENA
November 1988
Thanks very much.
Can anyone direct me to the reference of the WL quote in my signature?
Sections are missing in that opening post.
Anyone have a complete copy of Ingalls' STTIL?
UntoHim
07-27-2015, 07:34 PM
I haven't reviewed this version in years. What's missing? Let me know so I can scan in the missing parts and insert them. Maybe somebody has a scanned copy that has been reviewed for accuracy. If so, please let me know and I'll replace the one that's here.
Can anyone direct me to the reference of the WL quote in my signature?
Here is the entire section with that quote:
CONFERENCE AND ELDERS’ MEETING IN PASADENA November 1988
On the Thanksgiving Day weekend of November 1988 Brother Lee, just returned from Taiwan, held a conference of five meetings in the auditorium of the Pasadena City College in California. The conference was followed by an elders’ meeting November 27th in the meeting place of the church in San Gabriel. In that meeting Brother Lee proclaimed that though he had a hall in Anaheim, he was not happy to use it (no doubt because of certain people who were in Anaheim). The brothers in the Los Angeles area invited him to have a conference and arranged the place in Pasadena. He said that when he heard that it would be in Pasadena he was happy. These people, he said, "exalt" me: I am happy to be exalted.
Before the conference began a report came to us that a flyer had been printed and would be placed on the windshields of all the cars of those attending the conference in Pasadena. On the flyer, we were told, some sinful disorders were mentioned. We fully disapproved of such action. Not knowing who authorized or printed them or who intended to distribute them, but knowing a couple of brothers who we thought might be aware of it, we called them and urged them to do whatever they could to stop the distribution. It seems that our word was heeded, at least to some extent, for no flyers were distributed at the conference. We discovered later, however, that they were put on some cars in the Anaheim meeting hall parking lot. Such acts we believe to be of the flesh and not the way to protest wrongdoing. Some time later, after the conference, we obtained a copy of the flyer. It was entitled Significant Dates in the History of the Church in Anaheim.
In the first meeting of the conference, November 25th, Brother Lee was in a fighting spirit, fighting against "autonomy" and "federation." He referred to some books authored by George Henry Lang, a servant of the Lord in England during the latter part of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. In one of his books, entitled “The Churches of God,” G.H.Lang emphasized the need for local administration in the churches. This was the book that troubled Brother Lee. (I had read this book, and being deeply impressed with its strong scriptural basis and timely application to our present need, I had recommended it to others.) Brother Lee called Lang’s book heretical and told the saints if they had them to burn them. I consider this kind of talk reckless and lawless. Brother Lee in years past had commended Lang for his insight and writing on the truth of the kingdom. His books have been recently reprinted and are available today.
In the conference meetings he strongly vindicated himself and his work. He gave a message in which he recounted a number of revelations brought forth by him which he said no one else besides the Bible authors had ever seen. Regarding the enjoying of Christ he said, "I invented this term, enjoying Christ." He continued, "I invented this term, experiencing Christ, exhibiting Christ." I believe a number of saints could testify that they heard of enjoying Christ or enjoying the Lord long before Brother Lee ever came to the United States. I for one did. My step-mother, seeking to help me, spoke to me of this in 1949. No doubt she heard this from other Christian teachers. The term, experiencing Christ, has also been spoken by other Christian teachers for years. Brother Lee did not invent that term. He mentioned many other items, claiming that they had all been revealed to him in the past twenty or so years; no one else had ever seen or spoken of them.
He referred to the title he has used for the Holy Spirit – "the all-inclusive Spirit of Christ as the consummation of the processed Triune God" – and asked who made such a title. Webster? he asked. Then he answered his own question, "That Lee! Lee has to be famous! Lee! Lee! Lee must have the credit! And if you listen to me, you do not listen to Lee, you listen to the very God in His oracle spoken by me." A little later in his message he said, "Going with God’s oracle, surely there is the deputy authority of God in this oracle. Whoever speaks for God, he surely has certain divine authority. I’m claiming this for Lee!" Now I would ask, are these the words of a sober man, the words of a spiritual man, a man of God? To me it is shocking to hear him speak this way, for he has indeed been used of God in the past to speak His Word. But to vindicate oneself so blatantly and boastfully indicates to me a fall. May the Lord have mercy on us all.
Following his message he asked for testimonies to be given by brothers from five countries: Brazil, the Philippines, Korea, Taiwan, and the United States. All these told of the success of the new way in their place, especially giving statistics regarding the number of churches and new ones baptized. The Lord along knows the real situation. If there is any real blessing from Him we rejoice and give thanks. In the elders’ meeting following the conference Brother Lee read from a list of items, mentioning what he said were the top ten revelations received by him, seen previously by no one else. Some of them were as follows:
1. "The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
2. "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17).
3. Prayreading.
4. Calling on the name of the Lord.
5. The seven Spirits.
6. The dispensing of the processed Triune God into the tripartite man.
7. The New Jerusalem as a corporate man.
8. The lampstand as the embodiment of the Triune God.
Now we thank God for these revelations from His holy Word, but to claim that he was the first one to see these is going altogether too far. Moreover, concerning at least a number of these items, Brother Lee was in fact not the first to see them. Regarding the last Adam becoming a life-giving Spirit and our being one spirit with the Lord, there were a number of other Christian teachers who saw and wrote of these things. We have evidence of this. Concerning pray-reading, many have seen this and practiced this, as recorded in the book authored by Ray Graver and published by the LSM entitled, “Lord…Thou Saidst.” Calling on the name of the Lord was not a recent discovery by Brother Lee or by us. The New Jerusalem as a corporate person was also seen by others — T. Austin-Sparks for one. If we have time or if there is the need, we may document all these instances.
The revelations mentioned are indeed great and precious. Fairly speaking, some of these matters may have been fresh revelations to Brother Lee. The Lord alone knows. And some of them he may have enunciated more clearly than his predecessors. But for anyone to claim that no one had ever seen these things before, but him, is totally insupportable, since we are not omniscient. Moreover, such self-vindication is very unbecoming and repugnant. Brother Lee went on to say, "You cannot deny the fact that the Lord’s oracle has been with me. I claim this at the face of Jesus Christ. The deputy authority of God is in His oracle; so whoever speaks for God has His deputy authority. But I never used it."
In the elders’ meeting, Brother Lee referred to some anonymous papers being circulated and blamed the elders in Anaheim for not stopping the distribution. He then referred to the flyer which had been printed and was to be put on the windshields of the cars at the conference. I then rose from my seat and said that we wanted Brother Lee and all the brothers to know that we fully disapproved of that action and had done whatever we could to stop it. Brother Lee took the opportunity then, while I was on my feet, to question me publicly about a few things. He asked me about an anonymous writing entitled “Reconsidering Our Vision,” (which had troubled him greatly) and if we had done anything to stop its circulation. I said that we had not. Regarding some brothers, probably including me (or, especially me), Brother Lee said, “whether you are for me or not, I know; I know everything. I know what restaurant you were eating in, what day, and with whom. I have a lot of colleagues who write me long records of ten to twenty pages about you.” He said further, which church is under my hand? You have a church; I have none. I know which church welcomes me, and which has a cold heart toward me.
Near the end of his word he proclaimed, I don’t care for the loss of any church. Even if the entire U.S.A. is closed to me I don’t care. I only care for ten to twenty faithful ones meeting together to practice the truth. When he sat down and asked for fellowship, a brother from Anaheim, Paul Kerr, rose toward the end of the time and asked two questions. The first consisted of two queries: Why have other brothers besides you not been raised up? And, why do you have no contemporaries to challenge you and fellowship with you? Brother Lee’s answer was simply, "I don’t know." And then he said that since 1945 he has been watching to see if anyone else could speak God’s word as God’s oracle. He could find none. Paul Kerr’s next question concerned John So and John Ingalls. He asked, "How is it that in the past you referred to these two brothers as pillars and today’s Timothy, and today you have nothing good to say about them? Brother Lee’s reply was that brothers can change. Demas loved the Lord, but then he changed and loved the world. I can change, he said; we all can change. So we all need the Lord’s mercy.
Brother Lee was beside himself in this meeting. I had never personally observed him in such a state as I witnessed him there. He was obviously exceedingly agitated. That was the last elders’ meeting with Brother Lee that I ever attended.
Well, it's been a year now since I first posted here and I'm beginning to perceive that Satan has cleverly maneuvered (at least since the 1990's) LSM's teaching so as to glorify man and trivialize the cross by distracting attention away from Jesus Christ and His devil-destroying work towards the so-called "high peak" truths. Satan's strategy is effective because it is subtle and hidden. A common theme throughout the LSM-recovery is to mention the spirituality of "good" brothers. The praise of man begins with the honor of WN and WL for bringing great riches to the recovery and extends to leading brothers being fearful of what WN or WL will say to them at the judgement. Little brothers are often praised for being "absolute" or "poured out", but where is the praise for the Lord Jesus from whom all things flow? In 1 Corinthians Paul said "Christ didn't send me to wash people but to bring the good word, and not with cleverness of language, so as not to trivialize the cross of Christ". I believe the so-called high peak truths are just clever expressions of language being used by Satan to trivialize the cross of Christ by focusing attention away from the Savior towards the high peak teachings. The fact that the high peak proclamations contain an element of truth is a perfect covering in that it allows the saints to revel in the beauty of the proclamations rather than in adoration of the sacrificing Savior. This insidious stratagem is what causes leading brothers to evaluate the oneness and absoluteness that saints have towards the ministry of WL rather than towards our dear Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. We all must be careful that we are not drawn away from the simplicity that is in Christ to teachings that tickle the ears of self-centered man.
Would someone please ask Benson Phillips to reevaluate the truthfulness of his statement that anyone that leaves the LSM recovery has no way to go on with the Lord? I'm still alive, married and none of my children or grandchildren have died, (of course one day I'll die or something bad will happen then the naysayers can testify to God's judgement on those who criticize the MOTA) and I'm still loving the Lord and His word and enjoying fellowship with other Christians in a real local church that is not controlled by "fellowship" from an out-of-state headquarters; where the elders are not required to attend twice annual "alignment meetings" being indoctrinated with the writings of a man who claimed to be the oracle of God and even God's deputy authority on earth; where none of the college graduates are pressured to go to an exclusive two year denomination-controlled indoctrination program at the denominational headquarters where all the instructors are required to attend the same denominational church and read from the same denominational version of the bible; where the members are not retained by warnings of shipwreck and catastrophe if you leave; and where the foundation of the church and fellowship with other Christians is Christ and Him alone, not a contrived doctrine of locality or the twisted notion that the New Testament ministry solely resides with WL as promulgated by LSM.
Well, it's been a year now since I first posted here and I'm beginning to perceive that Satan has cleverly maneuvered (at least since the 1990's) LSM's teaching so as to glorify man and trivialize the cross by distracting attention away from Jesus Christ and His devil-destroying work towards the so-called "high peak" truths. Satan's strategy is effective because it is subtle and hidden. A common theme throughout the LSM-recovery is to mention the spirituality of "good" brothers. The praise of man begins with the honor of WN and WL for bringing great riches to the recovery and extends to leading brothers being fearful of what WN or WL will say to them at the judgement. Little brothers are often praised for being "absolute" or "poured out", but where is the praise for the Lord Jesus from whom all things flow? In 1 Corinthians Paul said "Christ didn't send me to wash people but to bring the good word, and not with cleverness of language, so as not to trivialize the cross of Christ". I believe the so-called high peak truths are just clever expressions of language being used by Satan to trivialize the cross of Christ by focusing attention away from the Savior towards the high peak teachings. The fact that the high peak proclamations contain an element of truth is a perfect covering in that it allows the saints to revel in the beauty of the proclamations rather than in adoration of the sacrificing Savior. This insidious stratagem is what causes leading brothers to evaluate the oneness and absoluteness that saints have towards the ministry of WL rather than towards our dear Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. We all must be careful that we are not drawn away from the simplicity that is in Christ to teachings that tickle the ears of self-centered man.
Great post!
Let's also provide the background for these "high-peak," ear-tickling stratagems of the enemy. Immediately prior to their "release," the ministry of Witness Lee was self-destructing due to internal corruptions by Lee's profligate son Philip, and external resistance from LC leaders around the globe. Lee needed a serious diversionary tactic. An old saying by Athanasius was dug up from the archives, dusted off, and promoted as the grand finale of Lee's ministry -- Are you on board, or not? Do you want to become God, or not?
TLFisher
07-30-2015, 12:36 PM
This insidious stratagem is what causes leading brothers to evaluate the oneness and absoluteness that saints have towards the ministry of WL rather than towards our dear Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. We all must be careful that we are not drawn away from the simplicity that is in Christ to teachings that tickle the ears of self-centered man.
One characteristic of many in the local churches that is unique you won't find in non-LSM/LC Christianity is making the ministry of WL the measuring stick or barometer in relationship to God's Word or other earthly ministries.
Lisbon
07-30-2015, 04:02 PM
:hysterical::hysterical:Bob Marley:hysterical::hysterical:
Sarc on-Sorry to sully these sanctified pages...but here goes!-Sarc off
Lyrics from one of Bob Marley's songs.
"Hallelujah"
Hear the children cryin',
but I know they cry not in vain.
Now the times are changin';
love has come to bloom again.
Smelling the air when spring comes by raindrops
reminds us of youthful days.
But now it's not rain that water the cane crops,
but the sweat from man's brow;
the substance from our spine.
We gotta keep on living, living on borrowed time:
Hallelujah time!
Yes, you can hear the children singing: Hallelujah time!
As they go singing by and by: Hallelujah time!
Oh, "hallelujah" singing in the morning.
Hallelujah time! Let them sing; don't let them cry.
Over rocks and mountains
the sheep are scattered all around.
Over hills and valleys,
they are everywhere to be found.
But though we bear our burdens now,
All afflictions got to end somehow:
From swinging the hammer, pulling the plough.
Why won't you let us be, to live in harmony?
We like to be free like birds in a tree.
Hallelujah time! Yes, you can hear the children singing.
Hallelujah time! Yes, as they go singing by and by.
Hallelujah time! Oh "hallelujah" singing in the morning.
Let them sing; never let them cry.
Hallelujah time! "Hallelujah" singin' in the morning.
sorry if you don't know the song, Jesus loves me this I know,
For the Bible tellsme so.
Years ago in the LRC we sang,
God is processed this I know
For the Bible tells me so
Incarnated as a man
Lived and died and raised a man
Yes God is processed
Now He's the Spirit
To constitute us
With the processed Triune God.
This was published by LSM, Hymns Jr, in 1983.
I can't help wondering what a new one today would think of this song. We had a lot of "good ones". A lot of songs like this we never hear today. You have to admit there has been a great change in the LRC today down on the street level, but not at the top level.
Lisbon
Had dinner and beers with an old high school / college buddy last week. We hung out and doped together until we both got saved and became Jesus freaks. Then we had Jesus parties (minus the drugs and alcohol) where a bunch of us young Jesus freaks would play guitars, beat on bongos, sing praises to Jesus until we got so sweaty we had to take our shirts off (just the guys not the gals). Hell, I beat those bongos so hard I broke my graduation ring! This went on for some time until finally a couple of deacons from the baptist church showed up to check us out. A lot of the baptist kids were hanging out with us because we were a cool alternative to organs, preachers and four-part choirs. Anyway, this brother I was having dinner with had contacted me about a year ago after 25 years of absence and was struggling in life, so I took the opportunity to share with him about the Lord's recovery and sent him an LSM hymnal and a book by WL on the topic of God can do good things with "losers" (not the exact title!). Last week at dinner I found out that over the last year he had been praying for me not to be deceived by WL and the Lord's recovery. After that first meeting a year ago he never spoke a negative word against anything, but just listened and talked whenever we got together. He knows what I've been through exiting the Lord's recovery, so at our dinner last week I told him that I had a meeting with my pastor about my concern for my friends "Jack" and "Jim" and he asked me if it was the pastor from my old local church (he didn't know that the LC does not have pastors). My response was an immediate and strong NO! HELL NO! It was then that I realized that I'm finally free from LC superstition and mind control. I think I'm making progress notwithstanding a few curse words here and there, a beer or two or three, and occasional conversations with "Jack" and "Jim"! I may not be an overcomer, but I'm happy in Jesus, enjoying a real local church that I'm now attending with brothers who are genuine, and my marriage is doing better. Thank you Lord Jesus!
awareness
08-11-2015, 08:12 PM
Good for you bro. And continue on the path of freedom.
Good for you bro. And continue on the path of freedom.
Thanks bro Awareness!
TLFisher
08-11-2015, 11:27 PM
Well, it's been a year now since I first posted here and I'm beginning to perceive that Satan has cleverly maneuvered (at least since the 1990's) LSM's teaching so as to glorify man and trivialize the cross by distracting attention away from Jesus Christ and His devil-destroying work towards the so-called "high peak" truths.
Yes, man does get glorified and the cross is trivialized. Anyone reading feel free to correct me, but my view is the matter of the cross has been skewed. In the local churches there's the culture of keeping everything positive. Whenever there's an issue or a conflict, take the cross. It becomes okay to verbally abuse a brother. If he's offended, just take the cross.
There's a saying I've heard, "don't make an issue of matters, person, or things."
Isaiah 42
8 “I am the Lord; that is my name!
I will not yield my glory to another
or my praise to idols.
Dear LC saints,
Please don't exalt in WL. Please don't make WL your idol.
https://youtu.be/SkvCWeqKVEQ
The above song is not "Babylonian", it's is the heart cry of young people.
awareness
08-12-2015, 11:57 PM
Isaiah 42
8 “I am the Lord; that is my name!
I will not yield my glory to another
or my praise to idols.
Dear LC saints,
Please don't exalt in WL. Please don't make WL your idol.
https://youtu.be/SkvCWeqKVEQ
The above song is not "Babylonian", it's is the heart cry of young people.
Isn't it that crying out to be close to God that made us susceptible to the LRM trap? Obviously there's a possibility that that crying out can lead us away from God.
Isn't it that crying out to be close to God that made us susceptible to the LRM trap? Obviously there's a possibility that that crying out can lead us away from God.
I disagree. Jeremiah 29.13 says, "You will seek Me, and you will find Me, when you seek Me with all your heart."
What you say may come true when we are seeking something else, kind of like Israel when they sought after a king, and they were given Saul.
What Lee and his Blinded minions gave us was another "Saul."
awareness
08-13-2015, 11:07 AM
I disagree. Jeremiah 29.13 says, "You will seek Me, and you will find Me, when you seek Me with all your heart."
What you say may come true when we are seeking something else, kind of like Israel when they sought after a king, and they were given Saul.
What Lee and his Blinded minions gave us was another "Saul."
Good point. So in essence, as it turns out, we cried out to God, "give is a king," and we got Lee. Did we deserve what we got? Is that really what GOD wanted?
UntoHim
08-13-2015, 11:59 AM
We know what God wants. He has told us what he wants. It's called the B-I-B-L-E. The problem is that we are still fallen people in a fallen world. Our natural inclination is to go against what God wants. This is what false religion is all about. There has always been Witness Lees and Local Churches since the beginning, and there will be until the end.
awareness
08-13-2015, 12:34 PM
We know what God wants. He has told us what he wants. It's called the B-I-B-L-E.
But that doesn't clear up anything either. There's all kinds of Christian that hold to Sola scriptura that are in disagreement, harshly I might add, some of them. Even Lee would lay claim to sola scriptura.
I think what God wants is what Jesus spoke of in the gospel of John: Oneness with the Father, as Jesus was one with the Father.
And not oneness with people like Witness Lee.
UntoHim
08-13-2015, 02:48 PM
We know what God wants. He has told us what he wants. It's called the B-I-B-L-E.
I think what God wants is what Jesus spoke of in the gospel of John: Oneness with the Father, as Jesus was one with the Father.
Harold, you're a funny man! The last time I checked the Gospel of John IS THE BIBLE.
Witness Lee could have laid claim to anything he wanted (and kind of did at times) but he was decidedly NOT "Sola scriptura". He considered his opinions as higher than the Bible, with the most notable examples being his dissing of the Psalms (calling them "natural", etc) and the dissing of James (claiming a writer of the God-breathed, divine revelation was "devoid of the divine revelation"!)
You confuse the interpretations of sinful, ignorant, fallen man with the actual Word of God itself. Sometimes the interpretations are in line with the Word and sometimes they are not. This is why God has given us his Holy Spirit, a brain, eyes and ears and even common sense, and this is why the many of the teachings of Witness Lee are so harmful - they ask us to put aside all of these in favor of the feelings and opinions of "the one apostle with the one ministry for the age".
Good point. So in essence, as it turns out, we cried out to God, "give is a king," and we got Lee. Did we deserve what we got? Is that really what GOD wanted?
The ones i know never cried out for a king, rather it was ambitious lieutenants who thrust a "king" upon us. I am convinced that Titus Chu went along with the program in order to replace Lee as the latest MOTA, then cleaning house in Anaheim.
One thing is certain, that the very existance of a MOTA created ambitious men longing to be the next one, willing to eliminate the competition. Thus we can conclude that the MOTA is a root of evil.
The ones i know never cried out for a king, rather it was ambitious lieutenants who thrust a "king" upon us. I am convinced that Titus Chu went along with the program in order to replace Lee as the latest MOTA, then cleaning house in Anaheim.
One thing is certain, that the very existance of a MOTA created ambitious men longing to be the next one, willing to eliminate the competition. Thus we can conclude that the MOTA is a root of evil.
Which is probably why the Anaheim cult cut off Titus. They saved their salary and pension. RK is just an ear-tickling preacher, while TC actually founded several local churches.
Which is probably why the Anaheim cult cut off Titus. They saved their salary and pension. RK is just an ear-tickling preacher, while TC actually founded several local churches.
My son went to TC 9 month training. At the time I thought it was satanic, now
I think TC was more normal than the butt kissers in Anaheim.
...we can conclude that the MOTA is a root of evil.
The MOTA idea is a blend of oriental despotism, selective Bible reading, and specious logic. "Witness Lee is #4" after the Trinity - how is that taking the least place at the feast, as Jesus advised?
The MOTA idea is a blend of oriental despotism, selective Bible reading, and specious logic. "Witness Lee is #4" after the Trinity - how is that taking the least place at the feast, as Jesus advised?
Can anyone provide a citation or venue for this crazy quote "Witness Lee is #4"? I'm sure WL didn't say it, probably one of his butt kissers!
Can anyone provide a citation or venue for this crazy quote "Witness Lee is #4"? I'm sure WL didn't say it, probably one of his butt kissers!
During thr FTTT/New Way. One of a number of doozies. The Blended lackeys who now run the show.
Can anyone provide a citation or venue for this crazy quote "Witness Lee is #4"? I'm sure WL didn't say it, probably one of his butt kissers!
I think Don Rutledge records the event in his unfinished record of LC history.
awareness
08-15-2015, 10:08 AM
During thr FTTT/New Way. One of a number of doozies. The Blended lackeys who now run the show.
I doubt we'll ever find evidence of a claim that Lee was the fourth person of the trinity in LSM literature. But Lee did say that God became man so man could become God ... and therefore, man is the fourth person of the trinity.
Then likely some fanatical local church Witness Lee sycophant extrapolated that, and applied it to Lee specifically.
It would be interesting to know who cooked up that crazy notion.
Freedom
08-15-2015, 10:15 AM
Can anyone provide a citation or venue for this crazy quote "Witness Lee is #4"? I'm sure WL didn't say it, probably one of his butt kissers!
An explanation of what happened is in Speaking the Truth in Love under Appendix A:
A statement made by Paul Hon to Don Rutledge in July 1986, in Don’s home in Dallas. (Witnesses present: Bill Lawson, Louis Chen, Tom McNaughton).
The following was spoken by Paul Hon in the context of how to be one with the ministry:
The Father is #1, the Son is #2, the Spirit is #3, and Witness Lee is #4; and then there are those with Witness Lee. Don Rutledge asked, Paul, who is #5. Paul replied that it is not yet clear who #5 is. Then Paul continued, You brothers don’t have access to Brother Lee; Andrew Yu and I do. We can walk into Brother Lee’s apartment any time and sit down to eat breakfast with him. The way to know what Brother Lee wants is to do is to be in contact with those who have access to him. They will tell you what he wants you to do. Don Rutledge asked, Isn’t this a hierarchy and the exercise of control? Paul replied, No! Then Don asked, How then does this differ from what we’ve been condemning. Paul answered, If the local brothers would practice in this way to carry out their burden, it would be a hierarchy and control. But if this is practiced to carry out the ministry’s burden, it is not hierarchy or control.
I doubt we'll ever find evidence of a claim that Lee was the fourth person of the trinity in LSM literature.Actually, when Lee heard this kind of speaking was going around he vehemently put a stop to it (from what I heard). So no, the LSM literature will never make such claims for Lee.
But he consistently and deliberately built a climate which fostered such statements. He built a system in which the route to the top was through loudly and repeatedly making outrageously positive statements about the person and work of Witness Lee. That was one's ticket to the top. Promote Lee and you got promoted. That's how the network got built.
So the idea of "taking the last seat at the banquet feast" was ignored. It wasn't consistent with Chinese cultural practice, and therefore it wasn't helpful to the cause, the network-building process.
TLFisher
08-15-2015, 11:39 AM
If the local brothers would practice in this way to carry out their burden, it would be a hierarchy and control. But if this is practiced to carry out the ministry’s burden, it is not hierarchy or control.
What's the difference? I don't see any whether it's one or two or a council. The result is still hierarchy and control. Case and point Bellevue, Washington and Vista, California.
An explanation of what happened is in Speaking the Truth in Love under Appendix A:
A statement made by Paul Hon to Don Rutledge in July 1986, in Don’s home in Dallas. (Witnesses present: Bill Lawson, Louis Chen, Tom McNaughton).
People like Paul Hon, Andrew Yu, Ray Graver et al are now the ones running the show. They early on grasped where the bread was being buttered. It wasn't the ground of oneness, nor the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. It was the ministry of Witness Lee. And those who couldn't stand the growing stench got out. It is man-glorifying culture, pure and simple.
Of course the Asians aren't exclusive to pyramid-building schemes. But this one has the hallmarks of Asian culture, if you look closely. Statements that have nothing to do with the Bible reveal its cultural imperatives. "The age of the spiritual giants is over" is an example. The various Great Leap Forward-style pronouncements from the HQ. The total lack of accountability or reciprocity. The blatant disregard for the poor.... even the RCC at least pays lip service to helping those in need.
Freedom
08-15-2015, 12:17 PM
Actually, when Lee heard this kind of speaking was going around he vehemently put a stop to it (from what I heard). So no, the LSM literature will never make such claims for Lee.
But he consistently and deliberately built a climate which fostered such statements. He built a system in which the route to the top was through loudly and repeatedly making outrageously positive statements about the person and work of Witness Lee. That was one's ticket to the top. Promote Lee and you got promoted. That's how the network got built.
So the idea of "taking the last seat at the banquet feast" was ignored. It wasn't consistent with Chinese cultural practice, and therefore it wasn't helpful to the cause, the network-building process.
You made a good point. W. Lee didn't necessarily need to promote himself, because he had others to do it for him. If people complained enough (such as with what Paul Hon said), then Lee could give someone a slap on the wrist. It was convenient for Lee, because he could claim that he hadn't promoted himself and he could point a finger at others if LCers felt he was being uplifted.
Lee build a system that reward loyalty to him and his ministry. Those who are leaders today knew how to use that to their own advantage. They can claim that they are simply following the ministry, but the fact is, they like being leaders. Don Rutledge said the following about Benson: "Benson shared with me that when he was in high school he had received a special call from the Lord. One evening he went out to a golf course and lay on a green as he prayed. The Lord showed him that he would head a world-wide religious organization." I guess that worked out well for Benson. It is apparently what he wanted from the start. Loyalty to Lee and his ministry was the key.
Of course the Asians aren't exclusive to pyramid-building schemes. But this one has the hallmarks of Asian culture, if you look closely. Statements that have nothing to do with the Bible reveal its cultural imperatives. "The age of the spiritual giants is over" is an example. The various Great Leap Forward-style pronouncements from the HQ. The total lack of accountability or reciprocity. The blatant disregard for the poor.... even the RCC at least pays lip service to helping those in need.
Just saw a TV documentary about Mao. After he put in place one of his various Great Leap Forward-style pronouncements, millions were starving to death in China. His second in command and Mao's chosen successor -- Liu Shaoqi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Shaoqi#Conflict_with_Mao) -- dared to blame the famine on failed public policy. Consequently Liu received the "Ingalls" treatment by Chairman Mao, paraded thru the streets as an enemy of state, and, of course, much worse. His only crime was expecting a little "accountability" from government when millions were starving.
It almost appeared like the cultural revolution was set up just to eliminate Liu.
TLFisher
08-15-2015, 02:21 PM
People like Paul Hon, Andrew Yu, Ray Graver et al are now the ones running the show. They early on grasped where the bread was being buttered. It wasn't the ground of oneness, nor the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. It was the ministry of Witness Lee. And those who couldn't stand the growing stench got out. It is man-glorifying culture, pure and simple.
Man-fearing instead of God-fearing. No matter how well intended elders may be, they are paralyzed by the man-fearing system LSM affiliated local churches are in.
You made a good point. W. Lee didn't necessarily need to promote himself, because he had others to do it for him. If people complained enough (such as with what Paul Hon said), then Lee could give someone a slap on the wrist. It was convenient for Lee, because he could claim that he hadn't promoted himself and he could point a finger at others if LCers felt he was being uplifted.
Exactly.
Lee had it both ways. He is on record back in the early days saying he is nothing, only a servant, not an apostle, etc.
By the early 80's, that all had changed.
Man-fearing instead of God-fearing. No matter how well intended elders may be, they are paralyzed by the man-fearing system LSM affiliated local churches are in.
That is a true statement, and the only brothers that get tapped to be elders are the obsequious butt kissers. Those with an active conscience or those with kohonees get the boot or the knife. Only the relatives of the maximum brother could swagger and all they got was the booty until the status of the maximum brother was threatened and then they got the boot, but never the knife. The knife is saved for the elders that dare to follow their conscience.
It almost appeared like the cultural revolution was set up just to eliminate Liu.
Striking parallel, really; uncanny when you think about it*: all the turmoils, from the 'Young Galileans' forward, each ended with Lee more firmly in control. Turmoil and unrest was a way of eliminating potential rivals to power.
For example, when his son was discovered to be groping the help, Lee cast it as a "rebellion"**, which resulted in the removal of his former "closest co-worker" John Ingalls, whose name was then expunged from the records.
Maybe they do this in China instead of having periodic elections - they have periodic purges. Implement some grandiose "New Way", and then in the subsequent unrest, eliminate the competition***.
* But I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so it's probably just a remarkable coincidence.
** I.e. "Fermentation of the Present Rebellion", Witness Lee's account of the Philip Lee fiasco.
*** The unfortunate losses among the flock during the turmoil are collateral damage, or "storm damage" as I heard a LC member call it.
Freedom
08-16-2015, 10:24 AM
Striking parallel, really; uncanny when you think about it*: all the turmoils, from the 'Young Galileans' forward, each ended with Lee more firmly in control. Turmoil and unrest was a way of eliminating potential rivals to power.
For example, when his son was discovered to be groping the help, Lee cast it as a "rebellion"**, which resulted in the removal of his former "closest co-worker" John Ingalls, whose name was then expunged from the records.
Maybe they do this in China instead of having periodic elections - they have periodic purges. Implement some grandiose "New Way", and then in the subsequent unrest, eliminate the competition***.
* But I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so it's probably just a remarkable coincidence.
** I.e. "Fermentation of the Present Rebellion", Witness Lee's account of the Philip Lee fiasco.
*** The unfortunate losses among the flock during the turmoil are collateral damage, or "storm damage" as I heard a LC member call it.
For me, it just goes to show how much culture was really a part of things. In America, it seems like political figures love to talk about their differences and explain how they are different from their opponents. Dissension and debate are expectations. With Communist Party in China, all differences and dissension was met with purges. Lee definitely followed in their footsteps.
For me, it just goes to show how much culture was really a part of things. In America, it seems like political figures love to talk about their differences and explain how they are different from their opponents. Dissension and debate are expectations. With Communist Party in China, all differences and dissension was met with purges. Lee definitely followed in their footsteps.
From the moment I learned that Lee assaulted the reputation of John Ingalls et. al. simply for trying to protect the sisters from Phillip Lee's "advances," I lost nearly all respect for Lee, his family, and his blinded supporters.
awareness
08-16-2015, 12:40 PM
From the moment I learned that Lee assaulted the reputation of John Ingalls et. al. simply for trying to protect the sisters from Phillip Lee's "advances," I lost nearly all respect for Lee, his family, and his blinded supporters.
What causes people to stay in the LC even after all that?
What causes people to stay in the LC even after all that?
For those who know, the perks of leadership.
For those who don't know better, the "vision."
awareness
08-16-2015, 02:36 PM
For those who know, the perks of leadership.
For those who don't know better, the "vision."
But we can now clearly see that the "vision" is just an illusion. So, I guess it holds true then. That, there's none so blind as those that refuse to see.
Like the brother now in the Church in Miami, that Kevin (another ex-LCer) and I spoke to on cell phones. We tried to share what we had learned on LC forums but he stopped us short and said, "I don't want to hear anything negative about Witness Lee! Even if it's true!"
But I know why he stays in. He's an alcoholic, and is a very broken, or messed up, brother. His mental disorders allows him to buy into the illusion of the vision. His out of whack brain is not necessary.
But there must also be other reasons that keep people in the LC, besides those staying for the perks of leadership. Maybe, for example, lack of education. Or maybe indoctrination from a Christian upbringing, that clouds their vision from seeing thru the illusionary "Vision." Or maybe lack of critical thinking. That would do it. In other words, they are mentally trapped, for some reason(s). And that's sad for them. Obviously they are in need of intervention, and deprogramming.
But we can now clearly see that the "vision" is just an illusion. So, I guess it holds true then. That, there's none so blind as those that refuse to see.
Like the brother now in the Church in Miami, that Kevin (another ex-LCer) and I spoke to on cell phones. We tried to share what we had learned on LC forums but he stopped us short and said, "I don't want to hear anything negative about Witness Lee! Even if it's true!"
But I know why he stays in. He's an alcoholic, and is a very broken, or messed up, brother. His mental disorders allows him to buy into the illusion of the vision. His out of whack brain is not necessary.
But there must also be other reasons that keep people in the LC, besides those staying for the perks of leadership. Maybe, for example, lack of education. Or maybe indoctrination from a Christian upbringing, that clouds their vision from seeing thru the illusionary "Vision." Or maybe lack of critical thinking. That would do it. In other words, they are mentally trapped, for some reason(s). And that's sad for them. Obviously they are in need of intervention, and deprogramming.
For some in some localities, I think, there is some fellowship of the Spirit, some care for human needs, some friendships where the dear saints mostly ignore the BS from the blinding brothers and take care of one another.
awareness
08-16-2015, 03:27 PM
For some in some localities, I think, there is some fellowship of the Spirit, some care for human needs, some friendships where the dear saints mostly ignore the BS from the blinding brothers and take care of one another.
So to them it's a club. Nothing wrong with that. But don't give we, "we're better than fallen Christianity." Lots of churches have members taking care of each other.
So to them it's a club. Nothing wrong with that. But don't give we, "we're better than fallen Christianity." Lots of churches have members taking care of each other.
Yes that attitude is sad. The Spirit is so large and so loving that he takes care of all the sheep.
TLFisher
08-16-2015, 04:51 PM
What causes people to stay in the LC even after all that?
From my experience, reports of Philip Lee's offenses is dismissed as rumors, lies, etc. That's because "the brothers said so".
Beyond that, I see people staying for several reasons:
1. Older brothers and sisters: vision regarding the ground of locality (aka doctrine of dirt).
2. Younger brothers and sisters: generally being ones raised in the local churches it's the only Christian environment they know so meeting in the local churches is tradition and a form. By comparison there's no difference from ones raised in a Southern Baptist Convention affiliated church. The thought of meeting anywhere else is not a consideration.
Freedom
08-16-2015, 09:09 PM
But there must also be other reasons that keep people in the LC, besides those staying for the perks of leadership. Maybe, for example, lack of education. Or maybe indoctrination from a Christian upbringing, that clouds their vision from seeing thru the illusionary "Vision." Or maybe lack of critical thinking. That would do it. In other words, they are mentally trapped, for some reason(s). And that's sad for them. Obviously they are in need of intervention, and deprogramming.
There are a lot of reasons people stay, after all the LC is a system designed to keep people in. One example that comes to mind is when I was a college student and struggling financially, a LC member came to me and offered me significant financial assistance. At first, it sounded like an offer I should take that person up on. The more I thought about it, however, the more I realized that I needed to work things out on my own (which I did). I understood the implications, the feelings of "indebtedness" it would create, and I had no idea if there were any motives behind the offer.
I think situations like what I described are ways people can get trapped. It's not always so simple. It could be a brother giving another brother a job. It could be living in close vicinity to numerous other LC members. Anything that makes it hard to have an escape route once someone realizes they want out.
There are other reasons too. I've seen cases like your friend you described; recovering alcoholics, or people with significant personal problems. They tend to need community, and the LC can provide that. The LC also provides a soapbox (open meetings) where people can stand up and tell everyone about their problems. Maybe they see the LC as a better alternative to things like support groups and AA meetings. Unless there is something that meets the needs of these kinds of people better, they are going to stay. Like Rayliotta has said before, there is somewhat of a "revolving door". Some people are in for the LC for a while, then they disappear for a few months to a year, and as sure as the sun, they are back in eventually.
What causes people to stay in the LC even after all that?
I think that the vision retained its hold over us because we didn't see it for what it really was - a viewpoint derived from and mediated by fallen human culture. Its very existence, and its retention in our minds and behaviors, was due to the fact that we didn't receive it critically, but accepted it as true and real in and of itself. However, as soon as one examines it critically, it unravels (i.e. reveals its source), and its power is gone.
Why did we accept the LC vision uncritically in the first place? From my experience and observation, because it was presented in a charismatic experience. Nobody told me about Daystar or Overseas Christian Stewards, but rather we were chanting, shouting, swaying, singing repetitiously and repeating words and phrases over and over and over to "get out of our minds" and "into our spirit". The sensory stimulus overload was emotionally affecting, and began to cloud my judgment (not that I had much to start with, he-he-he). You could have told me the sky was green and the moon was made of Gouda cheese and I'd have shouted it forth. It was real (I thought) and I wanted it to be my reality. So I swallowed the "church life" package whole, as we all did.
When this charismatic phenomena has settled in as the new normal, reinforced by all the perks of community life (housing, food, job, companions, sexual mate), it's hard to disentangle oneself, even when the obvious disparities between the Bible and our LC life become increasingly apparent.
But once you see it for what it is, that power or hold on your mind is broken. Teresa Zimmerman-Liu's work on the LC may be seen as a watershed, some years hence, because an objective assessment of the LC is needed, to really expose it for what it is. Ohio has his "GLA experience" and awareness had his "Mel Porter experience" and so forth. These forums have given us a place to vent our subjective experiences and reactions. But where's the bigger picture? Zimmerman-Liu's papers are arguably only scratching the surface.
Secondly, what will happen when the light of day finally dawns on this cloistered, controlling sect? Because it will, eventually. The light will shine into the darkness, and the darkness will not be able to overcome (i.e. withstand) it. The mantra of "I'm proud to be an ostrich with my head stuck in the sand" isn't really a recipe for long-term success, is it? Eventually, the light will shine into the dark places and all will be revealed. Then what?
Why did we accept the LC vision uncritically in the first place? From my experience and observation, because it was presented in a charismatic experience.
Definitely I agree with this, but ...
Within that charismatic experience was the real thing -- the Spirit of reality, the Lord Jesus Himself bring me to the Father. The abundant fruit in my life and others is just undeniable. I was a new person, and even those who didn't know my name came forward to tell me. And that was before I entered the LC.
This is not to say that all genuine faith requires incredible charismatic experience. Not at all. That is undeniable also. But I do pray that every child of God has such a dynamic salvation as mine, since it lays such a solid foundation for the endless trials that will surely come.
What is most criminal about the Recovery was the slow and steady indoctrination that our experiences of faith should be solely credited to Lee & Company, and not to our heavenly Father. Like I said criminal.
Truth
08-18-2015, 10:27 AM
Originally Posted by awareness:
What causes people to stay in the LC even after all that?
I've come to realized that only way I would be able to leave the LC is by moving to a city where there isn't one.
For me it is because I grew up in the LC. All my friends, family, network, EVERYTHING I have is from there. To leave it just like that is to pull the rug from under my feet. I would have nothing to stand on. I would destroy solid relationships (not because they are not real friends, but it would create an awkwardness). The relationships would continue, but be quite difficult since LC members are advised not to hang out with negative people. Lastly, not to mention, it would be very difficult for my parents whose entire life depend on the LC network, especially at their old age. I think it is actually good for them. Many seniors are lonely, but my parents are not because they have a great network of friends and activities in the LC. Of course, they actually believe in all this stuff, which helps.
However, in heart, I have already left the LC's. I haven't really attended a meeting for a long time (I have a good excuse so no one really notices). I still hang out with the LC people though, but it is really all social for me at this point. And I do genuinely care for my friends in it. I do also enjoy being with them. We are going through the same phases in life, but our beliefs are very different now. I no longer believe in the "Vision of the Age" as preached by WL. Of course, no one knows this. Even though I no longer believe in my heart, I haven't official announced my stance, nor have I criticized WL's teachings and person apart from doing it anonymously on this forum.
Lastly, not to mention, it would be very difficult for my parents whose entire life depend on the LC network, especially at their old age. I think it is actually good for them. Many seniors are lonely, but my parents are not because they have a great network of friends and activities in the LC. Of course, they actually believe in all this stuff, which helps.
Thanks for saying this Truth.
I have commented several times that many stay in the LC for friendships. Friendships and relationships grow increasingly important as one ages. This is especially true of older people. And I do appreciate your attitude not recklessly leaving the program with a trail of wounded family members. Also, many older saints have learned to filter out some of the LSM nonsense, while maintaining their walk with the Lord and love for His word. Look at the 7 churches in Revelation. The Lord had His lovers in every one of them, even where Jezebel was.
Truth
08-18-2015, 02:37 PM
Thanks for saying this Truth.
I have commented several times that many stay in the LC for friendships. Friendships and relationships grow increasingly important as one ages. This is especially true of older people. And I do appreciate your attitude not recklessly leaving the program with a trail of wounded family members. Also, many older saints have learned to filter out some of the LSM nonsense, while maintaining their walk with the Lord and love for His word. Look at the 7 churches in Revelation. The Lord had His lovers in every one of them, even where Jezebel was.
You are so right about older saints filtering out the nonsense. This doesn't apply to just older saints, but many of the younger ones as well. I have a hard time believing that every saint actually agrees with every comment that WL and LSM leaders ever made. Most don't want to cause trouble, however, so they just ignore what is said and move on.
Actually I witnessed this often in the FTTA as well. The ones who could not filter had a hard time in the training and eventually left.
I've come to realized that only way I would be able to leave the LC is by moving to a city where there isn't one.
For me it is because I grew up in the LC. All my friends, family, network, EVERYTHING I have is from there. To leave it just like that is to pull the rug from under my feet. I would have nothing to stand on. I would destroy solid relationships (not because they are not real friends, but it would create an awkwardness). The relationships would continue, but be quite difficult since LC members are advised not to hang out with negative people. Lastly, not to mention, it would be very difficult for my parents whose entire life depend on the LC network, especially at their old age. I think it is actually good for them. Many seniors are lonely, but my parents are not because they have a great network of friends and activities in the LC. Of course, they actually believe in all this stuff, which helps.
However, in heart, I have already left the LC's. I haven't really attended a meeting for a long time (I have a good excuse so no one really notices). I still hang out with the LC people though, but it is really all social for me at this point. And I do genuinely care for my friends in it. I do also enjoy being with them. We are going through the same phases in life, but our beliefs are very different now. I no longer believe in the "Vision of the Age" as preached by WL. Of course, no one knows this. Even though I no longer believe in my heart, I haven't official announced my stance, nor have I criticized WL's teachings and person apart from doing it anonymously on this forum.Tough place to be. Worse than I had it. I at least had 18 years of life before the LC. But joining up was with family — father, mother, sister, and brother. Now all their families. But my wife and I left after only 14 years (for me) and that was almost exactly 28 years ago. At this point the only other one to leave has been my dad (left just a little over 2 years ago — after 40 years.
We lived in Irving within one mile of the meeting hall/printing/conference center there. Yet somehow we hardly ever saw anyone after leaving. It is like they dissappeared. Not suggesting you could have the same experience.
Definitely I agree with this, but ...
Within that charismatic experience was the real thing -- the Spirit of reality, the Lord Jesus Himself bring me to the Father. The abundant fruit in my life and others is just undeniable.
Absolutely. The charismatic experience has also been essential to my Christian life. I don't regret a minute of the LC experience, if that's what it took. But I have to admit that an awful bug came into my mind, and it took years to shake it out.
"Cry out and shout, O inhabitant of Zion" indeed. But also, "prove all things". We did the first in the LC but completely neglected the second. Instead of "prove all things" it was "Brother Lee says". And this is not exclusive to the LC experience. But I keep bringing it up because they pretend that charismatic mind-control is not part of the agenda, when it surely is. So what if they don't speak in tongues or practice laying on of hands? They're an extremely charismatic group, and these practices, combined with an attitude of unquestioning obedience (don't want to be 'negative', we were always reminded) allowed some really ruinous ideas to set up shop in LC brain pans.
It was conditioning, pure and simple. But we didn't realize it, so even if we left physically, we never bothered to de-condition ourselves mentally. So many who left the LC had no clue as to how to continue a christian life and living.
A word on the dangers of charismatic mind-control (I speak as a former and current charismatic [noisy Christian]). I once read a transcript from the podium of one of the Todd Bentley Lakeland Florida Revival meetings. The syntax was fractured, there was no coherent message, it was a pastiche of "Oh my God" and "I feel Jesus in my shoe" and a few Old Testament phrases. Where's the edification? As a Christian, it was embarrassing. We in the LC weren't much better: we'd chant-shout whatever our handlers fed us - "Let's all declare Banner Two up on that wall, over there!"
No opportunity for reflection, for correction, for adjustment, for uncertainty, for wonder. It was all volume, arm-waving, red-faced intensity; a dangerous mixture of zeal and ignorance.
Am I over-reacting? Of course. I always do. But there's a warning there, not to think that excitement equals divine transmission. In many cases excitement can distract us, and I highlight the danger that it weakens our God-given defenses of reason, to get us to uncritically accept things that are not of God. Scripture is ignored, or explained away. Eventually the disconnect between the plain words on paper in front of us and what we are saying becomes quite disconcerting. But we are too busy shouting, pray-reading, declaring, jumping up and down, and arm-waving to notice.
Freedom
08-19-2015, 08:34 AM
You are so right about older saints filtering out the nonsense. This doesn't apply to just older saints, but many of the younger ones as well. I have a hard time believing that every saint actually agrees with every comment that WL and LSM leaders ever made. Most don't want to cause trouble, however, so they just ignore what is said and move on.
Actually I witnessed this often in the FTTA as well. The ones who could not filter had a hard time in the training and eventually left.
I think most have learned to filter out the nonsense to a certain extent, but at the same time, they aren't willing to ask the very questions that leaders need to be pressed to answer.
I've seen people come into the LC and initially have a change for the better. It seems there is the tendency to let that experience be defining for the rest of their time in the LC. So if somewhere along the line someone starts having negative experiences in the LC, it's easy to just refer back to their initial positive experience and attempt to ignore the negative, thinking that the LC was instrumental in producing a positive experience. It makes it hard for people to leave.
Most people can only ignore concerns for so long. It would seem to me that LCers who have lasted a long time are either there for the social aspect, or maybe have managed to avoid most of the politics.
... it just goes to show how much culture was really a part of things. In America, it seems like political figures love to talk about their differences and explain how they are different from their opponents. Dissension and debate are expectations. With Communist Party in China, all differences and dissension was met with purges. Lee definitely followed in their footsteps.
In the Blended Brothers' dissociation from Titus Chu, they note the existence of a "rivalry" and "independent work" ("Warning to All the Saints and All the Churches,” p. 2). Of course this is not tolerated in the LC movement, under the Blendeds. But why the surprise? It wasn't tolerated under WN or WL either. It was all about lining up, and handing over, and being blended one with another in a faceless proletariat under Maximum Brother. This is the way of social harmony, and this will build up the Whole. Whether you call it the People or the Party or the Body of Christ, the methods and the result is the same. Keep your head down and your mouth shut. Glorify the State (Body of Christ) and the Maximum Brother(s).
But why is it that the Maximum Leader is the Deputy God on earth, while every other work is a "rivalry"? Why did WL get to "raise up" hundreds of local churches in the LC while any meeting not under his ministry was "drawing others after oneself"? Why did WL get a special pass, extended to none other? I believe that it was consistent with a cultural view of building up a social network, which required a clear center and no discussion of the path to that center. So if Maximum Brother comes up with a ruinous plan like Daystar or Door Knocking, we all shout what glorious wisdom from on high, that God has spoken to us from his present Oracle. Any ones who question, or wonder, or point out deficiencies, are removed from the network. To me, this is very Asian, not Western, and thus the 'cult' label sticks. An organization that brooks no conversation, no question, no individuality, looks like a cult to Western eyes. This is a rigidly Asian religious group. Initially the recruit may think, "Wow, these people are hard-core religious", but really they are a religious group that formed itself and runs itself through a very rigid and unyielding Asian cultural filter. This is the Local Church Way. Take it or leave it.
TLFisher
08-20-2015, 12:56 PM
So if Maximum Brother comes up with a ruinous plan like Daystar or Door Knocking, we all shout what glorious wisdom from on high, that God has spoken to us from his present Oracle. Any ones who question, or wonder, or point out deficiencies, are removed from the network. To me, this is very Asian, not Western, and thus the 'cult' label sticks. An organization that brooks no conversation, no question, no individuality, looks like a cult to Western eyes. This is a rigidly Asian religious group. Initially the recruit may think, "Wow, these people are hard-core religious", but really they are a religious group that formed itself and runs itself through a very rigid and unyielding Asian cultural filter. This is the Local Church Way. Take it or leave it.
Those in the leadership that take the approach "image is everything" at all costs (i.e. the ends justifies the means) in respect to Maximum brothers and LSM, yes I would agree. Yet generally I would prefer sect or denomination as a more appropriate description as the whole.
It's been over a year since I've left the lords recovery and I can testify that I'm happy, enjoying the Lord and learning to be one with normal Christians. My family life is much better, my daughter is doing great in our local community church. If any of you have a feeling that the LSM LC is off or not healthy, please know that there is life, truth, and love in the body of Christ not associated with the LSM sect.
It's been over a year since I've left the lords recovery and I can testify that I'm happy, enjoying the Lord and learning to be one with normal Christians. My family life is much better, my daughter is doing great in our local community church. If any of you have a feeling that the LSM LC is off or not healthy, please know that there is life, truth, and love in the body of Christ not associated with the LSM sect.
Dear LC Lurkers,
If the elders in your locality look to the writings of WL before they look to the Bible, then your locality may be under the influence of evil spirits.
If the elders in your locality consider WL to be their spiritual father, then your locality may be under the influence of evil spirits.
If the elders in your locality teach that only LSM associated local churches are the genuine church of Jesus Christ, then your locality may be under the influence of evil spirits.
If the elders in your locality care for the human needs of only those absolute for the ministry of WL, then your locality may be under the influence of evil spirits.
If the elders in your locality teach that all other Christian groups are prostitutes, then your locality may be under the influence of evil spirits.
If the elders in your locality teach that only LSM approved music is acceptable to God, then your locality may be under the influence of evil spirits.
If the elders in your locality warn the saints to ignore their consciences, then your locality may be under the influence of evil spirits.
If the elders in your locality try to hide the sins of elders and LSM officials, then your locality may be under the influence of evil spirits.
If you sense that your locality may be under the influence of evil spirits, then pray that the Father would open your eyes to what you need to see, and close your eyes to things you don't need to see.
I need to add the following:
If any of the elders in your locality or blended brothers at LSM claim to have drunk from WL's spirit or from the spirit of any man except Christ, then run like hell because they are certifiably crazy (in my opinion).
I need to add the following:
If any of the elders in your locality or blended brothers at LSM claim to have drunk from WL's spirit or from the spirit of any man except Christ, then run like hell because they are certifiably crazy (in my opinion).
Whenever the blendeds started foaming at the mouth that Lee was the 4th person of the Trinity, he'd knock them down. "Don't say that! I'm just a Bible expositor". But he'd let them go up to that point of absurdity. He just wouldn't let them cross the line.
And then, he surrounded himself with such yes-men. Where in the LC history do you see a situation in which there was "much discussion" a la the conference in Acts 15 (see esp v 7)? The Apostles of Lee existed, and continue to exist, for one reason: to repeat verbatim what came out of the mouth of the Master. No discussion is warranted.
So Lee deliberately created an environment in which such ridiculous statements as "I have drunk from the spirit of Witness Lee" would come forth. The really bad ones, the clunkers, got shuttled back into darkness, but the ones that they felt could survive in the light became banners on the wall. "God's humble bondslave" and "the ministry of the age" etc.
If you sense that your locality may be under the influence of evil spirits, then pray that the Father would open your eyes to what you need to see, and close your eyes to things you don't need to see.
Forgive me if I drag this thought astray. But there are arguably evil forces working throughout the world. Who is pure? God. The Baptists, the RCC, the EO all have non-divine, i.e. 'fallen' influences at work. So the LC faithful look at the world, and decide to prefer the devil they know, than the devil they don't.
In the LC I remember the schema of Israel = the Church; Babylon = Religion, and Egypt = the World. In the LC we were attuned to accept the darkness in the [LC] church life while rejecting the darkness everywhere else. WL called it the "messy kitchen" - we were supposed to overlook ours, and have patience with its imperfection, while constantly highlighting that of others'.
I believe that this has its source in cultural influences. You must begin to appreciate the amount of resentment in China during the first decades of the 20th Century. This was a civilization with centuries if not millennia of development. And along come these people, the "barbarians", who take over essentially because they have more guns. Technology. Remember that this was 19th century foreign policy. The whole continent of Africa, for instance, was divvied up by the people with the most guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Conference
And Asia was no different. So even though the simplicity of the gospel had its attraction - believe into Jesus Christ and be saved - its association with the hated, feared, and resented Westerners was very problematic. Watchman Nee thought that he'd cut the proverbial Gordian Knot with his indigenous localism. Tens of thousands agreed, and streamed in during the 1920s and 1930s. Whole churches abandoned Western affiliation and came onboard with the "normal church model" proposed by Nee.
Now the problem is, as I see it, that a model built upon intrinsic criticism and rejection of the previous version is itself going to be blind to its own faults. Because its existence owes itself to the rejection of "other" (non-self), then it cannot take input from that which it rejected. Even though Nee supposedly read all the Christian classics, and drew from them, once he got the "localism" revelation/virus he was perforce cut off from fellowship (read: guidance, critique, adjustment) of those "non-local others" who'd also drank from the same Christian well. Thus, any errors or darkness which he'd missed lacked the way to be pruned over time, and grew and grew until the whole thing became a great tree, lodging many dark birds. And the entire Nee tree continually owes its existence to the idea that it's without birds... so the branches groan, and bird droppings magically appear everywhere, but there are no birds here!
At our one-another meeting Thursday night a brother who is Eastern Orthodox prayed a heartfelt prayer for the persecuted and being-martyred Christians in the Middle East, it was then that I realized that these saints are the real overcomers, not the ministry loving WL honoring blended brothers. The lord said the first will be last and the last will be first. What does this say about the LSM LS group who claims they are the only ones one for gods move on the earth.
Freedom
10-03-2015, 10:58 AM
At our one-another meeting Thursday night a brother who is Eastern Orthodox prayed a heartfelt prayer for the persecuted and being-martyred Christians in the Middle East, it was then that I realized that these saints are the real overcomers, not the ministry loving WL honoring blended brothers. The lord said the first will be last and the last will be first. What does this say about the LSM LS group who claims they are the only ones one for gods move on the earth.
Growing up in the LC, I always felt so happy to be part of the group that had supposedly "recovered" long lost truths and unlocked the Bible. Unfortunately, the only thing that mindset led to was pride. There are plenty of other Christian groups out there, not claiming to be anything special, not claiming to be better than anyone else. It's really sad when you see the LC pride compared with the humility of others.
Some time back, there was a community church that sent out flyers about an event they were holding for the community. A brother brought this flyer to a meeting and used it to attack what they were doing, saying how in the LC we don't have such "gimmicks". It made me feel sick inside to hear him speak that way. Here was a community church opening their arm to the community to have such an event. In contrast, the LC is so exclusive that they hardly have any contact wit the community. They think they're too good for that. Sad, sad, sad!
I remember being in a meeting where a brother stood up to say how we don't speak the "low gospel" like Billy Graham, Greg Laurie or Rick Warren. When I think about how often I've seen empty seats in LC meeting halls, it disgusts me to think they would criticize others like that. They criticize the so-called low gospel, yet their "gospel" isn't relevant to most people. What hypocrites LCers are!
At our one-another meeting Thursday night a brother who is Eastern Orthodox prayed a heartfelt prayer for the persecuted and being-martyred Christians in the Middle East, it was then that I realized that these saints are the real overcomers, not the ministry loving WL honoring blended brothers. The lord said the first will be last and the last will be first. What does this say about the LSM LS group who claims they are the only ones one for gods move on the earth.
Correction: He's not a member of the EO church, but receives the teachings from the Apostolic and Eastern Church Fathers.
Freedom
10-04-2015, 07:03 PM
Correction: He's not a member of the EO church, but receives the teachings from the Apostolic and Eastern Church Fathers.
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to tour a Greek Orthodox Church. It was an interesting experience. Above anything else, I came to realize that despite all the icons they venerate, they are just as devout as any group, and even have a rich history that they are quite excited to share about. Is the LC excited to share about their history, or do they seek to hide it from view? When I was member immersed in the system, I would have been quick to criticize such groups. Now, I am happy to appreciate those who are different. There is no need to criticize, for I am no better. There is much value in having a mutual respect for other Christians.
InChristAlone
10-05-2015, 05:24 AM
I came to realize that despite all the icons they venerate, they are just as devout as any group, and even have a rich history that they are quite excited to share about.
Freedom, thank you for your kind words! :) As an Eastern Orthodox, I must admit that it's true that we venerate icons but there is a difference between veneration/reverence and worship (http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/icon_faq.aspx). We pray in the presence of icons but we do not pray to the images. Icons are just images of the Lord and His faithful saints who pray for us and with us in His Church. Besides, icons remind us of heavenly realms and work as a trigger for prayer that helps to focus our attention.
Lately, I have found this article about Dura Europos Synagogue ~ 244 A.D: ‘Ancient Jewish synagogues were filled with icons. While Scripture required the inside of the Jerusalem Temple to display icons of angels, the icons in Jewish synagogues depicted numerous scenes from Scripture. Dura Europos Synagogue is one of the oldest synagogues in the world and it has extensive figurative wall-paintings. The Early Church emerged from Israel, and we inherited the Israelite’s ancient love for icons. Like the early Jewish synagogues, the catacombs and the most ancient Christian Churches were filled with holy icons’ (https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/ancient-jewish-icons). The images look foreign for modern Americans but the Church was not founded in the US but in Palestine, 33AD.
When I was member immersed in the system, I would have been quick to criticize such groups. Now, I am happy to appreciate those who are different. There is no need to criticize, for I am no better. There is much value in having a mutual respect for other Christians.
The LC's exclusivism and constant criticism of Christianity made me leave the LRC. It was not even constructive criticism. They were rather statements and mere assertion. In the LC's conferences and meetings, they used to tell us how good it is to be in the Local Church and how blind those who are in denominations. "Denomination" itself was like a curse word. And the worst case was Roman Catholics. I used to hear such conversations in the LRC: "Is she Christian?" "No, she is Roman Catholic". I find it very sectarian to make such a division between “Us” and “Them”.
Correction: He's not a member of the EO church, but receives the teachings from the Apostolic and Eastern Church Fathers.
I know it's a different topic but what I like about Orthodoxy is that since “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever”, the Church has no need to conform to the newest fads, philosophies, and doctrines. In Orthodoxy, the criterion of truth is not my bishop's, or my pastor's, or my personal understanding of the Bible, but the consensus of the Church Fathers. The Church Fathers don't have to all agree on every detail. Orthodox doctrine is determined by the consensus of the Holy Fathers - those points on which they do agree. As St. Vincent of Lerins says in his Commonitoria (434 AD), “ we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.”
My wife is still very active in the LRC. But I'm glad she has enough wisdom, tolerance and love to stay with her husband who "has gone astray". As for me, I left WL and his teaching behind more than a year ago. And thank God, I still keep my wife. :)
We pray in the presence of icons but we do not pray to the images. Icons are just images of the Lord and His faithful saints who pray for us and with us in His Church. Besides, icons remind us of heavenly realms and work as a trigger for prayer that helps to focus our attention.I grew up in Puritanism, today called Fundamentalist Protestant Evangelicalism, in which icons and outward religious trappings were avoided like the plague. I'd get a nervous rash in the presence of liturgical things like icons, incense, vestments; my strong conditioning would make me uncomfortable. (Some might say that this reaction speaks to separation from the Father of Lights, but I'll leave that alone, because it's not my point). But in spite of strict training to avoid liturgical devices and flourishes, like those found in Anglican, RCC, and EO, over years as a "seeking one" I came to believe that the repository of faith, wisdom, experience in the EO is unparalleled. See ICA's comments, below.
I know it's a different topic but what I like about Orthodoxy is that since “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever”, the Church has no need to conform to the newest fads, philosophies, and doctrines. In Orthodoxy, the criterion of truth is not my bishop's, or my pastor's, or my personal understanding of the Bible, but the consensus of the Church Fathers. The Church Fathers don't have to all agree on every detail. Orthodox doctrine is determined by the consensus of the Holy Fathers - those points on which they do agree. As St. Vincent of Lerins says in his Commonitoria (434 AD), “ we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.”
It isn't a different topic, because this thread is on what to throw out, in a post-LC Christian life. In the various ruptures, most notably the Great Schism of 1054 and the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, a connection to the past fell away; in fact, so much was lost that we didn't know what had been lost! Subsequently, a minister like WN or WL could rise up, elevate themselves, and unfettered by external restraints could impose their logical trains of thought upon the flock. And because WN & WL weren't purely logical, but like us were sometimes driven by hidden passions, and because the consensus of the past no longer was there, when they inevitably went into a ditch, the whole group followed them.
This type of unbalanced reliance upon a single "seer of the divine revelation", and one so recently arrived at the present truth, and thus so divorced from the wisdom of the Ancient Fathers, is a recipe for ruin. WN was a brother, and maybe a better Christian than I, but to tie the Church to one man's inspiration and/or logic alone isn't going to work. Likewise, WL and the Blendeds claimed to be "closely following the apostles" but how could they, being separated from the past and oblivious to the vast gulf?
The LC's exclusivism and constant criticism of Christianity made me leave the LRC. It was not even constructive criticism. ... I find it very sectarian to make such a division between “Us” and “Them”.
One of WL's last public spoken messages (Feb '97) included a repentance for errors in the matter of receiving others. Yet in WN's first "Lord's table" meeting in mainland China, gathered apart from external oversight and celebrating the Lord's death and resurrection in simple faith, they claimed the presence of the Lord, and I don't doubt it. But what happened between that celebration and WL's repentance 75 years later? I've tried to address this question, not to solve the puzzle so much as to satisfy my curiosity: how could something so simple eventually go so wrong?
My best answer is that in being divorced from the safeguard of ancient witness, they were left the bare text of translated scripture and their thoughts and imaginations, and thus were blind to their own introduction of human culture in its interpretation. WN supposedly had read all the early commentaries available, but again, this was largely within the Reformation/Protestant canon, at least twice removed from the early saints and their collected wisdom. But we shouldn't hold it against him and his Little Flock efforts, because they did what they could. Would I have done better? I doubt it.
But I do reject the idea of having somehow arrived at the 'Conclusion of the New Testament' (see, e.g. http://www.christianbook.com/the-conclusion-of-the-new-testament/witness-lee/9780736335720/pd/335720 ) when the initial Christian discussion(s) were effectively ignored as if non-existent, or passe. Today we've hardly begun to explore the New Testament! I mean, why is the church's testimony so weak, and circumscribed? Because we're ignorant. Why do our individual lives lack the power of testimony? Because we're ignorant. Nothing wrong with being ignorant - the problem is being ignorant while thinking that you've attained wisdom. Then, "your blindness remains".
InChristAlone
10-06-2015, 04:58 AM
My thought is that in the various schisms, notably the Great Schism of 1054 and the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, a lot was lost; in fact, so much was lost, that we didn't know what was lost! So a minister like WN or WL could impose their logical trains of thought upon the entire populace, unfettered by any restraint.
Aron, thank you for your thoughtful comment. I can’t stand up to your intelligence, so I can only speak from simplicity of my mind. I agree with you that lots of things were lost. Unfortunately, the loss can be only noticed by people like you who have a good understanding of what the Church was before.
Look at the modern Christianity. Since the Great Schism and the Reformation, it’s falling apart, breaking into thousands and thousands of churches. Some of them allow gay priesthood and same sex marriages. Some of them reject the Trinity. Some don’t believe in the Resurrection. Some doubt that Christ is the Son of God. They all share the same Bible but have thousands of interpretations.
The early Christians didn’t have the Bible but they managed to keep the union by one faith, one practice, one mind, the same Sacraments, and the uninterrupted transmission of spiritual authority. There were small groups of people who had their own views but they were called heretics. Heretics did not belong to the Church. They opposed her.
The Church was created by our Lord as a vessel of salvation. Jesus Christ as the Captain gave His crew the right directions, promising that His ship would never sink. A thousand years later, a respected member of the crew decided to lead the ship by himself. He usurped the position of His Captain and called himself His vicar. But most of the crew stayed faithful to their Captain and rejected the usurper. The latter separated himself from the first ship and became the captain of his own boat. With time, his boat became even bigger and stronger than the first ship. However, the vicar of the Captain abused his power to such an extent that many passengers and members of his crew became displeased with his course. There was a big riot. During the riot, the protestants left the second boat and started to build their own boats. 5 centuries later, the boats and their captains still grew and multiplied. Almost nobody remembered the first ship. Some captains even said that she had never existed. For them, the Church was no longer the ship of salvation, but a collection of row boats.
So, they all had different captains, different crews, different faith, different practices, different minds, and different understanding of Sacraments. The numerous boats almost had no connection to the first ship. The only link was the Manual and a few doctrines (like the Trinity). All captains used the Manual of the first ship, rejecting her history, experience, practices, and knowledge. The captains believed that the first ship was a wreck and her crew went rogue. However, the same captains trusted the Manual which the “rogues” of the first ship had produced, protected, and actively preserved.
Accepting the Manual, the captains didn’t bother about its original interpretation. They thought they were smart enough to figure out the course. Few of them knew that the ship was first, and the Manual was second. They even forgot that the vessel of salvation is the Captain’s ship, not the Book, much less their boats. The Manual can give an idea about the course, show the direction and tell a lot about the Captain, but the Book can’t replace the Captain and His ship. Besides, the Manual doesn’t explain itself. Therefore, it is not enough to have the Manual to reach the shore. But who cares when you have your own boat?
So, one day WN and WL became captains of their own boats, too. They were natural-born captains, smart, well-trained and knowledgeable. Before they became captains, they were ship’s boys and got lots of information from captains of other boats. Surely, WN and WL thought they knew the direction better than others. They had the ancient Manual. What can be wrong with it? WL studied the Book well enough to announce that all other captains were miles off course. It was only him who knew the direction. He also claimed that his boat is the only right boat and only those who follow him will reach the shore of salvation. (Well, many captains claimed the same. So we can’t blame him. Will his boat bring her passengers to the shore?.. God knows. I am not sure about my own salvation, how can I judge others?)
As for the first ship, it’s still there. Her Captain has kept His promise. He has steered His ship through years and storms and she has survived. The passengers and the crew have kept the union by one faith, one practice, one mind, the Seven Sacraments, and the uninterrupted transmission of spiritual authority. They still remember the importance of the Manual but don’t forget the writings of the ancient crews whose consensus helps them interpret the Manual, keeping the same faith. They know that the ship is a vessel of salvation, but they also remember that not everyone on the ship can be saved. Judas was one of the Twelve and still perished. So, to stand on the ship and to reach the shore is not the same. The salvation is not granted automatically with the ship. It’s just the first step, the beginning of the journey and not the end. Salvation is a process of transformation. It’s not a matter of being declared “not guilty” by legal decree. It’s an organic restoration to union with the Captain, a process of “being saved” by God’s grace. The process doesn’t depend on membership or ranks. Moreover, the first ship has no monopoly on grace and truth and love. It belongs to her Captain Who saves those whom He wills; and He desires the salvation of every human being.
So, how much to throw out? According to who and compared to what? Where is the criterion of truth? Is it my own understanding of the Bible or WL’s interpretation or some other captain’s understanding?
No one knows for sure until he sets the right criterion and starts his own research. But who to ask? Passengers, crews, and captains of other boats? But where is the criterion which can guarantee that it’s the original teaching of the Church and not a personal opinion of some people in a boat?
To find out the truth, explorer should begin... at the beginning, from the original texts of ancient Christians: Gospels, the books of the Apostles, the Didache, The Shepherd of Hermas, the books of Apostolic Fathers (the disciples of the Apostles), the writings of their disciples and other Church Fathers, the Creeds, documents on the Church Councils, the lives of saints and the lives of ascetic Desert Fathers. Such an explorer can figure out the differences between his modern faith and the faith of early Christians. If the explorer's version of Christian faith, doctrines and practices doesn’t match the consensus of the Church Fathers, then the conclusion is easy: it’s whether his or their version of Christianity is wrong. And it’s up to him what to do with it. To throw his views and accept theirs, or to continue living in his comfortable boat.
I am sorry, I could be wrong but that is how I see it. Please, brothers and sisters, excuse me and my poor English.
Few of them knew that the ship was first, and the Manual was second...Now of course as a Protestant, "Sola Scriptora"-type, I immediately cry 'Wrong' but because of respect one must not reject outright, but must consider. And when considering, a funny thing happens... you know, it was the saints, meeting in groups - ekklesia - who wrote the texts we today call scripture. So the saints met in the name of Jesus, loved one another and exhorted one another "while it is still called today" (Heb 3:13), and out of this continued fellowship and mutual encouragement there arose documents which we call the New Testament. I.e. the manual, to use ICA's analogy.
Therefore I cannot reject outright ICA's statement. It has merit.
Now, what's the point of the exercise? For me, it is that different perspectives may shine light, and even bright light, on my path. The scriptures may jump out in bold relief, quivering with newness and vitality, where they once lay flat and cold.
ICA,
I think that you elevate the position of the EO above the RCC in a manner that is not truly sound. While there was the Schism, it was a split from the beginning. For either to declare that they are the original and the other is the one that split off is self-serving.
Truth is that both are the largest part of what had come to be out of the early church, but neither is simply the same as the first century church.
And both have veered-off, mostly because they listen only to their own counsel. Just like all those Protestant groups. None are simply the original. And none (well generally none) are simply wrong. The truth is that all have wandered relative to what we find in the scripture.
But you are correct to note that Protestantism has mostly dumped both the EO and the RCC as simply error. It is so popular to point to pet issues a being so severe that we should not even look upon them. Sort of a Medusa-like revulsion to even the mention of their names.
And that is a serious mistake. For all that we might argue has gone wrong with either, there is an aspect of connection to the history of the faith that is greatly missing within Protestantism. And it is not just some of the historic ways of worship.
I disagree that we can look at the general landscape of Christianity and declare any to be, in terms of your metaphorical story, the first ship. I would suggest that the EO and the RCC may have some claim to being among the older of the ships. But other than through clever retelling of history, they were not the beginning. And neither is now what they were in centuries past. To say otherwise is just wishful thinking. And I would not suggest that any should simply be what was in the first century. But none has a lock on the link to the start. That is part of the heritage of all of us.
InChristAlone
10-07-2015, 03:21 AM
While there was the Schism, it was a split from the beginning.
OBW, probably, you have more information, but I have never heard anything about the split from the beginning. Eastern Orthodox still read the Latin Fathers and venerate certain saints and even 68 bishops of Rome (http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/ortpopes.htm): St. Linus (+ c. 78), first pope, martyr and a disciple of the Apostle Paul. One of the Seventy Apostles, he is mentioned in 2 Timothy 4,21.; St. Clement of Rome (+ c. 101), martyr. One of the Seventy Apostles, mentioned in Philippians 4:3; St Ambrose of Milan (340–397); St Jerome (347–420); St Augustine (354–430); St Leo I the Great, Pope of Rome (440-461); St. Gregory I, 'the Great' (+ 604). Pope Gregory I condemned as 'antichrist' any bishop who claimed universal jurisdiction and supremacy; St Zacharias (+ 752), the last Orthodox saint in the see.
Thus, there could be no split from the beginning. From what I read from an Orthodox source (http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/greatschism.aspx), prior to 1054, the Eastern and Western halves of the Church had frequently been in conflict but still kept the union. Bishop Kallistos Ware writes (http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/greatschism.aspx), "But even after 1054 friendly relations between east and west continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them, and people on both sides still hoped that the misunderstandings could be cleared up without too much difficulty. The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in east and west were largely unaware. It was the Crusades which made the schism definitive."
I disagree that we can look at the general landscape of Christianity and declare any to be, in terms of your metaphorical story, the first ship. I would suggest that the EO and the RCC may have some claim to being among the older of the ships. But other than through clever retelling of history, they were not the beginning.
The Bible is a complicated book. Many authors, different languages, education or lack, viewpoints. The NT was composed by a Greek physician, several Galilean fishermen, and a Pharisee of pharisees (Acts 23:6). So we sort through it all, and if we are not careful we merely have a collection of disjointed aphorisms. What is the larger narrative? How to make sense of it all?
Ultimately, we do present those aphorisms - "do unto others as you would have done to you" - within a larger narrative. The problem of losing the past is that we create our own narrative. Surely the EO narrative is warped. But it is legitimate, in that it has a connection to the past. To reject it outright, as the Protestants have essentially done (I speak as a Protestant of Protestants) is to necessitate the creation of a new narrative which may be unconnected to the original. We lose the safeguard of past experience. The EO as an example (I also think of the Abyssinians/Ethiopians as another example) have a link to the past. This link is not paramount, hegemonic, and supreme... but I feel that it's essential. Why? It's a link.
Contrast that to WN and WL, who proposed a hegemonic link to the past: WN's "church ground", composed without even any understanding of the usage of the Greek word "ekklesia", from what I can see. Likewise WL's vaunted "economy of God" misses Jesus' use of the term "oikonomia" (in Luke 16) meaning responsibility, stewardship. Etc. We all do this, if left to our own devices. We create stories that make sense to us, and presume that through them we have an untrammeled link to the past. WN claimed guidance from the past, but Pember, Penn-Lewis and Miss ME Barber is not enough.
And sorry, but China wasn't "virgin soil" for the re-interpretation of scripture, and reconstruction of the original 'normal' church. China was populated by fallen human beings, struggling back to God, just like the Europeans, North Americans, Egyptians and Greeks before them. And left to their own devices, these Chinese ministers created a narrative just as warped by fallen human culture, with its values and shared expectations, as any of the ones they abandoned as useless. Look at any HWFMR: you get a few verses and the LSM narrative. And that narrative is quite possibly entirely disconnected from the original. The link to the past has been severed.
The EO doesn't have a monopoly on this link. Few that I've seen claim this (in the RCC, by contrast, claims of spiritual hegemony seem more common). But they do have a critical link to the original, shared narrative. Today I see that, and appreciate it.
The "Quote" button is not working, so here is a quote from ICA:
OBW, probably, you have more information, but I have never heard anything about the split from the beginning.I reread my post and there is clearly something missing there. I was trying to say that the two groups, which had been at least somewhat one for some centuries, were jointly the result of a progression from the beginning. Neither was the owner of legacy or a right to claim to be the only true, original church.
Your comments about reading of the early fathers in Latin is irrelevant. Naming early Popes is irrelevant. For both it is a function of the tradition of how you claim that your group precedes and is superior to others.
But organizations and traditions are not the proof of legitimacy. Especially not of superior legitimacy. Unlike the LCM, I do not despise tradition. But it is only of value to the extent that it is useful in the formation of the Christian life. It has no value as a proof of superiority.
From my perspective, the primary cause of division today is not that there are differences of opinion on doctrines and practices. It is not even that most think theirs is superior to all others. If we didn't think our doctrines and practices were right, we would change them. It is the dismissal of others and contention that all must go our way that is the cause of division.
Note that of the problems represented in the church letters in Revelation 2 and 3, all seven of the recipients were churches. None were collections of mooing cows. None were the Whore of Babylon. None were cited as superior. But I do note that the first one mentioned, the one that had such a strong "first love," had lost that spark. Claims of being first is he sure way to find yourself last. We should all simply serve the part of the universal body of Christ that comes to meet with us in the best way we know how.
The problem of losing the past is that we create our own narrative. Surely the EO narrative is warped.I was not suggesting that the EO is warped or inferior. I might have issues with its doctrine and orthopraxy, but I do not deny it as being church.
And I was not suggesting that the connection to the past is irrelevant. In fact, I think that I at least hinted that the Protestant tradition has been somewhat lacking due to its almost wholesale jettison of anything that smacks of EO or RCC. There is a serious loss in that position.
What would you think of a church that had no serious hierarchy (maybe some hierarchy, but no Pope or magisterium), no worship of saints or Mary, no bread that turns into the actual body of Christ and has to be locked away at the end of communion to keep people from stealing some and taking it home to heal people. But in all other ways it looked like the RCC with a twist — it believed in justification by faith, open communion, and a few of our evangelical fundamentals (without the funnymentalism and dogma that too often comes along with it). That sang ancients hymns, more recent hymns, and modern songs of worship. That still had a lot of liturgy.
Quite a mixed-up thing. Right? But might this be what we could have had if the RCC had not simply fought Luther?
Could you worship in that? Or is the need to jettison forms and traditions the new tradition? Or do we need to do it the way we think that the earliest churches did it?
You misunderstand my points. I am not dissing the EO. I am dissing the ideas in it that make it think of itself as superior to all others. To relinquish the hollow claim of being first. There is no first. There is only now. There is no right assembly of believers, only assembly of believers.
I am not suggesting that we simply ignore our thoughts of what is the better way and refrain from choosing on that basis. But how we view those who disagree needs to change. We need to see Christ and not EO, RCC, Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed/Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Baptist, CofC, AOG, Bible churches, Acts 29, or whatever free groups or associations there are.
...how we view those who disagree needs to change. We need to see Christ and not EO, RCC, Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed/Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Baptist, CofC, AOG, Bible churches, Acts 29, or whatever free groups or associations there are.
Amen to that. Receiving those with whom I disagree, even fundamentally, brings two things: first was suggested earlier, that my suspension of surety, allowing the view of the "other" Christian to temporarily supersede mine, can produce radically new light shining on the familiar tropes of my upbringing. Not right or wrong, or better or worse, but as their Christ begins to shine upon my consciousness, it can radically transform it.
Second, where we still differ, we all being unique at least in some aspects (being living stones and all), my view is uniquely and starkly mine. It's a gift, or a bequest, to me from my Father in heaven. I don't see Witness Lee's Christ, or Cardinal Newman's Christ, but mine. I own it; I made it mine through hard experience. It was indeed a fire, but my Christ has endured. This to me is more precious than fine gold.
Let me give an example. I probably appreciate Clement of Alexandria more than any writer outside the Bible. But we still disagree in places. Yet where we agree, which is the bulk of it, I find his view infuses my feeble thoughts with a charge that's unbelievable. It's like I took a few prepatory courses, did okay, survived, and now I'm in Cal Tech or Los Alamos with the best researcher and scholar I could imagine. It's incredible, to get the view of Christ from the first or second century. Absolutely incredible. Does the EO own this? No. But they have been the keepers of many such views, over the centuries, and this should be acknowledged. And I like to think that I "see" things that Clement didn't see; as if my seeing gives me a part of the Great Conversation.
Another example is my strong preference for Desiderius Erasmus' writings over those of Martin Luther. I remain in the Protestants of my birth, but still enjoy and appreciate Erasmus the Catholic scholar. No need to leave my group and join the RCC; in fact Erasmus' views pushed him to the narrow fringe of his group. Yet he remained firmly there, and I likewise remain a great fan of his work, and must respect the religious order that held him.
So my Christ is my own unique amalgam. I built it, or it built me, and that is that. But the Christ that owns me is the Christ that is both theirs and ours.
1 Cor 1:2 "I am writing to God's church in Corinth, to you who have been called by God to be his own holy people. He made you holy by means of Christ Jesus, just as he did for all people everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours." (NLT)
"All people everywhere... their Lord and ours." Nobody has primacy except Christ.
aron's comment about appreciating the Catholic scholar would be near heresy for some. Yet many Catholic scholars have depth that is too often missing from Protestant scholars. The Protestants begin within their own little world and nary venture outside it. So the breadth of their scholarship is often narrow. We presume a pre tribulation rapture in a Darbyesque dipsensationalism and read everything with that overlay. Not a whole lot different than what Lee did in covering the Bible in his version of God's economy and as a result dismissing the book of James along with significant parts of the Psalms (to name a few errors).
I think that an appreciation of confessional and crisis salvation, more traditional views of the eras of man and the end times and dispensationalism, Calvinism and Arminianism, modern and ancient forms of worship (liturgies) is important to real Christian unity. Not that we have to agree with everything, but rather to have enough knowledge about them to know what we actually do and do not agree with rather than just toeing the line (as given to us by someone else, or as belligerently created by that church-of-one — me). (BTW, we all have liturgies. It is just that the evangelical version is so free-form that it is not identifiable as such.)
Just wondering if any of the current or ancient EO brothers and sisters ever gave any of the Apostolic or Church Fathers the kind of reverence and deference given to WL. Did any of our EO brothers claim to have drunk from the spirit of one of the Fathers?
InChristAlone
10-07-2015, 10:28 PM
Just wondering if any of the current or ancient EO brothers and sisters ever gave any of the Apostolic or Church Fathers the kind of reverence and deference given to WL.
Well, yes and no. :) We may ask any of the Church Fathers to pray for us (http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/invocationofsaints.aspx) because we believe the Church is composed of all who are in Christ - in heaven and on earth. We believe the saints are the Lord's friends who stand near the Throne of God (http://www.orthodoxprayer.org/Saints%20in%20Prayer.html). Those in heaven with Christ are alive, in communion with God, doing their part in the Body of Christ. So we pray to the saints who have departed this life, seeking their prayers, even as we ask Christian friends on earth to pray for us (http://www.protomartyr.org/prayer.html). But we don't single out or venerate one of the Church Fathers more than others. (BTW, any Apostle is revered more than a Father). We may call some of the Church Fathers "great" but even the greatest ones are not infallible. That's why we are looking for the consensus in their teachings, and we differ it from their personal opinion which can be erroneous. Thus, we show a more profound respect and love for the Church Fathers than the reverence given to WL, but there is no single Apostolic or Church Father who would be called the Minister of the Age. Did any of our EO brothers claim to have drunk from the spirit of one of the Fathers?
That's impossible. Firstly, if someone singles a Church Father out, then what about the other Fathers? Our faith is not build on a Holy Father and his personal opinion. Secondly, the statement would sound too boastful and prideful. For example, if I claim that I have drunk from the spirit of one of the Fathers (or even from all of them), then, for my EO brothers and sisters, it would be a sign that there is something wrong with my spiritual health. In Russian, it's called "prelest (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Prelest)" which means "self-delusion", "spiritual delusion", "spiritual deception". It's not a somatic mental illness of any kind. It is rather a spiritual illness, a false spiritual state when a person becomes possessed with the strongest pride, self-opinion, and self-conceit.
Just wondering if any of the current or ancient EO brothers and sisters ever gave any of the Apostolic or Church Fathers the kind of reverence and deference given to WL. Did any of our EO brothers claim to have drunk from the spirit of one of the Fathers?
Did any of the apostolic or church fathers claim the sole oracle; that God could only speak through them and no other, that once they died the age of spiritual giants was over and everyone else would be 'small potatoes', that there could only be one trumpet (them), and that everyone else had to be 'absolutely identical' (WL) and 'get in line' (WN) with them and their ministry? No? Oh, I wonder why not?
Also, did any of the early commentators indicate that large sections of scripture were "fallen" and full of "natural concepts" and only useful to show us what God didn't actually want? Did anyone massively re-configure scriptures thus? No? I don't know, maybe because... a clear consensus prevented them? Maybe because if they'd tried, they would have been laughed out of the room?
No, I think you'd have to build your own private kingdom, to get away with statements like that. Because it wouldn't fly in the church of Christ. Too many people would burst into laughter, and deflate your pretensions.
Well, yes and no. :) We may ask any of the Church Fathers to pray for us (http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/invocationofsaints.aspx) because we believe the Church is composed of all who are in Christ - in heaven and on earth. We believe the saints are the Lord's friends who stand near the Throne of God (http://www.orthodoxprayer.org/Saints%20in%20Prayer.html). Those in heaven with Christ are alive, in communion with God, doing their part in the Body of Christ. So we pray to the saints who have departed this life, seeking their prayers, even as we ask Christian friends on earth to pray for us (http://www.protomartyr.org/prayer.html). But we don't single out or venerate one of the Church Fathers more than others. (BTW, any Apostle is revered more than a Father). We may call some of the Church Fathers "great" but even the greatest ones are not infallible. That's why we are looking for the consensus in their teachings, and we differ it from their personal opinion which can be erroneous. Thus, we show a more profound respect and love for the Church Fathers than the reverence given to WL, but there is no single Apostolic or Church Father who would be called the Minister of the Age.
That's impossible. Firstly, if someone singles a Church Father out, then what about the other Fathers? Our faith is not build on a Holy Father and his personal opinion. Secondly, the statement would sound too boastful and prideful. For example, if I claim that I have drunk from the spirit of one of the Fathers (or even from all of them), then, for my EO brothers and sisters, it would be a sign that there is something wrong with my spiritual health. In Russian, it's called "prelest (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Prelest)" which means "self-delusion", "spiritual delusion", "spiritual deception". It's not a somatic mental illness of any kind. It is rather a spiritual illness, a false spiritual state when a person becomes possessed with the strongest pride, self-opinion, and self-conceit.
Prelest! Wow! Thanks for that word. I just read on wiki that there is quite a bit from EO writings on this topic. It's a spiritual sickness involving deception characterized by pride and vain glory. I'm going to read more on this, but now I have a valid term to describe what was wrong with WL and now the blinded brothers...they really are deceived and blinded. I think this Protestant has suffered from prelest in that I basically ignored much of the teachings before Luther and Calvin which has probably made me all that more spiritually impoverished.
Prelest! Wow! Thanks for that word. I just read on wiki that there is quite a bit from EO writings on this topic. It's a spiritual sickness involving deception characterized by pride and vain glory. I'm going to read more on this, but now I have a valid term to describe what was wrong with WL and now the blinded brothers...they really are deceived and blinded. I think this Protestant has suffered from prelest in that I basically ignored much of the teachings before Luther and Calvin which has probably made me all that more spiritually impoverished.
I gotta add this: I wonder if our EO brothers and sisters have their own version of prelest if they refuse teaching from "God's Bastard Children" those "black Protestants"?
awareness
10-08-2015, 04:31 PM
Prelest! Wow! Thanks for that word.
So Prelest is a sort of spiritual egomania? That seems to fit Lee and Co. ... and Nee as well.
InChristAlone
10-09-2015, 12:14 AM
I gotta add this: I wonder if our EO brothers and sisters have their own version of prelest if they refuse teaching from "God's Bastard Children" those "black Protestants"?
In the EOC, I have never heard these terms "God's Bastard Children" and "black Protestants". Protestants were not offspring of the EOC, so we have no ground to condemn them. (We refuse Protestant teaching because there is little consensus between them and the Church Fathers). On the other hand, we don't condemn the Roman Catholic Church either. The direct confrontation is in the past. We don't agree with many of their dogmas and doctrines, but the only right Christian way to behave towards the RCC, is not to condemn the church but to pray for her.
From the Orthodox point of view, we (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, atheists, etc) are all in delusion. Adam was contaminated by it when he accepted a lie for the truth. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov writes, "Spiritual deception is the wounding of human nature by falsehood. Spiritual deception is the state of all men without exception, and it has been made possible by the fall of our original parents. All of us are subject to spiritual deception. Awareness of this fact is the greatest protection against it. Likewise, the greatest spiritual deception of all is to consider oneself free from it. We are all deceived, all deluded; we all find ourselves in a condition of falsehood; we all need to be liberated by the Truth. The Truth is our Lord Jesus Christ."
I like a piece of good advice that Fr John Alexeev gives in his book "Christ Is in Our Midst: Letters from a Russian Monk". Fr John was a Valaam elder and a Schema-abbot at the Valaam monastery. Once, he was sent to a small monastery, where he became amazed by the number of monks who suffered from severe conceit (Prelest). The monks thought themselves men of prayer and miracle workers. They believed they could walk on thin ice without falling under it, and many died at that. So, Fr. John gives such an advice: "Do not trust yourself until you go to last home."
Thus, everyone can suffer from Prelest: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, and those who are from non-denominational churches. (Remember the "snake handling" pastor of a Pentecostal church who died after being bitten by a rattlesnake?)
InChristAlone
10-09-2015, 12:48 AM
So Prelest is a sort of spiritual egomania? That seems to fit Lee and Co. ... and Nee as well.
Indeed, Prelest has a lot to do with spiritual egomania, pride, and obsessive self-centeredness. Another sign of Prelest is the lack of humility.
This is how Fr Andrew Phillips, an Orthodox priest from the UK, describes “Prelest” in English:
“So in English it could be translated simply as (spiritual) illusion, but perhaps the English word ‘self-delusion’ is even more exact. ‘Prelest’ simply means a state of mind in which we imagine that we are something that we are not, in other words, we are deluded. There are two states that greatly contribute to the development of self-delusion. The first is an emotional state, an excess of imagination and strong feelings. Feelings of self-exaltation, sentimentality, vanity, narcissism and superiority, living in the imagination, which are all simply forms of pride, create fertile soil for self-delusion. Ultimately, these feelings can even develop into psychic phenomena like self-hypnosis, levitation and the production of physical marks like ‘stigmata’. The antidote to them is inner sobriety – a quality most characteristic of the Fathers and the Saints, for it is based on modesty and humility. The second state is isolation. People who isolate themselves from others and condemn them, because they think they are better than them, soon fall into self-delusion.”
Indeed, Prelest has a lot to do with spiritual egomania, pride, and obsessive self-centeredness. Another sign of Prelest is the lack of humility.
Here's a note on the Eastern Lightning cult:
The group was founded in 1990 in Henan by Zhao Weishan (赵维山, born 1951) who later fled to the United States from where he continues to lead the church. The followers believe that the biblical God has returned to earth as a woman named Yang Xiangbin "born to an ordinary family in the northern part of China" in order to guide mankind for the third and final time. According to the group, the first and second times of active guidance of mankind were as Yahweh of the Old Testament and as Jesus in the New Testament.
The group teaches that a woman who styles herself "Almighty God" (全能神), from Zhengzhou, Henan, is the second Christ. Her most widely distributed book, The Word Appears in the Flesh (《话在肉身显现》) proclaims itself the Word of God. The book claims the first coming of Christ was to redeem humanity, while the second is to judge and purify mankind and defeat Satan. It also claims that those who do not accept her words will receive severe punishment when the judgment ends...
I believe that the woman Yang Xianbin, originally associated with the Witness Lee-affiliated "Shouter" sect, failed her university entrance exams, went into a bad psychiatric state and decided that she was indeed "God": not only God in life and nature but also God in the Godhead. Now she (or her handlers) run a despotic cult that uses violence, isolation and intimidation to control the lives of thousands, maybe tens of thousands.
Here's my attempt at a thought-provoking question: By contrast, how many crazy cults has the EO spawned in the last 50 years? I earlier characterized the EO testimony as "warped" but I meant in the sense that we all are. Nobody has a pure testimony, 2,000 years after Christ. But a downside of these Protestant off-shoot alternative groups that reject "Babylon" and try to establish a pure spiritual bloodline to the original church is that they isolate, condemn everyone else, and this subjective egoism (sometimes helped by continued charismatic performances, a la the "Shouters") lends itself to all sorts of imbalanced and even dangerous fruit. And yes I'm definitely including the LC here: isolationism, superiority, hyper-excitement and subjectivity, and narrow definitions of truth or "reality" that can only be fulfilled by their own peculiar practices. Obsessive self-centeredness, indeed.
WL told us that there were tens of millions of Shouters in the PRC, which he felt was good; how many millions of those Shouters now hold WL as God incarnate? And how many even weirder sects and cults have they spawned besides the EL?
To my cultural/religious upbringing, the Orthodox world is indeed strange and unfamiliar, and I point to stuff that makes me uncomfortable -- "That's not in the Bible". But again I ask, how many 'Prelests' has EO church created in the last few decades, compared to the Protestants? Branch Davidians, Jim Jones & People's Temple, polygamous, child-abusing Mormon "fundamentalists", Heaven's Gate, Family of God, etc etc. There may be safety in the link to the ancients' testimonies and accrued experiences, and we'd do well to humble ourselves and consider that possibly we don't have a firm grip on truth, even when using words like "recovery" and "reformation" as our founding and guiding motifs. If we're so heavenly, why do we spawn so many devilish children?
Just thinking aloud here. Not joining any group, or starting another, or abandoning my grandfather's church. Just trying to be a little less arrogant, and a little more circumspect. Perhaps a futile task, but maybe God will give me some credit for trying.
Freedom
10-09-2015, 02:02 PM
I believe that the woman Yang Xianbin, originally associated with the Witness Lee-affiliated "Shouter" sect, failed her university entrance exams, went into a bad psychiatric state and decided that she was indeed "God": not only God in life and nature but also God in the Godhead. Now she (or her handlers) run a despotic cult that uses violence, isolation and intimidation to control the lives of thousands, maybe tens of thousands.
...
WL told us that there were tens of millions of Shouters in the PRC, which he felt was good; how many millions of those Shouters now hold WL as God incarnate? And how many even weirder sects and cults have they spawned besides the EL?
LC leaders vehemently deny any connection whatsoever to the EL. The excerpt below describes a EL leader declaring that WL is considered the "forerunner" to their "female Christ":
The sister felt humiliated and defeated, while "preacher Wang" took center stage and explained the teachings of the Eastern Lightning. He quoted many verses from the Bible and systematically explained what they believe step by step, in the order of, for example, the incarnation of Christ, the reason the Jews did not accept Him since the name prophesied was "Emanuel" not "Jesus". They said it is thus understandable why the Jews do not believe. In this way they would gradually lead the listeners to the doctrines of the "Eastern Lightning." They said John the Baptist had been the forerunner of Jesus, and he was gone, so gone with him was the Era of Law. In the same way, Li Changshou (Witness Lee) had been the forerunner of the "female Christ." He was gone too, and gone with him was the Era of Grace. Now the Era of the Kingdom has come. The Jews do not accept the Messiah who has already come because they remain in the Era of Law. Likewise, the "almighty female Christ" has already come, but Christians are still lingering in the Era of Grace. The members of the congregation took turns speaking, trying to instill into the sister their false doctrines, so that she became confused and started to say to herself, "It sounds reasonable."
http://www.chinaforjesus.com/EL_4.htm
LC leaders vehemently deny any connection whatsoever to the EL. The excerpt below describes a EL leader declaring that WL is considered the "forerunner" to their "female Christ":
The EL gives a window to the LC thought and methodology that we might not otherwise see, because they do copy LC tactics; the difference is the extreme level to which they take it. By going to the extreme, the LC "camouflage" is stripped away, and it can be seen in rawest form.
First, they establish a connection with the prospective member, and find areas of common agreement. "God loves us and sent His Son." "Believe God's command and be saved." And initially they pretend to be "just Christians". At this stage it's all about consensus, commonality, and comfort. "We're just like you. Let's all go on together."
From this base of agreement, they attempt to convince the prospective member that this bunch of humble nobodies is actually a Special Group under a Special Leadership with the Special Truth of the present age. Everyone and everything else is wrong, but us. The recruit is then isolated from other possible influences, (everything else being poisonous) and bombarded with stimulus, and social pressure, and are put in a situation where it's (hopefully) easier for them to go along with the group, than to resist it. They bring the new one to a crisis point, or several of them. They are told that they have to give up something, to get something. Eventually the recruit is required to renounce their identity apart from the group.
The levers of coercion and control continue to work... next the new member needs to share in God's present move on earth, and bear fruit, in order to be rewarded by God. "You don't want to go into outer darkness, do you? You do want to be an overcomer, right?"
When I look at the EL, I just see the LC on steroids. They have God's special messenger, God's speaking, God's blessing, etc. Outside the group is held to be nothing but darkness. Only within the group is the true light of God.
The whole operation is about recruiting new members, assimilating them, extracting emotional and financial commitments, and getting them to recruit others. You can see tight operational control, secrecy, isolation, and circular reasoning with loaded language. The dialog is: don't question, don't think, don't be negative. Just go with the "flow from the throne"... If you want to be right with God, you have to be "one" with the group. Etc. Isolation and control - like the prophet said, there's nothing new under the sun.
Freedom
10-09-2015, 06:58 PM
The EL gives a window to the LC thought and methodology that we might not otherwise see, because they do copy LC tactics; the difference is the extreme level to which they take it. By going to the extreme, the LC "camouflage" is stripped away, and it can be seen in rawest form.
...
When I look at the EL, I just see the LC on steroids. They have God's special messenger, God's speaking, God's blessing, etc. Outside the group is held to be nothing but darkness. Only within the group is the true light of God.
The whole operation is about recruiting new members, assimilating them, extracting emotional and financial commitments, and getting them to recruit others. You can see tight operational control, secrecy, isolation, and circular reasoning with loaded language. The dialog is: don't question, don't think, don't be negative. Just go with the "flow from the throne"... If you want to be right with God, you have to be "one" with the group. Etc. Isolation and control - like the prophet said, there's nothing new under the sun.
You made some very good points. It is exactly why the EL should be so concerning - it's the LC on steroids. Aside from their "connection" to the LC by supposedly viewing WL as their "forerunner", the similarities to the LC are striking. Of course everything associated with the EL is extreme, but the EL is what happens when people allow leaders to go unchecked. No one sets out to become something like the EL, but if a crazy leader is allowed free reign, then anything goes. The end result will be anyone's guess, and it won't turn out good.
Learned something from Demetrios a used car dealer today when I bought a car from him. We had some good fellowship and one of his comments caught my ear. He said that in the EO church that you pay attention to what the priest says during mass, but ignore what he does that might be sinful. I told him that would be hard for a Protestant to do regarding his spiritual leader. I asked him if the reason the EO could have this opinion was because the message of the church was greater than life of the priest he agreed. To me this relates to the teaching in the LSM LC where we were told to just listen to the ministry and ignore the sins and unrighteousness of the speakers of the ministry (or something like that). He was a dear brother but had never heard of the sin of prelest. I welcomed his offer for his priest to call me about this and other questions. He also shared with me that as a young man he had strayed from the church and then spent a night or two in a monestery in Greece where after two days of open and mutual conversations with a priest he said that he found himself confessing and not even realizing that he was doing this. He said an enormous burden was lifted from him. When I asked him if he thought it was an epiphany he said maybe something close to that. When I asked him whether he felt any emotion or love for God during the litergy of the EO mass he said yes and that he lifted his heart to God. I was one with this dear brother during our fellowship.
InChristAlone
10-12-2015, 03:33 AM
And initially they pretend to be "just Christians".
That was my would-be wife's answer many years ago when I asked her about her church. At our first conversation about her faith, she never mentioned the Local Church or Witness Lee. She just said, "We are just Christians". That time, it sounded safe and calming. But it must be an alert.
When I look at the EL, I just see the LC on steroids.
For me, one of the most weird things in the LC was to see a huge number of people in a state of exaltation. I was the only white guy in their Chinese community. First, I took their exaltation for an aberration, then for a local and national peculiarity, and later - for a norm. I started to think that shouting was their way to "touch the Spirit". (Now I believe it's a path to spiritual delusion).
I am sure those brothers and sisters were mentally healthy in their daily life but at the meetings and conferences they did not look spiritually sober. And maybe, if the state of exaltation lasts long and repeats often, it can cause not only spiritual sickness but also some kind of mental disorder.
InChristAlone
10-12-2015, 04:38 AM
He said that in the EO church that you pay attention to what the priest says during mass, but ignore what he does that might be sinful.
Just a few small remarks to give an explanation. In the EOC, mass is called the Divine Liturgy. Probably, about 70% of the service is a common prayer, with hymns and the prayer Kyrie Eleison! Lord Have Mercy! Господи помилуй! (http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7124) The priest's sermon only takes a small part. It is not the center of the Liturgy. The main part is the sacrament of the Holy Communion.
The EO priests are human beings. None of them is perfect. So, there are bad priests in the EOC. (Personally, I have never met them, but I can't deny the fact that they exist). However, the Sacraments are still valid even through bad priests. And if a layman has some problem with his priest, he can ask the bishop to solve the problem.
Personally, I think the sins of bad priests are not the sins of the Church but the sins against the Church. Since we don't judge Christ and His apostles by Judas, we also don't judge a church by her sinners. Prof. Osipov writes, "Indeed, any Local Orthodox Church or non-Orthodox church can be judged by her saints. Tell me who your saints are and I will tell what your church is. Any church calls as saints only those who realized in their life the Christian ideal, as this Church understands it. That is why canonization of a certain saint is not only testimony of the Church about this Christian, who according to her judgment is worthy of the glory and suggested by her as an example to follow. It is at the same time a testimony of the Church about herself. By the saints we can best of all judge about the true or imaginary sanctity of the Church..."
When I compare WL and WN with EO saints, monks, Church and Desert Fathers (like St Anthony the Great, John Chrysostom, St Seraphim of Sarov, Optina Elders, and Russian Hieromartyrs, Martyrs and Confessors of the Communist Yoke), the two "spiritual giants" of the LRC don't look that big.
PS I want to share a story about a Russian Orthodox priest, not a saint. The story was told by the White Army officer who had been arrested by the reds (the Red Army) and kept in a jail. In the jail, he met an EO priest who was also arrested. The officer knew the priest before the Russian Revolution. It was a "bad" priest. He had a weakness for vodka and he was often seen drunk. Sometimes laymen even had to carry the priest home because he could not walk. Nobody had any respect for the priest. So, the officer was very surprised to meet the same priest in the cell. The reds interrogated and beat up the priest severely every day. But every time when the priest, covered with blood, came back to his cell after the interrogation, he told to his cellmates: "Brothers, let's pray for our prosecutors so that the Lord may forgive their sins". He sang "Our Father" and everyone joined his prayer. The officer asked the priest, "Why are you here? What do the reds want from you?.." "They want me give a sermon in the church that Communism and Christian faith are similar. They say Christ fought against the rich and we also fight against the rich. Christ helped the poor and we also came to help the poor", said the priest. "But" he continued, "I tell them that they are mistaken. Christ taught, 'Give away' but you teach, 'Take away' (rob)... Later the priest was shot dead by his prosecutors. Thus, this ordeal showed what kind of men his was. In spite of his weakness, he had a pure heart and was faithful to the Lord until the end. But there were also "good priests" who left the Church after the first signs of danger. So, it's not for us to judge people, even priests. Only God knows their hearts.
PPS In Greek, Prelest is "Plani".
Personally, I think the sins of bad priests are not the sins of the Church but the sins against the Church. Since we don't judge Christ and His apostles by Judas, we also don't judge a church by her sinners.
When I compare WL and WN with EO saints, monks, Church and Desert Fathers, the two "spiritual giants" of the LRC fall flat.
In spite of his weakness, he had a pure heart and was faithful to the Lord until the end. But there were also "good priests" who left the Church after the first signs of danger. So, it's not for us to judge people, even priests. Only God knows their hearts.
I have some problems with this. You can vindicate EO priests, yet judge LCM ministers. You have your bias, and your judgments reflect it. Shall we judge Phillip Lee for drunkenness, but not the EO priest in your story?
Truthwise we have no place to judge others, but we must address their actions especially when they hurt others. The EO priest in your story brought shame to God, setting a poor example to the church, but apparently beyond that he was only hurting himself. PL, otoh, hurt and damaged many others. When people are being hurt, we can NOT take the attitude, "judge not, lest we be judged."
Whether or not the sins of priests / ministers are OF the church or AGAINST the church depends on how others, especially the responsible leadership in the church, handle their sins. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and to some degree, all sin brings shame to God, but when sins against church members are condoned, covered up, or even endorsed, then we have a completely different matter.
Too much vodka is bad, but abusing and molesting other members after too much vodka is criminal.
InChristAlone
10-12-2015, 09:09 AM
I have some problems with this. You can vindicate EO priests, yet judge LCM ministers. You have your bias, and your judgments reflect it. Shall we judge Phillip Lee for drunkenness, but not the EO priest in your story?
Ohio, you are right. Unfortunately, I am bias. Not only because I am an Eastern Orthodox and not an LRC member but also because of the facts that I know about the priest and Philip Lee. So, I agree with you. I prefer the drinking Russian priest to the son of WL. Both of them could be a shame for any church. But the former was destroying his own life and the latter was corrupting lives of others. Their lives had different fruit. (I don't know how PL will finish his days but the Russian priest died like a Christian. This change didn't happen overnight. It means that in spite of his personal sin, his core was not rotten. The priest sinned against the Lord and the Church (like we all do by our sins) but by his death, he proved his faithfulness to the Lord. (I am not sure if I'd do the same, even if I can't stand vodka)).
I think we must distinguish between judgement (which is a juridical aspect) and exposure/disclosure (which can have a therapeutic effect).
The Apostle Paul writes, "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." (Ephesians 5:11)
"But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning." (1 Timothy 5:20)
"These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority." (Titus 2:15)
We can expose the drinking Russian priest for his alcoholism and PL for his drinking, abusing, and molesting. But we cannot judge them. The judgment belongs to God only. Who are we? We are just the same sinners: imperfect, corrupt, blind, self-centered, and bias. We can't judge with right judgment because we don't see the whole situation. We don't know people's hearts. We can't know their thoughts on their deathbed. Moreover - because we don't love them. The Russian priest and PL are strangers to us. But to God, they are His children. We must not hate them. And we can't and must not judge them (i.e. pass sentence on others). But we can expose their sins because our indifference can lead towards a bigger sin. We have no rights to say that a certain sinner will go to hell. It's not for us to decide. But it's our duty to expose and stop evildoers.
I like this short story about a Russian Orthodox elder (an old monk). When people told him something negative (and true) about another person, he always replied with the prayer, "Lord, save the brother... and have mercy on me, a sinner".
That was my would-be wife's answer many years ago when I asked her about her church. At our first conversation about her faith, she never mentioned the Local Church or Witness Lee. She just said, "We are just Christians". That time, it sounded safe and calming. But it must be an alert..
Once you are in, you get the special revelation: "We're just Christians, but..." I was told that Christians had justification, but in the LC they got sanctification. So they made me feel special, at first. They propped up my feelings with "warm fuzzies"... and repeatedly manufactured states of exaltation by shouting, screaming, arm-waving, jumping up and down. In my case, I was several years immersed in all this, when I realized that there was no love. For example, Paul had taught that he remembered the poor ("which very thing I was eager to do" - Gal 2:10) but the FTTA trainers taught us to go after the young, affluent college students. "Good building material" they called it. A trainee who showed any heart for the poor was publicly admonished: "don't waste your time."
It turns out that Nee and Lee were scrupulous to follow the Bible except where it conflicted with their fallen human culture. Then they dropped it like it was a hot coal. By the time many realize what they're dealing with, they're already in the LC system, with relationships, job, housing, etc. In my case I was sitting in a meeting of the FTTA, when the light began to shine. It was another 2 years before I got out. Also, members are continually told that there is nothing for them outside the Local Church group. Everything else is hopelessly corrupt. So they have nowhere to go. They feel that there is no exit. In this the EL and the LC are quite similar.
we have no place to judge others, but we must address their actions especially when they hurt others. The EO priest in your story brought shame to God, setting a poor example to the church, but apparently beyond that he was only hurting himself. PL, otoh, hurt and damaged many others. When people are being hurt, we can NOT take the attitude, "judge not, lest we be judged."
A similarity of the EO and the LC is that with both, the church impinges upon the relationship with God. In the EO you don't leave God, but leave the church (in the testimony that ICA wrote). Likewise, the LC song goes, "His glory broke upon us when we saw Him in the church... here are all His riches... etc" The revelation is not Jesus but Jesus in the Church.
A difference between EO and LC is that the Matthew 18 principle still holds in the EO, but it has been superseded by human culture in the LC. In the EO a sinning priest would still be (presumably) held accountable, after a first and second (private) admonition, but the "drunken Noah" of the LC must be covered over. Period. Any attempts to "tell it to the church" are viewed as rebellion in the LC. See Steve Isitt's testimony for example.
TLFisher
10-14-2015, 02:27 PM
I think we must distinguish between judgement (which is a juridical aspect) and exposure/disclosure (which can have a therapeutic effect).
The Apostle Paul writes, "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." (Ephesians 5:11)
"But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning." (1 Timothy 5:20)
"These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority." (Titus 2:15)
We can expose the drinking Russian priest for his alcoholism and PL for his drinking, abusing, and molesting. But we cannot judge them. The judgment belongs to God only. Who are we? We are just the same sinners: imperfect, corrupt, blind, self-centered, and bias. We can't judge with right judgment because we don't see the whole situation. We don't know people's hearts. We can't know their thoughts on their deathbed. Moreover - because we don't love them. The Russian priest and PL are strangers to us. But to God, they are His children. We must not hate them. And we can't and must not judge them (i.e. pass sentence on others). But we can expose their sins because our indifference can lead towards a bigger sin. We have no rights to say that a certain sinner will go to hell. It's not for us to decide. But it's our duty to expose and stop evildoers.
I follow what you're saying ICA. What sets some off emotions of forum posters (myself included) is in the LC practices where the leadership doesn't want anything exposed. To do see is considered "eating from the wrong tree". Rather anything warranting exposing is labeled "imagined wrongdoings".
InChristAlone
10-16-2015, 03:26 AM
A similarity of the EO and the LC is that with both, the church impinges upon the relationship with God.
Aron, at least the Eastern Orthodox Church has more facts and arguments than the LC when the EOC says that she preserves the fullness of Christian faith. The LC’s claim about the “recovery” of the truth (like a claim of any sect) is solely based on the words of their leader. They cannot proof their claim with the Holy Bible, dogmatically or historically. So, they have to believe their founder. As for the EO, I can share some arguments. I'm sorry, I don’t want to take space in this tread which seems to be irrelevant, so I’ll post my answer to my blog (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?p=44487#post44487):
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?p=44487#post44487
I also don't want to start an new long discussion there because I don't have time for that. (I just want to share my arguments). But I'll welcome any constructive criticism.
Aron, at least the Eastern Orthodox Church has more facts and arguments than the LC when the EOC says that she preserves the fullness of Christian faith. The LC’s claim about the “recovery” of the truth (like a claim of any sect) is solely based on the words of their leader. They cannot proof their claim with the Holy Bible, dogmatically or historically. So, they have to believe their founder.One of the side-effects of the Reformation was the "atomization" of faith, for good and for ill. Now a believer can church-hop as they see fit, or skip organized religion altogether. One's relationship with church is seen as irrespective of one's relationship with God.
The LC tried to address this, but with less ground than the EO has, as you note.
I copied this post from micah6v8 from another thread because it touches on something my wife and I were talking about on our way home from church this morning. We talked about how in the Blendeds' Recovery poor poor Christianity is mocked because the believers don't get to "function" as the saints in the Blendeds' Recovery do. In Christianity we were told that the people just sat in their chairs and were preached to. So we did a little mental calculation. If you take the seven feasts, a couple of conferences and the Wednesday night ministry meetings the recovery saints are exposed to an average of two 2.5 hours of sermons per week. In my real local community church I only get on average one 1.5 hours of sermons per week.
It is true that after most of the LSM sermons the small potatoes get a chance to speak, which does not occur after sermons in Christianity. But in my real local church I get to speak in Sunday School and in our one-another-meetings on Thursday night, and I can share what the Spirit prompts rather than regurgitate the LSM message with praises for such a wonderful ministry and minister of the age.
I think I understand why the Blendeds hate for saints to be in their minds; it's because our God-given minds might reveal the truth that the Blendeds' Recovery is a man-honoring, deceptive sect of Christianity where the Christ on the cross has become the seven-fold-intensified-spirit, and the true gospel has been replaced by a so-called higher gospel that none of the writers of the New Testament had the vision to see.
Dear recovery saints please don't let the brothers control your thinking and what you can and cannot read.
"I could add an 11th item to Freedom's list of 10 examples of "Double-Standards"
11) When a non-LSM church pastor gives a "sermon", it is frowned upon because "the congregation becomes non-functioning". Yet when a Blended Brother gives a one and a half hour "Message" in a conference, no one frowns upon the fact that the congregation is also passive/non-functioning during the one and a half hour.
Apart from the labels, a sermon and a message are the same thing. What may differ is simply the contents of the message/sermon."
Freedom
11-08-2015, 05:45 PM
I copied this post from micah6v8 from another thread because it touches on something my wife and I were talking about on our way home from church this morning. We talked about how in the Blendeds' Recovery poor poor Christianity is mocked because the believers don't get to "function" as the saints in the Blendeds' Recovery do. In Christianity we were told that the people just sat in their chairs and were preached to. So we did a little mental calculation. If you take the seven feasts, a couple of conferences and the Wednesday night ministry meetings the recovery saints are exposed to an average of two 2.5 hours of sermons per week. In my real local community church I only get on average one 1.5 hours of sermons per week.
It is true that after most of the LSM sermons the small potatoes get a chance to speak, which does not occur after sermons in Christianity. But in my real local church I get to speak in Sunday School and in our one-another-meetings on Thursday night, and I can share what the Spirit prompts rather than regurgitate the LSM message with praises for such a wonderful ministry and minister of the age.
I think I understand why the Blendeds hate for saints to be in their minds; it's because our God-given minds might reveal the truth that the Blendeds' Recovery is a man-honoring, deceptive sect of Christianity where the Christ on the cross has become the seven-fold-intensified-spirit, and the true gospel has been replaced by a so-called higher gospel that none of the writers of the New Testament had the vision to see.
Dear recovery saints please don't let the brothers control your thinking and what you can and cannot read.
"I could add an 11th item to Freedom's list of 10 examples of "Double-Standards"
11) When a non-LSM church pastor gives a "sermon", it is frowned upon because "the congregation becomes non-functioning". Yet when a Blended Brother gives a one and a half hour "Message" in a conference, no one frowns upon the fact that the congregation is also passive/non-functioning during the one and a half hour.
Apart from the labels, a sermon and a message are the same thing. What may differ is simply the contents of the message/sermon."
Everyone in the LC is convinced that Christians elsewhere don't "function". What WL did was to create a straw man argument of epic proportions in relation to other Christians just being "bench warmers". Of course, there are some Christians who are just that, but did he ever for just a movement, take the time to visit other churches and see just what was going on outside the LC? I don't think anyone besides those who have left have ever taken the opportunity to see if WL's characterization of Christians was correct or not.
The LC claims to have "functioning" members, because everyone does this thing that they call "prophesying" (which has nothing to do with real Biblical prophesying, since members merely parrot WL). I think in most churches outside the LC, members have the opportunity to participate in a variety of ways, and speaking is left to those who have the true gift to do so. In the LC, the function of "prophesying" is imposed upon all members. All members are assigned the same function. There is no opportunity for each members gift to be realized.
Unregistered
11-08-2015, 05:57 PM
How much to throw out? Throw it all out, the good with the bad, the spiritual with the fleshly, the theory with the fact, the false with the true...
And start over. Raised in a southern Church of Christ (Campbellites), suffering hit and run with Pentecostalism and charismatic areas, I found myself deeply enthralled with Watchman Nee in the early '70's.
By '75, Watchman Nee's bio had hit me hard. For I read that "Watchman Nee reckoned to read the entire New Testament each month"...
I felt that to be a speaking from our Lord to me, personally. My answer to that, was to read the entirety of the New Testament twice a month since mid-June 1975 (every thirteen days in fact. twenty six times a year). By the time I ricocheted off Witness Lee and the local church in '79 and 80, I was but very little put out when the LC put me out...I didn't hang around long after Basil Waters, with the brothers alongside him, promised to speak my name in the meeting as an undesirable and contentious brother.
For by then, I had read the bible enough to learn to accept it as what it says it is, that it says what it means, and that it means what it says.
I spent many years doing my best to get rid of all that junk I'm been raised in and on. I began to believe that every newly born Christian should leave the church he or she had been raised in, and spend at least two years alone immersed totally in the Word.
For you cannot fill an already full glass. The glass filled with pond scum must be emptied (and washed clean) to exactly the same degree it is to be filled with fresh, clean water.
Religion had filled my glass. Witness Lee and the LC topped it off with what appeared to be whipped cream and a cherry, only to end up being more of the same, said somewhat differently. A better class of pond scum you might say, but pond scum just the same.
So toss it all. Become that empty glass and let God fill it anew with life, light and blessing. You do that by reading the Bible, day in and day out...and by praying constantly, allowing prayer to be your 'default position' in life; and the Bible to be your home page, with links leading you straight to the Word of God in every part of your life.
For in order for "all things (to) become new" all old things must have passed. After all, Paul gave us the divine order with, "...but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, I press forward". First, forgetting the past. Secondly, pressing forward.
We need to forget the behind things, and press forward to the highest things.
We need to toss it all, every bit of it. After all, what do you have to lose? If you lose some of the good with the bad, God will return the good, polished and burnished and fit for our growth in Jesus, and replace the bad with the good as well. The result will be all good.
God bless you,
I am and remain sincerely yours in Jesus Christ,
Julabee Jones
Everyone in the LC is convinced that Christians elsewhere don't "function". What WL did was to create a straw man argument of epic proportions in relation to other Christians just being "bench warmers". Of course, there are some Christians who are just that, but did he ever for just a movement, take the time to visit other churches and see just what was going on outside the LC? I don't think anyone besides those who have left have ever taken the opportunity to see if WL's characterization of Christians was correct or not.
The LC claims to have "functioning" members, because everyone does this thing that they call "prophesying" (which has nothing to do with real Biblical prophesying, since members merely parrot WL). I think in most churches outside the LC, members have the opportunity to participate in a variety of ways, and speaking is left to those who have the true gift to do so. In the LC, the function of "prophesying" is imposed upon all members. All members are assigned the same function. There is no opportunity for each members gift to be realized.
Yes, WL did create a straw man, but I think he knew there was life and reality elsewhere, it's just that he could not figure how to make money on it. Recovery saints that are born into or saved into the recovery are subject to strong satanic delusion in believing all outside of the recovery is dead. I spent a long time in Christianity before coming into and leaving the recovery and knew there was life and reality outside of the recovery. I understand why when recovery-saved saints leave the recovery they believe there is nowhere else to go. This is a satanic lie and those who teach that sanctification can only be found in the LSM LC are oracles of satan, in my opinion.
Freedom
11-08-2015, 10:32 PM
Yes, WL did create a straw man, but I think he knew there was life and reality elsewhere, it's just that he could not figure how to make money on it. Recovery saints that are born into or saved into the recovery are subject to strong satanic delusion in believing all outside of the recovery is dead. I spent a long time in Christianity before coming into and leaving the recovery and knew there was life and reality outside of the recovery. I understand why when recovery-saved saints leave the recovery they believe there is nowhere else to go. This is a satanic lie and those who teach that sanctification can only be found in the LSM LC are oracles of satan, in my opinion.
This is a good point. I'm fairly certain that WL at least had some realization that his sect wasn't an end-all. It was his need for the soap box that the LC provided for him that kept things going. Other churches were a threat in that LCers might find them more attrative, so Lee had to misrepresent other Christians.
http://www.reasons.org/blogs/reflections/evangelical-reflections-on-seventh-day-adventism-yesterday-and-today-part-2-of-3
"However, theologically speaking, the Adventist pioneers made some very bold claims that according to Scripture must be tested for their compatibility with biblical faith (Galatians 1:6–9; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1–4; Jude 3). These early Adventists proclaimed to be “a special people, with a special message, for a special time!” They also declared themselves to be the “remnant church” that uniquely kept the commandments of God. In addition, they asserted that God was providing unique guidance to the early Adventists through the prophetic voice of Ellen G. White."
I was reading about how the Seventh Day Adventists made a reform and became part of historic orthodoxy and found the above. Does any of the above sound like WL's LC?
TLFisher
11-09-2015, 08:03 PM
Recovery saints that are born into or saved into the recovery are subject to strong satanic delusion in believing all outside of the recovery is dead. I spent a long time in Christianity before coming into and leaving the recovery and knew there was life and reality outside of the recovery. I understand why when recovery-saved saints leave the recovery they believe there is nowhere else to go.
Brothers and sisters I know who have been meeting with the local churches 40 years or more really bought into the ground of locality doctrine. For them there is no where else to go.
As for ones raised or born into the recovery, it's no different from those who were raised Baptist. For them it's all they know. There is no venturing outside their comfort zone.
LSM may teach certain things about Christian life and reality outside the recovery. General membership in the local churches may seem to go along with the LSM leadership, but when the rubber meets the road they see value other ministries have to offer what LSM cannot.
Brothers and sisters I know who have been meeting with the local churches 40 years or more really bought into the ground of locality doctrine. For them there is no where else to go.
As for ones raised or born into the recovery, it's no different from those who were raised Baptist. For them it's all they know. There is no venturing outside their comfort zone.
LSM may teach certain things about Christian life and reality outside the recovery. General membership in the local churches may seem to go along with the LSM leadership, but when the rubber meets the road they see value other ministries have to offer what LSM cannot.
Thanks bro Terry. I got saved in high school without any formal church influence by reading some gospel literature and talking to some other kids. I joined the baptist church because it had a bowling alley and lots of pretty girls. Shortly after I got saved I attended Explo 72 and met other lovers of Jesus from several different groups. For awhile I thought that the baptists had it all together, but I was also hanging out with charismatics who came from many different backgrounds. I praise God for the diversity in the Body of Christ; where others see division I see richness in expression for love of the Savior. At the judgement seat of Christ there will be no LSM LC saints, no RCC or EO saints, no Protestants or Episcopal, just saved sinners washed in the blood of the Lamb and full (may it be so) of good works toward all men and especially towards those of the household of faith.
Freedom
11-09-2015, 10:42 PM
http://www.reasons.org/blogs/reflect...ay-part-2-of-3 (http://www.reasons.org/blogs/reflections/evangelical-reflections-on-seventh-day-adventism-yesterday-and-today-part-2-of-3)
"However, theologically speaking, the Adventist pioneers made some very bold claims that according to Scripture must be tested for their compatibility with biblical faith (Galatians 1:6–9; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1–4; Jude 3). These early Adventists proclaimed to be “a special people, with a special message, for a special time!” They also declared themselves to be the “remnant church” that uniquely kept the commandments of God. In addition, they asserted that God was providing unique guidance to the early Adventists through the prophetic voice of Ellen G. White."
I was reading about how the Seventh Day Adventists made a reform and became part of historic orthodoxy and found the above. Does any of the above sound like WL's LC?
It all is strikingly similar to the LC. The whole "remnant" mindset is quite addictive. When people are convinced that they are special, they default to that mindset, even when they know it's wrong. What really helped me to see past the LC is to understand that there are other groups who see themselves to be the exact same thing that those in the LC perceive themselves to be.
Most non-LC Christians I know live their lives in a manner such that they fear God and do their best to bring glory to God. They don't claim to be perfect, nor do they claim to be anything special. They are only trying to live a normal Christian life. It's so far removed from the LC paradigm that it should put most LC members to shame. Those in the LC are so prideful that it disgusts me. If only they could see the humility of other Christians.
It all is strikingly similar to the LC. The whole "remnant" mindset is quite addictive. When people are convinced that they are special, they default to that mindset, even when they know it's wrong. What really helped me to see past the LC is to understand that there are other groups who see themselves to be the exact same thing that those in the LC perceive themselves to be.
EXACTLY!
A couple years before I departed the Lord burdened me to read about our "predecessors" the exclusive Plymouth Brethren. Imagine my shock to learn about their own lineage of MOTA's! Egads! We were just like them, only about a 100 years behind, and catching up quickly.
How much to throw out?
1. Our group is special.
2. Our leader was raised up by God in these last days to restore the church to its glorious state.
3. Everyone else is dark, dead, fallen, degraded. We alone have the light.
4. Our leadership is always right. Never question them, because this is rebellion against God's anointed.
5. You can ignore those parts of the Bible which our leadership isn't interested in. Just pay attention to the latest speaking from God's chosen vessel, the Maximum Leader.
6. In all other situations, refer to point 4. Leadership is always right. No need to think, because that would only lead to independence and result in division, confusion and frustration. We must all be in harmony. Conform to the Hive.
Freedom
11-10-2015, 07:23 PM
EXACTLY!
A couple years before I departed the Lord burdened me to read about our "predecessors" the exclusive Plymouth Brethren. Imagine my shock to learn about their own lineage of MOTA's! Egads! We were just like them, only about a 100 years behind, and catching up quickly.
It seems WL was aware of the history of the exclusives, but he didn't see it as a lesson to be learned from. The LC was already perceived to be so much better than their predecessors. It was full speed ahead.
It seems WL was aware of the history of the exclusives, but he didn't see it as a lesson to be learned from. The LC was already perceived to be so much better than their predecessors. It was full speed ahead.
Not only did WL not learn from the failures of the Exclusives 100plus years ago, he did not learn from his own failures. And not only that, we can go back and find Lee's own teachings which contradict what he has done in his ministry.
Unregistered
11-11-2015, 10:08 AM
Responding to aron's "right-on" list above, I would add the following:
1) "Our group is special". The Word says clearly that God is does not show favoritism. (Romans) There is also an old saying that goes something like "humility leaves when it sees its own face". Therefore, as soon as you think you are special, you are not. Of course, the Word also says that ALL of us have received favor from God--reinforcing the fact that we are all the same before Him. No one is "extra-special".
2) "Our leader was raised up by God in these last days to restore the church..." If this were, indeed, true, would He not have mentioned it in Scripture so that everyone would know that they were to come? Would He want anyone to "miss the boat"? Shouldn't there be a verse that says somewhere: "Behold, there shall come forth from the land of the Dragon two last great witnesses?" But no--"only" the two great witnesses during the time of Jacob's sorrow are mentioned and their ancestry is Jewish or, at the least, directly in the ancestral line of Jacob.
3) "Our leadership is always right. Never question them, because this is rebellion against God's anointed." So, then, our beloved Paul was in rebellion when he "withstood Peter to his face" about separating from the Gentiles? After all, wasn't Peter a "super-apostle", while Paul was sort of "second generation-afterthought"? And when the Bereans "searched the scriptures to find out if these things are so"--would they have remained silent if they had found it not to be or would they have spoken? You catch my drift, I am sure.
And on another page, another posting, someone mentioned how they claim not to have a formal seminary. "A rose by any other name" is still a rose. Full-time training followed by more full-time training is a seminary--even if you play the semantics game and say it is not. No one is fooled.
A LC member who no longer meets with the LC shared that once it was declared in a meeting that they were going to hold an "Advance" at a local denominational church camp. (They don't mind using their "degraded" facilities.) Others, it was shared, may have "retreats", but not the LC--they had "Advances"! Ha!
I believe it was Freedom that pointed out elsewhere that the members really do not function but, rather, read from the HWFMR, thereby just re-speaking what Lee said. True. One has only to go to a meeting or two before this is clearly seen. To leave the script is dangerous. So, in effect, they do not share what God has surely given them (because we ARE assured that "each man HAS"--present tense), but what one man said years and years ago. Only Lee is functioning, really.
Finally, the Word is not read (except, perhaps, very rarely) unless the footnotes are then consulted. (THE HWFMR is actually the Recovery Version verses with footnote materials expanded into full pages.) These "footnotes" are actually a complete Bible commentary, which anyone is entitled to write and publish if they so choose. These, however, are inserted into the pages of this version itself and treated as part and parcel of the Holy Word. How embarrassing it is to open a page of the Recovery Version and see just one or two small verses at the top with Lee's footnotes filling the entire rest of the length of the page! When visitors come to the church and try to read or share from their version of the Bible, much effort is made to thrust this "Recovery Version" into their hands and get them to read, instead, from it. By the way, I find this version to be clumsy and difficult to understand in many places. (By "understand", I mean the difficulty in following a sentence that is a looping of one clumsy phrase to another to try to stay in "word for word" translation.) It lacks the beauty and rhythm of the KJV and certainly the clarity of the NIV or ASV, among many others. This is just my own opinion, however.
UnregisteredSO
... the members really do not function but, rather, read from the HWFMR, thereby just re-speaking what Lee said. True. One has only to go to a meeting or two before this is clearly seen. To leave the script is dangerous. So, in effect, they do not share what God has surely given them (because we ARE assured that "each man HAS"--present tense), but what one man said years and years ago. Only Lee is functioning, really.In order to understand the LC experience, I think that you have to understand the historical/cultural matrix that gave it birth.
Just as Marxism was born out of a critique of capitalism's ills (which were, and remain, many), so did Watchman Nee's "normal" christian church life arise as a response to the dormancy and stagnation he saw in the Western clergy/laity model.
But in Nee's and later Lee's Asian-influenced mindset, any functioning organizational model needed strong central leadership. Therefore ideas like "deputy God", "Authority and Submission", etc were promoted as necessary. Therefore the original thought of every member functioning became sublimated to the idea of every member being in harmony with the center, which ultimately reduced the notion of 'functioning' to every member standing up, one by one, and declaring, "Gee, Chief, what a great idea!!" and then sitting down. Because of their cultural lens they can't see the absurdity of it. And their cultural lens is threatened by any give-and-take as disorder, chaos, disharmony. Order must prevail. Freedom is secondary.
By contrast, if you look at the "normal" christian experience in the Book of Acts, on Pentecost each one declared in a unique tongue the glory of God. Yet there was harmony.
And there was "much discussion" in Acts 15 at the conference in Jerusalem, on what to do about the Gentiles flooding the church. (see e.g. v. 7). Yet it wasn't disorder. On the contrary, disorder was temporarily allowed, to find the true order, i.e. God's will for the group at that moment.
The LC attempt to externally impose "oneness" or "harmony" or "coordination" or "blending" or however they put it, looks an awful lot to me like the oneness imposed by Babylon - "And whoever didn't have the mark was not permitted to buy or sell", etc. That is the "oneness" that says, "If everybody did exactly as I say, then there would be peace." Well, duh.
Well, I learned something interesting about my new community church (E-Free) last weekend. They had home coming and invited an Episcopalian priest to speak. He got saved in college and attended our church and was sponsored by the church to attend Reformed Theological Seminary, his tuition and expenses were paid. What's amazing to me was that there was never any expectation that after graduation he would serve in our church or even be a minister in the E-Free denomination. While in seminary events and a burden led him to consider serving in the Episcopal Church. When he told Dr. Sproul (a bigwig in evangelicalism) at the seminary his response was something like "leave it alone and let it die" regarding the Episcopal Church. This priest preaches the gospel in this very liberal denomination. His sermon on Sunday was a very simple and clear presentation of the gospel I have heard in a long time. Compare this to the FTTA where students are expected to serve only in the small narrow sect of Christianity known as the Lord's Recovery.
Well, I'm hesitant to write about this, but as a family we're facing our first conflict in our new church. Our slightly mentally handicapped daughter has been attending the high school youth group and was hoping to attend the upcoming high school retreat. The youth workers said she was to immature and would not accept the registration fees from my wife. When my wife offered to drive our SUV and chaperone our daughter she was told by the youth workers that they did not want to put my wife out. I wrote an email to our senior pastor and we have a meeting with him on Monday. We did not ask him to change the decision, but let him know that we are offended, hurt and angry. My wife spent an hour on the phone talking to the youth worker in tears. I know that people have different capacities when it comes to accommodating mentally handicapped people, but for God's sake this is the body of Christ where we are supposed to care the weaker members, right? Sorry for the dirty laundry, but this is where we are at. I don't think we will leave, but our hearts are sad. :frown5:
...this is the body of Christ where we are supposed to care the weaker members, right? Sorry for the dirty laundry, but this is where we are at. I don't think we will leave, but our hearts are sad.
I am sad to hear your testimony. The only thing that I can think of to tell the pastor at the meeting on Monday is this: 1 Cor 12:22,23 "On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable,…"
If this member seems "less presentable" then the body should redouble itself to accomodate, and cover with honor. Not for some politically-correct "human rights" stuff but because this will please God. God loves every human being. We should not exclude, based on human frailty or slow development.
This is basic stuff, folks; what are we showing our high school members if we haven't figured out the ABCs of Christian living?
And no, I wouldn't leave, either: it seems that this group needs your input. There is spiritual labor to do. God bless your efforts, and give you and your wife compassion and endurance, until the others find it as well.
micah6v8
11-14-2015, 07:05 AM
Well, I'm hesitant to write about this, but as a family we're facing our first conflict in our new church. Our slightly mentally handicapped daughter has been attending the high school youth group and was hoping to attend the upcoming high school retreat. The youth workers said she was to immature and would not accept the registration fees from my wife. When my wife offered to drive our SUV and chaperone our daughter she was told by the youth workers that they did not want to put my wife out. I wrote an email to our senior pastor and we have a meeting with him on Monday. We did not ask him to change the decision, but let him know that we are offended, hurt and angry. My wife spent an hour on the phone talking to the youth worker in tears. I know that people have different capacities when it comes to accommodating mentally handicapped people, but for God's sake this is the body of Christ where we are supposed to care the weaker members, right? Sorry for the dirty laundry, but this is where we are at. I don't think we will leave, but our hearts are sad. :frown5:
Hi HERn
Thanks for sharing your situation with us. It is not easy to share personal stuff.
I can't offer any specific advice and I don't think you are asking for any advice anyway. I do like to say that in this age, while sin is present, we cannot expect any churches to be perfect. However there are model churches (1 Thessalonians 1:7). (Not easy to tell whether one church is a model church)
Similarly marriage and working life will not be perfect:- we will experience conflicts. We do not divorce our spouses simply because of our first argument nor do we quit our jobs simply because of one bad colleague.
May God guide your family and may all parties grow spiritually through this matter.
Well, I'm hesitant to write about this, but as a family we're facing our first conflict in our new church. Our slightly mentally handicapped daughter has been attending the high school youth group and was hoping to attend the upcoming high school retreat. The youth workers said she was to immature and would not accept the registration fees from my wife. When my wife offered to drive our SUV and chaperone our daughter she was told by the youth workers that they did not want to put my wife out. I wrote an email to our senior pastor and we have a meeting with him on Monday. We did not ask him to change the decision, but let him know that we are offended, hurt and angry. My wife spent an hour on the phone talking to the youth worker in tears. I know that people have different capacities when it comes to accommodating mentally handicapped people, but for God's sake this is the body of Christ where we are supposed to care the weaker members, right? Sorry for the dirty laundry, but this is where we are at. I don't think we will leave, but our hearts are sad. :frown5:
I too have been in your situation, and unless your daughter has a history of disturbances, there is no way any church should reject her when Mom is there as a chaperone / driver.
Hi HERn
Thanks for sharing your situation with us. It is not easy to share personal stuff.
I can't offer any specific advice and I don't think you are asking for any advice anyway. I do like to say that in this age, while sin is present, we cannot expect any churches to be perfect. However there are model churches (1 Thessalonians 1:7). (Not easy to tell whether one church is a model church)
Similarly marriage and working life will not be perfect:- we will experience conflicts. We do not divorce our spouses simply because of our first argument nor do we quit our jobs simply because of one bad colleague.
May God guide your family and may all parties grow spiritually through this matter.
I'm ok with receiving advice from those comfortable giving it. For the most part the folks who post here have been through the "clothes ringer of life" and are very measured and thoughtful...except for me when I get on an anti-LSM rant!
I too have been in your situation, and unless your daughter has a history of disturbances, there is no way any church should reject her when Mom is there as a chaperone / driver.
Not disruptive at all. She's about 3-4 years behind her peers in emotional development, but can sit through sermons and such. She was home schooled until this year and has been doing great in public school (non-diploma track) and is even on the soccer team (as a freshman not much playing time but she loves being part of the team). She makes cookies for the team and for her church friends. She has sometimes gone overboard on asking girls to text her and has pestered some girls to the point where she was asked to not contact them. She's working with a counselor on interpersonal communication skills. Other than that she is a normal teenage girl trying to figure life out. She came to us as a foster child one month old and we were very blessed to be able to adopt her at 2-years old.
TLFisher
11-19-2015, 07:13 AM
She came to us as a foster child one month old and we were very blessed to be able to adopt her at 2-years old.
Bless you and your wife being able to adopt her. I know foster children tend to be bounced from home to home with no real sense of love from their foster parents.
Finally, the Word is not read (except, perhaps, very rarely) unless the footnotes are then consulted. (THE HWFMR is actually the Recovery Version verses with footnote materials expanded into full pages.) These "footnotes" are actually a complete Bible commentary... inserted into the pages of this version itself and treated as part and parcel of the Holy Word. How embarrassing it is to open a page of the Recovery Version and see just one or two small verses at the top with footnotes filling the entire rest of the length of the page!
Psalm 109 "Mem" says
97 Oh, how I love your law!
I meditate on it all day long.
98 Your commands are always with me
and make me wiser than my enemies.
99 I have more insight than all my teachers,
for I meditate on your statutes.
100 I have more understanding than the elders,
for I obey your precepts.
101 I have kept my feet from every evil path
so that I might obey your word.
102 I have not departed from your laws,
for you yourself have taught me.
103 How sweet are your words to my taste,
sweeter than honey to my mouth!
104 I gain understanding from your precepts;
therefore I hate every wrong path.
"How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth"
Which words, I ask, the words of "law" or words of "grace"? The words which are revelatory of Jesus Christ, or the words which are natural, soulish, and derived from fallen human concepts? WL's scriptural exegeses clearly divided the word of God into these two classes. See his commentary throughout the Psalms, and in Job, and in James' epistle. Etc. Words which were "sweet" to WL got reams of footnotes. As UnregisteredSO says above, you can open the RecV and get 2 verses of scripture and the rest of the page is 15 or 20 paragraphs of small-print commentary. But open a page in Psalms and you might get one dismissive comment for 30 verses of scripture, or maybe no footnote, just 2 or 3 cross-references for an entire page! Where does Paul or another NT writer receive scriptures thus? Or suggest that we do so? I'd say, on the contrary.
I propose an alternative to Recovery Version footnotes: Who kept His feet from every evil path in v 101, in order to obey God's word? Who didn't depart from God's laws in v 102? Who hated every wrong path in v 104? I propose that it was Jesus who fulfilled these declarations. Jesus was the Promised Seed who truly tasted the sweetness of God's word, as verse 103 says. Our faith is in this Jesus, who delights to obey the Father's word (expressed will, or law, or precept, etc), and thus tastes sweetly. See e.g. "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me". Our faith is not in Paul, not in David, not in WL, and certainly not in ourselves. No; it's "this Jesus" whom we see and believe into. (See Acts 2:32; cf Heb 2:9) It's "this Jesus", revealed in Scripture, whom we follow. And I ask, How can we follow, or obey this Jesus, if we don't see Him? How can His sheep move to greener pasture, and still waters, without hearing their Shepherd's voice?
WL's footnotes present a nearly violent and schizophrenic treatment, where he'd say, "natural, natural, natural" in covering the text, then suddenly he'd see a verse like 103 where the word was called "sweet" and suddenly declare "Revelation!! A revelation from God!!" And a long footnote would ensue (of course tied to some LC practice like "eating the word" - i.e. pray-reading). Then it was back to "natural, natural, fallen, natural". Strange and disjointed stuff; wrenching a so-called revelation totally out of context from the surrounding narrative. WL's pet verses got reams of ink, and the rest were relegated to silence, or outright dismissal, as vain words of men. Again, where's the precedent for this sort of exegesis?
But look at Peter's treatment of Psalmic text on Pentecost. Peter didn't say that David was ignorant, and natural, and that suddenly David had a "squirrel" moment in the midst of his natural and vain philosophizing. No, Peter said that David was a prophet and knew what, or more specifically, 'Who' was coming after him, fulfilling God's promise of an eternally reigning Seed. Or should we reject Peter's interpretive approach in favor of WL's? (See Acts 2:30; also Jesus' 'David was in spirit' of Matt 22:23). Or is Peter's interpretation limited to a few verses from Psalm 16, after which we're invited to form our own personal, subjective (and with WL, clearly disjointed) hermeneutical treatment elsewhere?
Psalm 109 "Mem" says..
Sorry, that was Psalm 119, not 109. I admit to being a hasty writer, and not a careful or systematic thinker. But even a rank and unschooled layperson can see that WL treated the Bible differently than the Bible treated itself. The reception and use of OT scripture in the NT gives a pattern, and WL abandoned this pattern in adhering to his "NT economy" exposition.
In a sense, WL fell into the pit that he dug, and was ensnared by a net of his own creation (Psa 57:6). His teachings were to promote his ministry, and his ministry was to become the centerpiece of the Lord's recovery. But when scripture couldn't be conformed to his teachings, he was forced to abandon scripture as "low" and without merit. Instead we were expected to conform to the "high peak" theology of men.
Again I ask, Which words were sweet to WL's taste - merely the ones that could be lined up with his "economy" metric? Then why does it say, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God"? In order to preserve his theology and ministry, WL was forced to jettison this. His inability to find the Christ in scripture suggests his inability to find the Christ of scripture. He'd essentially invented his own; one that didn't need to be reconciled with the word of God. Yet clearly, Christ is the Word of God.
Words which were "sweet" to WL got reams of footnotes... open the RecV and get 2 verses of scripture and the rest of the page is 15 or 20 paragraphs of small-print commentary. But open a page in Psalms and get one dismissive comment for 30 verses of scripture, or maybe no footnote...
I checked a RecV and in four pages of verses from Psalm 119 (vv 65-144), there's only one footnote, consisting of a sentence on "the unfolding of God's word" in v 130. That's it.
Finally, the Word is not read (except, perhaps, very rarely) unless the footnotes are then consulted. (THE HWFMR is actually the Recovery Version verses with footnote materials expanded into full pages.) -- UnregisteredSO
I grew up in the Catholic Church: baptized, confirmed, altar boy, choir boy, 12 years parochial education, named after my uncle who was ordained Franciscan OFM, etc.
They constantly promoted the instruction to their people that the laity could not read the scriptures alone without the proper and official interpretations. Every week our church service was based on the Catholic Missal.
The LCM has become exactly the same. Their members must read from the "Interpreted Word" from the footnotes, the Life-Studies, and the HWfMR lest they "misinterpret" God's word. The HWfMR has become their "Recovery Missal."
They constantly promoted the instruction to their people that the laity could not read the scriptures alone without the proper and official interpretations.While that is beyond what either the RCC or the LCM should claim concerning their interpretations of scripture, there actually is some level of safety in the idea that I should generally remain within standard interpretations and understandings except when there are a number of people truly willing and able to take on hashing through ideas that might not square with what was otherwise held. In other words, I am much better off sticking to what I know rather than what I think that is different from anything I knew before.
Besides, while the claim of 33,000 truly different sects is far from real, at some level, the opening of the idea of personal study and revelation over the past 100 to 200 year has resulted in a plethora of novel ideas. In some arenas you can find that the number of different opinions on certain subjects is as great as the number of people there. I'm not talking about minor nuances, but significant differences. Of course, as long as it is just about the peripheral stuff, it really doesn't matter — at least until someone speaks from their idea and it somehow insults someone with a different idea and a sort of small schism erupts.
Well, I'm hesitant to write about this, but as a family we're facing our first conflict in our new church. Our slightly mentally handicapped daughter has been attending the high school youth group and was hoping to attend the upcoming high school retreat. The youth workers said she was to immature and would not accept the registration fees from my wife. When my wife offered to drive our SUV and chaperone our daughter she was told by the youth workers that they did not want to put my wife out. I wrote an email to our senior pastor and we have a meeting with him on Monday. We did not ask him to change the decision, but let him know that we are offended, hurt and angry. My wife spent an hour on the phone talking to the youth worker in tears. I know that people have different capacities when it comes to accommodating mentally handicapped people, but for God's sake this is the body of Christ where we are supposed to care the weaker members, right? Sorry for the dirty laundry, but this is where we are at. I don't think we will leave, but our hearts are sad. :frown5:
We had a good meeting. Kind and loving, but their capacity is limited. We will be working with the the youth minister to help her prepare for for next year's retreat. She can't go this year even with her mother as a chaperone. We are worried that if we tell her that if she improves next year she can go, but does not make it she will feel like a failure. Her soccer coach invited the girls to her church youth group, so she will visit. In coordination with her councilor we have restricted her to only 10 unsolicited phone texts per day. This will help her from pestering her church friends. We will not force her to continue in her current youth group if she feels rejected and like "she's a project". There is an Assembly of God church who's youth group she may visit because when she was home schooled where one of the moms was a youth pastor there. One comment that hurt was that there was a senior girl who we were told wanted her last year in the group not to be negatively affected by our daughter's needs. We just went to a ballet were two of the senior girls were performing and several families were there, but we felt ignored. This rejection of our daughter will probably factor in to me taking early retirement and moving in with my wife's widowed father. Our daughter has a dear disabled friend in his church that we really like.
Lisbon
11-24-2015, 07:44 AM
Isn't it strange that the last conference and so present HWfmr is "the crucial points of the major items of the Lords Recovery. They have little desire for the truth.
Lisbon
Things are going well. Our daughter is loved by the youth group and I've been asked to serve as a deacon in our elder, deacon format church. I served as a deacon back in the '80s before we moved away. I am very much enjoying the worship even more than when I was in the LSM LC. I attended a work day this weekend and drank from the fellowship of Christian brothers. I am so happy to have escaped the religious superstition of the LSM LC. A dear sister in our real local church is going to serve as a nurse practioner to nomad Muslims in Africa and we are supporting her. The Spirit is so much greater than the narrow sect known as TLR.
My dear wife hesitantly followed me out of the sect known as the Lord's recovery and we as a family have been blessed. We are meeting with a normal Christian group that is not imprisoned by the teachings of one man. I urge any husband or wife to listen to their spouses about leaving TLR. There are life, love and faith in many places, not just the TLR. The Lord has not limited Himself to the narrow sect of the TLR. You can escape and find life in other places.
TLFisher
12-14-2015, 12:26 PM
My dear wife hesitantly followed me out of the sect known as the Lord's recovery and we as a family have been blessed. We are meeting with a normal Christian group that is not imprisoned by the teachings of one man. I urge any husband or wife to listen to their spouses about leaving TLR. There are life, love and faith in many places, not just the TLR. The Lord has not limited Himself to the narrow sect of the TLR. You can escape and find life in other places.
That was my experience also roughly 5 years ago. While home meetings were socially enjoyable, there was little else to offer. Quite unlike in Bellevue when there was actually meetings comprised of praying for one another.
During the LTM, my wife was in the back with the children during the prophesying so she never witnessed the divisive speaking that I saw and heard.
That was my experience also roughly 5 years ago. While home meetings were socially enjoyable, there was little else to offer. Quite unlike in Bellevue when there was actually meetings comprised of praying for one another.
During the LTM, my wife was in the back with the children during the prophesying so she never witnessed the divisive speaking that I saw and heard.
Hi bro Terry,
I've been in a real local community church for over a year now and I can say that I have never experienced politics like I did in the local church. Before I left I was being pressured by three brothers (one an elder) to write a letter to RK about what was going on. Two brothers had already written a letter to RK, but I hand no heart to do it, although I did write a draft letter and showed it to an elder. He agreed with the letter but when I asked him to co-sign it with me he refused. I finally realized that several of the so-called elders were snakes so I just cut them off.
Hi bro Terry,
I've been in a real local community church for over a year now and I can say that I have never experienced politics like I did in the local church. Before I left I was being pressured by three brothers (one an elder) to write a letter to RK about what was going on. Two brothers had already written a letter to RK, but I hand no heart to do it, although I did write a draft letter and showed it to an elder. He agreed with the letter but when I asked him to co-sign it with me he refused. I finally realized that several of the so-called elders were snakes so I just cut them off.
To escape the LSM LC I had to be ballsy. The so-called elders wil never control the Spirit or my married life.
To escape the LSM LC I had to be ballsy. The so-called elders wil never control the Spirit or my married life.
Why is it that we looked up to all the great men of God who defied the system they were in and then moved on, but we were incredibly afraid to do the same?
My experience was that the more "absolute" the brother the closer he followed the teaching of WL and the less he referred to the bible on spiritual matters. It was WL or the highway. I would be ok with "it's Paul or the highway" because at least Paul was inspired to write parts of the New Testament which led to billions of Christians on the earth. Does anyone really equate WL with Paul?
My experience was that the more "absolute" the brother the closer he followed the teaching of WL and the less he referred to the bible on spiritual matters. It was WL or the highway. I would be ok with "it's Paul or the highway" because at least Paul was inspired to write parts of the New Testament which led to billions of Christians on the earth. Does anyone really equate WL with Paul?
I would like to hear from our dear recovery bothers and sisters why they think WL was the minister of the age, apostle, oracle of God, etc.
UntoHim
12-25-2015, 08:58 PM
Why is it that we looked up to all the great men of God who defied the system they were in and then moved on, but we were incredibly afraid to do the same?
Excellent point!
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.