Sacrifice and Sail On - Book by Philip Lin [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : Sacrifice and Sail On - Book by Philip Lin

Pages : 1 [2]

TLFisher

01-10-2015, 10:19 PM

Since the BB's all seem to all play a part in the LSM some how, they have to push LSM publications on everyone.

My view of LSM publications going back to my youth is it should supplement from reading the Bible and not to become a crutch in place of the Bible.

OBW

01-11-2015, 07:23 AM

My view of LSM publications going back to my youth is it should supplement from reading the Bible and not to become a crutch in place of the Bible.I don't recall what I personally thought about it prior to 1987. But after that time, my conclusion has grown to be that LSM needs no supplementation other than some lighter fluid to get the flames going. :D

Freedom

01-11-2015, 02:34 PM

My view of LSM publications going back to my youth is it should supplement from reading the Bible and not to become a crutch in place of the Bible.

The current view is that the reading of the Bible should supplement the reading of ministry materials. I may have said this before, but since I am a "church kid" there were times that I read Life-Study messages on books of the Bible before I had actually read the book itself. How sad is that? I didn't know any better either.

TLFisher

01-12-2015, 12:55 PM

Resuming my reading of Sacrifice and Sail On, Phillip Lin indicates in Chapter 5

"Eventually, a false rumor of two aspects was being spread. The first aspect was that Brother Nee changed his concept about practicality of the church, the ground of the church, after the Second World War. The second aspect was that because Brother Lee is so much for the practicality of the church life, he is different from Watchman Nee." Location 1650 of 4086.

I don't know about these false rumors Phillip Lin is referring to. However from reading Watchman Nee books based on messages from the 1930's, I do notice a difference when he resumed his ministry in 1948. That is the relationship of the work versus the church. Pre-World War II the work is to support the churches (Antioch) . Post-World War II it's churches to support the work (Jerusalem). In other words the churches need to hand everything over to the work. Much as it is today among the local churches.

Ohio

01-12-2015, 01:25 PM

HERn

01-12-2015, 07:58 PM

I recently came across the following photo of WL standing next to a Daystar motorhome, so I though that I would post it :lol:. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words. The funny thing is, after seeing this picture, I can imagine the "business man" side of Lee.

It's hard to know for sure regarding Lee's intentions, but after the dust settled after these business ventures, the reality of it all is sad, that's for sure. Wouldn't LSM care more about making things right with the Daystar investors rather than suing other Christians or purchasing a campus?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6qTxTpbPOao/UFglK3YBV9I/AAAAAAAAAss/YfRDDaVC1GI/s1600/D10007+%E6%8B%B7%E8%B2%9D.jpg

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but the photo with the star on the front of the behemoth and the name "Daystar"? From what I know about that name it either refers to Satan (somewhere in Isaiah) or Jesus (somewhere in the books of Peter). Does this strike anyone as being a "bit out there"?

Freedom

01-12-2015, 08:16 PM

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but the photo with the star on the front of the behemoth and the name "Daystar"? From what I know about that name it either refers to Satan (somewhere in Isaiah) or Jesus (somewhere in the books of Peter). Does this strike anyone as being a "bit out there"?

Isaiah 14:12 How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! ESV

I am no expert here, maybe some here might be able to explain the usage of "Day Star" instead of "Lucifer". For Isaiah 14:12 there are some translations such as the ESV that read "day star" instead of Lucifer (apparently there is a lot of debate about this too). There are yet other translations that say "morning star". So depending on who you talk to, I think "day star" can be equated with "Lucifer".

TLFisher

01-18-2015, 07:40 PM

In reading Sacrifice and Sail On, I found the author Phillip Lin to be very disingenuous towards T.Austin Sparks. Writing in generalities and omitting details. Portraying T.Austin Sparks as a brother seeking a following.

The following is from chapter 5:

From 1949 to 1957, the number of saints in the churches in the whole increased dramatically, from three to five hundred to more than twenty thousand; even when in 1955 a visitor from England, Brother Austin Sparks said to us that in his whole life he had never come across so many good audiences like the saints in Taiwan. This was God's blessing brought in out of the oneness of the churches in the island.

But two years later in 1957, the negative wind of the "cold" bacteria had to Taiwan by Brother Sparks in his second visit, and this caused irreparable losses for the Lord's recovery.

In 1954, leading brothers in the church in Taipei felt the need to the famous Western spiritual ministry Brother T. Austin Sparks for fellowship. Brother Lee reluctantly agreed to their proposal. In 1955, Brother Sparks received the invitation and came to Taiwan, and he rendered his spiritual help to minister Christ to the churches in Taiwan. Churches on the whole island of Taiwan received much help from his ministry. Through this mutual fellowship, he saw and was very well aware that the Lord's recovery in Taiwan did have some things of Christ, and the practice of the local church life.
In 1957, Brother Sparks was invited for a second time to come to Taiwan. This time he negatively touched the ground of the church and the practices of the church and was very critical to many practices of the church. Because of this criticism, several brothers who had been somewhat critical of Brother Lee's ministry on the building up of the local churches were greatly affected; those brothers had secretly talked about a plan and decided that if Brother Lee rejected Brother Sparks, they would reject Brother Lee. Later on, Brother Lee got to know that those brothers were influenced by Brother Sparks and were dissenters.

The following is an excerpt from Herald Hsu's testimony which provides detail on Sparks' visits to Taiwan which Philip Lin did not know about or chose to omit.
http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/lc_hsu.html

"When TAS visited Taiwan for the first time, Witness Lee introduced TAS and said, “Brother Sparks' ministry was introduced and spread to the whole of China through Watchman Nee. We will work with him!” Thirteen months later TAS again came to Taiwan.That was in January 1957."

We asked TAS in 1957, “What is wrong with not following the methods of Christianity and only following the Biblical examples?” TAS answered, “If the Holy Spirit leads you to follow some Biblical examples (Biblical examples are not perfect and are not laws), there is nothing wrong with that, but you don’t need to say so!” He meant that you don’t need to proclaim: 'this is the Church Truth and every church must go this way! Otherwise, you are not a church, but only a concubine'. This was Watchman Nee’s exposition on the Locality Law in Chinese; Witness Lee was the strongest exponent of this teaching in the Far East, and this teaching has now taken hold around the world. This teaching was, and still is, leading people to exclusiveness and division! Due to this concubine insult, all other Chinese Christian bodies from then to this day are speaking against Watchman Nee’s groups. We have mentioned Adam’s fall was because he stretched out his hand; this Locality Law leading to exclusiveness and division is also one of the falls due to man’s hand being stretched out! We need to be careful!

One Friday evening in 1957, Witness Lee asked me (the only worker) to stay in Taipei, because he would talk to TAS about the Locality Law (or church ground). A total of five people attended that meeting: TAS, Poul Madsen, Witness Lee (???), Zhang Wu-chen (???), and Zhang Yu-lan (???). I stayed downstairs in the worker’s home waiting to hear the report. The meeting finished before 9:00pm. Witness Lee came to the worker’s home immediately to talk to me, and said, “I (Lee) asked TAS: If there are five different Christian groups in Taipei City, which one is the real church? TAS thought for a little while and said: 'If those five Christian groups are really born again by the Holy Spirit (i.e. they have Christ in their hearts), then they are all churches, because the church is measured by Christ.'" The three Chinese there were deeply influenced by Watchman Nee’s Locality Law or Church Ground teaching. TAS saw by their faces that they did not agree, so he asked: "What do you mean by Church Ground?" Witness Lee said: "Drawing from the 'type' in the Old Testament, Israel could not build the temple in Babylon, nor in the desert, but only in Jerusalem on the original ground." TAS said: "Yes. But what is Jerusalem's original ground?" Lee said: "It is where the Holy Spirit for the first time built the church on one locality, one church in Acts." TAS immediately knew that was the teaching of Watchman Nee’s book "Rethinking of our Mission" (1939 published in Honor Oak), so he said: "This is your interpretation! As far as I know the real Church Ground is not one locality, one church, but is Christ Himself!" When I heard this it was a shock to me because I also held fast to Nee’s teaching at that time. It was really a great shake-up to me personally to realize that Jerusalem's original ground is not one locality, one church, but is Christ Himself!

Then Witness Lee argued with TAS saying, "We say that the Church Ground is one locality one church, which means Unity in one city." TAS said: "If you mean that the Church Ground means Unity in one city, it means that you agree with my opinion, and disagree with yourselves! One locality or one church teaching or other teachings cannot bring Unity among Christians. Only Christ Himself can bring Christians true Unity, not only in one place, but also in other places! The truth is: Things divide; Christ unites!" When I heard this, it was a second shock to me; in fact, the Church Ground teaching collapsed within me and I totally abandoned that teaching from that moment.

Witness Lee argued again, but TAS said, “If you follow the Holy Spirit's leading and do something according to the examples in the New Testament, that is good, but don’t say 'this is the only way'! The Holy Spirit is too big to comprehend.” (As I understand it he meant: Don’t say that other Christian bodies are all concubines and are not the Church.) Then TAS said: "There is no need to continue this kind of meeting!" And immediately the meeting ended!

Before 9:00pm, Witness Lee came to the worker’s home where I was waiting and told me all of the above. He said: "We will never invite TAS into our midst again!"However, because I was totally changed through what I'd heard, I argued with him till after midnight – in fact until 1:00am. One thing I remember saying was, “TAS never intended to control or to capture our work, he only ministers Christ to us! If you don’t work with TAS or you refuse his ministry, which is Christ Himself, then that means you shut out Jesus Christ (Rev. 3:20)! That is a very serious and dangerous matter!” Finally, Brother Lee seemed to be convinced by me, and said, “I will work with him (TAS) again!” and I was appeased.I said to brother Lee, “If brother Watchman Nee were here tonight, he would change his position on the Locality Law”! But Brother Lee seemed to disagree with me. (This conversation was on the Friday night.)
The next Monday morning, brother TAS continued his messages on“The Persistent Purpose of God”. When he spoke (chapter nine, page 69 of the book by the same name) he said,“We must be very careful not to make Christ, or His Church, smaller than it really is. We must not make Christ smaller than God has made Him. We may not make Him just our Christ, our little Christ, the Christ that belongs to us, the Christ of our particular locality!”Witness Lee didn’t like translating this paragraph into Chinese! On the same day, at around 3:00pm, Witness Lee came to the workers’ home to see me. He angrily hit the table and shouted at me, “We hold fast on Church Ground, why did we become a Little church, a Little Christ?” I was astonished and deeply silent! It seemed to me that Witness Lee would no longer work with TAS in the future! All of the conversations above were in private, not in public. At that time I reasoned, "Whether Witness Lee works with TAS or not, it does not matter! I have been getting a New Bible (seeing everywhere the living Christ) through TAS's ministry by the Holy Spirit! The greatest need of every local church is spiritual food (the living Christ). The elementary principles of Christ (i.e. spiritual milk) are good but are not enough; we must go on and learn obedience through suffering to reach full growth (i.e. solid food). If the elementary principles become merely traditions, we lose the freshness and impact of life: ‘The grapes of Eshcol became raisins’ (Num 13:23). We have to abide in and minister new light and life - the new living Christ from the Bible - and feed Christians with solid food." Now I had begun to get this from the Bible! At the end of 1958, Witness Lee sent me to Gao-Xiong (the second largest city in Taiwan) to serve.

1959 - In the sovereignty of God, 1959 was the beginning of a tragic and terrible year for Watchman Nee’s groups (including Witness Lee). The reason: In April, after one of the Thursday evening meetings on John chapter 4, at around 8:40pm, Witness Lee (with an angry red face) made a public (not private) announcement when all the co-workers of the Taiwan churches and the local saints were gathered together in Taipei. This announcement consisted of:

(1) His formal proclamation: "From now on, I will no longer work with TAS." This contradicted his public announcement and comment in 1955: “We are going to work with TAS! He is like refined pure gold and a pressed diamond! In 1934 Watchman Nee introduced TAS and spread his ministry to the whole of China!” We were all glad to hear that in 1955, which was the first time TAS visited the Far East.Watchman Nee also referred to TAS as a spiritual man several times while he was in Shanghai in 1947. This meant that in effect, Witness Lee had stated that he would no longer work with spiritual people from 1959 onwards.

2) He spoke evilly against TAS: He used Shandong dialect in speaking against TAS: “????
(??)?????????????(?????????)?????”! Which translated means "TAS’s message (little church, little Christ) is like passing gas"!

When I heard Witness Lee’s terrible words, my whole body was shocked and I was shaken right to the core. I sighed in my heart, “O dear brother Lee, what are you doing?! Why?! Those dirty words... let it not even be named among us, as is fitting for saints – Eph. 5:3!”

(3) He cursed himself: Using Jacob's words he said: “If there is a division among us due to my refusing to work with TAS, I shall go down to Sheol in mourning!” (Gen. 37:35). ( ??????????????????????????????????!)! )

This was the first time ever that there had been no prayer at the end of the meeting, and everybody went home sad! The day after, Witness Lee was sick.He didn’t do any public speaking for the next six months.

In fact, since 1961, Watchman Nee’s (including Witness Lee's) groups in Manila, and subsequently in Singapore, Bangkok, Hong Kong and Taiwan, all divided. Even today, forty years after this division, those who followed Nee’s Locality teaching and work, continue to divide and be exclusive! It’s a tragedy! In principle, those who followed Witness Lee’s co-workers and elders, including a lot of the second generation were, and are, really experiencing “going down to Sheol in mourning”.Finally some of them separated from W. Lee!

After this public announcement, whereby Lee said that he would never work with TAS again, I went back to Gao-Xiong the very next morning.Following the leading of the Holy Spirit I prepared to leave brother Lee’s co-worker relationship. Thanks be to the Lord, my wife got a teaching job in Gao-Xiong high school. Since then, I have never participated in brother Lee’s co-workers meetings. At the time, some leading brothers and sisters came to my home and wanted to support and follow me. I said to them, “No! Don’t follow me! I am nothing! If you follow me now, after three years, you will want to kill me because I am not your ideal Christian! You and I need to pray that God reveals His Son in us, so that we will all follow Him!Because of TAS’s ministry, the Holy Spirit opened my eyes and I really began to see the revelation of Jesus Christ and Him crucified.My life has been changing and in a revolutionary way! Please study TAS's books and receive the revelation of God’s Son by the Holy Spirit! Then we can work together in that day with heavenly vision.”

rayliotta

01-18-2015, 08:11 PM

awareness

01-18-2015, 08:26 PM

I'm not sure who Herald Hsu is. But I think this passage from Philip Lin's book stands pretty well on its own. Is there any real question that he's describing a kind of partisan politics? "Brother Lee got to know that those brothers were influenced by Brother Sparks and were dissenters." Dissenters from what? Why, dissenters from Witness Lee's ministry, of course!

The bottom line is, Watchman Nee and Witness Lee had some kind of diplomatic immunity from being called dissenters, even as they condemned all the other groups.

If TAS uses the word "concubine," then it is an "insult." But when Witness Lee used terms like "daughters of the whore" ... what is that?

Seems fairly transparent, dont'cha think?Brother Lee was "passing gas."

rayliotta

01-18-2015, 08:27 PM

Brother Lee was "passing gas."

He did that, too?

Freedom

01-18-2015, 08:27 PM

The bottom line is, Watchman Nee and Witness Lee had some kind of diplomatic immunity from being called dissenters, even as they condemned all the other groups.

If TAS uses the word "concubine," then it is an "insult." But when Witness Lee used terms like "daughters of the whore" ... what is that?

Seems fairly transparent, dont'cha think?

I never heard the other half of the story. All I know is what I heard all the time growing up, that TAS wasn't "clear" regarding the ground of the church. Well, it seems that once you know the other half of the story, TAS understood WL's argument and position, he just didn't agree with it. As we know WL didn't like people who disagreed with him.

rayliotta

01-18-2015, 08:30 PM

I never heard the other half of the story. All I know is what I heard all the time growing up, that TAS wasn't "clear" regarding the ground of the church. Well, it seems that once you know the other half of the story, TAS understood WL's argument and position, he just didn't agree with it. As we know WL didn't like people who disagreed with him.

Yeah, they're dissenters.

Jumpin' Jack Flash!

awareness

01-18-2015, 09:28 PM

Brother Lee was "passing gas."He did that, too?'nough said.

TLFisher

01-18-2015, 10:46 PM

I'm not sure who Herald Hsu is. But I think this passage from Philip Lin's book stands pretty well on its own.

Herald Hsu was one of Witness Lee's co-workers in Taiwan 1949 until 57/58. Phillip Lin didn't get into the details of the 1955 and 1957 visit by T.Austin Sparks. Everything was fine with Sparks' fellowship until Sparks "touched" the ground of locality doctrine.
I believe Sparks did understand the ground of locality doctrine, but saw emphasis on the doctrine leads to division.

TLFisher

01-18-2015, 10:50 PM

Dissenters from what?

Who knows what the dissent was. Perhaps they dissented against church property used to pay Lee family debt? That could have occurred later in the 1950's.

Freedom

01-19-2015, 09:39 PM

Herald Hsu was one of Witness Lee's co-workers in Taiwan 1949 until 57/58. Phillip Lin didn't get into the details of the 1955 and 1957 visit by T.Austin Sparks. Everything was fine with Sparks' fellowship until Sparks "touched" the ground of locality doctrine.
I believe Sparks did understand the ground of locality doctrine, but saw emphasis on the doctrine leads to division.

I listened to a recording of James Barber where he presented a "history" of "the Recovery" and what Lin says regarding Sparks is strikingly similar to what James Barber said. Obviously, their source is the same, that source being WL.

Friedel

01-20-2015, 01:22 AM

I listened to a recording of James Barber where he presented a "history" of "the Recovery" and what Lin says regarding Sparks is strikingly similar to what James Barber said. Obviously, their source is the same, that source being WL.

Witness Lee on several occasions mentioned the speaking of T. Austin-Sparks in 1957. He loved to tell how how he was translating for TAS but when he mentioned "little Christ, little church", he stopped translating and continued speaking himself.

I asked Herald Hsu himself about that. He said that Witness Lee was lying every time he told that. He said he "almost stopped" but continued to translate until the end of that meeting and for the rest of the conference meetings.

I do not know if Philip Lin mentioned it but Witness Lee visited TAS in London, I believe in 1958, therefore after the two visits by Austin-Sparks in 1955 and 1957. Lee's infamous "passing gas" statement followed in 1959. (Please correct me if I have the dates wrong.)

Naturally, they would like to play down the influence Austin-Sparks had on Witness Lee. I believe I did post it on the old Bereans forum that the well-known LSM logo was actually a crib from an earlier design by TAS. I remember at least one occasion where Witness Lee boasted about how inspired he was in designing that logo.

I am sure he "borrowed" a lot more from Austin-Sparks. One of the series of messages printed by TAS as "The Octave of Redemption" was more or the less the basis for another title by Witness Lee. And there could be more.

But this is the kicker. When you look at any and all publications by TAS it has the following note:In keeping with T. Austin-Sparks' wishes that what was freely received should he freely given and not sold for profit, and that his messages be reproduced word for word, we ask if you choose to share these messages with others, to please respect his wishes and offer them freely – free of any changes, free of any charge (except necessary distribution costs) and with this statement included.

TLFisher

01-20-2015, 01:41 PM

Naturally, they would like to play down the influence Austin-Sparks had on Witness Lee. I believe I did post it on the old Bereans forum that the well-known LSM logo was actually a crib from an earlier design by TAS. I remember at least one occasion where Witness Lee boasted about how inspired he was in designing that logo.

I am sure he "borrowed" a lot more from Austin-Sparks. One of the series of messages printed by TAS as "The Octave of Redemption" was more or the less the basis for another title by Witness Lee. And there could be more.

But this is the kicker. When you look at any and all publications by TAS it has the following note:In keeping with T. Austin-Sparks' wishes that what was freely received should he freely given and not sold for profit, and that his messages be reproduced word for word, we ask if you choose to share these messages with others, to please respect his wishes and offer them freely – free of any changes, free of any charge (except necessary distribution costs) and with this statement included.

I had been told years earlier in particular Witness Lee's The Economy of God came from a conference Sparks gave. When and where these messages were delivered by Sparks, there's far too many to research in order to validate the claim.
In regard to TAS publications, same can be said for messages delivered at West Coast Conferences. Messages Stephen Kaung and brothers give are printed verbatim and free of charge.

Freedom

01-20-2015, 06:54 PM

Witness Lee on several occasions mentioned the speaking of T. Austin-Sparks in 1957. He loved to tell how how he was translating for TAS but when he mentioned "little Christ, little church", he stopped translating and continued speaking himself.

I asked Herald Hsu himself about that. He said that Witness Lee was lying every time he told that. He said he "almost stopped" but continued to translate until the end of that meeting and for the rest of the conference meetings.

I do not know if Philip Lin mentioned it but Witness Lee visited TAS in London, I believe in 1958, therefore after the two visits by Austin-Sparks in 1955 and 1957. Lee's infamous "passing gas" statement followed in 1959. (Please correct me if I have the dates wrong.)

Naturally, they would like to play down the influence Austin-Sparks had on Witness Lee. I believe I did post it on the old Bereans forum that the well-known LSM logo was actually a crib from an earlier design by TAS. I remember at least one occasion where Witness Lee boasted about how inspired he was in designing that logo.

I am sure he "borrowed" a lot more from Austin-Sparks. One of the series of messages printed by TAS as "The Octave of Redemption" was more or the less the basis for another title by Witness Lee. And there could be more.

But this is the kicker. When you look at any and all publications by TAS it has the following note:In keeping with T. Austin-Sparks' wishes that what was freely received should he freely given and not sold for profit, and that his messages be reproduced word for word, we ask if you choose to share these messages with others, to please respect his wishes and offer them freely – free of any changes, free of any charge (except necessary distribution costs) and with this statement included.

It sounds like Lee had a big lack of respect for TAS. That is really troubling, especially if Lee made frequent use of his ministry.

TLFisher

01-20-2015, 08:23 PM

OBW

01-20-2015, 09:02 PM

Freedom

01-20-2015, 09:32 PM

rayliotta

01-21-2015, 01:36 AM

Freedom

01-21-2015, 07:32 AM

Lin makes a deceptive statement here. It is also full of loaded language. What stood out to me is that he calls the claim churches were following Lee an "evil report". I have to ask, what makes such a report evil? Since following the ministry of one man (Lee) is the basis for being considered as part of the "Recovery", then such a report could not possibly be false. I'm sure Lin is also very well aware of that. The hidden innuendo is that they consider pointing out certain facts the equivalent spreading an "evil report".

On the flip side, those individuals and LC's whom have decided not to follow a man and his ministry have been quarantined. Go figure.

I agree with OBW, from the LC perspective, it's simply a matter of thinking that no one else has brought them what Lee did, so they have no choice but to follow him. I know in the past when I have tried to voice concerns regarding the fact that we only use one version of the Bible or only read LSM materials, they defend the practice by saying that other books/ministries have little value. Since the NT ministry is equated with Lee's ministry, they can follow Lee all they want without thinking for a second that they are actually following him.

HERn

01-21-2015, 10:29 AM

Since the NT ministry is equated with Lee's ministry, they can follow Lee all they want without thinking for a second that they are actually following him.

Schizophrenia (in a general non-medical sense) anyone!

OBW

01-21-2015, 12:12 PM

On the flip side, those individuals and LC's whom have decided not to follow a man and his ministry have been quarantined. Go figure.

I agree with OBW, from the LC perspective, it's simply a matter of thinking that no one else has brought them what Lee did, so they have no choice but to follow him. I know in the past when I have tried to voice concerns regarding the fact that we only use one version of the Bible or only read LSM materials, they defend the practice by saying that other books/ministries have little value. Since the NT ministry is equated with Lee's ministry, they can follow Lee all they want without thinking for a second that they are actually following him.And if everything else has little or no value, then you have prequalified your source as only being the very one that you claim you are not just following because he is who he is. No, you are following him because he is the only one who teaches the right stuff.

Laws are funny things. Back when they last did a serious overhaul of the US tax system (1986) there was a littering of special provisions that, if you knew how to read between the lines, were drafted to exclude a very specific taxpayer (large taxpayer from the home jurisdiction of some congressman whose vote was needed) from the effect of some provision. There was one such provision that I came across that described a particular size of company in a very specific industry in a rather small state (Arkansas). The specifics would not cover more than one company unless there were doppelganger companies existing in Arkansas.

That is the kind of nuanced "we don't follow a particular person" that the LRC declares. The so fully qualify the kind of materials that will be permitted such that there is only one who can fill the void, then declare that it is not about the person.

Yeah, right. And Elvis really did visit my grocery store last week.

TLFisher

01-21-2015, 12:31 PM

TLFisher

01-21-2015, 12:40 PM

From Kindle location 1992 of Sacrifice and Sail On:

"There were some evil reports that condemned the churches in the Lord's recovery, saying that we had only followed Witness Lee. Fearing that we would be deceived by His enemy Satan, Brother Lee was very strong in telling us that we should follow the New Testament ministry, which "ministers Christ, builds up the church." We should not follow a person, nor to follow him."

I don't doubt Witness Lee said all these things. However Witness Lee passed away in 1997. So he's no longer around to say "We should not follow a person, nor to follow him." Yet this is what the nature of the recovery through the publications has become. Through the heavy emphasis of footnotes to the Holy Word for Morning Revival. To have fellowship with or in the local churches, there's is no fellowship unless the fellowship is based on LSM publications which as we know is dependent wholly on the ministries of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee.
So Witness Lee can say not to follow a person, nor to follow him, but the blended brother, coworkers, elders, etc cannot say they have not followed him they have. Otherwise, how can they still condemn the brothers who did not line up with the direction of Lee's ministry via LSM?

On another note, referring to the New Testament ministry, why is there an inability or unwillingness to receive brothers outside the LSM nature of fellowship who minister the New Testament ministry?

OBW

01-21-2015, 12:49 PM

On another note, referring to the New Testament ministry, why is there an inability or unwillingness to receive brothers outside the LSM nature of fellowship who minister the New Testament ministry?The problem is the definition of "the New Testament ministry." They define it so precisely and consistently in line with the teachings of Lee and the LSM/LRC that no other can come close to teaching that. So there will be no new source of teaching.

Ohio

01-21-2015, 12:56 PM

I don't doubt Witness Lee said all these things. However Witness Lee passed away in 1997. So he's no longer around to say "We should not follow a person, nor to follow him."

WL often talked about "following a man." He spoke this in context of of his following Nee. He said, "If the man leads us to God, we should follow him."

And all the Blendeds on the front rows nodded. :yep::yep::yep: :yep::yep::yep: :yep::yep::yep: :yep::yep::yep:

According to Acts 20.30, those ones who may have at one time led us to God will later "rise up, speaking perverted things, drawing away the disciples to themselves," and away from God. Sadly, Paul's tragic prophecy to the elders in Ephesus has once again happened among us.

TLFisher

01-21-2015, 12:59 PM

The problem is the definition of "the New Testament ministry." They define it so precisely and consistently in line with the teachings of Lee and the LSM/LRC that no other can come close to teaching that. So there will be no new source of teaching.

Really? Is "the new Testament ministry" really that narrow? If that's the view of blended brothers and co-workers, that's why the so-called local churches are at best ministry churches.
Next thing you might hear as an absolute statement coming from a blended brother:
the Body of Christ is comprised only of believers meeting practically in the local churches.

HERn

01-21-2015, 03:08 PM

WL often talked about "following a man." He spoke this in context of of his following Nee. He said, "If the man leads us to God, we should follow him."

And all the Blendeds on the front rows nodded. :yep::yep::yep: :yep::yep::yep: :yep::yep::yep: :yep::yep::yep:

Question: Since there are no clergy and no hierarchy in "The Lord's Recovery" why is it that at trainings and conferences the "most blended" of the brothers sit on the front row while the "hoping to be blended" brothers sit in the next rows followed by the "no chance in Hades to be blended" brothers and other riffraff in the remaining rows?

OBW

01-21-2015, 04:22 PM

Freedom

01-21-2015, 08:05 PM

Question: Since there are no clergy and no hierarchy in "The Lord's Recovery" why is it that at trainings and conferences the "most blended" of the brothers sit on the front row while the "hoping to be blended" brothers sit in the next rows followed by the "no chance in Hades to be blended" brothers and other riffraff in the remaining rows?

Hmmm, I think I know the answer to this one. There is clergy in the LC, at least in the form of a two-tier system. There are the BB's and then the "small potatoes". A prime example of this is whenever there is something such as a regional conference, it is always the BB's who come to speak. It is never involves local brothers speaking.

TLFisher

01-21-2015, 08:51 PM

Freedom

01-21-2015, 10:08 PM

The following is from Kindle location 1998 of Sacrifice and Sail On

"Today the so-called "accepting many ministries" is a layman's saying and is nonbiblical."

Really? Nonbiblical?

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord

Above from 1 Corinthians 12, apostle Paul says there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. Is this nonbiblical?

Really, a whole book could be written refuting what Lin says. I had to take a break from reading it because there is some much propaganda. I do think this book provides valuable insight into the underlying attitudes that are contained within the LC.

I completely agree that WL had an unbiblical view of ministries. The implications of WL's view are disturbing.

TLFisher

01-22-2015, 06:53 PM

I had to take a break from reading it because there is some much propaganda. I do think this book provides valuable insight into the underlying attitudes that are contained within the LC.

Same here. I had taken a break from reading the book. Slowly getting back to it.
What would you consider the underlying attitudes to be?

Freedom

01-22-2015, 07:43 PM

Same here. I had taken a break from reading the book. Slowly getting back to it.
What would you consider the underlying attitudes to be?

Several things stand out to me:
1) Lin seems overly defensive of Lee as a person. He uses his close association to Lee to attempt to gain credibility and justify Lee's actions.

2) The book seems to be a defense and promotion of WL's teachings, rather than simply Lin's perspective of Lee (His stated purpose in writing this book).

3) Finally and most importantly, the book is written from the arrogant perspective of all historical/world events of the last 100 years revolving around what Nee and Lee were doing at the same points in time. Here is an example:
In November 1948, the US presidential election committee declared that the candidate of the US Democratic Party, Harry Truman, had won the election . After Communist Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe and after the outbreak of the Korean War, the United States became alarmed about the threat of communism to Western democracies. In order to contain the Chinese Communists and the Soviet Union, Truman accepted General MacArthur’s suggestion and changed his ongoing China policy of dumping Chiang’s KMP and favoring Mao’s Communist Party, He put Taiwan into his Pacific defense line and treated Taiwan as one unsinkable aircraft carrier for the United States in Southeast Asia; he also began to strengthen links with Taiwan. Brother Lee credited this as the doing of the Lord.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (p. 13). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

I'm not claiming for a second that the Lord didn't use some of these events, but for Lee to attribute these things to the Lord "opening a door" for his ministry is quite a stretch. There are many more examples of this view in Lin's book.

TLFisher

01-22-2015, 09:27 PM

Really, a whole book could be written refuting what Lin says.

True. It would be like in baseball tossing a hitter a hanging curveball. Bringing up the past Philip Lin makes it too easy to refute. Especially in areas where he leaves out important details.

Ohio

01-23-2015, 06:13 AM

I'm not claiming for a second that the Lord didn't use some of these events, but for Lee to attribute these things to the Lord "opening a door" for his ministry is quite a stretch. There are many more examples of this view in Lin's book.

All true followers of Lee have been convinced that the God of the universe has made Lee the center of His universe.

Its hard to believe that i once believed that too.

Freedom

01-23-2015, 07:49 AM

Here are two more quotes that demonstrate the same mindset:
As we look back today at what I heard forty-one years ago from Brother Lee, I cannot help but to say that Brother Lee was so right. Taiwan is better off today than it was forty-one years ago in every aspect, spiritually and physically. I admire Brother Lee’s insightful perception. This is the Lord’s mercy and the blessing of the church. Brother Lee said: “From 1922 to 1949, the mainland of China was a nursery for the Lord’s recovery. But in 1949 the Lord had made a big turn from the mainland of China toward Taiwan.”

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (p. 15). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition. The Lord used the Roman Empire to get the gospel in good shape for further advancement. He used Germany to support the Reformation. He used the British Empire to spread the Gospel and to expand the divine truth to the ends of the earth. But the Lord still had one thing that had not been accomplished. To Brother Lee’s understanding, this was why the Lord had reserved a part of the earth for this purpose. He was referring to the United States of America.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (p. 33). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

In the first quote I posted, Lin includes a statement where Lee says that in 1949, the Lord made a "big turn" for Taiwan. Well it just so happens that was the year that Lee fled to Taiwan. The underlying implication is that Lee's going to Taiwan was the Lord making a "big turn towards Taiwan". Again, I'm not trying to question what events were or weren't of the Lord, however, I just have a problem with Lee attempting to claim that whatever the Lord was doing at the time involved him as a central figure.

In the second quote, what struck me is that Lin had just finished talking about Taiwan, and then began discussing Democracy, the Roman Empire, and how the Lord "reserved" the United States. Obviously, Lee felt his work here was the Lord's move here. I thought to myself if I were to ask someone in the LC what year the Lord started a work in the U.S., what answer would I get? I would expect to hear an answer like 1962, when Lee decided to stay here.

Ohio

01-23-2015, 08:12 AM

In the second quote, what struck me is that Lin had just finished talking about Taiwan, and then began discussing Democracy, the Roman Empire, and how the Lord "reserved" the United States. Obviously, Lee felt his work here was the Lord's move here. I thought to myself if I were to ask someone in the LC what year the Lord started a work in the U.S., what answer would I get? I would expect to hear an answer like 1962, when Lee decided to stay here.
I'm sure Lin conveniently left out the fact that the church in Taipei ran Lee out of town for forcing the church to sell property to pay off Lee's debts from bad business dealings.

TLFisher

01-23-2015, 01:30 PM

I'm sure Lin conveniently left out the fact that the church in Taipei ran Lee out of town for forcing the church to sell property to pay off Lee's debts from bad business dealings.

Not knowing how old Philip Lin is, how old was he during the 1950's? A pre-teen? A teen? He's not from Taipei, but from another part of Taiwan. Just he gathered information on Sparks to describe Sparks in an unfavorable light, it goes both ways.
A basic underlying attitude that exists is the "cover Noah" principle. Lee may have done many things that could portray him unfavorably, but he's "covered by the brothers." All the while brothers outside the LSM fellowship are described negatively.

Freedom

01-24-2015, 10:23 AM

On a bit of a different subject, there is a section in Lin's book that discusses the translation of the RcV. The specifics of translation itself are not what I wanted to bring up, but something Lin says in regards to the KJV and CUV (Chinese Union Version) Bibles. Here is an excerpt:

Furthermore, some translations omitted certain crucial points in the original text; we found out and corrected them. For example, in Matthew 10: 32, The Chinese Union Version Bible as well as the King James Version Bible both translated this phrase as: “Whoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.” This portion of the text according to the original text should be translated as: “Everyone therefore who will confess in ME before men, I also will confess in HIM before my Father who is in the heavens.” The King James Version of the Bible missed “in ME” in the first half and also missed “in HIM” in the last half. In other words, according to both Versions, in the first half, we are missed out in the Lord; and in the last half, the Lord is missed out in us, therefore, the text omits to describe the organic union that takes place between the two... It is very unfortunate and reckless that both the King James Version and the Chinese Union Version had not translated such points as these accurately.

With regard to the translation of the New Testament Recovery Version, we are not boasting.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (pp. 61-62). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition. Notice what Lin says at the end of this all. He claims the KJV rendering of a verse is reckless. To me, it's one thing to say that you like a certain translation over another one, but to call a well-respected translation of the Bible reckless, just because you don't like it? That's really pushing it.

It goes without saying that each translation of the Bible has it's pluses and minuses, so it should come as no surprise that people are going to find things they don't like about the KJV or any other version. That doesn't mean that the KJV translators did a reckless job, or engaged in reckless scholarship. I wonder if Philip Lin has any evidence to support his statement? If not, maybe he needs to retract his statement.

Lin's statement, that they are not boasting regarding the translation of the RcV contradicts what he just said prior to that. Because Lin claims that one of the best selling versions of the Bible of all time is a reckless translation, it might make the reader believe that the RcV is a far superior translation. Had he simply compared the RcV to other translations, I wouldn't consider that to be boasting. But to say what he said about the KJV and CUV, yes that does seem like he's boasting.

Finally, in contrast to the translation work of the KJV, I think there is evidence to believe that the RcV translation was reckless, and that WL engaged in reckless behavior along with his son. Here is the example that comes to mind:

RECOVERY VERSION TRANSLATION DEBACLE
...
To my utter amazement I was informed the following day by Godfred, who received a telephone call from Philip, that our work was being immediately terminated, and the translation would be moved to Texas. Kerry had reported what Bill Duane had said to Philip Lee, and Philip blew up, totally misinterpreting what Bill Duane had said, and calling his father in Taiwan to report the whole affair. He believed that Bill had referred to him, Philip Lee, as the Devil, when he said, “We should not give any ground for the devil to come in.” Using a Chinese proverb, he said that if you treat the dog evilly, then in effect you render the same treatment to the dog’s master, signifying Brother Lee. If you call the general manager of the LSM the Devil, then you call his boss, Brother Lee the same. By this twist of facts and logic, Philip concluded that we were attacking both him and his father. Godfred was appalled and totally disgusted with Philip Lee’s reaction and the way the whole affair was being handled. He was outraged, more so than me, considering that we who had been so closely and deeply involved in the work for years and burdened for its final completion were so abruptly being relieved of our responsibility and replaced. He pointed out to me that this was an example of Phillip’s untenable, growing influence over the work and over his father.

John Ingalls, Speaking the Truth in Love

Ohio

01-24-2015, 01:05 PM

Kerry had reported what Bill Duane had said to Philip Lee, and Philip blew up, totally misinterpreting what Bill Duane had said, and calling his father in Taiwan to report the whole affair. He believed that Bill had referred to him, Philip Lee, as the Devil, when he said, “We should not give any ground for the devil to come in.” Using a Chinese proverb, he said that if you treat the dog evilly, then in effect you render the same treatment to the dog’s master, signifying Brother Lee. If you call the general manager of the LSM the Devil, then you call his boss, Brother Lee the same. By this twist of facts and logic, Philip concluded that we were attacking both him and his father.

I guess I like some of these old Chinese proverbs.

Phillip Lee, the reprobate son, could rightly be called the Devil by those he abused and molested. If his Daddy decides to take it that personally, then maybe we should lower our respect for him too.

I live next to a couple of uncontrolled Akitas, which are sometimes known as "silent killers," since they attack without warning. On several occasions last year we and other neighbors were attacked by one of these dogs. Had I been packing "heat," I would have readily shot the bitch without a bit of remorse. WL employed his son as the "LSM Office" the same way my neighbors employ their dogs. In this regard, shooting Lee's "dog" is like shooting his master. IIRC, it was John Ingalls himself who personally stopped one brother in Anaheim from shooting Phillip Lee for molesting his wife. Some dogs need to be shot. It's the only way to protect ourselves.

Freedom

01-24-2015, 04:44 PM

I guess I like some of these old Chinese proverbs.

Phillip Lee, the reprobate son, could rightly be called the Devil by those he abused and molested. If his Daddy decides to take it that personally, then maybe we should lower our respect for him too.

I live next to a couple of uncontrolled Akitas, which are sometimes known as "silent killers," since they attack without warning. On several occasions last year we and other neighbors were attacked by one of these dogs. Had I been packing "heat," I would have readily shot the bitch without a bit of remorse. WL employed his son as the "LSM Office" the same way my neighbors employ their dogs. In this regard, shooting Lee's "dog" is like shooting his master. IIRC, it was John Ingalls himself who personally stopped one brother in Anaheim from shooting Phillip Lee for molesting his wife. Some dogs need to be shot. It's the only way to protect ourselves.

Lin's book obviously tells just side of the story, the story that everyone in the LC has been told, minus a few things. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I believe he is attempting to use his personal relationship with W. Lee as a way to persuade the reader that his book presents the whole story. On the subject of the RcV translation work, Lin fails to mention the matters related to the LSM office politics. He was there, he knows very well what was going on. I would respect him a little more had he at least made some admission that there were some problems surrounding the RcV translation project. However, he fails to mention that important bit of information and proceeds to attack other tranlations in attempt to bring more credibility to the RcV.

LSM would have everyone believe that RcV is the best translation and study Bible out there. Maybe it has certain strengths, that is something other people can debate. From a historical perspective, however, no matter how good anyone says the RcV actually is, what happened in the late 80's with the work on the RcV is something that should be taken into consideration. What I mean by this is that when you consider the actions of W. Lee in regards to this project, how can you retain any respect for his footnotes and contribution to the translation? Actions always speak louder than words. The RcV is not simply a Bible. It is a work that is representative of the politics of W. Lee, P. Lee, and the LSM.

In the section of his book on the RcV, Lin makes the following statement:
Three years later, in 1991, after extensive revision, augmentation, and improvement, the English edition of the Recovery Version of the New Testament was published in Anaheim, California, by Living Stream Ministry. This is the most representative piece of Brother Lee’s literature ministry besides his oral preaching ministry for supplying and nourishing churches around the globe.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (p. 57). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition. Lin is correct about the RcV being representative of Lee's literature ministry, just not in the way he was thinking. The RcV represents the politics and corruption related to publishing house of W. Lee's literature ministry, the LSM.

awareness

01-24-2015, 04:44 PM

Furthermore, some translations omitted certain crucial points in the original text; we found out and corrected them. For example, in Matthew 10: 32, The Chinese Union Version Bible as well as the King James Version Bible both translated this phrase as: “Whoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.” This portion of the text according to the original text should be translated as: “Everyone therefore who will confess in ME before men, I also will confess in HIM before my Father who is in the heavens.” The King James Version of the Bible missed “in ME” in the first half and also missed “in HIM” in the last half. In other words, according to both Versions, in the first half, we are missed out in the Lord; and in the last half, the Lord is missed out in us, therefore, the text omits to describe the organic union that takes place between the two... It is very unfortunate and reckless that both the King James Version and the Chinese Union Version had not translated such points as these accurately.

With regard to the translation of the New Testament Recovery Version, we are not boasting.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (pp. 61-62). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.
What's reckless is slinging the word reckless around toward Bible translations & translators. It also reveals their ignorance and bias.

The KJV is based upon The Majority Text, or from the majority of the manuscripts we have available. Plus, when the KJV was translated they didn't have Critical Text manuscripts, the earlier manuscripts, that the Nestle-Aland is based upon, that the RcV is based upon.

Last but not least, neither the Majority Text, nor the Critical text, translates Matt 10:32 as it is translated in the RcV.

That's their bias sticking out like a sore thumb, putting Matt 10:32 on the torture rack, to make it say what Lee wants it to say, to support Witness Lee's mingling doctrine.

Therefore, it's the translators of the RcV that are being reckless. Their judgment of reckless translators comes back to bite them in the rear. As they judge they are judged.

Freedom

01-24-2015, 05:31 PM

What's reckless is slinging the word reckless around toward Bible translations & translators. It also reveals their ignorance and bias.

The KJV is based upon The Majority Text, or from the majority of the manuscripts we have available. Plus, when the KJV was translated they didn't have Critical Text manuscripts, the earlier manuscripts, that the Nestle-Aland is based upon, that the RcV is based upon.

Last but not least, neither the Majority Text, nor the Critical text, translates Matt 10:32 as it is translated in the RcV.

That's their bias sticking out like a sore thumb, putting Matt 10:32 on the torture rack, to make it say what Lee wants it to say, to support Witness Lee's mingling doctrine.

Therefore, it's the translators of the RcV that are being reckless. Their judgment of reckless translators comes back to bite them in the rear. As they judge they are judged.

I don't know if Philip Lin's statement about the KJV is also representative of his peers in the LC, but he has made an utter fool of himself for saying that.

Given the time frame in which the KJV was written (and subsequently revised), I think it the final product is a solid translation. Of course, it's not the most relevant today, but I can't really say that I've come across anyone besides Lin who has had a basic disrespect for it. I'm not saying this to promote the KJV, and I don't think anyone is obligated to respect it. It's just the fact that it has remained relevant and so widely used for over 400 years attests to it not being a "reckless" translation, translated by "reckless" translators. Yet somehow despite all of this, Lin thinks he knows best.

I guess at the heart of the issue is what awareness says, that W. Lee needed verses translated a certain way to fit is doctrinal positions. In Lin's mind, this is a justification for attacking other translations of the Bible. While they are at it, they better remove all the KJV songs and Psalms that are found at the end of the Hymnal :eek:.

Ohio

01-24-2015, 06:54 PM

TLFisher

01-24-2015, 06:59 PM

Given the time frame in which the KJV was written (and subsequently revised), I think it the final product is a solid translation. Of course, it's not the most relevant today, but I can't really say that I've come across anyone besides Lin who has had a basic disrespect for it. I'm not saying this to promote the KJV, and I don't think anyone is obligated to respect it. It's just the fact that it has remained relevant and so widely used for over 400 years attests to it not being a "reckless" translation, translated by "reckless" translators. Yet somehow despite all of this, Lin thinks he knows best.

In the context of singing pslams, music is put to the words in King James. If a change a word here or there based on translation, the songs we sing from Psalms become awkward.

Freedom

01-24-2015, 07:08 PM

In the context of singing pslams, music is put to the words in King James. If a change a word here or there based on translation, the songs we sing from Psalms become awkward.

Oh, I was being sarcastic :lol:

On a more serious note, I was always under the impression that WL sometimes used the KJV, especially with the Old Testament. Obviously that would have changed over time, but I am pretty sure I've seen verses quoted from the KJV in older ministry materials, possibly Life Studies too.

TLFisher

01-24-2015, 07:18 PM

The following is from kindle location 2006 of Sacrifice and Sail On in Chapter 5.

The Bible shows us that there can be many apostles and prophets, but they all bear the same one ministry, which is the ministry for supplying Christ and the building up of the church. There were rumors spreading that the so-called local churches had to listen to one person's speaking, that is, Witness Lee's speaking. They thought that we just listen to one man's speaking and accepted one man's ministry, not accepting other's ministries. This is a lie. This is wrong.

I agree with Philip this is wrong, but it happens. How would one explain many localities in the Great Lakes area being cut off? How would one explain The Holy Word for Morning Revival? If it is not Witness Lee's word, it is Watchman Nee's with scripture to support their ministry portion.
Does this mean Philip Lin is now repenting for being one with the "One Publication" edict?

I seem to recall an event per Steve Isitt where an elder spoke these words that led to a sister ceasing from meeting "If you're not here for Brother Lee and his ministry, then you might as well not be here."

Ohio

01-24-2015, 07:20 PM

Oh, I was being sarcastic :lol:

On a more serious note, I was always under the impression that WL sometimes used the KJV, especially with the Old Testament. Obviously that would have changed over time, but I am pretty sure I've seen verses quoted from the KJV in older ministry materials, possibly Life Studies too.

The KJV was always used in conferences and church meetings with numerous "authorized" changes. All of us had our KJV Bibles with changes scribbled in the margins. As each book of the NT was translated for the Life-Study semi-annual trainings, we discarded the "modified" KJV when reading those scriptures, and read the RecVers (1st Ed.) which was actually a good translation, loosely based on the 1901 ASV.

In those days we did not have the NLT, NIV, NET, NASB, etc. as these were either not available or just published and being vetted by the Christian public.

Ohio

01-24-2015, 07:25 PM

TLFisher

01-24-2015, 08:25 PM

These were not rumors. Lee's books, teachings, and RecVers was crammed down our throats in a multitude of ways. Who is Lin trying to deceive? Which planet has he been living on? Who is the real liar?

Before the Life Study messages began, there were books of other ministries available in the bookroom.
Cannot say that now. You're not going to find books by RC Sproul or Francis Chan. Philip Lin needs to admit the nature of the recovery has changed over the decades. Prophesying now is according to the ministry of Lee and Nee and not according to our daily walk in the Lord throughout the week.

rayliotta

01-25-2015, 03:11 AM

awareness

01-25-2015, 09:58 AM

I don't know if Philip Lin's statement about the KJV is also representative of his peers in the LC, but he has made an utter fool of himself for saying that. :eek:.I think poor Philip Lin has the Witness Lee disease. That is, the idea that whatever Lee touches, speaks, or does, is golden, while everyone else, or even the KJV, is rust.

This makes Lin's book comical ... and sad.

Lin is a Lee mythmaker ....

Freedom

01-25-2015, 02:06 PM

I think poor Philip Lin has the Witness Lee disease. That is, the idea that whatever Lee touches, speaks, or does, is golden, while everyone else, or even the KJV, is rust.

This makes Lin's book comical ... and sad.

Lin is a Lee mythmaker ....

Evidently so. I had to laugh when I read some of the things that Lin wrote. Much of this is so far-fetched that it would make no sense to anyone who has not been involved in the LC. At the same time it's all very sad. Some people in the LC will actually read this stuff and believe it.

I'm just so glad that I've been able to see past some of this stuff. A few years ago, I might have believe every word of what was written in that book. What's worse is that I would have been happy to participate in efforts to recruit people to the LC.

rayliotta

01-25-2015, 07:27 PM

This makes Lin's book comical ... and sad.

Yes. And I like it. Perhaps there's a little too much truth hidden behind these attempts to cast everything in a certain light.

They say sometimes things get "lost in translation." Is it possible that in Lin's book, a few things have been "found in translation"? :hysterical::rollingeyesfrown:

TLFisher

01-25-2015, 08:09 PM

What's worse is that I would have been happy to participate in efforts to recruit people to the LC.

These efforts whether in BFA or in campus work I wouldn't call gospelize, but proselytize.

Freedom

01-25-2015, 10:24 PM

These efforts whether in BFA or in campus work I wouldn't call gospelize, but proselytize.

Proselytism is the most reasonable explanation. I was thinking about this today. When I read Lin's book, it all seems so ridiculous. Most in the LC wouldn't say that, so it definitely requires a certain mindset to believe the view of Lee that Lin presents. I don't think this mindset occurs overnight. There is conditioning involved. LCers learn that versions of the Bible besides the RcV are "reckless" translations. They learn there there aren't multiple ministries. It's all rather ridiculous, however, the groupthink is so pervasive that if I were to attempt to use a different version of the Bible in the meetings or use the term "ministry" in reference to something besides LSM, what would the reaction be?

This is something that really troubles me sometimes. The situation is all so clear to me. Both sides of the story are available on the internet, but the LC is so closed off to the truth. They continually reinforce even the most ridiculous of the types of things found it Lin's book. It's all so sad.

awareness

01-26-2015, 06:35 AM

This is something that really troubles me sometimes. The situation is all so clear to me. Both sides of the story are available on the internet, but the LC is so closed off to the truth. They continually reinforce even the most ridiculous of the types of things found it Lin's book. It's all so sad.
Troubles You? I'm surprised you haven't popped a cork by now. Seeing both sides, and still having a foot in the local church, if not more, and then finding out the hidden history of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee, something has to blow. How in the world are you holding it together?

Freedom

01-26-2015, 07:30 AM

Troubles You? I'm surprised you haven't popped a cork by now. Seeing both sides, and still having a foot in the local church, if not more, and then finding out the hidden history of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee, something has to blow. How in the world are you holding it together?

Good question. I can't say for sure, but I think it's a matter of my current situation being tolerable enough to focus on choosing the best time to leave rather than simply picking up and leaving. I'm sure the time will come, and I've distanced myself enough that I've been able to regain some sanity :yep:.

awareness

01-26-2015, 09:40 AM

Good question. I can't say for sure, but I think it's a matter of my current situation being tolerable enough to focus on choosing the best time to leave rather than simply picking up and leaving. I'm sure the time will come, and I've distanced myself enough that I've been able to regain some sanity :yep:.
Hang in there bro ... hang in there ... and many blessings to you ...

Ohio

01-26-2015, 12:57 PM

Troubles You? I'm surprised you haven't popped a cork by now. Seeing both sides, and still having a foot in the local church, if not more, and then finding out the hidden history of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee, something has to blow. How in the world are you holding it together?

Remember awareness ... Freedom is in a "local" church, and the brothers and sisters in each "local" church have complete independence and autonomy from any and all outside ministries ... or so they say.

TLFisher

01-26-2015, 12:59 PM

Both sides of the story are available on the internet, but the LC is so closed off to the truth.

The truth? The LSM leadership and LC elders cannot handle the truth. Paraphrasing Chris Wilde it would be reopening old wounds. Apparently the culture has been over the last several decades "pretend it doesn't exist". Why do you think when Steve Isitt wrote In Wake of the New Way, Dan Towle was quick to offer his fellowship to have Steve cut off?

TLFisher

01-26-2015, 01:14 PM

I'm surprised you haven't popped a cork by now. Seeing both sides, and still having a foot in the local church, if not more, and then finding out the hidden history of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee, something has to blow. How in the world are you holding it together?

Ya know awareness back in the mid to late 90's I went on in the local churches knowing about the antics of Phillip Lee and the hidden histories. As long as no one brought it up I was fine. It wasn't until "the brothers" began referring to "the rebellious ones", did they ignite a simmering fuse. I couldn't stay in the local churches at that time without "blowing a gasket".

TLFisher

01-26-2015, 01:17 PM

Proselytism is the most reasonable explanation.

I say that because for what it would take in pure evangelism would be considered a waste of time. If ones hearing the gospel, whether or not they receive salvation, if these ones are not "new ones" added to the local churches, they are considered a waste of time. Or so I have been told.

Freedom

01-26-2015, 06:56 PM

Ya know awareness back in the mid to late 90's I went on in the local churches knowing about the antics of Phillip Lee and the hidden histories. As long as no one brought it up I was fine. It wasn't until "the brothers" began referring to "the rebellious ones", did they ignite a simmering fuse. I couldn't stay in the local churches at that time without "blowing a gasket".

My situation has been that I got to the point where I realized that I need to leave, but I haven't felt the urgency to do so.

I remember a while back, some brothers were talking about how in the LC, they don't "throw anyone off the boat", meaning that they don't get rid of people who don't necessarily match up to their standards. When I hear that, I immediately thought to myself of all the stories that I've read where people have been "thrown off the boat", either because they expressed a divergent opinion or could meet the standard of attending the FTTA, or whatever else the case may be. So with that in mind, it almost makes me want to stay to prove them wrong. I don't want to purposely do anything that is going to create unnecessary problems, I just want everyone to see for themselves what happens to someone who chooses not to go along with the groupthink. Maybe it's already a lost cause. I might leave before that ever happens, who knows.

TLFisher

01-26-2015, 07:54 PM

So with that in mind, it almost makes me want to stay to prove them wrong. I don't want to purposely do anything that is going to create unnecessary problems, I just want everyone to see for themselves what happens to someone who chooses not to go along with the groupthink. Maybe it's already a lost cause. I might leave before that ever happens, who knows.
Well, next time brother Maximus RK comes to town, Awareness and Indiana can show up to stand to be one with you. :lol:

Seriously as these brothers can attest, they have been accused of using the ministry to attack the ministry. In other words blowing the whistle that the recovery is off course.

awareness

01-26-2015, 08:29 PM

Well, next time brother Maximus RK comes to town, Awareness and Indiana can show up to stand to be one with you. :lol:

Seriously as these brothers can attest, they have been accused of using the ministry to attack the ministry. In other words blowing the whistle that the recovery is off course.
I'd love to see my old pal Kangas again. We'd have a lot of catching up to do, to say the least.

TLFisher

01-26-2015, 08:55 PM

Freedom

01-26-2015, 09:58 PM

Kindle Location 2020 Chapter 5 of Sacrifice and Sail On

But I told Brother Nee, "Even if one day you do not take this way, I will still take this way. I am not taking this way because of you, and I will not leave this way because of you. I have seen that this is the Lord's way. I have seen the vision."

For those that have watched the movie Apollo 13. There's a point in the movie where Apollo 13 had to be precise in their course to re-enter earth's atmosphere. A little off one way and Apollo 13 would burn up. A little off in the other direction and Apollo 13 would bounce off the earth's atmosphere.

Related to the brothers and sisters who left in the late 80's would say they were precise in following the vision, but it was LSM that led the recovery to the other direction and caused so many to veer off course.

Lee was precise, so precise, that he inevitable veered off the course that he set. My impression of those who left in the 80's is that they didn't have the intention to leave the overal "vision" that Lee gave them. They were just pointing out the differences between "old Lee" and the "up to date Lee". I've become convinced that anyone who tries to follow Lee to a 'T' will fail. Here is little excerpt that I came across in Lin's book that shows just how ridiculous Lee really was:
In the autumn of 1974, we began designing the Anaheim church meeting hall and LSM station on Ball Road in Anaheim. Because I was a professional structural engineer, I had the opportunity to work with him [W. Lee] on this building project... Because he was the one who knew the most about the intended usage of this venue, we had to follow his ideas throughout the design processes... The project was completed in June 1976, then he taught us what kind of furniture to buy and where to put it. Sometimes we tried to be smart in placing furniture, bookshelves, wall paintings, and hanging scrolls. When he came to check what we did, he would find something inappropriate, then he would correct us by way of educating us. I remember one day after we hung a wall painting, he came and looked at it, and he felt that the height was wrong. Then he corrected us and taught us, and he said that when hanging a wall painting the focus point of the object should be about ten to fifteen degrees above the slant line of sight . When we followed his instructions, we always found that his way was just right...

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (pp. 237-238). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition. I think the takeaway from what Lin says is that more than anything else, Lee didn't have the best way. What he had was the incessant need to micromanage and correct people in arbitrary ways. I can only imagine how difficult that it must of been to spend day after day following him and attempting to keep him happy. An impossible task...

rayliotta

01-26-2015, 10:43 PM

In the autumn of 1974, we began designing the Anaheim church meeting hall and LSM station on Ball Road in Anaheim. Because I was a professional structural engineer, I had the opportunity to work with him [W. Lee] on this building project... Because he was the one who knew the most about the intended usage of this venue, we had to follow his ideas throughout the design processes... The project was completed in June 1976, then he taught us what kind of furniture to buy and where to put it. Sometimes we tried to be smart in placing furniture, bookshelves, wall paintings, and hanging scrolls. When he came to check what we did, he would find something inappropriate, then he would correct us by way of educating us. I remember one day after we hung a wall painting, he came and looked at it, and he felt that the height was wrong. Then he corrected us and taught us, and he said that when hanging a wall painting the focus point of the object should be about ten to fifteen degrees above the slant line of sight . When we followed his instructions, we always found that his way was just right...

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (pp. 237-238). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Is this why they moved so many walls around?

Freedom

01-26-2015, 11:12 PM

Ohio

01-27-2015, 06:20 AM

Is this why they moved so many walls around?

I think the reason so many walls were moved around is because the one who knew best didn't really know best :scratchhead:. If he knew best, then what reason would there be to change the building after the fact?
In other words, Lee really didn't know what he liked. He was an evolution in process at the expense of everyone else, caring little for proper change orders and mandatory inspections. Wasn't there some secret rooms for Phillip that the inspectors didn't get to see? Didn't he just arbitrarily decide to move the elevator one day?

Must have been a nightmare working with him as the structural engineer, and then concocting the dream of an all-knowing MOTA who alone can hang a picture.

OBW

01-27-2015, 06:22 AM

Related to the brothers and sisters who left in the late 80's would say they were precise in following the vision, but it was LSM that led the recovery to the other direction and caused so many to veer off course.But even those who left in the 80s (of which I am a part) what was the "vision" that we were following? Would we still claim the same vision we had then?

In my case, I have come to see that the vision that was seen (or at least seeable) prior to that time was not a vision that we as Christians should be giving ourselves to. It may be that the fact that even the LRC, LSM, and Lee himself were changing course caused many who still held to the old LRC vision to leave. But for many of us we have since had the opportunity to reassess that vision and now reject it. Yet for others, there is something about that vision that they cannot get out of their system. They continue to view all others in Christianity through the "old vision" lens of the LRC and wander. Some are so bold as to be either trying to fix they existing LRC and take it back to that older vision while others are trying to recreate it elsewhere.

The real question is whether that vision was ever something worth the focus that we gave it. Did the new way really change the LRC from a good vision to a bad one, or rather from one "off the mark" vision to yet another such vision? My review of the teachings of Lee going back to the early US LRC and even before have convinced me that while there may have been an enjoyable group of people prior to the changes that began in the mid-70s, the underlying teachings were not a worthy "vision" for us to be following.

I do not know all of the dynamic of the 60s, but what you and others remember was not the whole of the LRC. It was LRC lite and it was allowed so that you had something hooking you to be there and to stay there. You were convinced that Lee provided all those benefits. It was a lie. And as the further teachings of Lee, along with the new way came to be, you finally had the whole "vision."

awareness

01-27-2015, 07:45 AM

And as the further teachings of Lee, along with the new way came to be, you finally had the whole "vision."I didn't have the whole vision until I got on these local church forums. Then I got the whole vision of Nee and Lee ... or at least a big ugly chunk of it.

OBW

01-27-2015, 08:48 AM

I didn't have the whole vision until I got on these local church forums. Then I got the whole vision of Nee and Lee ... or at least a big ugly chunk of it.I will have to admit that there were aspects of what has been called "the vision" are not a singular, commonly-held thing. Now or ever. There is the version that Lee had and that has been pushed by the LSM and the BBs since. But that is not entirely embraced by many people.

And the way I like to think of it is like a smorgasbord of teachings and thoughts. Unlike a lunch buffet where they want you to fill up on salad and then eat less of the meat, this one uses all kinds of salads and vegetables and regular meats to attract you into the restaurant. The goal is to eventually get you to go straight for the rack of golden calf which is the result of Nee and Lee throwing the words of scripture into the fire and bringing out these strange teachings. The vision they want you to have is almost entirely about that "strange fire" that they brought. But when some say vision, they are really overlaying the term vision onto the less formal, and therefore more enjoyable "church life" that they had at that time.

Note that church life has now mostly been replaced by ministry station life. But the "vision" lives on. It is the vision that Lee always had. But it is not the vision that those there in the earliest days were "captured" by. When we sang "Jesus Christ, I'm captured by thy beauty" we weren't talking about the "church life." We were talking about Christ. I do think that at least some of what we attributed to be Christ was actually our positive emotional state. That is not entirely problematic, but I believe that it is often a substitute for Christ. We think that Christ is enjoyment. And when we say "Christ is life" we do not consider that it should mean that our life should be as his life, but that we have received something that is "better" than our life and is therefore enjoyable. Yes, the life of Christ is better than ours, but the life we live in and through it is not always enjoyable. And it is not euphoria at all levels. Yes, that can happen at times. But it was a thing sought. We sought something "better" than the way of the denominations of our past. And we found it in a group that was a cross between a Jesus People group and an inner life group.

All at the expense of a life of obedience to the command of righteousness and true unity. Instead we got unity only with a very small subset of Christians and a life that was obedient only to what came from "my spirit" and disdained anything that smacked of following a commandment.

And what came from "my spirit" was defined to be consistent with "the ministry" and therefore the special "golden calf" meat from the smorgasbord Lee set for us. And with the ministry station life they now have, the multi-item buffet has been replaced by an all-you-can-eat menu of Lee's golden calf. No vegetables. No salad. Not even dessert.

I believe that the LRC (as something to look back on favorably) was never more than a dream of something that could be, provided by someone who always intended something else. Therefore the hope of the old LRC is the hope of something that was never intended (and may have never really happened) but only tolerated.

Ohio

01-27-2015, 09:53 AM

The real question is whether that vision was ever something worth the focus that we gave it. Did the new way really change the LRC from a good vision to a bad one, or rather from one "off the mark" vision to yet another such vision?
The so-called NEW WAY served to expose Lee's domination of the entire Recovery. Lee and Company, in the guise of world evangelization, used the new way to lord it over the movement, and purge out all resistance.

Prior to that, there was a Christian "vision" which many espoused in the Recovery. The history of events in Anaheim, culminating in those "16 Points" by Ingalls et. al. served to highlight the major points of difference between the "vision" most of us held, and what really was in the mind of W. Lee.

I didn't have the whole vision until I got on these local church forums. Then I got the whole vision of Nee and Lee ... or at least a big ugly chunk of it.
Eventually I concluded that the "vision" was no vision at all. For peons like me it simply meant a lifelong devotion to Lee and his successors, willing to put up with any and all bullship coming my way.

My comment here may seem a little base, but it's better at this point for me to be straightforward and honest, communicating in simple and understandable terms, than to try to understand the doublespeak hypocrisy coming out of Anaheim by their seasoned wordsmiths.

Indiana

01-27-2015, 12:13 PM

The so-called NEW WAY served to expose Lee's domination of the entire Recovery. Lee and Company, in the guise of world evangelization, used the new way to lord it over the movement, and purge out all resistance.

Prior to that, there was a Christian "vision" which many espoused in the Recovery. The history of events in Anaheim, culminating in those "16 Points" by Ingalls et. al. served to highlight the major points of difference between the "vision" most of us held, and what really was in the mind of W. Lee.

Eventually I concluded that the "vision" was no vision at all. For peons like me it simply meant a lifelong devotion to Lee and his successors, willing to put up with any and all bullship coming my way.

My comment here may seem a little base, but it's better at this point for me to be straightforward and honest, communicating in simple and understandable terms, than to try to understand the doublespeak hypocrisy coming out of Anaheim by their seasoned wordsmiths.

Such a post by Ohio shows the utter frustration that he and others have on this forum in dealing with the falsehoods displayed in Local Church leadership. Philip Lin capsulizes those falsehoods in his book, magnifying the problem, and makes a big target for the contributors on this forum to address.

"Take away from Me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.
But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream."

Amos 5:21-25

Ron Kangas, of Living Stream Ministry, expressed his displeasure during a Puget Sound area conference about the “lawless users of the internet”, who he referred to as unhappy former Local Church members. He has given his audience and readers the misleading impression that all users and all posts by them are of one description – “lawless”. He is quite concerned about this online activity, but not his own lawless statement or LSM’s 36-year-old path of devastation initiated by a momentous meeting of leaders that changed the course of local churches to this day with Witness Lee and Max Rapoport setting the pace for a big movement, with charts and statistics and a new center of attention. Thus, a new era of the local churches began, and a renegade history of LSM has been established which online users are compelled to address.

The book of Acts never records such a history of a publishing house running rampant in turning the course of local churches into a federation of churches, under one global leadership in a movement, ultimately to officially organize and institutionalize the churches under a one publication policy. Having deviated from their original course, leaders in this renegade movement have moved away from Christ alone to a systematized church life featuring a man and a ministry, having changed the nature of “the recovery’ in the process.

Cal

01-27-2015, 01:21 PM

Having deviated from their original course, leaders in this renegade movement have moved away from Christ alone to a systematized church life featuring a man and a ministry, having changed the nature of “the recovery’ in the process.

Although I appreciate your strong and straightforward calling out of the leaders of the LC movement, I must make one point perfectly clear.

It is dangerous and misleading to speak or think of the movement Nee and Lee started as the thing we considered "the recovery" while in it. That idea must be buried, for it is the very belief in it and that they are it that emboldens the people of that movement to continue to do everything in their power to continue it no matter who they hurt. The fanatical belief that they are on the cutting edge of "God's move" is the very root of the mindset that makes them so unreasonable. This is why all of us must abandon the notion that the LC was any thing special apart from the rest of God's people. It was simply a movement, a movement in which God was present, sometimes strongly, but no more than he is capable of being present in any gathering of his devoted followers at any time and place.

There was and is no "God's recovery" in the sense the LC defined it. God has always been working to bring any and all people to live according to his intent. This working is more commonly called salvation, leading, guidance, the outworking of his purpose. The idea that there is a special "thread" of movement, over and above his general working in the world and church at large is not supportable scripturally and is again just fuel on the fire of the remnant mentality of the LC members--the same mentality which make them so unreasonable, unreachable and so capable of running over anyone who gets in their way.

This is a plea to everyone. DROP IT PLEASE. Thank you.

OBW

01-27-2015, 04:03 PM

It is dangerous and misleading to speak or think of the movement Nee and Lee started as the thing we considered "the recovery" while in it. That idea must be buried, for it is the very belief in it and that they are it that emboldens the people of that movement to continue to do everything in their power to continue it no matter who they hurt.I know that I often write in too convoluted a manner. And sometimes (most-times?) write way too much.

But this pair of sentences that Igzy wrote here are troubling in several ways. First, you need to read it over and over a few times until what it says sinks in. This is especially true of the first sentence. But once you get it . . . you get it.

It even seems to suggest that what we thought was "the recovery" was not what it really was. And while that is at least partly true for some, it is clear (and clear in what Igzy wrote) that it cannot be separated from the movement of Nee and Lee. And to continue to stand for "the recovery," no matter what you think that is, is to support and embolden those who will continue it as a thing that in no way resembles anything "of God."

And we need to drop "God's recovery" and "the Lord's recovery" because to continue to speak of it is to continue to give life to an exclusivist aberration of theology espoused by Nee and embellished to dire extremes by Lee and his successors.

Cal

01-27-2015, 04:40 PM

I know that I often write in too convoluted a manner. And sometimes (most-times?) write way too much.

But this pair of sentences that Igzy wrote here are troubling in several ways. First, you need to read it over and over a few times until what it says sinks in. This is especially true of the first sentence. But once you get it . . . you get it.

It even seems to suggest that what we thought was "the recovery" was not what it really was. And while that is at least partly true for some, it is clear (and clear in what Igzy wrote) that it cannot be separated from the movement of Nee and Lee. And to continue to stand for "the recovery," no matter what you think that is, is to support and embolden those who will continue it as a thing that in no way resembles anything "of God."

And we need to drop "God's recovery" and "the Lord's recovery" because to continue to speak of it is to continue to give life to an exclusivist aberration of theology espoused by Nee and embellished to dire extremes by Lee and his successors.

Yes, that's what I meant!

I know Steve means well and I don't mean to pick on him, but he must realize that by stating or implying that Lee's movement was ever "The Recovery" he is actually empowering them to continue the behavior that drives him crazy.

The only way Lee's movement is ever going to stop believing they are "The Recovery" is to start believing they never were.

Ohio

01-27-2015, 05:28 PM

Yes, that's what I meant!

I know Steve means well and I don't mean to pick on him, but he must realize that by stating or implying that Lee's movement was ever "The Recovery" he is actually empowering them to continue the behavior that drives him crazy.

The only way Lee's movement is ever going to stop believing they are "The Recovery" is to start believing they never were.

It was only a "Recovery" with respect to many of us coming out of some antiquated and lifeless denomination.

rayliotta

01-27-2015, 05:57 PM

It was only a "Recovery" with respect to many of us coming out of some antiquated and lifeless denomination.

It was what you made of it?

Ohio

01-27-2015, 06:06 PM

It was what you made of it?
Yeah, I got recovered.

rayliotta

01-27-2015, 06:06 PM

Yes, that's what I meant!

I know Steve means well and I don't mean to pick on him, but he must realize that by stating or implying that Lee's movement was ever "The Recovery" he is actually empowering them to continue the behavior that drives him crazy.

The only way Lee's movement is ever going to stop believing they are "The Recovery" is to start believing they never were.

https://vyrso.com/product/26782/people-cant-drive-you-crazy-if-you-dont-give-them-the-keys.jpg?83732702832

http://www.amazon.com/People-Cant-Drive-Crazy-Dont/dp/080072111X

rayliotta

01-27-2015, 06:12 PM

Yeah, I got recovered.

...Sweet!...

Freedom

01-27-2015, 07:09 PM

Ron Kangas, of Living Stream Ministry, expressed his displeasure during a Puget Sound area conference about the “lawless users of the internet”, who he referred to as unhappy former Local Church members. He has given his audience and readers the misleading impression that all users and all posts by them are of one description – “lawless”. He is quite concerned about this online activity, but not his own lawless statement or LSM’s 36-year-old path of devastation initiated by a momentous meeting of leaders that changed the course of local churches to this day with Witness Lee and Max Rapoport setting the pace for a big movement, with charts and statistics and a new center of attention. Thus, a new era of the local churches began, and a renegade history of LSM has been established which online users are compelled to address.

If Ron wants to make such statements, he needs to qualify what he says. Otherwise, throwing out generic accusations is simply a tactic to keep those in the LC from reading what's on the internet. If Ron or any other of the BB's don't like the things that are written on the internet, they should come and engage in the discussion. The fact that they're not willing to do so just shows that they have no intention in addressing the very issues that make them so unhappy.

Ohio

01-27-2015, 07:39 PM

TLFisher

01-28-2015, 12:46 PM

If Ron wants to make such statements, he needs to qualify what he says. Otherwise, throwing out generic accusations is simply a tactic to keep those in the LC from reading what's on the internet. If Ron or any other of the BB's don't like the things that are written on the internet, they should come and engage in the discussion. The fact that they're not willing to do so just shows that they have no intention in addressing the very issues that make them so unhappy.

Maybe I should invite Ron over to my home for mutual fellowship over his concerns next time he's in the northwest? Seriously! Due to an unwillingness to actively listen is what leads LC-specific forums as this to exist.
Not just recently, but for decades whenever the brothers say "don't listen", "don't read", that will only lead brothers and sisters to see what don't listen or don't read is all about. For some couples it goes back to the era of The God-men book or The Mindbenders books. Within the last ten years when Ron made referenced The Thread of Gold, that only provided Jane Anderson with another market of potential readers.

Ohio

01-28-2015, 12:52 PM

Not just recently, but for decades whenever the brothers say "don't listen", "don't read", that will only lead brothers and sisters to see what don't listen or don't read is all about. For some couples it goes back to the era of The God-men book or The Mindbenders books. Within the last ten years when Ron made referenced The Thread of Gold, that only provided Jane Anderson with another market of potential readers.
It's like a couple of smokers telling their children not to smoke cigarettes.

Kangas is telling others, "do as I say, not as I do!"

TLFisher

01-28-2015, 01:12 PM

Kangas is telling others, "do as I say, not as I do!"

Apparently even elders obey his commands and remain ignorant to the other side of the story. As a result, consciences remain disengaged.

TLFisher

01-28-2015, 01:20 PM

From kindle version Sacrifice and Sail On (location 2066 of Chapter 5)

"Brother Lee was so concerned in his heart that we may be deceived by the sleight and craftiness of men,"

Daystar
Philip Lee
Linko
Quarantines
Overseas Christian Stewards

HERn

01-28-2015, 01:24 PM

Apparently even elders obey his commands and remain ignorant to the other side of the story. As a result, consciences remain disengaged.

What started my investigation was some unethical (in my opinion) behavior I observed in a couple of places. I figured if there was some rottenness there was likely to be more. I'd do the same for any authority figure or group that had the capacity to influence me or my family. I don't think deputy authority should be a "get out of jail card" for anyone...just saying.

TLFisher

01-29-2015, 12:58 PM

What started my investigation was some unethical (in my opinion) behavior I observed in a couple of places. I figured if there was some rottenness there was likely to be more. I'd do the same for any authority figure or group that had the capacity to influence me or my family. I don't think deputy authority should be a "get out of jail card" for anyone...just saying.

It's out of respect and partiality certain ones get a free pass. By observation, elders get a free pass until they touch the parent's child. It's akin to throwing down the gauntlet. Even the most passive of brothers and sisters will expect a contrite apology from the elder.

In regard to my previous post over the past 20 years at least there were elders involved in direct fellowship (Dan Towle, Dick Taylor, Minoru Chen, etc) and then there were elders (outside Southern California) who only knew what they were told.
I remember being in Puget Sound area home meetings (1993/1994) listening to a brother referring to "the rebellious ones". I didn't know if the reference was the ones who left Seattle for Scottsdale or what happened in Anaheim. If the context was Anaheim, that the Seattle area brothers did not know what they're talking about. These elders and responsible ones only knew what they were told and took it as being gospel. They were not in direct fellowship as had been the case with Southern California area elders.

TLFisher

01-29-2015, 09:10 PM

Freedom

02-02-2015, 05:41 PM

It's not lawless when there's the absence of law. Injustice is running roughshod over brothers and sisters and it happens these so-called "lawless users of the internet" have risen up against the injustice perpetrated against brothers and sisters. More fitting would be to say vigilante justice. If elders and co-workers won't keep their peers in check, someone needs to call them on it.

Virtually every conference and training given by BB's that I have attended has featured various generic references to "negative ones" or writings on the internet. When I was there in those situations, it seemed peculiar that they made such a big deal out of something they were so tight-lipped about, however, on the other hand, these phrases like "lawless users of the internet" struck fear into my heart. Eventually I realized that I had nothing to lose by doing some research on the internet. It bugged me that the BB's made such a big deal about it, and I felt like I had the right to know what was on the internet. Actually, I always had the right to know, but apparently brothers like Ron don't like the 1st amendment.

rayliotta

02-02-2015, 05:46 PM

Ohio

02-02-2015, 06:02 PM

Virtually every conference and training given by BB's that I have attended has featured various generic references to "negative ones" or writings on the internet. When I was there in those situations, it seemed peculiar that they made such a big deal out of something they were so tight-lipped about, however, on the other hand, these phrases like "lawless users of the internet" struck fear into my heart. Eventually I realized that I had nothing to lose by doing some research on the internet. It bugged me that the BB's made such a big deal about it, and I felt like I had the right to know what was on the internet. Actually, I always had the right to know, but apparently brothers like Ron don't like the 1st amendment.
Generally speaking, we should admonish others not to waste their time on useless things and internet trivia. I used to agree with Ron Kangas when it came to internet opposers like Jim Moran. I read his stuff, and he had nothing that alarmed me about LSM or the LC's. Likewise, there were other sites which focused on trinitarian modalism and other esoteric topics. So what!

But then some ex-members began to use the internet to post the writings of former, yet well-respected, members who had been publicly maligned by Lee. Before that time I had just trusted Lee and Chu because I had no other access to information. I never heard "the rest of the story," nor their side of the story, and the GLA elders and workers were all on board with Lee's version of events. But soon John Ingalls' account Speaking The Truth In Love was made available for all to read.

Slowly momentum grew via the old Berean forum. For a while, before and after the TC quarantine, the place was buzzing with activity from all manner of LC members. John Myer wrote his book, as well as Nigel Tomes and numerous others. All were addressing serious LC/LSM issues for the first time in history on the internet. For the first time ever we were getting real insider information. We were communicating in the language we knew all too well. We were hearing from past and current members from all around the globe. We were getting "here a little, there a little," and the whole picture was forming right before our eyes, and it wasn't very pretty.

That's what LSM fears the most. Insiders talking. Insiders with real stories that need to be told.

TLFisher

02-03-2015, 08:54 PM

OBW

02-04-2015, 06:19 AM

From Kindle Location 2073 0f 4086 in Chapter 5

Why did we have a problem with Brother Sparks? Brother Sparks came here [Taiwan] and most of his speaking involved the words of the ministry to supply Christ and to build up the church; unfortunately, there was a part of his speaking that was not from words of that ministry; they were a different teaching. Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 3:1 said: "that you might charge certain ones not to teach different things." The different things here are the different teachings.

It seems the problem was not so much Sparks teaching different things as Philip Lin would want the reader to believe, but the problem was Sparks not endorsing the doctrine of locality. That is what Lin may define as "teaching different things".It is a game of semantics. If it is different from your teaching (the doctrine of locality) then you declare that it is a different teaching. And in plain words it is true.

The problem is that the standard is not just whatever you teach v whatever they teach, but what the Bible teaches v what someone else teaches. Nee, Lee, and Lin believe that their teaching is from the Bible, therefore anything that is different is different according to this verse. But you have to first determine if the doctrine of locality is actually from the Bible. And so far it fails miserably as a prescriptive teaching, therefore as something we should consider doctrine.

In fact, the unity of the body of Christ is much greater than locality, but is seen in the lives of all Christians relative to the lives of all other Christians without reference to locality. If this unity can be seen in any way, then it is what it is. Drawing an artificial, secular line around a grouping and insisting that they all have the same elders, and checkbook and follow the teachings of teacher X is never prescribed. Growing in righteousness and being seen as Christ-like in all our living is prescribed. Joining together with others is. Which others and how the boundaries between that group of others and the next group of others is defined, if at all, is not prescribed.

But the LCM wants their doctrine of locality so badly that they will part ways over it and even become antagonistic over it. Unlike so-called poor Christianity that continues to have people speak at their churches that are not doctrinally aligned in all ways. We read books by those of both Calvinist and Arminian persuasions. We read from writers who are evangelical (virtually any sub-group of them) and from the others — even RCC. We note where we differ on things, but do not condemn the others to outer darkness over it.

And the reason that we can generally get along despite our differences is that we understand the differences as not being the kind of differences that Paul spoke against.

The unity with the body can be seen in a simple illustration. About 2 years after joining with the LCM, one of my mother's aunts had just moved to town and she invited us to go with her to church one Sunday. So for the first time in 2 years, we found ourselves in the Assemblies of God. Typical service as I remember them. A little more lively than Baptists at the time, but otherwise not much different. But it was the first Sunday of the month so there was communion. And my mother insisted that we not partake because their table was divisive. There was something that bothered me about that position at the time, but I let it go.

But years later it occurred to me that the AOG opens their table to all that claim Christ as savior. (I realize some groups want internal evidence of your salvation via their own inspection under various methods, but I do not see it as a function of exclusivity as much as care for the condition of those partaking as being worthy of it.) Yet while we in the LCM would open our table to anyone who comes into our meeting and claims Christ as savior, we refrain from joining others anywhere else because we declare theirs to be flawed and in disunity. I now see that the only disunity in the LCM position is that they willfully divide from others in this way when the others do not divide from them. The others continue to display their unity whether you are at their place or they are at yours. But the LCM only accepts themselves as having proper standing and therefore being one with others would be wrong.

Seems that the command of Christ was that they would be one, so intentionally refraining from oneness would be in contradiction to the command. Even the RCC is slowly coming around to that way of thinking. But not the LCM. Their circle of unity stops at the edge of the property where each meeting hall is found. If you don't come to them, there is no unity. And coming to them means adopting their doctrines.

TLFisher

02-04-2015, 01:00 PM

And my mother insisted that we not partake because their table was divisive. There was something that bothered me about that position at the time, but I let it go.

But years later it occurred to me that the AOG opens their table to all that claim Christ as savior. (I realize some groups want internal evidence of your salvation via their own inspection under various methods, but I do not see it as a function of exclusivity as much as care for the condition of those partaking as being worthy of it.) Yet while we in the LCM would open our table to anyone who comes into our meeting and claims Christ as savior, we refrain from joining others anywhere else because we declare theirs to be flawed and in disunity. I now see that the only disunity in the LCM position is that they willfully divide from others in this way when the others do not divide from them. The others continue to display their unity whether you are at their place or they are at yours. But the LCM only accepts themselves as having proper standing and therefore being one with others would be wrong.

I have heard similar from an LSM elder. Taking the table with a non-LSM church is the same as partaking in division.
Apart from these Local ministry churches, I have met with a Baptist assembly and a Community church assembly. Both "opens their table to all that claim Christ as savior". Both see their assemblies part of the Body of Christ as a local expression. The Local ministry churches see themselves as the only ones having proper standing and all others are illegitimate.
What is the proper standing based on? Until I see a Local church that can set aside the LSM publications, I'll say their so-called proper standing is based on a Christian publisher and its publications. If their proper standing is on Christ alone, drop the publications.

Ohio

02-04-2015, 01:22 PM

I have heard similar from an LSM elder. Taking the table with a non-LSM church is the same as partaking in division.
Apart from these Local ministry churches, I have met with a Baptist assembly and a Community church assembly. Both "opens their table to all that claim Christ as savior". Both see their assemblies part of the Body of Christ as a local expression. The Local ministry churches see themselves as the only ones having proper standing and all others are illegitimate.
What is the proper standing based on? Until I see a Local church that can set aside the LSM publications, I'll say their so-called proper standing is based on a Christian publisher and its publications. If their proper standing is on Christ alone, drop the publications.
I have heard it called spiritual fornication to break bread with denominations -- basically any congregation not connected with LSM. It's no wonder these dear folks are spooked by Lee and the Blended fearmongers.

Freedom

02-04-2015, 11:36 PM

I have heard it called spiritual fornication to break bread with denominations -- basically any congregation not connected with LSM. It's no wonder these dear folks are spooked by Lee and the Blended fearmongers.

I have heard similar things said. I was in a position several times where I had to attend a non-LSM denomination and there so happened to be a communion. I chose not to partake of it out of fear that I would greatly offend the Lord.

rayliotta

02-04-2015, 11:47 PM

I have heard similar things said. I was in a position several times where I had to attend a non-LSM denomination and there so happened to be a communion. I chose not to partake of it out of fear that I would greatly offend the Lord.

Yes. And it's attitudes like these, which I also used to share, that give rise to this question: Who is really being worshiped? Who, exactly, are they really afraid of, when they fear to worship elsewhere?

Cal

02-05-2015, 08:07 AM

Ohio

02-05-2015, 08:31 AM

The doctrine of locality isn't really about everyone being one in a city anyway.

It's isn't about oneness at all.

It's about everyone being subordinate to handpicked LC elders.

It's about having an excuse to discredit anyone who doesn't fall in line.

It's about control.

Period.

I would never have agreed with Igzy's conclusions while I was part of the LC, and that's mainly because they were so slick at manipulating and controlling all available information.

But if one would step back, gather all the facts of history, and then arrive at an honest and conclusive determination of these facts, one would be forced to arrive at this same conclusion, and no other.

Any other conclusion of the facts and events of history with LSM requires heavy doses of denial and delusion, commonly referred to as "drinking Kool-Aid."

Unregistered

02-05-2015, 09:49 AM

It has for many years seemed so strange that every thing we know about Lee came directly from Lee. How convenient, how misleading, how evil, how deceptive, and you could go on. I would like to know and hear more of Herald Shu.
Lisbon

aron

02-05-2015, 10:39 AM

The doctrine of locality isn't really about everyone being one in a city anyway.

It isn't about oneness at all.

It's about everyone being subordinate to handpicked LC elders.

It's about having an excuse to discredit anyone who doesn't fall in line.

It's about control.

Period.

What keeps coming to mind, for me, is the line "Diotrephes loves to be first" (in 3 John 9-11). Probably the idea of "locality" wasn't consciously tied to a desire to control. I bet Nee really believed the truth of his message. That's why he was so persuasive. But notice what followed hard upon his presentation of locality. Nee required deputy authority. Now we begin to see the real Nee emerging. Un-biblical, non-scriptural ideas were needed to prop up and continue the "locality" idea, there on his local ground. Suddenly it wasn't about local ground but the so-called 'Jerusalem principle', and 'handing over', and 'lining up'.

Likewise with Lee. Oneness was indeed desirable, circa 1962 Texas and S. California, and elsewhere. And I bet that Lee believed in his merchandise. He had Bible verses to prove it! But what was necessary, later, for the upkeep of the so-called oneness? That there be only one apostle. And that it terminate with Lee, whose ministry could only continue via deputized teams of curators, parsing over the "apostle's" writings. Completely un-biblical, and completely necessary to keep the whole thing lurching forward, or at least not imploding from its own dead weight. It seems that traditions of men are later required to paper over cracks in the theological formulations. And in the papering over we can see human motives emerge.

I doubt Diotrephes stood up in the meeting and said, "You know, folks, I have a control issue. I like to be first, and be the Top Dog. So how about we all get in line, here?" No, he probably couched it in some spiritual mumbo jumbo, even quoted Jesus and Paul. Diotrephes probably pointed out some apparent need, or lack, there on the ground, and offered people his solution. He probably sold his snake oil as a necessary formulation for holding the whole shebang together, and prospering in the will of the Lord. But behind it was something much more simple. An inability to surrender and let God be in control... The situation seemed dire... Strong leadership was needed! God needed a deputy to step in!

So some theological formulation was concocted to solve the issue at hand, and its formulator(s) then could "massage the message" until it put them where they wanted to be, all along. But John called it for what it was.

TLFisher

02-05-2015, 01:51 PM

I have heard similar things said. I was in a position several times where I had to attend a non-LSM denomination and there so happened to be a communion. I chose not to partake of it out of fear that I would greatly offend the Lord.

Whether those in the local churches choose to admit it, they're meeting in division just as they condemn other non-LSM churches being in. In my opinion a far greater offense to the Lord in regard to communion is:

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. I Corinthians 11:27-28

Though there have been few, I cannot recall it being a practice to pause before taking the table to examine ourselves within the congregation, for the purpose of not taking the table in an unworthy manner.

Cal

02-05-2015, 01:53 PM

What keeps coming to mind, for me, is the line "Diotrephes loves to be first" (in 3 John 9-11). Probably the idea of "locality" wasn't consciously tied to a desire to control. I bet Nee really believed the truth of his message.

This is exactly why the overarching authority model embraced by the LCM, including the local ground and the MOTA, cannot be correct. All you need is a charismatic leader with good intentions claiming to be championing "God's true cause" and who is to disagree with him? He means well, right? So do all the people who think he's enlightened.

God doesn't give us that kind of authority precisely because of its potential for abuse, and the fact that it leads to self-perpetuating error. There is no way to correct the error. All disagreement is seen as attack. All dissenters are seen as fatal enemies. All such "attacks" are met with redoubled determination to stand firm.

Such a thing takes on a life of its own. It has no fail-safe mechanism. Change becomes hopeless. It grinds on and on grinding people up. We are witnesses to it.

TLFisher

02-05-2015, 04:52 PM

What keeps coming to mind, for me, is the line "Diotrephes loves to be first" (in 3 John 9-11). Probably the idea of "locality" wasn't consciously tied to a desire to control. I bet Nee really believed the truth of his message. That's why he was so persuasive. But notice what followed hard upon his presentation of locality. Nee required deputy authority. Now we begin to see the real Nee emerging. Un-biblical, non-scriptural ideas were needed to prop up and continue the "locality" idea, there on his local ground. Suddenly it wasn't about local ground but the so-called 'Jerusalem principle', and 'handing over', and 'lining up'.

I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church. 3 John 9-10

Appears from verse 9 John wrote something not of himself, but on behalf of others. The last phrase is key. Unjustly accusing and forbids those who desire to receive and these ones are put out of the church.

What does this remind you of? To me it's a reminder of quarantines. In quarantines brothers are unjustly accused. In the spirit of 3 John 10, those who desire to receive quarantined brothers are put out of the church.

TLFisher

02-05-2015, 05:08 PM

Ohio

02-05-2015, 07:33 PM

What keeps coming to mind, for me, is the line "Diotrephes loves to be first" (in 3 John 9-11).

I doubt Diotrephes stood up in the meeting and said, "You know, folks, I have a control issue. I like to be first, and be the Top Dog. So how about we all get in line, here?" No, he probably couched it in some spiritual mumbo jumbo, even quoted Jesus and Paul. Diotrephes probably pointed out some apparent need, or lack, there on the ground, and offered people his solution. He probably sold his snake oil as a necessary formulation for holding the whole shebang together, and prospering in the will of the Lord. But behind it was something much more simple. An inability to surrender and let God be in control... The situation seemed dire... Strong leadership was needed! God needed a deputy to step in!

This reminded me of Paul's admonition to the Corinthians, (1.12) "Now I mean this, that each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, ..."

I read this verse hundreds of times, and never applied it to myself, but rather to all those "out there" in Christianity. I guess I had some image in my mind that the early saints in Corinth robotically walked around with sandwich signs repeating "I am of Paul, I am of Paul, I am of Paul." Because Lee constantly taught us that these verses applied to others, I never made the connection to him and myself.

Likewise this verse about "Diotrephes loves to be first." I lived in a program for years with Lee in Anaheim, and Chu in Cleveland who both "loved to be first, wanted to be first, had to be first, and fought to be first," yet I never I never connected the situation in John's time to my own.

What was I thinking!?!

Lisbon

02-06-2015, 06:59 PM

Here's a joke for ya --

Q. What did Pontius Pilate say to Thomas Jefferson?
A. What is free speech?

We are all quite aware that this forum is typically very sober and deathly at times. After all many of us essentially passed thru death in our stays in the LC. So it struck me to my depths when I read about Pontius. I haven't laughed that heartedly in many moons.

Thanks rayliotta.

Lisbon

TLFisher

02-07-2015, 12:01 PM

From Kindle Location 2199 of 4086 in Chapter 6

"With Brother Lee, we can testify that his living was the best interpretation of what he taught. In the 1980's, he released many messages on taking Christ as our person and living Him out. He himself had put that into practice. He often said that he had been repenting for not being faithful and living Christ in his daily life. What he lived out and worked out was the very essence of the message he constantly delivered to churches in the recovery."

From Witness Lee's A Word of Love:

"The Lord can testify for me that I don’t condemn anyone…We love people. We love the opposers, and we love the top rebels. I really mean it. We love them and do not hate them. Who am I? I am not qualified to condemn or hate. Am I perfect? Even the prophet Isaiah when he saw the Lord, said, “Woe is me, for I am finished / For I am a man of unclean lips, / And in the midst of an unclean people I dwell” (Isa. 6:5). Who is clean today? If we criticize people and say something bad about them, we are not clean."

Prior to his death, there was no indication of loving the opposers or even the top rebels. With Witness Lee now been gone for 17 and a half years, how much of his speaking have the Blendeds taken to heart and lived out? Do they love the top rebels? Words without action is simply clanging cymbals.

The following is a good word from the attached pdf Basic Need:

"Do we really love the “opposers”, even the “top rebels” as brother Lee said we should do? Is our view of them fair? Is our view of each one right according to God? Is the Person of Christ involved in our judgment of them? I can testify that in my little bit of contact with a few former elders, their spirit of love and careful manner today in handling the saints is evident, such that I have not seen in the recovery. Their testimony in this regard is that once they left the church life, they began to seek the Lord Himself. He was their Shepherd, and they learned to shepherd and care for one another. They did not become unsaved when they left the church, and they did not become beasts of the field wandering about like Nebuchednezzar. They have learned the way of shepherding and caring for one another’s needs. These were the casualties of the new way.

We should listen to their stories and their testimonies, brothers? If “something is wrong” among us, maybe listening with respect and regard to our brothers and sisters will help us to understand our lack of feeling and sensitivity to the Lord’s heart and mind for others, even those He bought with His own precious blood and had brought at one time into the church. Not walking “according to love”, brothers, is surely our basic failure; and walking in love our greatest need."

Freedom

02-07-2015, 10:08 PM

TLFisher

02-10-2015, 07:08 PM

Freedom

02-10-2015, 07:20 PM

Sacrifice and Sail On from Chapter 6 Kindle location 2230 of 4086

"Since 1952 when Brother Nee was put into prison in Mainland China, Witness Lee undertook and continued Watchman Nee's ministry and commission of the building up of the Body of Christ. Suddenly, Brother Lee became the target of enemy attacks, and waves of opposition and rebellion, one after another, were targeted at him. But he did not react according to his own personal desire or interest."

Why did suddenly Witness Lee become the target of enemy attacks. That's generally the terminology for unfavorable criticism. Could part of the problem be Lee's own unyielding personality? A basic description is fellowship flowing in only one direction.
How come following Nee's imprisonment, we never hear of other brothers Watchman Nee discipled?

Critiquing Lee's ministry, such as what is done here by those who Ron calls "the lawless users of the internet" is equated with attacks from the enemy. I'm sure back during that time, those who critiqued Lee were labeled in the same manner. I would argue that many of Lee's problems were brought on by his own doing. While it might be true that some have purposely taken his ministry out of context, there are plenty of ways in which he left his ministry open for that.

TLFisher

02-11-2015, 12:45 PM

I would argue that many of Lee's problems were brought on by his own doing.
If his attitude in 1950's Taiwan was "my way or the highway", it left no room for mutual fellowship. I'm sure many of Lee's antagonists received Nee's ministry in China as Herald Hsu among others had and were unaccustomed to one-sided fellowship.
I never had impression of one-sided fellowship from Lee's peer Stephen Kaung and I don't know much about Lee's other peers also discipled by Watchman Nee.
I do believe as an effective organizer, Lee didn't like obstacles which is why he wanted his way and which may explain why he was closed to concerns during the late 1980's and why he suggested experienced elders should consider resigning in the mid-1980's. They were likely perceived as obstacles to LSM compared to younger inexperienced co-workers who had the ambition to follow Witness Lee's lead.

OBW

02-11-2015, 04:30 PM

I never had impression of one-sided fellowship from Lee's peer Stephen Kaung and I don't know much about Lee's other peers also discipled by Watchman Nee.This may be true. But there is evidence that at least some of the groups that were following SK are now folding since their spiritual father has retired. I have relatives in one city that met with others under his ministry and they are now essentially disbanded. Makes you wonder about the true value of so much of the "rich" ministry of even Nee. It still takes a central figure to keep it tied together and moving forward (or at least not collapsing).

aron

02-12-2015, 06:25 AM

It still takes a central figure to keep it tied together and moving forward (or at least not collapsing).

A question and a comment. My question is, do the "rebel forces" of TC & DYL cooperate? Do leaderships of both sects have strategic pow-wows, or at least acknowledge the existence of the other? If so, do they entertain the idea of "two leaders of the age", versus one?

My comment is, it seems to me that DYL has an heir apparent. Son named Pedro. Someone to keep it all together and moving forward. Not sure about TC.

aron

02-12-2015, 06:39 AM

there is evidence that at least some of the groups that were following SK are now folding since their spiritual father has retired.

Was reading chapter 3 of Myers' book. I quote below.

http://www.assemblylife.com/chapter3.pdf

"Anyone who has spent time in the Local Churches should be familiar with the famous declaration that Witness Lee made toward Watchman Nee. He reportedly told his mentor, “Even if you would not take this way, I will continue to take it.” “This way,” as loosely interpreted, meant the way of leaving denominations, practicing the local church pattern, keeping scriptural truth, choosing spiritual life, and accepting the cross of Christ in daily situations. W.Lee’s boldness at the time was an admirable resolve not to allow himself or his life’s work to become part of a man-following culture. Unfortunately, his noble ethic was not transferred to those who came after him. In a very strange twist, “this way” gradually became inseparable from W.Lee himself—his personal revelation, convictions, decisions, and directions."

The "way" becomes a set of beliefs, practices, orienting around the minister himself. And when the minister passes on, as all who are of flesh do, his followers re-orient themselves around his supposedly closest disciples. Nee supposedly left us Lee, and Lee likewise the Blendeds. This would seem to follow the pattern of Jesus leaving John behind, who left Papias, or Paul leaving a Timothy behind, one who could set things in order as the Master wished.

Who can answer the question: "What would Witness Lee want to do here?" Whoever best can answer that is the de facto leader. If in fact God captivated the move of His Spirit to one person on earth, and others only as they "lined up" behind this person, then okay. But how do we know that God only has one person on the earth who is the "man of the hour", his Deputy Authority whom all must submit to, and how do we know this was Witness Lee?

Does Philip Lin discuss this, or does he take it for granted, as a self-evident proposition? Typically what I see in the Living Stream ministry is set of revolving assumptions. 'Brother X speaks Gods current revelation.' Later, 'Brother X is God's "man of the hour" with the "ministry of the age" '. How do we know he's the apostle of the age? Because he speaks God's current revelation! How do we know he's speaking God's word for man today? Because he's the apostle of the age! You have all these declarations as if they were self-evident truths, but really there's nothing independent to back them up, except a string of similar declarations.

OBW

02-12-2015, 10:41 AM

Freedom

02-14-2015, 10:04 PM

I note that in another place there is some discussion of addictions. I don't know if that really applies, but there is something in a couple of recent posts that made me think about the constant need for the illusion of activity and of new speaking. If it ever became just a further dig into what we thought we already knew, it would not be sufficient to hold it together.

It seems that at least part of the glue that holds the LCM together is the constant activity. If it ever slows down too much, and they are ever given some time and space to think and begin to have lives of their own, it would collapse. While a poor analogy, it is sort of like mob mentality. It is the activity of some that attracts the activity of others that attracts even more until there is a mentality that everyone asserts was not intended and was not of their own doing. But if the center of the activity ceases, the mob disperses.

The LCM is centered around all this constant emphasis on teachings and relative isolation from the Word, and virtually complete isolation from normal teachings of Christianity, coupled with meeting after meeting, and trainings and conferences to use up your vacation. You are unable to think "what am I doing, and why?"

Add to that the oriental culture and mentality that aron has so diligently given us even more on in the past days, and you get Philip Lin happy to have his head in the sand. And the LCM is busy trying to instill this mentality into the whole of the members.

There was a point in time where I was so busy with LC activities, that I didn't really spend the time to consider some of the things that bothered me. It's not that there weren't things back then that bothered me, it's just that I was so consumed with going to meeting after meeting, I couldn't accept the idea in the back of my head that there could be something wrong with it all.

In a way, it seemed that once my situation changed and it wasn't possible to be doing LC activities 24/7 (a.k.a. coming to terms with the real world), I realized it was just this whole fantasy world I was living in. Like OBW said, it was almost an addiction, an addiction to "high peak truths", the "up-to-date" speaking, getting lauded for attending trainings, and whatever else it may have been. Once you start to realize some of these things aren't all the special, it's like your world starts to collapse around you. I don't need the BB's to regurgitate the "high-peak" truths. It's just mumbo jumbo. Nonsensical phrases crammed into a single sentence.

TLFisher

02-20-2015, 05:17 PM

Freedom

02-20-2015, 07:45 PM

Chapter 6 Location 2282 of 4086

"From 1971 to 1973, because of the practice of migration, the number of saints in the church in Los Angeles increased rapidly, and it produced a false idea that the church should go to a place near campus and use unscrupulous methods to get young people to join. The idea of expanding work and increasing numbers had overridden the way of the growth in spiritual life, this gave an opportunity to some of the ambitious leading ones among the young people work in churches to plan to take over the Lord's Recovery."

Location 2296 of 4086

"It was my privilege that I often had the opportunity in those years to drive Brother Lee around and to run errands for him. Because I was often at his side, my eyes saw these things happen and how he acted in response to this type of storm and I cannot but bow down my head to worship the Lord. Brother Lee was really a man who feared God, a man who denied his self for Christ's sake. In this Anaheim situation, he dared not put his hands in to deal with the situation, but just quietly waited on the Lord to work it out. Eventually it was the Lord who won the victory, and the church in Anaheim was purified and moved strongly forward!"

When Philip said, "The idea of expanding work and increasing numbers had overridden the way of the growth in spiritual life", that seems very similar to the new way of the late 1980's.

It irks me to see how dishonest Lin is with what he writes. He states "it produced a false idea that the church should go to a place near campus and use unscrupulous methods to get young people to join."
Is this not the case even today? He talks about this as if it's a problem that happened in the past related to people like Max. How does the LC currently engage in campus work? They go to places with a campus and use unscrupulous methods to get young people to join. Like I just posted on another thread, there is a disturbing amount of dishonesty with how those associated with the LC present themselves on campus. When people ask "What church are you from?" or "What church are you associated with?" a typical response might be "We are Christians of various backgrounds." To me, that response is unscrupulous. No need to hide what church you go to. Is pushing the RcV Bible to students seeking a simple Bible study not unscrupulous? Students have no idea when they contact "Christians on Campus" that it is an outreach arm of the LC.

TLFisher

02-20-2015, 08:47 PM

"In this Anaheim situation, he dared not put his hands in to deal with the situation, but just quietly waited on the Lord to work it out."

In this Anaheim situation didn't Witness Lee bring Max to Anaheim from San Diego?
In 1974 wasn't Max appointed by Witness Lee to be the coordinator of the one new man?
In this Anaheim situation didn't Witness Lee give Max free reign to "mess up the elders"?
In this Anaheim situation didn't Max have an altercation with Philip Lee?

I suggest it was not until the altercation did it become an "Anaheim situation".
Of course providing this other side of the story Philip Lin conveniently omitted.

TLFisher

02-20-2015, 09:12 PM

Freedom

02-20-2015, 09:51 PM

In this Anaheim situation didn't Witness Lee bring Max to Anaheim from San Diego?
In 1974 wasn't Max appointed by Witness Lee to be the coordinator of the one new man?
In this Anaheim situation didn't Witness Lee give Max free reign to "mess up the elders"?
In this Anaheim situation didn't Max have an altercation with Philip Lee?

I suggest it was not until the altercation did it become an "Anaheim situation".
Of course providing this other side of the story Philip Lin conveniently omitted.

As far as I know Lee gave Max his position, so Lee himself was ultimately responsible for all that happened. Max was an easy scapegoat.

Freedom

02-20-2015, 10:00 PM

Chapter 6 Location 2310 0f 4086

"In order to carry out this task, Brother Lee used a bilingual young brother, A. Yu, instead of a more mature brother, J. Ingalls, or others, to help him with the training. This caused more than a little murmuring and dissenting in the church in Anaheim."

Philip Lin's book is the first time I heard of this.
Why would there be dissenting? It was only logical to select a brother fluent in Chinese and English. Besides wasn't John working on the Recovery translation with Al Knoch and Bill Duane?

When I read that it's almost like Lin is implying that John was offended that Lee didn't bring him to Taiwan. I notice, however, that Lin says "J. Ingalls, or others..." So what really was Lin's point in mentioning John's name other than trying to imply a motive like ambition or jealousy?

TLFisher

02-21-2015, 04:48 PM

When I read that it's almost like Lin is implying that John was offended that Lee didn't bring him to Taiwan. I notice, however, that Lin says "J. Ingalls, or others..." So what really was Lin's point in mentioning John's name other than trying to imply a motive like ambition or jealousy?

It could be in Anaheim one person raised the question to Minoru or Philip, and a mountain was made out of a molehill.
Just as Philip described J. Ingalls as a mature brother; as a mature brother he was not likely to be offended as a younger immature brother would be.

Ohio

02-21-2015, 08:17 PM

When I read that it's almost like Lin is implying that John was offended that Lee didn't bring him to Taiwan. I notice, however, that Lin says "J. Ingalls, or others..." So what really was Lin's point in mentioning John's name other than trying to imply a motive like ambition or jealousy?

Since LSM operatives needed a motive for why such a precious brother like John Ingalls would initiate a global conspiracy to topple Lee, they invented their two standard accusations -- unforgiven offenses and hidden ambitions. Just because Lee's minions had not a shred of evidence to support such claims is besides the point. Besides how does one defend oneself of the accusation of being "offended and ambitious?"

TLFisher

02-21-2015, 09:53 PM

Chapter 6 Location 2318 of 4086

"In the summer of 1987, before coming to Anaheim, two brothers, John So from Germany and Joseph Fung from Hong Kong, had been secretly working out their plan to revolt. They planned on working on the elders of the church in Anaheim and on some other coworkers, and on instigating saints with their dissenting thoughts to undermine the saints' hearts for the ministry of Brother Lee. Anaheim's Ingalls and Atlanta's Mallon, two leading coworkers, had been murmuring about the training in Taiwan and the work of the ministry station in Taipei. With these two leading coworkers concurrence, the dissension was immediately strengthened, and they both were very active in the United States to recruit the leading ones closely associated with them in the past. At the same time, they further spread evil reports against Brother Lee's ministry station operation in Taipei and about a personnel scandal in the office of the station. While they were working out their plots against his work, Brother Lee still treated them as his coworkers and tried to fellowship with them either by long-distance phone calls from Taiwan or later by face-to-face fellowship in Anaheim. He tried to resolve the issue together. However, while they outwardly pretended to heed Brother Lee's fellowship, they secretly were extending their plot against Brother Lee's work."

Witness Lee tried to fellowship with whom? Ingalls? Ingalls tried to fellowship with Lee at least a dozen times.
The elders in Orange County tried to be councilatory in resolving the issue together.

What Philip Lin is trying to paint as a conspiracy, is normally described as fellowship.
It would be just the same as saying whenever Ron Kangas and James Lee come to Seattle, the elders they have fellowship with privately can be termed a conspiracy.

The picture Philip Lin is trying to portray is disingenuous towards the brothers he served with. After 25 years, Lin is trying to sell the same picture. So much for grace and love.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg5MoyHRK6U

Freedom

02-22-2015, 10:01 AM

Anaheim's Ingalls and Atlanta's Mallon, two leading coworkers, had been murmuring about the training in Taiwan and the work of the ministry station in Taipei.

It seems that a reoccurring theme in Lin's book is that of only telling half of the story. Lin never mentioned why Ingalls or Mallon weren't so excited about the FTTT. Lin should have included that list of statements made by trainers in the training. Most anyone who sees what kind of things were being said would agree that Ingalls and Mallon rightfully criticized the training.

At the same time, they further spread evil reports against Brother Lee's ministry station operation in Taipei and about a personnel scandal in the office of the station. While they were working out their plots against his work, Brother Lee still treated them as his coworkers and tried to fellowship with them either by long-distance phone calls from Taiwan or later by face-to-face fellowship in Anaheim. He tried to resolve the issue together. However, while they outwardly pretended to heed Brother Lee's fellowship, they secretly were extending their plot against Brother Lee's work.

Evil reports huh? Is it evil to speak the truth? Does speaking the truth constitute a global plot against Lee? Once again, Lin throws out accusations without providing a context for the situation.

TLFisher

02-22-2015, 10:54 AM

Chapter 6 Location 2334 of 4086

"All of this culminated in a meeting in Anaheim on August 28, 1988 in which Brother Ingalls gave eight points on the so-called truth; in his view, he said that the Lord's recovery had deviated and changed in nature. This was followed by Brother Godfred's speaking on the "standing of the church in Anaheim." After they finished speaking, Brother Al Knoch confirmed that he agreed with what they said. Their speaking was absolutely a direct attack on Brother Lee and his ministry, and also an attempt to cut off the church from Brother Lee's ministry. Brother Minoru Chen and I were in Anaheim as elders objecting to the things the other three elders did and to the unseemly things taking place in the meetings."

Here are some excerpts from Speaking the Truth in Love that provide a different perspective in Anaheim.

"In the Spring of 1988 Minoru Chen had returned from his stay in Taiwan as a trainer in the FTTT to resume his eldership in Anaheim, as appointed by Brother Lee in February 1986. Yet for some months he had hardly any contact with us. On Thursday evening, August 18th, Godfred and I had a long and frank fellowship with him. Godfred spoke at length, presenting his realization of the misconduct in the LSM office. I gave an account of my realization of the whole situation and our present standing. Minoru listened passively to our fellowship. Due to the lateness of the hour he was unable to reply adequately. We had confronted Minoru with reports that he had spoken negatively about us behind our backs to others about grave concerns he had for us, his fellow elders. He admitted that he had done this to the leading brothers in the Chinese-speaking work.
On Friday evening, August 26th Godfred, Al, and I came together with Philip Lin and Minoru Chen, the two elders on the Chinese-speaking side. Altogether we constituted the five elders of the church in Anaheim. We noted that this was the first time ever that all five of us had come together for fellowship. That was remarkable, since we had all been in the position of elders since February 1986, two and one half years prior to that time. " page 38 Speaking the Truth in Love

"Toward the conclusion of the session as we were starting to pray, Minoru arose and made a couple of statements which I want to note for the record. He said that he agreed in principle with all the points that we had made, but he stated that he wanted to reserve himself regarding some matters; and concerning some of the points, particularly those made by Godfred, he stated that he would not say in a definite way that he agreed or disagreed. He also referred to Godfred’s apology for participating in certain promotions, which, he said, took place mainly in 1986. (He was alluding to the promotion of the LSM office and Philip Lee.) He said that he wanted to amen what Godfred had shared and declared that there was an excessive amount of this promotion, thereby bringing the saints into confusion and despondency, and the church into suffering. He also wanted to ask the forgiveness of the whole church for his part in this very matter." Page 41 Speaking the Truth in Love

TLFisher

02-22-2015, 12:34 PM

"All of this culminated in a meeting in Anaheim on August 28, 1988 in which Brother Ingalls gave eight points on the so-called truth; in his view, he said that the Lord's recovery had deviated and changed in nature. This was followed by Brother Godfred's speaking on the "standing of the church in Anaheim." After they finished speaking, Brother Al Knoch confirmed that he agreed with what they said. Their speaking was absolutely a direct attack on Brother Lee and his ministry, "

Following are quotes from Speaking the Truth in Love which is the basis for Philip Lin saying "Their speaking was absolutely a direct attack on Brother Lee and his ministry".

"1. Our standing in relation to the Word of God. It is our sole authority, our constitution, and we should check everything by it.
2. Our standing concerning the church. In this age the church is central and supreme; no other corporate body is recognized by the New Testament.
3. Concerning the genuine oneness. It is organic; it can never be organized or forced. Spiritual leaders should not divide us.
4. Concerning other Christians. We should never mock or belittle other Christians with an elitist attitude; rather, we should love, honor, and receive them all.
5. Concerning our vocation. It is to build up the Body of Christ, not any work or ministry.
6. Concerning our purpose or aim. It is to be the Lord’s testimony; we are not here for any work.
7. Concerning the ministry. It is the imparting of God into His people to produce the church. It is not the ministry of any one person; we all have a share in it.
8. Concerning the apostles. They are always plural, and there are a number of them on the earth today. We should not exalt any apostle or servant of God beyond what is written.
The full text of my points as well as Godfred’s plus Al’s testimony is included in the Appendix (see page 79, Appendix B).
I spoke honestly and frankly according to the solid principles revealed in the Word, which we had been taught and which we had believed and held for years, applying some of the points to our present situation. I was not aiming at Brother Lee. I was burdened to present the basic truths concerning our standing and correct some misconceptions held by the saints. The present need demanded that we touch specifically the matters which we addressed. I have heard Brother Lee repeat a number of times what he had been told by a brother. "These sixteen points are sixteen bullets aimed at you {Brother Lee}." That is not true. If anything hit him it is not because we were aiming at him.
Godfred followed and covered eight points regarding our practice:
1. In relation to church administration. It should be local, with no central control. The elders in each place should seek the Lord directly for his timely leading according to the need in their locality.
2. The Living Stream Ministry Office. It is a business office and has no authority over the church. As the church we disassociate ourselves from certain practices and conduct there that we find intolerable.
3. The Life Studies and Christian literature in general. We should never allow spiritual materials to become a crutch or replacement for the reading of the Bible. To insist upon reading only LSM material or to oppose the reading of LSM material is going to far.
4. The church book sales. We will continue this service, but we will no longer advertise or promote any books.
5. The semi-annual trainings. We will no longer interrupt our church life for the trainings. Anyone who wishes to attend the trainings should feel free to do so.
6. The other churches. We should respect and highly esteem all other churches, but we should not compel the church in our locality to practice like other churches.
7. Various practices. In all these matters we must practice generality. Any practice which is not sinful we should not oppose; neither should we impose it.
8. The gospel. There is no particular way to preach the gospel; any proper way is good." Page 40

Where is the direct attack Philip is referring to? If there's any direct attack, that would be Minoru speaking behind the back of John, Godfred, and Al to fellow leading brothers in the Chinese work.
It has also been established from February 1986-August 26 1988, these five elders in Anaheim never had fellowship together until Friday night August 26, 1988.

Ohio

02-22-2015, 02:52 PM

It seems that a reoccurring theme in Lin's book is that of only telling half of the story. Lin never mentioned why Ingalls or Mallon weren't so excited about the FTTT. Lin should have included that list of statements made by trainers in the training. Most anyone who sees what kind of things were being said would agree that Ingalls and Mallon rightfully criticized the training.

Evil reports huh? Is it evil to speak the truth? Does speaking the truth constitute a global plot against Lee? Once again, Lin throws out accusations without providing a context for the situation.
Lin's book is only believed in the vacuum of the LCM. Once someone begins to ask questions about the "charges" and accusations in his book, then his fairytale quickly unravels.

For decades I heard about how both Nee in China and Lee in Taiwan and the US were constantly persecuted from within and without. I used to believe the stories, since I was indoctrinated into thinking that Nee and Lee were God's unique MOTAs. Once one learns the "rest of the story," however, and can weigh the facts of history independently, their little "house of cards" quickly comes crashing down.

What was called "persecution" for all those years, most likely was brothers sent by God as prophets to the LCM. These men of God, like Ingalls and Mallon, were only speaking their conscience attempting to protect the saints from this abusive ministry. They assumed that Lee did not know the character of his two profligate sons Timothy and Phillip. They assumed that WL would stand up for righteousness.

Were they ever wrong!

aron

02-22-2015, 04:00 PM

Evil reports huh? Is it evil to speak the truth?

From the plain truth in the word concerning Jesus the Son of God we got distracted to the "revealed truth" concerning the ground of the church. Then from the ground of the truth we went to a focus on the church. Then from the church we went to the Deputy Authority in the church. Then from the deputy authority we went to the ministry. Then from the ministry we went to the oracle. God's oracle alone speaks the truth; everything else is potentially an "evil report".

This is where unbridled subjectivism will take you, folks. Reality, or truth, is whatever you need it to be at any given moment. Look where we went, after 40 years of none able to restrain the madness of the prophet: to a system of complete subjectivism, hermetically sealed. With Philip Lin now designated as its spokesperson.

Like Ohio said, this story only works in a vacuum. Even then it looks pretty wobbly... it has all of its subjectivist red flags waving high. The protagonist - so pure... what a paragon of virtue! Everyone else - so fallible! What an incredible gift to humanity this glorious leader is! What did "the brothers" say -- "We owe him our lives"...

Freedom

02-22-2015, 04:55 PM

Like Ohio said, this story only works in a vacuum. Even then it looks pretty wobbly... it has all of its subjectivist red flags waving high. The protagonist - so pure... what a paragon of virtue! Everyone else - so fallible! What an incredible gift to humanity this glorious leader is! What did "the brothers" say -- "We owe him our lives"...

On the one hand it is frustrating to read how Lin has hidden so much of the story. On the other hand, it is scary how easily his version of things would be swallowed in the LC. I'm inclined to think that even those who could see past Lin's version of the story would be happy to settle with an attitude of "it doesn't matter, it was too long ago".

Ohio

02-22-2015, 05:01 PM

This is where unbridled subjectivism will take you, folks. Reality, or truth, is whatever you need it to be at any given moment. Look where we went, after 40 years of none able to restrain the madness of the prophet: to a system of complete subjectivism, hermetically sealed. With Philip Lin now designated as its spokesperson.

Like Ohio said, this story only works in a vacuum. Even then it looks pretty wobbly... it has all of its subjectivist red flags waving high. The protagonist - so pure... what a paragon of virtue! Everyone else - so fallible! What an incredible gift to humanity this glorious leader is! What did "the brothers" say -- "We owe him our lives"...
It was Titus Chu, my regional "Apostle," the one who "raised up" all the brothers around me, who told John Ingalls that he "owed Lee even his life."

Even more troublesome is the bolded portion above. In the Bible, God's holy word, all men are flawed and ridden with sin -- even the best and most faithful servants of God. Even Abraham, the so-called father of our faith, had serious failures, and the Bible is faithful to record some of them, just to let us know one thing -- only God is perfect. Then He sent His Only-Begotten Son into the world, thus fulfilling every jot and tittle of the law, and He alone walked on earth as a perfect, sinless man.

That all changed with THE consummate MOTA, this paragon of virtue, this incredible gift to humanity, this glorious leader. According to the prophecy, the only dignity for the Beloved Lamb of God was His tomb with the rich. (Is 53.9; Mt 27.59-60) Thus, even in death the Savior has nothing on this glorious consummate MOTA Lee, who has an entire Memorial Park called Grace Terrace (http://www.graceterrace.com/en) with the Highway of Transfiguration (http://www.graceterrace.com/en/site/index) to forever extol his dusty remains.

Imagine what enduring hardships the burial remains of the Apostles and other servants of God have been forced to tolerate, some of them for almost 2,000 years. The wordsmiths at LSM have articulated this (http://www.graceterrace.com/en/Introduction/purpose) so dearly ...
But a closer look reveals that the dignity and heritage of such facilities have been steadily eroded, until today, at least in this part of the country, cemeteries that serve the general public have often taken on a frivolous-even idolatrous atmosphere. At certain times of the year particularly, the setting has become altogether common, completely devoid of the sanctification that was such a part of the testimony of the believers during their lifetime. The Bible clearly points us to the importance that the saints of old afforded the matter of their earthly resting-place.Note that last bolded word afforded. That's all that really matters folks -- can you afford it?

aron

02-22-2015, 06:54 PM

That's all that really matters folks -- can you afford it?

No price is too great!

Freedom

02-22-2015, 07:33 PM

That all changed with THE consummate MOTA, this paragon of virtue, this incredible gift to humanity, this glorious leader. According to the prophecy, the only dignity for the Beloved Lamb of God was His tomb with the rich. (Is 53.9; Mt 27.59-60) Thus, even in death the Savior has nothing on this glorious consummate MOTA Lee, who has an entire Memorial Park called Grace Terrace (http://www.graceterrace.com/en) with the Highway of Transfiguration (http://www.graceterrace.com/en/site/index) to forever extol his dusty remains.

Imagine what enduring hardships the burial remains of the Apostles and other servants of God have been forced to tolerate, some of them for almost 2,000 years. The wordsmiths at LSM have articulated this (http://www.graceterrace.com/en/Introduction/purpose) so dearly ...
But a closer look reveals that the dignity and heritage of such facilities have been steadily eroded, until today, at least in this part of the country, cemeteries that serve the general public have often taken on a frivolous-even idolatrous atmosphere. At certain times of the year particularly, the setting has become altogether common, completely devoid of the sanctification that was such a part of the testimony of the believers during their lifetime. The Bible clearly points us to the importance that the saints of old afforded the matter of their earthly resting-place.
Note that last bolded word afforded. That's all that really matters folks -- can you afford it?

I took a look at this website. I'm kind of shocked.... Not sure what to say. One area is named the "Terrace of Exaltation" Really?!? :stunned: Yeah, no thanks. I've just decided what cemetery I don't want to be buried at.

This subject is probably worth of it's own thread, but it got me thinking, what are the implications of a LSM devotee not being buried here? Presumabally it doesn't matter where you're buried. Do they think being buried here gives someone a greater standing in the next life? Apparently they think so, they cared where Lee was buried, enough that they reburied him.

Ohio

02-22-2015, 08:28 PM

I took a look at this website. I'm kind of shocked.... Not sure what to say. One area is named the "Terrace of Exaltation" Really?!? :stunned: Yeah, no thanks. I've just decided what cemetery I don't want to be buried at.

This subject is probably worth of it's own thread, but it got me thinking, what are the implications of a LSM devotee not being buried here?
I think we were all shocked to see LSM peddling grave sites.

Freedom

02-23-2015, 08:50 AM

I think we were all shocked to see LSM peddling grave sites.

It seems they have found a way to justify selling gravesites using WL's ministry. The website is filled with quotes from the LS of Genesis. It really bugs me how they use his ministry like that. Stuff like: "It was Brother Lee's desire that..." Didn't they do that with the FTT center in Boston? It seems like they pulled out something WL said to show how he wanted had eventually wanted a training center in Boston.

This idea that all other cemeteries besides their own are to be considered "unsanctified" is a bit troubling. It's a highly subjective statement to begin with. As Ohio put it, what does that imply for all the believers who have died before there was such thing as an LSM cemetery? It almost seems as if the LC holds some superstitions about death as well. Does it really matter that much where someone is buried? Many people have been buried in less-than-ideal places by common standards.

Ohio

02-23-2015, 10:04 AM

It seems they have found a way to justify selling gravesites using WL's ministry. The website is filled with quotes from the LS of Genesis. It really bugs me how they use his ministry like that. Stuff like: "It was Brother Lee's desire that..." Didn't they do that with the FTT center in Boston? It seems like they pulled out something WL said to show how he wanted had eventually wanted a training center in Boston.

This idea that all other cemeteries besides their own are to be considered "unsanctified" is a bit troubling. It's a highly subjective statement to begin with. As Ohio put it, what does that imply for all the believers who have died before there was such thing as an LSM cemetery? It almost seems as if the LC holds some superstitions about death as well. Does it really matter that much where someone is buried? Many people have been buried in less-than-ideal places by common standards.
Think about how many of the Lord's faithful witnesses -- real martyrs -- never even got a decent burial for their remains, or for that matter what about all those burned at the stake. Does our God really need a proper mummified body in order to successfully resurrect us on the last day? If so, then what will God do for John Huss, who was burned at the stake with his ashes thrown into the river, and John Wycliffe in England whose dead body was then exhumed after 60 years, and then also burned to ashes? Must God gather their ashes from the ocean floor? These two were the real "fathers" of the Recovery, if such a thing even exists in God's eyes.

Using the voluminous works of Lee and Nee and throwing in some disjointed O.T. scriptures, the wordsmiths on the LaPalma Campus can basically justify anything they want nowadays. Real estate investments, failed business opportunities, cemetery plots, mail-order brides -- you name it, LSM has the wherewithal to package it up, spiritualize it, sanctify it with a few choice quotes, and then sell it to the remaining faithful. As long as the ends justify the means, the blended consciences are fully assuaged.

Philip Lin's book is thus an easy sell. Put one on my standing order!

TLFisher

02-23-2015, 12:59 PM

I'm inclined to think that even those who could see past Lin's version of the story would be happy to settle with an attitude of "it doesn't matter, it was too long ago".

I believe that's probably the case for some. Point is not that it happened 25+ years ago, the point is principle of telling the truth.
Do the brothers at LSM/DCP/BFA, etc want their testimony to be passing off falsehood as being truth?
Though many of the events in chapter 6 from Sacrifice and Sail On happened when I was in college (1986-1990), the book is less than 2 years old.
It's obvious through Philip's words, the attitude towards his former peers as elders for the Church in Anaheim has not changed in 25 years. There is no love. There is no grace.

Freedom

02-23-2015, 06:59 PM

I believe that's probably the case for some. Point is not that it happened 25+ years ago, the point is principle of telling the truth.
Do the brothers at LSM/DCP/BFA, etc want their testimony to be passing off falsehood as being truth?
Though many of the events in chapter 6 from Sacrifice and Sail On happened when I was in college (1986-1990), the book is less than 2 years old.
It's obvious through Philip's words, the attitude towards his former peers as elders for the Church in Anaheim has not changed in 25 years. There is no love. There is no grace.

I find the events that happened 25-30 years ago to be relevant to me personally even though I had no idea what was going on then. One reason I find those events to be so relevant is because they offer a window into the true colors of the LC. For those who are fully immersed in the LC, it is not an easy view to come by. Even back in 2005 when they issued their "One Publication" mandate, I hardly blinked an eye. It wasn't until I got a clear view of how the FTT started, how the churches became completely "ministry-centric" that I started realizing that something was wrong with the system.

Ohio

02-23-2015, 08:37 PM

I find the events that happened 25-30 years ago to be relevant to me personally even though I had no idea what was going on then. One reason I find those events to be so relevant is because they offer a window into the true colors of the LC. For those who are fully immersed in the LC, it is not an easy view to come by. Even back in 2005 when they issued their "One Publication" mandate, I hardly blinked an eye. It wasn't until I got a clear view of how the FTT started, how the churches became completely "ministry-centric" that I started realizing that something was wrong with the system.
I lived thru the quarantines of the late 80's from a distance, but since the GLA leadership (Titus Chu) stood with WL, the actual events were hidden from us. We heard about chaotic meetings in Anaheim, where the saints threw LSM books off the shelves and shouted out complaints about WL, but leaders in the GLA were instructed to write letters to the Anaheim elders to chastise them for allowing their saints to become unruly and, God forbid, disrespect Lee.

No one bothered to ask what it was that so upset the saints. The thought never crossed my mind. How dare they? What's wrong with those saints? don't they know this is the Lord's Recovery? Have they lost their vision?

The recent quarantines with the "One Publication Edict" caused me to start studying our history from an objective viewpoint. Then I read Ingalls' account STTIL of the events. I also read So's and Mallon's and others. I compared them to Lee's account in Fermentation. Read them both, and let the reader decide who is being honest and truthful. After that, I slowly began to question every bit of history I ever heard from Lee and company. How can anything they have said be trusted.

TLFisher

02-23-2015, 09:21 PM

I lived thru the quarantines of the late 80's from a distance, but since the GLA leadership (Titus Chu) stood with WL, the actual events were hidden from us. We heard about chaotic meetings in Anaheim, where the saints threw LSM books off the shelves and shouted out complaints about WL, but leaders in the GLA were instructed to write letters to the Anaheim elders to chastise them for allowing their saints to become unruly and, God forbid, disrespect Lee.

No one bothered to ask what it was that so upset the saints. The thought never crossed my mind. How dare they? What's wrong with those saints? don't they know this is the Lord's Recovery? Have they lost their vision?

The recent quarantines with the "One Publication Edict" caused me to start studying our history from an objective viewpoint. Then I read Ingalls' account STTIL of the events. I also read So's and Mallon's and others. I compared them to Lee's account in Fermentation. Read them both, and let the reader decide who is being honest and truthful. After that, I slowly began to question every bit of history I ever heard from Lee and company. How can anything they have said be trusted.

What were the saints reacting against?

I did not read the accounts of Mallon, So, and Ingalls until the past ten years.
I read Fermentation 1990 when I was in college. It struck me as ideal for a Hollywood movie script. Too unbelievable to be real. Yet my reaction after reading the book, what's John Ingalls side of the story?

If so and so says he's so-called ambitious to "take over the recovery", how come John waited 25+ years? That doesn't make sense. Same for the other brothers.
If you want to fault these brothers for anything, it's their inability to change. The nature of the recovery was changing and they were not.
The nature of fellowship in the recovery was changing and they were not.

For the same reasons you want to fault these brothers, one can only wish there were more leading brothers like them; principled, integrity, and under the headship of Christ.

Freedom

02-24-2015, 07:35 AM

What were the saints reacting against?

This is a very good question to ask. You would think that saints in the "Lord's Recovery" would know how to behave themselves right? :yep:

From the quotes of seen from Fermentation and also Lin's descriptions in his book, it's readily apparent that only one side of the story is being told. WL called the saints something like "riotous" and Lin talks about "unseemly things". Neither, however, addresses the simple question of why the situations were taking place. It didn't happen for no reason.

I was thinking back to when the "One Publication Edict" was released. Like I had mentioned, it didn't really bother me at first. When people like Nigel started producing writings to address concerns about it, all the sudden the BB's started talking about how the ministry was now "under attack". That was enough to scare me. As someone who was under the ministry, it was simple enough to sit their and believe it all. It took me much longer to ask why everyone had become so upset over "One Publication".

Ohio

02-24-2015, 12:03 PM

This is a very good question to ask. You would think that saints in the "Lord's Recovery" would know how to behave themselves right? :yep:

From the quotes of seen from Fermentation and also Lin's descriptions in his book, it's readily apparent that only one side of the story is being told. WL called the saints something like "riotous" and Lin talks about "unseemly things". Neither, however, addresses the simple question of why the situations were taking place. It didn't happen for no reason.

I was thinking back to when the "One Publication Edict" was released. Like I had mentioned, it didn't really bother me at first. When people like Nigel started producing writings to address concerns about it, all the sudden the BB's started talking about how the ministry was now "under attack". That was enough to scare me. As someone who was under the ministry, it was simple enough to sit their and believe it all. It took me much longer to ask why everyone had become so upset over "One Publication".

For decades Lee and company had "inoculated" us against even asking the simple "why." This was so contrary to normal life filled with the daily "who, what, why, where, and how?" Your little snippet above just highlights what we went thru for years -- someone soberly addresses the "One Publication Bull," and it becomes another round of persecution from rebellious "lepers."

When a child is two years old, and constantly asks his parents "why," they are not obligated to provide detail explanations. Neither should they feel their authority is being challenged. But when the child grows up, he does need his questions answered satisfactorily.

Freedom

02-25-2015, 08:41 AM

When a child is two years old, and constantly asks his parents "why," they are not obligated to provide detail explanations. Neither should they feel their authority is being challenged. But when the child grows up, he does need his questions answered satisfactorily.

I think you make a good analogy. Even with simple things, I think most in the LC have learned not to ask "why".

An example that comes to mind is how over the past few years, I've seen an increased push to get everyone to do PSRP. Even before I had many concerns about the LC, this practice of PSRP struck me as somewhat odd. I had gone to a few meetings where I realized later that what they had us doing during the meeting was PSRP. I remember during a semi-annual training, during the study session, we used the whole time to pray-read and memorize the outline.:sleep::zzz::rollingeyesfrown: Now that was pretty boring, and I was also quite troubled.

Anyways, getting back to what I was saying, if I were to actually ask why PSRP is something that we need to do, I'm sure they wouldn't like that. In fact, it could be consider attacking WL's ministry, because he was the one who said to do PSRP.

When everyone has to hold their concerns inside, it ends up erupting into situations like what happened in the late 80's. I have no doubt that those who were acting up, or who were throwing books in the trash were just expressing years of pent-up frustration and concerns. It is clear that after 25-30 years LC leadership has yet to come to terms with that.

aron

02-25-2015, 09:56 AM

When everyone has to hold their concerns inside, it ends up erupting into situations like what happened in the late 80's.

This kind of ministry is tailor-made for turmoils, storms, rebellions, divisions, or whatever you call them. Because either everybody has to be "one with the prophet", or if they say anything it is called and accusation and an attack. How can you have any kind of normal, give-and-take relationship with someone in this environment? How can you have a mutually beneficial relationship? It is all, "give, give".

Ohio

02-25-2015, 11:14 AM

When everyone has to hold their concerns inside, it ends up erupting into situations like what happened in the late 80's. I have no doubt that those who were acting up, or who were throwing books in the trash were just expressing years of pent-up frustration and concerns. It is clear that after 25-30 years LC leadership has yet to come to terms with that.

This kind of ministry is tailor-made for turmoils, storms, rebellions, divisions, or whatever you call them. Because either everybody has to be "one with the prophet", or if they say anything it is called and accusation and an attack. How can you have any kind of normal, give-and-take relationship with someone in this environment? How can you have a mutually beneficial relationship? It is all, "give, give".
I agree with both of your comments here, but I should add for the record, that a volunteer sister serving at LSM was molested by the "Office Manager" Phillip Lee and all the saints in Anaheim by that time had become convinced that Witness Lee was orchestrating the coverup.

TLFisher

02-25-2015, 12:37 PM

all the saints in Anaheim by that time had become convinced that Witness Lee was orchestrating the coverup.

I could understand the logic. Not so much because of his son, but Lee was one to take care of those loyal. Lee's M.O. whenever there was an issue, one party would be asked to move to another geographical area.

TLFisher

02-25-2015, 12:48 PM

For decades Lee and company had "inoculated" us against even asking the simple "why." This was so contrary to normal life filled with the daily "who, what, why, where, and how?" Your little snippet above just highlights what we went thru for years -- someone soberly addresses the "One Publication Bull," and it becomes another round of persecution from rebellious "lepers."

Indeed. Why? One question no LC elder can adequately answer is if quarantined brothers are to be treated as "lepers", how come they aren't treated as lepers in the positive sense?

"But when the cloud had withdrawn from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. As Aaron turned toward Miriam, behold, she was leprous. Then Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, I beg you, do not account this sin to us, in which we have acted foolishly and in which we have sinned. Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!” Moses cried out to the Lord, saying, “O God, heal her, I pray!” But the Lord said to Moses, “If her father had but spit in her face, would she not bear her shame for seven days? Let her be shut up for seven days outside the camp, and afterward she may be received again.” So Miriam was shut up outside the camp for seven days, and the people did not move on until Miriam was received again." Number 12:10-15

I underlined the portion the camp did not move until Miriam was received again. In the so-called recovery culture, when someone is to be treated as a "leper", they are to be treated permanently as a leper.
Let's be real and don't use Old Testament types and just call it for what it is, unscripturally based excommunications.
Whether its 10 years or 25 years, so-called "rebellious lepers" are still rejected.

Freedom

02-25-2015, 07:41 PM

Indeed. Why? One question no LC elder can adequately answer is if quarantined brothers are to be treated as "lepers", how come they aren't treated as lepers in the positive sense?

"But when the cloud had withdrawn from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. As Aaron turned toward Miriam, behold, she was leprous. Then Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, I beg you, do not account this sin to us, in which we have acted foolishly and in which we have sinned. Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!” Moses cried out to the Lord, saying, “O God, heal her, I pray!” But the Lord said to Moses, “If her father had but spit in her face, would she not bear her shame for seven days? Let her be shut up for seven days outside the camp, and afterward she may be received again.” So Miriam was shut up outside the camp for seven days, and the people did not move on until Miriam was received again." Number 12:10-15

I underlined the portion the camp did not move until Miriam was received again. In the so-called recovery culture, when someone is to be treated as a "leper", they are to be treated permanently as a leper.
Let's be real and don't use Old Testament types and just call it for what it is, unscripturally based excommunications.
Whether its 10 years or 25 years, so-called "rebellious lepers" are still rejected.

I think for the excommunications to work, they had to pass it off for something that it was not, that being the need to quarantine who they considered "rebellious lepers". I personally don't think any of those who have been quarantined by the LC were necessarily rebellious. They simply expressed divergent viewpoints, or exposed Lee's deviation from his earlier ministry. Nothing wrong with that. Since excommunication isn't unheard of in a general Christian setting, I think Lee could have taken that route. The problem with doing so would have been that he wouldn't have a valid reason to excommunicate them. When action was taken to excommunicate Philip Lee, there was a valid reason. But to excommunicate brothers who so many saints respected? That wouldn't fly so well. So Lee had to call it a "quarantine" instead and release his Fermentation book to support it.

I will also state that I believe Lee was the "rebellious" one in these situations, especially in the late 80's. How so? Lee defiantly ignored the fellowship of brothers who he considered to be his coworkers. Lee didn't deal with the situation of immorality with the seriousness that he should have. He also promoted himself as God's sole Oracle. How much more rebellious can someone get?

TLFisher

02-25-2015, 08:26 PM

I will also state that I believe Lee was the "rebellious" one in these situations, especially in the late 80's. How so? Lee defiantly ignored the fellowship of brothers who he considered to be his coworkers. Lee didn't deal with the situation of immorality with the seriousness that he should have. He also promoted himself as God's sole Oracle. How much more rebellious can someone get?

Thus says the Lord of hosts,
“Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you.
They are leading you into futility;
They speak a vision of their own imagination,
Not from the mouth of the Lord.
“They keep saying to those who despise Me,
‘The Lord has said, “You will have peace”’;
And as for everyone who walks in the stubbornness of his own heart,
They say, ‘Calamity will not come upon you.’
“But who has stood in the council of the Lord,
That he should see and hear His word?
Who has given heed to His word and listened?
“Behold, the storm of the Lord has gone forth in wrath,
Even a whirling tempest;
It will swirl down on the head of the wicked.
“The anger of the Lord will not turn back
Until He has performed and carried out the purposes of His heart;
In the last days you will clearly understand it.
“I did not send these prophets,
But they ran.
I did not speak to them,
But they prophesied.
“But if they had stood in My council,
Then they would have announced My words to My people,
And would have turned them back from their evil way
And from the evil of their deeds.

Jeremiah 23:16-22

Point being after 25 years, LSM leadership has not repented from the evil way of bearing false witness against their brothers.

rayliotta

02-26-2015, 01:48 AM

Think about how many of the Lord's faithful witnesses -- real martyrs -- never even got a decent burial for their remains, or for that matter what about all those burned at the stake. Does our God really need a proper mummified body in order to successfully resurrect us on the last day? If so, then what will God do for John Huss, who was burned at the stake with his ashes thrown into the river, and John Wycliffe in England whose dead body was then exhumed after 60 years, and then also burned to ashes? Must God gather their ashes from the ocean floor? These two were the real "fathers" of the Recovery, if such a thing even exists in God's eyes.

Using the voluminous works of Lee and Nee and throwing in some disjointed O.T. scriptures, the wordsmiths on the LaPalma Campus can basically justify anything they want nowadays. Real estate investments, failed business opportunities, cemetery plots, mail-order brides -- you name it, LSM has the wherewithal to package it up, spiritualize it, sanctify it with a few choice quotes, and then sell it to the remaining faithful. As long as the ends justify the means, the blended consciences are fully assuaged.

Philip Lin's book is thus an easy sell. Put one on my standing order!

Mail order brides? Do they have standing orders for them now, too? :stunned:

Ohio

02-26-2015, 07:51 AM

Mail order brides? Do they have standing orders for them now, too? :stunned:
Perhaps lifetime upgrades are available, kind of like with my Garmin. ;)

UntoHim

02-26-2015, 08:12 AM

Mail order brides? Please tell me you guys are joking.

Lisbon

02-26-2015, 08:19 AM

Thus says the Lord of hosts,
“Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you.
They are leading you into futility;
They speak a vision of their own imagination,
Not from the mouth of the Lord.
“They keep saying to those who despise Me,
‘The Lord has said, “You will have peace”’;
And as for everyone who walks in the stubbornness of his own heart,
They say, ‘Calamity will not come upon you.’
“But who has stood in the council of the Lord,
That he should see and hear His word?
Who has given heed to His word and listened?
“Behold, the storm of the Lord has gone forth in wrath,
Even a whirling tempest;
It will swirl down on the head of the wicked.
“The anger of the Lord will not turn back
Until He has performed and carried out the purposes of His heart;
In the last days you will clearly understand it.
“I did not send these prophets,
But they ran.
I did not speak to them,
But they prophesied.
“But if they had stood in My council,
Then they would have announced My words to My people,
And would have turned them back from their evil way
And from the evil of their deeds.

Jeremiah 23:16-22

Point being after 25 years, LSM leadership has not repented from the evil way of bearing false witness against their brothers.

Witness Lee never had a co worker ever anywhere that I ever heard of. He was intimidated by WN but waited to be loosed from that bondage. John Ingals could have been close to one and James Barber was one of his favorites. But BP, RG, RK, MC, AY, MR, BM, No. They were just pawns and if they didn't tow the line, under the bus they went. He had a good facade with us little ones and the elders who found out differently were afraid to speak. A kettle of fish, a bucket of worms. Ugh!

Lisbon

Ohio

02-26-2015, 08:25 AM

Mail order brides? Please tell me you guys are joking.

I read that ole Philip was arranging for Chinese brides before he landed his dream job as "The Office" for his daddy's business.

Indiana

02-26-2015, 06:27 PM

"I think for the excommunications to work, they had to pass it off for something that it was not, that being the need to quarantine who they considered "rebellious lepers". I personally don't think any of those who have been quarantined by the LC were necessarily rebellious. They simply expressed divergent viewpoints, or exposed Lee's deviation from his earlier ministry. Nothing wrong with that. Since excommunication isn't unheard of in a general Christian setting, I think Lee could have taken that route. The problem with doing so would have been that he wouldn't have a valid reason to excommunicate them. When action was taken to excommunicate Philip Lee, there was a valid reason. But to excommunicate brothers who so many saints respected? That wouldn't fly so well. So Lee had to call it a "quarantine" instead and release his Fermentation book to support it.

I will also state that I believe Lee was the "rebellious" one in these situations, especially in the late 80's. How so? Lee defiantly ignored the fellowship of brothers who he considered to be his coworkers. Lee didn't deal with the situation of immorality with the seriousness that he should have. He also promoted himself as God's sole Oracle. How much more rebellious can someone get?" end Quote Couldn't reach Quote button
Yesterday 11:48 AM

I posted A Renegade History of LSM in DEC 2010 after brother Ron made his unthoughtful, unwise and reckless remarks about "lawless users" of the internet.

I ask him and others - Andrew Yu, Minoru Chen, Dan Sady (DCP) Dan Towle, and Philip Lin, to place my writing on the B]truth scale [/B] and then weigh Philip's. And, if you will, then come onto this forum and honestly discuss the weight of truth you find in each.

www.twoturmoils.com/ARenegadeHistoryofLSM.pdf includes link at the end

TLFisher

02-27-2015, 01:01 PM

Chapter 6 Location 2334 of 4086

"All of this culminated in a meeting in Anaheim on August 28, 1988 in which Brother Ingalls gave eight points on the so-called truth; in his view, he said that the Lord's recovery had deviated and changed in nature. This was followed by Brother Godfred's speaking on the "standing of the church in Anaheim." After they finished speaking, Brother Al Knoch confirmed that he agreed with what they said. Their speaking was absolutely a direct attack on Brother Lee and his ministry, and also an attempt to cut off the church from Brother Lee's ministry. Brother Minoru Chen and I were in Anaheim as elders objecting to the things the other three elders did and to the unseemly things taking place in the meetings."

Why waited until after the points were delivered to object? A resume was provided to Minoru the previous Friday night what would be spoken on Sunday.
Furthermore, John, Al, and Godfred were speaking according to their feeling in the Body. It's rather a subjective statement to call the 16 points a direct attack on Brother Lee and his ministry. Given the points were spoken in 1988, several of the points has been my observation from the mid-nineties to present time:

Concerning other Christians. We should never mock or belittle other Christians with an elitist attitude; rather, we should love, honor, and receive them all.

In at least three localities I have met with or visited since 1993, this has been the status quo. In order to uplift the ministry, there is the practice of belittling assemblies that don't receive LSM publications as their one publication. This is also the decisive factor why I couldn't go any longer with the local church in my town. When I initially began meeting there, the brothers asked my not to make Steve Isitt an issue. If they really knew me, they would know that's generally not in my disposition. Give since I began meeting with the church in Bellevue 1993, I never made John Ingalls and fellow quarantined brothers an issue even though I know their quarantines to be unjustified and unfounded.

"The Life Studies and Christian literature in general. We should never allow spiritual materials to become a crutch or replacement for the reading of the Bible. To insist upon reading only LSM material or to oppose the reading of LSM material is going to far."

This has also been my observation. Whether it's Holy Word for Morning Revival or reading RcV footnotes, that has been the primary source in seeking edification instead of reading the Bible which has been rendered secondary.

I agree with these following three points:

"Our standing in relation to the Word of God. It is our sole authority, our constitution, and we should check everything by it.

Our standing concerning the church. In this age the church is central and supreme; no other corporate body is recognized by the New Testament.

Concerning the genuine oneness. It is organic; it can never be organized or forced. Spiritual leaders should not divide us."

Freedom

02-27-2015, 08:38 PM

I posted A Renegade History of LSM in DEC 2010 after brother Ron made his unthoughtful, unwise and reckless remarks about "lawless users" of the internet.

I ask him and others - Andrew Yu, Minoru Chen, Dan Sady (DCP) Dan Towle, and Philip Lin, to place my writing on the truth scale and then weigh Philip's. And, if you will, then come onto this forum and honestly discuss the weight of truth you find in each.

Ever since I became aware of Lin’s book, I have been troubled by how LC history and WL are presented to the reader. Had Lin’s book come out before I was aware of the “hidden” history of the LC, I might have just viewed it as another [I]Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age book.

It is interesting to consider, just exactly why Lin published this book. Was there a lack of respect for Lee among those in the LC? I highly doubt that. According to Lin, he wanted write about who Lee was for those who may have not known him. Frankly speaking, I haven’t seen too many in the LC who are much concerned with “who” Lee was. They are too busy reading his ministry to concern themselves with who he really was. So I propose that perhaps Lin had an additional audience in mind, that is, those who might not respect Lee, or those who have concerns about Lee. Why do I say that? At the very beginning of his book Lin states the following: “The Holy Spirit strictly controlled me not to mold Witness Lee into a so-called ‘perfect person.’” I have to ask, who said anything about Lee being perfect? Of course, that is the LC view of Lee. The bigger question is why Lin would have any concerns about portraying Lee as “perfect”? I doubt anyone in the LC would be bothered about such a portrayal. I’ve never heard complaints about Lee’s Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age book. I think it’s reasonable to make the conclusion that Lin may be trying to gain sympathy with a different audience (those who don’t view Lee as perfect) by stating that he don’t wish to portray Lee as “perfect”.

Assuming that Lin realized his audience could very well consist of those who the LC considers to be “negative” (as is also evidenced by his inclusion of the matters of Daystar and Philip Lee), I also have to ask the same question of why him or other brothers have not come forward to discuss these matters publicly. To me, the silence speaks for itself. If they had a strong case against the view of LC history that has been presented on the internet, then why not defend it? Ron says he doesn’t like the “lawless users of the internet”, but at the same time, there is silence in regard to so many aspects of LC history. What has been presented in Lin's book is inconsistent with we know regarding LC history. That may be a reason, or the main reason they are silent about these things.

Freedom

02-27-2015, 08:40 PM

Why wait until after the points were delivered to object? A resume was provided to Minoru the previous Friday night what would be spoken on Sunday.

That is a very good point, and one I had never considered before. To me, it is just more evidence that there is something inconsistent about what Lin says in his book.

Friedel

02-28-2015, 11:24 AM

… There is something inconsistent about what Lin says in his book.

Does Philip Lin say anything about:Witness Lee being referred to as the fourth member of the Triune God?

Freedom

02-28-2015, 11:48 AM

Does Philip Lin say anything about:Witness Lee being referred to as the fourth member of the Triune God?

Lin is essentially silent on that. Since that statement was made by a FTTT trainer, here is something that Lin says related to the training: "Anaheim's Ingalls and Atlanta's Mallon, two leading coworkers, had been murmuring about the training in Taiwan and the work of the ministry station in Taipei." (Terry posted the entire quote in post #387)

Of course, John Ingalls was concerned about what was being said and done in the FTTT. Lin doesn't mention any of those concerns, he just accuses brothers of "murmuring" about the training. The way Lin puts it, the reader might be led to believe that John and Bill were being petty or they were jealous about something. He conveniently leaves out what there real concerns were.

3. Aberrational Speaking and Activity in the FTTT

In addition we began to hear reports, see video tapes, and read printed messages published by the Full-time Training in Taipei of some of the things that were being said and done. Now this really alarmed us. Foremost among these was the fact that Philip Lee was the administrator of the training, supposedly only on the business side, but actually exercising supervision in much more than business affairs. He was in daily fellowship with twenty-four of the trainers and leading ones who called and reported to him all activities (failure to do so resulted in an offense). The trainees were even told that Philip was administrating the training. His power and position were growing immeasurably.

Statements made by some of the trainers in Taipei amazed us, as I am sure they did many others. Some examples are as follows:

1) “There is no need to pray about what to do; just follow the ministry.”
2) We don’t even need to think; we just do what we are told.”
3) “Follow Witness Lee blindly. Even if he’s wrong, he’s right.”
4) “If you leave the training, you’ll miss the kingdom.”
5) Our burden is to pick up Brother Lee’s teaching and way to make us all Witness Lees, like a Witness Lee duplication center.”
6) “To be one with the ministry is to be one with Brother Lee, the office, and Philip Lee.”
7) Since Christianity is in ruins, the Lord raised up the recovery; since the recovery is in ruins, the Lord raised up the FTTT.
An account of Brother Lee’s position was given by one of the leading trainers of the FTTT to a group of brothers in Dallas, Texas, in the summer of 1986, in the context of how to be one with the ministry. There are witnesses to confirm it. It goes as follows.

“The Father is number one, the Son is number two, the Spirit is number three, and Witness Lee is number four; and then there are those who are with Witness Lee.” A brother asked, “And who is number five”? The trainer replied, “It is not yet quite clear who number five is”, but pointing out “You brothers do not have access to brother Lee. I and another trainer do. We can walk into brother Lee’s apartment any time and have breakfast with him. The way to know what brother Lee wants us to do is to be in contact with those who have access to him. They will tell you what he wants you to do.” The hosting brother asked, “Isn’t this a hierarchy?” The trainer replied, ”No!” The brother asked, “How then does this differ from what we’ve been condemning?” The trainer answered, “If the elders in a local church would practice in this way to carry out their burden, it would be a hierarchy; but if this is practiced to carry out the ministry’s burden, it is not a hierarchy.” When Brother Lee heard through us the above speech of his trainer, he took steps to rebuke and correct him. That such nonsense could be spoken by one chosen by Brother Lee to lead his training after all we have passed through and heard from Brother Lee’s ministry is difficult to understand.

John Ingalls, Speaking the Truth in Love

Friedel

02-28-2015, 12:53 PM

Lin is essentially silent on that. Since that statement was made by a FTTT trainer …

That was Paul Hon boasting. But that was not the only incident.

I was actually referring to a particular LSM employees' prayer meeting in Anaheim at the start of the work day. Someone prayed, thanking the Lord for "number four". (I do not believe it was Paul Hon because he was not a staffer.)

A sister who been working at the LSM office for a very long time, was so upset that she upped and left not only LSM but also the Local Church of Witness Lee.

Freedom

02-28-2015, 01:32 PM

That was Paul Hon boasting. But that was not the only incident.

I was actually referring to a particular LSM employees' prayer meeting in Anaheim at the start of the work day. Someone prayed, thanking the Lord for "number four". (I do not believe it was Paul Hon because he was not a staffer.)

A sister who been working at the LSM office for a very long time, was so upset that she upped and left not only LSM but also the Local Church of Witness Lee.

Wow, I had no idea that others were talking about Lee being "number four" as well. I had just thought it was an isolated incident in the FTTT. That really goes to show what kind of attitude there was. Honestly though, I think people like Paul Hon were just expressing what everyone was already thinking, that being that Lee was a "number four" type of figure. Lee didn't shy away from that either. I was shocked when I learned of that conference where Lee promoted himself as God's Oracle and said how he liked to be "exalted".

Friedel

02-28-2015, 02:36 PM

I was shocked when I learned of that conference where Lee promoted himself as God's Oracle and said how he liked to be "exalted".

Witness Lee on maaaaany occasions said he/his speaking was "God's oracle on the earth today".

Indiana

02-28-2015, 03:51 PM

Please delete

Lisbon

02-28-2015, 08:24 PM

I didn't know that. I have only read maybe 1/3 of the book so far. There is a lot of nonsense to sift through. Kindle doesn't let me generate quotes from my phone, so I have to use the desktop version to do that.

My granddaughter lived in the same part of Grace Gardens at the time of Sis Lee's death. She said that Sis Lee was almost screaming "Jesus is God" over and over just before she died. Her death was certainly within the last couple of years. I was amazed that little was said of her death. I heard nothing except from my kid. I'm sure Sis Lee was not a nobody although we never heard much of her. Earlier she had been an officer of the LSM corp.
I hope I'm right about "Grace Gardens" name. Anyway the apartments where the FTTAs live in Anaheim.

Lisbon

Ohio

02-28-2015, 08:46 PM

My granddaughter lived in the same part of Grace Gardens at the time of Sis Lee's death.

I hope I'm right about "Grace Gardens" name. Anyway the apartments where the FTTAs live in Anaheim.

Lisbon
That's right, Grace Gardens. I worked there. It's on Grace Ct, off Empire St, south of Ball Road, next to Modjeska Park.

OBW

03-02-2015, 05:45 AM

A brother asked, “And who is number five”? The trainer replied, “It is not yet quite clear who number five is”, but pointing out “You brothers do not have access to brother Lee. I and another trainer do. We can walk into brother Lee’s apartment any time and have breakfast with him. The way to know what brother Lee wants us to do is to be in contact with those who have access to him. They will tell you what he wants you to do.”When they sent out emissaries to many churches to slowly dole out their spin on Max R's departure in 78, they revealed that the Anaheim elders had considered themselves just like the trainees in this quote and Max as the trainer making the statement. According to the tale, Max had access and the others did not.

And given the way Max had been operating, it was likely to be at least partly true. The only problem seems to be figuring out why. Was it because Max had become some kind of ambitious, controlling person, or because Lee was. We were told the former. It would now appear that it might have been the latter, playing on a bit of a flaw in Max's character that Lee had seen.

Ohio

03-02-2015, 06:16 AM

When they sent out emissaries to many churches to slowly dole out their spin on Max R's departure in 78, they revealed that the Anaheim elders had considered themselves just like the trainees in this quote and Max as the trainer making the statement. According to the tale, Max had access and the others did not.

And given the way Max had been operating, it was likely to be at least partly true. The only problem seems to be figuring out why. Was it because Max had become some kind of ambitious, controlling person, or because Lee was. We were told the former. It would now appear that it might have been the latter, playing on a bit of a flaw in Max's character that Lee had seen.

Max R. Was long gone by the time that comment was made to Ingalls.

Freedom

03-02-2015, 07:32 AM

Max R. Was long gone by the time that comment was made to Ingalls.

John Ingalls clarified who made that statement in his book under the section 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;...That statement was attributed to Paul Hon, the same Paul Hon who compiled all the "Summer School of Truth" lesson books. One of those books is titled The Triune God. Very ironic indeed. :hysterical:

Ohio

03-02-2015, 08:12 AM

John Ingalls clarified who made that statement in his book under the section 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;...That statement was attributed to Paul Hon, the same Paul Hon who compiled all the "Summer School of Truth" lesson books.

Louis "Chen" should be Louis Cheng, former elder in Columbus, Oh.

Paul Hon should be Paul Hon #2, designated so to avoid confusion with the more elderly Paul Hon #1. Back in the 80's, #2 was a hot shot rising star with LSM.

Freedom

03-02-2015, 08:39 AM

Louis "Chen" should be Louis Cheng, former elder in Columbus, Oh.

Paul Hon should be Paul Hon #2, designated so to avoid confusion with the more elderly Paul Hon #1. Back in the 80's, #2 was a hot shot rising star with LSM.

I didn't realize there were 2 Paul Hon's. I'm not sure if it was the same Paul Hon #2 that compiled the Summer School of Truth books.

Ohio

03-02-2015, 09:42 AM

I didn't realize there were 2 Paul Hon's. I'm not sure if it was the same Paul Hon #2 that compiled the Summer School of Truth books.
The Paul Hon who is still alive is #2.

OBW

03-03-2015, 05:43 AM

Max R. Was long gone by the time that comment was made to Ingalls.The point was that in the mid to late 70s, Ingalls and the others in Anaheim had experienced the same kind of shutting-out that this brother talked of in the FTT. When the Max debacle broke, someone (maybe Don Hardy) came to visit the same city that I was vacationing in and began to reveal the exit of Max. Among the items mentioned was that the elders there had seldom had any private time with Lee for quite a period. They got everything they heard "from Lee" from Max.

There was no mention about Lee being #4 or anything like that. I did not mean to imply that and didn't think that I had.

aron

03-03-2015, 06:53 AM

Quoted part from an internet history, below, in red...
Witness Lee's teachings in China

In 1967 Witness Lee started the "Calling Out" (or "Shouting") Movement (呼喊运动). He said that the Age of the Word had ended, and now it was the Age of the Spirit. Witness Lee taught that believers must "eat the Lord" (吃主) and the way to do this was by calling out or shouting his name (呼喊主名). Calling out his name was the way to release the Spirit in this Age of the Spirit.

After Deng Xiaoping's "opening up" of China in 1979, Witness Lee sent followers from overseas to Wenzhou (a city in Zhejiang Province) to contact believers from Watchman Nee's Local Church movement. They reportedly brought with them large amounts of Witness Lee's books, pamphlets and recordings. Within a few short years, their influence had spread throughout Zhejiang, Fujian, Henan, Guangdong and other places. During their meetings they would shout "Jesus is Lord!" in an attempt to practice Witness Lee's teaching about calling out the Lord's name. This is how they got the nickname "Shouters" (呼喊派).

The Shouters (呼喊派) and the Local Churches (地方教会)

The term "Shouters" is not a precise term. The term "Shouters" covers many true believers. But some have used the term in a narrow sense to refer only to certain groups who have distorted the teachings of Witness Lee and have broken with the Local Churches. Not all Shouters accept Witness Lee's teachings, and not all followers of Witness Lee are Shouters. In particular, many Local Churches that follow Watchman Nee and Witness Lee are law-abiding groups that reject the term "Shouters."

Some Shouters and the Trinity

Some (not all) Shouters took Witness Lee's questionable doctrine of the Trinity one step further and became complete modalists. These groups held that the Father became the Son and was no longer the Father; the Son became the Spirit and was no longer the Son. That is, the Father, the Son and the Spirit are modes by which God manifests himself in different eras. They are not distinct persons.

The "Lord Changshou" sect

One branch of the Shouters held Witness Lee in such high esteem that they began to regard his authority and status as greater than Christ's. They called Witness Lee "Lord Changshou" (常受主) ("Changshou" is Witness Lee's given name). This, of course, goes far beyond the actual teaching of Witness Lee, who never proposed to set himself above Christ. Witness Lee acknowledged the fact that some people had started to worship him and made some attempt to stop it.

It has been reported that in 1995, this branch of the Shouters distributed million tracts in 20 major cities in China declaring that Witness Lee was the living Christ and that he would become the new king of the universe.

This "Lord Changshou" sect believed that you must call upon the Lord Changshou to be saved; that Jesus is someone of the past and will not return to save the world; and that Lord Changshou will return to save the world.

One can easily see how this cult became a pattern for Eastern Lightning. Indeed, the founder of Eastern Lightning was first part of the "Lord Changshou" sect.

Did Philip Lin mention that WL sent people to mainland China in 1979 to re-connect with WN's Little Flock remnants? And that this metastasized into the shouters and eastern lightning?

Given that "Sacrifice and Sail On" is the new official history of WL's activities, I wonder how it treats the issue of mainland Chinese churches.

Freedom

03-03-2015, 07:36 AM

The "Lord Changshou" sect

One branch of the Shouters held Witness Lee in such high esteem that they began to regard his authority and status as greater than Christ's. They called Witness Lee "Lord Changshou" (常受主) ("Changshou" is Witness Lee's given name). This, of course, goes far beyond the actual teaching of Witness Lee, who never proposed to set himself above Christ. Witness Lee acknowledged the fact that some people had started to worship him and made some attempt to stop it.

It has been reported that in 1995, this branch of the Shouters distributed million tracts in 20 major cities in China declaring that Witness Lee was the living Christ and that he would become the new king of the universe.

This "Lord Changshou" sect believed that you must call upon the Lord Changshou to be saved; that Jesus is someone of the past and will not return to save the world; and that Lord Changshou will return to save the world.

One can easily see how this cult became a pattern for Eastern Lightning. Indeed, the founder of Eastern Lightning was first part of the "Lord Changshou" sect.

Did Philip Lin mention that WL sent people to mainland China in 1979 to re-connect with WN's Little Flock remnants? And that this metastasized into the shouters and eastern lightning?

Given that "Sacrifice and Sail On" is the new official history of WL's activities, I wonder how it treats the issue of mainland Chinese churches.

The fact that this association exists has always been troubling to me. LC leadership has worked hard to downplay the association, however, the question that I think needs to be asked is why these offshoot groups formed in the first place?

With the Lord Changshou sect, wouldn't it have ever occurred to Lee that people wanting to call on his name demonstrated that there was something fundamentally wrong with how people viewed him? It wouldn't surprise me at all if he just gave them a "slap on the wrist" and went on his way. In other words I think he liked it. I also think there is sufficient evidence to support that position:

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.

"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!"

aron

03-03-2015, 10:08 AM

The fact that this association exists has always been troubling to me. LC leadership has worked hard to downplay the association, however, the question that I think needs to be asked is why these offshoot groups formed in the first place

When the economic reforms implemented by Deng Xiaoping created greater openness to the West, Christians of various affiliations began smuggling Bibles and Christian literature into China. The CCP viewed the recipients of those Bibles as engaging in illegal activity in violation of the principle of not accepting aid from Western sources. Nevertheless, the Christian faith spread rapidly throughout China, especially through the house churches and the local churches. The World Christian Encyclopedia published in 1982 reported:

"By 1981, evidence was increasing of very rapid church growth in many areas of China, including among tribal peoples; with large numbers of young people present everywhere. Reports have been received indicating that many hundreds of thousands of new believers are pouring into the churches."

One group of believers who were having a great impact was composed of those members of the local churches who practiced “calling on the name of the Lord.” This practice was introduced into China in the early 1980s through some who were familiar with the ministry of Witness Lee.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shouters

"The practice was introduced in the early 1980s by some who were familiar with the ministry of Witness Lee." How familiar, is the question? I'd bet that 1) WL initiated contact with the mainland, or at least knew of and approved the initiation, and 2)he'd never admit this. Because if something bad happened he could distance himself. Why be exposed to risk? At the same time he wanted reward (growth of influence and power) so he initiated a move to mainland China.

But I don't have any info here. But I remember, for example, in 2002 someone getting caught with 33,000 RecV Bibles from LSM, trying to smuggle them into China. It became an international political incident. So LSM, of course, had no involvement, no knowledge. "Someone just came up and bought 33 thousand RecV Bibles printed in Chinese! We didn't ask, they didn't tell - how were we supposed to know they were going to China with them?"

Freedom

03-03-2015, 08:15 PM

It's probably not worth the time to speculate too much about these splinter groups in China, but I think there remain some important unanswered questions about how these groups relate to the local churches.

First of all, it's obvious that the LC wants to appear as there was no relation to these groups whatsoever. DCP has the following statement posted on their site:
Living Stream Ministry and the more than 4000 local churches it supports around the globe have no connection or linkage, formally or informally, to either “The Shouters” or the groups that are currently the focus of the government crackdown, namely “Lightning from the East” and the “All Mighty God Sect.”
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/statements/LSM_China_en.html
I could accept that position if it were true, however, there is sufficient evidence to refute that statement. It is unclear what the relationship The Shouters have to the LC, but I think it's safe to say that since the Lord Changshou sect formed from members of The Shouters, then The Shouters had to consist of some who held Lee in high esteem. So that is a conection/linkage. As the Eastern Lightning was formed from a member of the Lord Changshou sect, the implications of the LC connection become all the more serious. Because the Lord Changshou sect believes that they must call on the name of Changshou (Witness Lee) to be saved, how could anyone possibly claim these groups have no relationship to the local churches or WL?

It's true that someone could try to dismiss this all as an association fallacy and classify these groups as simply groups that have twisted LC teachings (perhaps with the hidden motive of damaging LC reputation). In my mind it's not so much the association that's the issue, but the lack of a proper understanding of why there is such an association. I would love to hear a reasonable explanation to that affect.

One question that comes to mind is when members break off from a religious group to form their own sect (Lord Changshou sect), how often do they hold the leader of the old group with much higher esteem than the remaining members of that old group do? It's not necessarily Lee's fault that a group has chosen to worship him, but the issue is how do you remove all responsibility from Lee when he made statements such as: "I like to be exalted"? That to me is a good example of why the association is of concern. That concern is not unique to me. Apparently many saints in the LC have also expressed concern:
Since last week, we have received many emails from saints in North America concerning a murder in China that was perpetrated by members of the “Almighty God” cult (also known as “Eastern Lightning”). These emails expressed concern because of Chinese social media reports of a statement by the Chinese government Anti-Cult Association...
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/statements/2014-06-06%20DCP%20letter%20-%20English.pdf
In the same DCP statement (http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/statements/2014-06-06%20DCP%20letter%20-%20English.pdf), they deny linkage to these splinter groups, but never make a case as to why these groups bear no connection to the LC. They instead proceed to talk about WN and WL's Congressional Records, Fuller Theological Seminary support and CRI support.

Friedel

03-04-2015, 03:14 AM

Given that "Sacrifice and Sail On" is the new official history of WL's activities, I wonder how it treats the issue of mainland Chinese churches.

Two stories.

When the Mainland opened up, there was a concerted and organized attempt to smuggle Bibles in. One brother (who could have been from Hong Kong, I forgot) was apprehended with such a large number of Bibles in his possession (perhaps 100+ ?) that there was a threat he would be executed. Has anybody knowledge of this?

Then there was the man from the Mainland who appeared on the doorstep somewhere. His story? He had been in the same prison as Watchman Nee who had told him that upon his release he should go and look for a man called Lee Changshou (Witness Lee). He should then do everything he is told and follow Lee. Was this a true story or a sanitized, adjusted version of some tale?

Just curious.

Ohio

03-04-2015, 04:41 AM

Two stories.

When the Mainland opened up, there was a concerted and organized attempt to smuggle Bibles in. One brother (who could have been from Hong Kong, I forgot) was apprehended with such a large number of Bibles in his possession (perhaps 100+ ?) that there was a threat he would be executed. Has anybody knowledge of this?

Then there was the man from the Mainland who appeared on the doorstep somewhere. His story? He had been in the same prison as Watchman Nee who had told him that upon his release he should go and look for a man called Lee Changshou (Witness Lee). He should then do everything he is told and follow Lee. Was this a true story or a sanitized, adjusted version of some tale?

Just curious.
The first story was discussed during the tract wars in the aftermath of the Titus Chu quarantine. Much of that is on this forum or concerned brothers dot com.

aron

03-04-2015, 05:43 AM

It is unclear what the relationship The Shouters have to the LC, but I think it's safe to say that since the Lord Changshou sect formed from members of The Shouters, then The Shouters had to consist of some who held Lee in high esteem. So that is a conection/linkage. As the Eastern Lightning was formed from a member of the Lord Changshou sect, the implications of the LC connection become all the more serious. Because the Lord Changshou sect believes that they must call on the name of Changshou (Witness Lee) to be saved, how could anyone possibly claim these groups have no relationship to the local churches or WL?

It's true that someone could try to dismiss this all as an association fallacy and classify these groups as simply groups that have twisted LC teachings (perhaps with the hidden motive of damaging LC reputation). In my mind it's not so much the association that's the issue, but the lack of a proper understanding of why there is such an association. I would love to hear a reasonable explanation to that affect.

We do know that WL had a strong proprietary interest in mainland China; we heard him speak from the podium. I remember one time when he was discussing church membership around the globe. I don't remember the exact numbers but it went something like this: "U.S. and Canada is 20,000. Mexico and South America is 6,000. Far East is 50,000. Europe and Russia is 8,000." Then he said, "In mainland China, the number of shouters is 15 to 20 million." I remember gasps and murmuring from the audience, and I remember that he deliberately used the word "shouters".

So if it was in his interest, and it clearly was, he'd claim strong association. But how and when to disassociate -- how did the Shouters become an "aberrant" sect? And what if anything is the difference, today, between Shouters and Local Churches in mainland China?

Here is a quote from a 2013 article in the South China Morning Post:

"Some of the Local Churches are Shouters but not all of them," says Wang Hongjie, a lawyer from Guangzhou. "You need to see their practice inside the church to make the decision."

http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/article/1275196/shouted-down

So what does Philip Lin think (publicly) about WL's ministry and mainland Chinese Christians? What happened between the years 1979 and when WL passed? Nothing? If he put something in WL's biography that would be interesting, and if he had nothing at all to say I'd find that even more interesting.

aron

03-04-2015, 06:05 AM

In the same DCP statement (http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/statements/2014-06-06%20DCP%20letter%20-%20English.pdf), they deny linkage to these splinter groups, but never make a case as to why these groups bear no connection to the LC. They instead proceed to talk about WN and WL's Congressional Records, Fuller Theological Seminary support and CRI support.

What is the history of connection, of association, between WL and LSM and the shouters, and whereby came the dis-connection? I don't think LSM wants to discuss it at all. "There is no connection whatsoever," they say. "Any perception of similarity is unfortunate coincidence." Rubbish.

Below is from chapter 15 of John Myer's book "A future and a hope"

For reasons already discussed at length in this volume, the Local Church Movement has a habit of generating suspicion. Wherever the Movement has gone, area Christians quickly use words like “cult” to describe it. Nor has this been confined to North America. China, which claims some 75% of the total LC Movement, has long since formulated opinions about the group both at the governmental and now at academic levels:

“One of the earliest cultic groups to spread rapidly was 'the Shouters,' a heretical offshoot from the ‘Little Flock’ founded by Watchman Nee. In the early eighties, large quantities of literature produced by Witness Lee, based in California, began to circulate in China. Some of the followers of the 'Shouters' elevated Nee [Lee?] to the position of Christ in their prayers. The aggressive evangelism of the sect combined with their vociferous, mantra-like shouting of Bible verses led to a head-on clash with the Statecontrolled 'T'hree Self church’ and the communist authorities. By 1983, the sect had been declared counter-revolutionary and was everywhere vigorously suppressed, and its key leaders imprisoned. However, it continues its activities underground, and the death of Witness Lee in California appears unlikely to curb the group.” (Missionary Atlas Project, ASIA, China, p. 58).

A number of books recently published by Chinese scholars in English document the growth of Christianity in China (including its rapid growth in recent decades). One is Redeemed by Fire by Lian Xi, Professor of History at Hanover College. Xi reports that “In Henan [province] where the influence of the Shouters remained strong throughout the 1980s, many were baptized in the name of Li Changshou [Witness Lee], who they claimed was the ‘victor from the east’ prophesied in Isaiah, the ‘successor to Jesus’ and the one foretold in the Book of Revelation who would open the scroll and its seven seals” (p. 217)...

In addition, indigenous academic writers have begun to record the recent history of Christianity in China and they are not giving any strain of the LC movement [such as “The Shouters” of Witness Lee] a free pass, or a clean bill of health. Much to contrary, they are seriously questioning whether it is indeed a cult.

No doubt, Living Stream spokesmen would disavow extremes of thought by any of its manifestations in any country. But one can clearly see how attitudes and beliefs already highly questionable only need be coaxed a little before morphing into more bizarre ideas. For years in this country, odd myths floated around the LC Movement, claiming that Witness Lee had a “golden finger.” His Bible translation was a “gold bar.” He was called the “Acting God” and to many, at least in sentiment, his writings were on a par with the canonical writings of scripture. The Chinese proselytes who received his literature and visits from LSM representatives were not stupid. They quickly read between the lines, seeing that Lee was something of an elevated issue, and took it all an extra step.

An article on House-Church Networks in China edited by Tony Lambert, an expert on Christian groups in China and author of China’s Christian Millions (2006), provides information on the Little Flock and the Local Church in China. He notes that in general, older Little Flock leaders on the Mainland have kept to the milder ways laid down by Watchman Nee and denounced Lee’s teachings as divisive, even heretical. He also pointed out that “the Shouters have proved a fertile seed-bed for more extreme cults such as the Established King, The Lord God Cult and Eastern Lightning.” Kupfer adds, “Within some branches of the “Shouters” Li [W. Lee] has been worshipped as the second person of the Trinity, replacing Christ.” (2009).

aron

03-04-2015, 06:58 AM

From the "China for Jesus" web site:

http://www.chinaforjesus.com/heresiesandcults.htm

"The ‘Lingling’ cult sprang up in Jiangsu province in east China. Its founder, Hua Xuehe, was a primary school teacher who joined the True Jesus Church, an indigenous Chinese church with charismatic roots dating back to the nineteen-twenties and regarded with suspicion by orthodox evangelicals in China. In 1979, Hua broke away and began to preach his own extreme doctrines, announcing that he himself was the ‘Second Jesus’. Cult members celebrate Hua’s birthday on January 17 instead of Christmas. The sect is weak in other doctrine but emphasizes the end of the world, healing and exorcism, thus attracting many poor peasants. It also spreads its teachings with songs put to traditional Chinese folk-tunes... By 1997, it was believed that at least twenty ‘Lingling’ preachers were active in that region alone. Converts are taught that Christ could not save Himself on the cross so they should no longer pray in the name of Jesus but in the name of a ‘New Lord’. The identity of this ‘new Lord’ is only gradually revealed to be Hua himself."

Note the group's methodology: "It also spreads its teachings with songs put to traditional Chinese folk-tunes..." Borrowing a page from LC's book, or just coincidence? And the idea of being 'weak in doctrine' but making up for it by being fervently enthusiastic... sound familiar?

Freedom

03-04-2015, 08:43 AM

No doubt, Living Stream spokesmen would disavow extremes of thought by any of its manifestations in any country. But one can clearly see how attitudes and beliefs already highly questionable only need be coaxed a little before morphing into more bizarre ideas. For years in this country, odd myths floated around the LC Movement, claiming that Witness Lee had a “golden finger.” His Bible translation was a “gold bar.” He was called the “Acting God” and to many, at least in sentiment, his writings were on a par with the canonical writings of scripture. The Chinese proselytes who received his literature and visits from LSM representatives were not stupid. They quickly read between the lines, seeing that Lee was something of an elevated issue, and took it all an extra step.This is very well put. The matter of how exactly the LC is connected to these Chinese splinter groups will always be open for debate, but the one thing that cannot be denied is how some of Lee's own teachings have morphed into something bizarre. That was the point I tried to make with the Lord Changshou sect. Why in the world would a group choose to elevate and worship Lee to the position of a god unless some were already prone to that attitude? Same thing with The Shouters. What did Lee teach? He told his followers to call on the Lord, pray-read at a sometimes disturbingly loud volume. These groups just took existing teachings and put their own spin on it. Is it safe to say that without Lee's initial teachings, these groups would have never formed?

Even considering all the questionable statements and teachings that Lee put out, some of those things were just asking for someone to come along and twist them into something weird. Even CRI distanced themselves from some of Lee's statements saying that he could have said things differently or worded things better.

Ohio

03-04-2015, 10:02 AM

Why in the world would a group choose to elevate and worship Lee to the position of a god unless some were already prone to that attitude? Same thing with The Shouters. What did Lee teach? He told his followers to call on the Lord, pray-read at a sometimes disturbingly loud volume. These groups just took existing teachings and put their own spin on it. Is it safe to say that without Lee's initial teachings, these groups would have never formed?

For me personally, I just can't see how practices such as pray-reading, calling on the Lord, or shouting slogans can cause Christians to venerate a leader. That's not what happened in the USA anyways.

The necessary groundwork was already laid in the teachings of Nee. Think about this one statement: "God has always had a man in every age to speak for Him?" What a self-serving distortion of church history! Once the entire LCM bought into that one, we were ripe for picking. Along side that is the teaching that God deputizes this MOTA to become the "acting God" on earth, the so-called Deputy Authority, like unto Moses himself.

Practices may provide the charismatic vehicle to expedite the desired results, but Lee's and Nee's self-elevating teachings laid the foundation for these aberrations to occur in China. The outsiders may have tagged them "Shouters" because that's what they witnessed, but a whole lot more error is needed for the Lord Changshou sect to emerge.

aron

03-04-2015, 10:51 AM

And the idea of being 'weak in doctrine' but fervently enthusiastic... sound familiar?

Here is the way Hank Hanegraaf put it:

It is my observation after having read histories on China and the advance of the gospel there, as well as having read many years ago the works of Watchman Nee, and now after having actually been there and interacted with dozens of Chinese Christians, that the Chinese display an exceptional earnestness and hunger for truth and spiritual reality. In other words, even as it was a “true testimony,” according to the apostle Paul, that ancient Crete produced “liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” and therefore the Cretan Christians needed to be reproved severely (Titus 1:12–13), so it seems legitimate to say that China produces more than its share of serious, devout, and fully dedicated disciples of Jesus Christ.

The LC movement is a prime example of this. As limited as the LC in China may be in advanced theological training, their hunger to discern what it is to be the New Testament church and then live that out is palpable and has sustained them through severe persecutions over a period of many decades

"Exceptional earnestness, with limited theological training," according to Hanegraaf. Certainly the Eastern Lightning members who beat that woman to death in a McDonald's restaurant in Zhaoyuan, Shandong in May 2014 could be said to possess exceptional earnestness, and were fully dedicated disciples. They tried to recruit her, but she wouldn't give them her phone number! And their theological training was surely limited, as well. So we can check off both of those boxes.

Philip Lin didn't have anything to write about the exceptional earnestness and full dedication to the teachings of WL on mainland China, and the (overly enthusiastic) veneration of his departed person? What a "true testimony" as Hank put it so nicely! Lin couldn't pass over that example, now could he?

Freedom

03-04-2015, 07:12 PM

"Exceptional earnestness, with limited theological training," according to Hanegraaf. Certainly the Eastern Lightning members who beat that woman to death in a McDonald's restaurant in Zhaoyuan, Shandong in May 2014 could be said to possess exceptional earnestness, and were fully dedicated disciples. They tried to recruit her, but she wouldn't give them her phone number! And their theological training was surely limited, as well. So we can check off both of those boxes.

In the LC, I've been pressured to do things many times and even in some intense ways. I wouldn't say there have been any repercussions for refusing to give into the pressure, but the amount of pressure I've seen in certain situations has been disturbing. One benign example that comes to mind is in the past I was signed up for conferences and trainings on multiple occasions without my knowledge.

I have heard stories of baptisms among the Chinese saints where they will literally force someone to get baptized, meaning that they relentlessly argue/pressure them until they give in and choose to get baptized on the spot.

aron

03-05-2015, 06:35 AM

In the LC, I've been pressured to do things many times and even in some intense ways... in the past I was signed up for conferences and trainings on multiple occasions without my knowledge.

I have heard stories of baptisms among the Chinese saints where they will literally force someone to get baptized, meaning that they relentlessly argue/pressure them until they give in and choose to get baptized on the spot.

Acts 2:40 "And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation." (KJV). Other translations have "pleading with them", and "strongly encouraged them". Occasionally we may exert what Freedom calls "relentless pressure" on people, in the hopes that God will snatch them out of the fire. And certain societies and cultures may exert pressures through various means, which may not seem benign to outside viewers. I get that.

What troubles me is when the pressure isn't to repent and believe into Jesus Christ; instead, the "Christ" whom we're pushing is some kind of social construct which may seem to be from scripture but is actually derived from the human society itself. We've in effect created a new God for ourselves, and the means we may use to coerce others to align with this new God become increasingly troubling. ("In the fruit the tree is known")

In certain societies where, as Hank Hanegraaf put it so carefully, there's a combination of exceptional earnestness and limited theological training, these groups, these "new Gods", can actually become violent (e.g. the Eastern Lightning). And it isn't that many steps away from the LC as they want us to think.

Here's a song from my LC days: (Hymn #1293) The church is Christ— / His expression on the earth today; / The church is Christ— / His expression on the earth today. / This corporate man / Fulfills God’s plan, / That this man may have dominion over all the earth.

"This man" expected to have dominion is not Jesus Christ. "This man" is a collective social construct, once overseen by WL, and now the Blendeds, or TC, or DYL, or in spin-off sects/cults by someone else. And the coercion they put on underlings to conform to "this corporate man" may become unethical, unbiblical, and unspiritual. I was most struck by the hymn's initial statement: with the idea that "The church is Christ", the focus of the society, the "corporate man" of the song, becomes the collective itself: i.e the church. When we say, ''The church is Christ'' we are saying, ''the church is our God''. Our focus, our goal, our attention, our allegiance, and our effort, is no longer toward the Father, or on His Son, but on the polity now gathered. This shift of focus has essentially created a new God, a replacement God. And then when allegiance this new God becomes virulent, or even violent, the natural response is just to shrug and say, "We have no connection -- either official or unofficial". Even if we've brought it forth and set it loose upon the world.

If they signed you up for trainings without your knowledge, it was because they felt it was for the "greater good." Funny, that's exactly what the Eastern Lightning member said to the authorities after they were caught beating that woman to death. They said that it was all for the good.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-cultists-tried-for-mcdonalds-murder/2014/08/21/8da2794e-2908-11e4-8b10-7db129976abb_story.html

TLFisher

03-07-2015, 01:20 PM

No one bothered to ask what it was that so upset the saints. The thought never crossed my mind. How dare they? What's wrong with those saints? don't they know this is the Lord's Recovery? Have they lost their vision?

The recent quarantines with the "One Publication Edict" caused me to start studying our history from an objective viewpoint. Then I read Ingalls' account STTIL of the events. I also read So's and Mallon's and others. I compared them to Lee's account in Fermentation. Read them both, and let the reader decide who is being honest and truthful. After that, I slowly began to question every bit of history I ever heard from Lee and company. How can anything they have said be trusted.

Something we all should take into account regarding Minoru Chen and Philip Lin, they were not involved with the English speaking saints in Anaheim. John had said in Speaking the Truth in Love it was as if there were two churches in Anaheim; the English speaking side and the Chinese speaking side. With Minoru and Philip involved on the Chinese speaking side, they would not be built or blended with the English speaking brothers and sisters to know their concerns and their feeling within the Body.
Instead with the Chinese speaking side it may very well be culture trumps all.

Ohio

03-07-2015, 01:36 PM

Something we all should take into account regarding Minoru Chen and Philip Lin, they were not involved with the English speaking saints in Anaheim. John had said in Speaking the Truth in Love it was as if there were two churches in Anaheim; the English speaking side and the Chinese speaking side. With Minoru and Philip involved on the Chinese speaking side, they would not be built or blended with the English speaking brothers and sisters to know their concerns and their feeling within the Body.
Instead with the Chinese speaking side it may very well be culture trumps all.

This whole Chinese-speaking meeting stuff -- doesn't that violate Lee's one church, one city, one eldership teachings?

OBW

03-07-2015, 03:17 PM

This whole Chinese-speaking meeting stuff -- doesn't that violate Lee's one church, one city, one eldership teachings?He/they would argue that the elders were one, and the checkbook was one, so everything was OK even if the meetings were two. Just like two halls in one city.

Indiana

03-09-2015, 07:30 PM

Brother Philip Lin's book is a pity. He skirted issues of right and wrong.

Ron Kangas encouraged skirting issues of right and wrong www.twoturmoils.com/SubtleIssuesofRightandWrong.pdf

Passive LSM assemblies accept the lies of Ron and Philip.

Blending brothers accept their lies too, along with their leaven, in the churches.

There is no check by them. And, God's House suffers the evil as a consequence.

On this forum we don't accept their lies and cover-ups of unrighteous matters. That is why I ask them again to repent of their sins in the Body, else come to this forum and explain how they are innocent.

Truly brothers and sisters, lies have been prevalent in the Local Churches for many years. There is not a proper brother of character and conscience to right the wrongs. They all take their political position against the truth. (Why do I feel like I'm talking about D. C. leaders of our country?)

Lies may stream out of the White House daily; but in God's House no lie should be found.

www.twoturmoils.com/SubtleIssuesofRightandWrong.pdf

rayliotta

03-10-2015, 12:12 AM

Truly brothers and sisters, lies have been prevalent in the Local Churches for many years. There is not a proper brother of character and conscience to right the wrongs. They all take their political position against the truth. (Why do I feel like I'm talking about D. C. leaders of our country?)

Cover-ups are very much a part of the culture of the Lord's Recovery. Even if the leaders were to make some kind of thorough public confession as you are calling for, Indiana, I would still wonder if the culture of deception and cover-ups would ever be truly "washed out." It is ingrained.

Indiana

03-11-2015, 03:52 PM

I came across this on the internet today. It is the content of my first website on hidden history in the "local churches". I had taken this website down (to seek fellowship with "local church" leaders concerning the so-called rebels and their so-called rebellion), but someone had copied the website and brought it back up. Many people were viewing this site at first, which explained the severity of pressure righteous "rebels" faced in a time of righteous "rebellion".

Philip and Ron, you knew about these things, didn't you? And, you still pretend today this is not our history?

A Summary of Hiding History

This website on hiding history brings out the negative aspects of our history that have had a serious detrimental effect on the recovery and on the Body of Christ. It is out of a high regard for the Lord's interests in His recovery and a concern for the oneness among His people that I have prepared this website.

I am currently not in any of the churches in a practical way, and I would like to share the reason for this. On a smaller scale, I had tried to address church matters a couple of years ago. I wrote a booklet and presented it to a leading brother, Dan Towle, from Southern California. I said in a cover letter, "I have written a little book for the sake of fellowship, mainly with leading ones, concerning our past 16-year history in the new way." I said that I didn't plan to have the booklet "widespread" and that I thought it was "safe" to come to him and that perhaps he could "catch me" if I was "inaccurate" or "unfair" in any matter so that I might make an "adjustment" or "terminate" the proposed fellowship. I also indicated my hope that the writing might build a bridge of communication to those who had left the recovery In the Wake of the New Way. To my surprise, rather than grant me time for fellowship, Dan recommended to elders in my locality that I be placed into a discipline mode until I could "repent". I remain in a discipline mode today after 2+ years. I also remain without fellowship on the matters I asked Dan to address, and that other elders had read about also, but have not addressed.

The action of discipline taken against me when I was specifically asking Dan for his fellowship served only to inspire me to consider what kind of spirit this was in our brother and what kind of spirit it is that has come into the recovery.

I had first encountered this spirit with local elders in 1996 and at that time began to consider tracing it back to its source. Something else compelling me to seek an understanding of this spirit was the lack of love and shepherding in the church in my locality. I began to search for answers by contacting former leading ones who left the recovery during a time of turmoil in the late eighties. They too had encountered this spirit in a major way during a time of crisis in the recovery. It was this association with these formerly beloved brothers who were once among us that I was put aside, along with the assessment that I was attacking the recovery in my booklet. In my heart, my desire was simply to address serious concerns that many of us have and to build a bridge of communication with those who left.

This website is about these brothers' experiences and the manifestation of a spirit that brother Witness Lee partly describes in A Word of Love, and that the documents and testimonies on this site describe further. Brother Lee points out that it is a spirit that "has filled all the churches", and "is now spreading everywhere around the globe in the Lord's recovery". It is a spirit that "labels others" and does not care for the ones who are "inferior to us". It is a spirit that "condemns and regulates others, rather than shepherd and seek them." It is a spirit that does not "love the opposers", even the "top rebels". It is a spirit that "we have lost among the coworkers, elders, and vital groups." It is a spirit of exclusion.

"As I have said before, the spirit of not shepherding and seeking others and being without love and forgiveness is spreading in the recovery everywhere. I believe that not having the Father's loving and forgiving heart and not having the Savior's shepherding and seeking spirit is the reason for our barrenness ...We condemn and regulate others rather than shepherd and seek them. We are short of love and shepherding. These are the vital factors for us to bear fruit, that is, to gain people. I am very concerned for our full-time training. Do we train the young ones to gain people or to regulate people? We have to reconsider our ways, as Haggai said (1:5). Our way is not right; something is wrong". (pp. 40-41)

In the late eighties turmoil this spirit was at full strength wreaking havoc in the recovery, and there was plenty that was wrong that was never brought out in fellowship to the churches. I refer to matters that I have discovered through a diligent research, including an extensive fellowship with former elders and coworkers, and the reading of their testimonies. The matters they were concerned about were related to integrity, which they were careful to keep; to righteousness, which they conscientiously sought for; and to sin, which they abhorred and distanced themselves from. In the process, they became labeled as "dissenters" and "rebellious ones". Some have even been "quarantined" from the churches, excommunicated in effect, and forgotten about. The grave concerns of these brothers were never brought to light before the saints, but had to do with certain divisive and incendiary elements in place at the heart of the recovery that led to and fueled rebellion among the saints? Was this a righteous rebellion? I think so.

This website will deal with those matters of our hidden history and with the real causes of dissension that occurred in the late eighties That is, it will tell the other side of the story, the untold side, that reveals what the primary factors of the division actually were. These factors did not involve the brothers who were "quarantined", who spoke and acted according to their convictions of heart and their Christian conscience amidst confounding circumstances that had arisen in the recovery.

Let honest people be honest, and fair people fair in their reading of the following accounts. Let righteous people also rise up to take righteous steps to address a wrong spirit among us in the recovery and the damage to others and to the oneness in the Body that this has caused. May we do this before the Lord and before His throne, knowing that one Day He will appear and begin His judgment in the house of God.

Our Hidden History and the Secret Causes of Division
Old Testament Scripture reference

"Now Eli was very old; and he heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel...

"And he said to them, why do you do such things, the evil things that I hear from all these people. No, my sons: for the report is not good which I hear the Lord's people circulating."

"Then a man of God came to Eli and said to him, "Thus says the Lord..."Why do you kick at My sacrifice and at my offering which I have commanded in My dwelling, and honor your sons above Me..."

"And the Lord said to Samuel, "Behold, I am about to do a thing in Israel at which both ears of everyone who hears it will tingle. In that day I will carry out against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. For I have told him that I am about to judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knew, because his sons brought a curse on themselves and he did not rebuke them. And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever. So Samuel lay down until morning. Then he opened the doors of the house of the Lord. But Samuel was afraid to tell the vision to Eli." (1 Samuel 1:12 - 3:21)

Letter of Disassociation - 1989

“Dear brother Witness Lee,

It has come to our attention recently through several witnesses that gross immorality and some other sins mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:11 have been committed by your son Philip Lee (who is identified as your Ministry Office) on more than one occasion over a long period of time. This deeply disturbs us. It grieves us even more that you and some of your close co-workers were aware of the situation and yet not only tolerated it but covered it up. What is worse is that, while this was happening, you and your co-workers were promoting and exalting him to the extent that he was able to intervene in the churches’ affairs in recent years. The peak of this promotion was evident at your elders’ training in Taipei in June 1987. Some of your co-workers were not only themselves under the influence and control of Philip Lee, but were also openly bringing elders and young people of many local churches to come under the same influence and control in your name and for your sake. The five brothers whom you and your Office sent to Europe in your place in May 1986 were trying to do the same here. Our young people who went to your training in Taipei have also testified of the same.

Before God, before the brothers and sisters in the local churches, before the Christian public, and for the sake of the Lord’s testimony, we are compelled by our conscience to fully disassociate ourselves from such sins and behaviour in your work.”

(A copy of this letter can be obtained by request, along with the signatures of twenty-one brothers from nine churches in Europe who withdrew from the recovery on September 17, 1989.) Witness Lee's Sons

John So Testimony - 1990

"Well, this time when I came to the Philippines, I never dreamed that the things would happen this way. But in such a situation like this, I think we have to leave it to the Lord’s sovereignty. As our brother has shared, and I appreciate his word very much, I also hope that our sharing here is not for anyone to be able to take any sides, regardless of who is right and who is wrong. I think the ground of the church is not for any church to take any sides, right? Because a church or the churches should be standing on the ground of oneness. So I do appreciate our brother’s word. And I have prepared a little outline here knowing that tonight I have no choice but to share something concerning the matter. I will try my best to just follow the outline.

We all know the ministry of brother Witness Lee for many years. I’m quite surprised that this book came out. This is the first time I saw it—in Manila, I mean 2 days ago. I hope it is not the ministry, you know. I’m very sorry that due to my being here, you all had to spend 8 long hours to watch the videos. I believe it is a real suffering to all the saints. In the recent past two years I have been unfortunately branded as, even as, a “minister of Satan”, as a “wolf”, a “false brother”, even 1 John chapter 2, the “Antichrist” was referred to me; I’m a “rebellious one”, a “conspirator”, a kind of conspirator, a “dishonest man”, a “pretender”, and more. Therefore, I am being quarantined. Right, I am being quarantined. And I am thankful to the Lord that in spite of all this, you’re still hear willing to hear what I have to say. I mean without fear of being contaminated. I think the Lord will be able to disinfect you. Please bear with me, I really have a very hard time to prepare this. The Lord knows my heart. If I didn’t have to do it tonight, I wish I didn’t have to do it. I can testify this before the Lord." John So Testimony

Bill Mallon’s letter - 1987

An 8-page letter from Bill Mallon to brother Lee expresses Bill's grave concerns for the damaging and divisive behavior of the LSM office, and its representatives in the Southeast Brother Lee did not respond to Bill's letter and showed no interest in addressing his concerns. Bill went ahead with his conviction to resign from the work and from the eldership. Later, however, in the book Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, Brother Lee dismissed Bill’s concerns that he mentioned in his letter, stating that Bill’s concerns were groundless and his remarks accusatory and slanderous, although others had the same concerns and could confirm Bill’s statements and his understanding of the developments in the Southeast.

John Ingalls Book - 1990

"Brother Lee has told the brothers who were serving with him a number of times, including myself, that if he ever left the way of God’s recovery, we should not follow him; rather we should go forward according to the truth to follow the Lord. We believe that in some degree this very thing has occurred, and we are taking Brother Lee’s own word to go on in the truth. May the Lord grant us mercy and grace to be faithful.”

"... In Ephesians 4 there are seven factors of our oneness and only seven. But today other factors, at least in practice, have been added, such as, one ministry, one leadership, one deputy authority, and one divine oracle. These have been made factors of our oneness, so that if any individuals or churches do not adhere to the 'one ministry', or the 'one leadership', etc., they are cut off or labeled negatively. We have many examples to substantiate it... “I would like to know what truth we have ever changed or are in danger of changing. Rather we have sought to be faithful to the truth, much of which we have seen through the help of Brother Lee’s ministry. Our problem in the past has been related not mainly to the truth itself, but to its practice, which we are seeking diligently to remedy."

"...Moreover, many things have been spoken in recent elders’ meetings by Brother Witness Lee and his co-workers that totally misrepresent the facts and contain many untruths. Motives and intentions are imputed to us that we never imagined, not to say practiced. We are being called despicable names and are being displayed in the worst light. But we do not desire to stoop to the level of name calling, pejorative epithets, or blatant vindication. We would like to speak the facts sincerely before God in Christ. May the Lord judge us in every attitude and action, as indeed He has continually been doing with all of us. We commit ourselves to Him. We desire to give a true account of the facts and our intentions and let the readers judge."

"We certainly never imagined that we would pass through the experiences and conflict that we have in recent years. We loved the Lord’s recovery and gave everything for it for over a quarter of a century. It was this love and investment of our lives that compelled us to respond and speak out. We had seen something that was exceedingly precious, and it was in jeopardy. Moreover, we were concerned that the Lord’s testimony would be brought into shame and disgrace and suffer great damage. Sadly, our fears have eventualized. But we believe the Lord will still go on to recover and rebuild. I will now proceed with the account of my testimony." John Ingalls

Ken Unger’s wife’s 11-page letter - 1989

Ken Unger and his wife approached Brother Lee for fellowship over a letter she wrote to him expressing her very serious concerns about the damaging and divisive effects that she observed taking place in so many localities in the United States and around the world stemming from the LSM office. Although sister Unger was in a position to observe much about the Living Stream Ministry operation, brother Witness Lee was not open to her fellowship.

She and Ken went to brother Lee to read him the 11-page letter, and as she began to read she was soon cut off by him and could not finish. She was very discouraged but brother Lee granted her another visit to him with Ken at Ken’s request, and again she began to read and was stopped before getting through half a page.

Brother Lee could not listen to what Ken considered to be a very mild part of the letter compared to other matters the letter addressed. His wife, thoroughly despondent over her experience, never tried again and never recovered from her experience and disillusionment with the church and the recovery.

Rosemead Division - 1986-1989

A most graphic example of the new and militant mindset in the recovery causing division in a church happened in Rosemead: “Frankly speaking, the root of the problem in today’s so-called local churches is that the leading ones have seriously deviated from the truth. Since February 1986, the movement started in the U. S. A. for all the elders to sign their names to a letter submitting absolutely to Witness Lee. From then on, it was to be under one leadership, with one goal, one trumpet, one way, and one ministry. Waves and waves of movements followed. This is what caused John Kwan and Francis Ball, (in order to show their absolute loyalty to Witness Lee), to lord it over the saints. They did not shepherd the church of God, but on the contrary, they used highhanded methods and did a lot of things to damage the church…At the beginning, we were expecting that [Francis Ball] came here to help the local church, especially the English-speaking saints. If he would come to Rosemead with the burden to take care of the church and shepherd the saints, he should first of all visit the saints and spend time to observe the saints and to realize their situations and needs. He should meet with the serving ones and pray with them looking to the Lord for leading. Regrettably, he disappointed all the saints. The first Lord’s Day after his arrival, he gave a message on following a man, meaning to follow Witness Lee. Isn’t this the spirit of division and parties which we see in the church in Corinth which resulted in the Apostle Paul’s condemnation? Due to Francis Ball’s message, anger was stirred up in the meeting. Most of the saints were already unhappy. He should have had some feelings about the reactions of the saints. The way Francis Ball delivered his message was not accidental or a mistake. After that, his behavior and actions proved his intentions. These included: contact with the ministry station in dealing with the so-called dissenters, locking up the meeting hall, and forcing the saints to go to Anaheim’s ministry meetings, to express his absolute oneness with “the ministry”. This is concrete evidence that Francis Ball came to Rosemead with the mission to force the church to submit to “The Ministry of Witness Lee” using highhanded tactics. This was not only against our intention to invite him to Rosemead, but also contrary to the vision which we have seen.

After the incident of Don Hardy was exposed, much blame was put on Francis Ball because he was one of the five-man committee [responsible for forcibly removing Don from his eldership in Rosemead.] As a matter of fact, at that time the saints lost their confidence in Francis Ball. If he was really concerned about the church and had some feeling for the saints, he should openly apologize, and voluntarily resign the eldership to show his responsibility and let the church have a chance to recover from the wound. He not only wouldn’t depart but seemed careless about the suffering and agonies of the saints. He acted as if nothing had happened, and continued to carry out his mission as usual. Was he a good shepherd led by the Lord, or a hired one?” - by David Wang, from True Account Rosemead

Raleigh brothers visit - 1989

Church in Raleigh elders come to Anaheim to discuss with Brother Lee their seventy-one-page compendium entitled Concerns with our Practice Regarding Truth and Life, which they sent to Brother Lee months earlier. Brother Lee had told them that he would address each point in their time of fellowship. “But Brother Lee, they said, had no ear to hear them. It was as if they were talking to the wall. He didn’t want to clear up their points; he hadn’t even read the outline they had presented to him the previous summer. He would not answer their questions directly. They were impressed that he never asked how the saints in the church in Raleigh were doing, as if he was not concerned for them. The brothers were very disappointed…The brothers in Raleigh had labored for many hours over this work in the expectation that Brother Lee would read it, be apprised of their concerns, and realize the gravity of the situation, and hopefully make some major changes in the course we were taking in the recovery.” Raleigh elders

Atlanta elders’ conference - 1988

Brother Witness Lee himself strongly reinforces the concept of his absolute authority and leadership in the recovery, stating that those who didn’t take his way would be “dropouts”, and also declaring that none were qualified to fellowship with him, so they should not have an opinion about what he does! This type of leadership and speaking helped fortify the new mindset among the elders that there was only one voice in the recovery and that Brother Lee, as the "commander-in-chief" in the Lord’s new move, did not require anyone’s opinion or fellowship. Our brother surely became a huge factor of oneness in the recovery and negative speaking about him and his leading was not tolerated, regardless of the legitimacy of complaint, and need. Elders Meetings in Atlanta

Paper in the Wind - 1988

A current elder, who formerly was an elder in Tempe, told me that once he was helping a 24-year old brother who was troubled by matters related to Anaheim and the new way and that he, the elder, was doing everything he could to help this young brother and even called Brother Lee for fellowship. Brother Lee’s fellowship was for him to let this troubled one go as “a paper in the wind” and “let the wind take care of him”! His main concern and encouragement was for the elder to spend his time caring for the positive ones and new ones who were not contaminated or dissenting. Therefore, taking the advice of Brother Lee, the elder let the young person go,. He had changed his stance from caring for a young brother who had been stumbled, to lining up with the proper mentality of a soldier in the army for the Lord’s new move. Dissenting Ones

Oklahoma City couple - 1980 - 2000

The new mindset in the Lord’s recovery is a closed one. It doesn't deal with opposition well, even mild opposition.

A sister in Norman, Oklahoma was concerned for a few things in the church - 1) an immoral situation involving an elder violating a sister/friend of hers; 2) her growing perception that a another spirit had come into the recovery; 3) the elders overbalance in spiritual things and lack of attention given to human matters, marriage and family.

She became outspoken and was reported for calling the church a cult. She stopped going to meetings.

The elders never went to her to ask her about her concerns. They just began to turn away from her, as did others. There was no warning given to her.

Her name was taken off the phone list, which was a shock to her and a great offense. She began meeting with another fellowship group.

She and her husband had been growing apart. He was absolute for the church, while she had serious concerns about it. He was cold, and she was nagging. She asked him to move out, and he did. She didn't expect him to stay away, however, but to work on the relationship with a view to returning. He had other ideas and began to pursue a divorce.
Oneness in the Ministry but Division in a Family

Witness Lee and Son Enterprise? - 1988

- anonymous writer - “In Watchman Nee's Foreword to his book, RECONSIDERATION OF THE WORK, he states: "We have one purpose, that is, to do our work completely according to the Bible. We have one desire, that is, to do the work according to God's Word. We believe the Bible is God's Word, the highest standard, the perfect example and full of commandments of authority. We do not want our work to come short in any way from God's full and complete written Word recorded for us in the Bible. We want to repeat with Paul, 'I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God' (Acts 20:27). In seeking to follow the leading of God's Spirit, we never would disregard or deviate from His written Word.
"Now in retrospect we see that Watchman Nee has shown in his entire life and work that he never deviated from that heavenly vision of Christ and the Church. For this vision he had a good conscience, unfeigned faith, unchangeable love, vast knowledge and even risked and gave his life for its fulfillment. We can say of him that he fought a good fight, he ran the race and was martyred. Hence there is laid up for him a crown of righteousness.

"We thank the Lord that through him this vision was imparted to others by the Lord not only in the orient but throughout the world, and thus many churches were established.

"The writer is the least of the brothers to undertake this writing, but through the Lord's mercy and the enlightenment he has received since giving himself to the Lord's Recovery, he must discharge the burden of what he has seen coming into the Lord's Recovery which is not according to the original pattern of God's plan and direction. There has been a turn to the world, sin and organized Christianity. Do we want to become a big tree full of leaven? This abnormal development fills those who have discernment with grief, deep sorrow and an intolerance to let it continue. A so-called teaching has been set forth that for the unity of the believers, there can be no opinion and only one trumpet must be sounded. This was very advantageously used to cover up many lies, darkness and fleshly motives and gains. The Bible's way is not to hide evil doings, but for the sake of the truth to boldly expose that which is contrary to sound biblical principles. (Gal. 2:11-14; I Cor. 5:1-13; Eph. 5:11-13; Rev. 2:12).

"Not to have an opinion and to keep silent cannot be accepted by this writer. To do so would be unfaithful to the moving of the Spirit. The writer must record what he has seen, heard and experienced in the light of God's Word and Nee's original vision in his book. Those who read can come to their own conclusions.” Reconsideration of the Vision

Apologetic Letter to Philip from elders - 1993
Dear Brother Philip,

We, the elders of the church in Anaheim, want to ask you to forgive us for the letter which was sent to you on August 22, 1993 without signatures. All the elders are in full agreement that it was wrong and improper to send you such an unsigned letter. We deeply regret the suffering which this has caused you. Now we want to correct our wrong and improper action by signing this letter, which includes the body of the letter we wrote on August 22, 1993 as follows:

"We would like to let you know of a decision the elders made and announced today at both the Chinese and English speaking meetings of the church in Anaheim. The announcement which we read is as follows:

August 22, 1993

The elders would like to make a statement regarding brother Philip Lee.

As many of the saints know, three former elders of the church in Anaheim took public action toward Philip Lee on November 6 ,1988.

The present elders would like you to know that we do not believe that the public declaration of those three brothers concerning Philip Lee was justified or proper. We feel very sorry that their action has caused suffering to Philip Lee's family.

Further, it is the unanimous decision of the elders that all discipline of the church toward Philip Lee be lifted, and it is our desire that he be fully restored to the fellowship of the church.

The elders of the church in Anaheim

We would like to assure you that it is our sincere desire that your fellowship with the church would be fully restored so that we may go on together for the Lord's purpose in the church."

Sincerely yours,

The elders of the church in Anaheim

Signatures of Francis Ball, Ed Marks, Eugene Gruhler, Albert Lim Jr., Carl Althaus, Daniel Sun, Moses Kuo, Eric Lee lost in scanning of document.

Quarantine - 1990
Quarantine

Witness Lee's apology to the whole Body of Christ - 1997

In February 1997, in possibly brother Lee's last message given to the church, he sent an apology to the Body of Christ. His sharing was on reigning in life and specifically on imitating the apostle to bring the local churches into the fellowship of the Body of Christ.

He shared: "The coworkers in different places need to learn; all responsible brothers in all localities need to learn. The eyes of the brothers and sisters all need to be opened. Too many things we need to learn.

"I admit that in the past we have all made mistakes, including myself. For this I repented before the Lord in tears. I am sorry to the Body of Christ, and I am sorry not only to the brothers and sisters who are among us, but even to the people in the denominations. I am sorry toward them.

"Yes, denominations are wrong. God condemns division the most. But God still hopes that among all His children they would not have this kind of condemnation toward one another.

To understand and analyze these [points], we need to spend much time. You have to get together with a few people. I like the word in the outline...we have to receive people according to the Son of God, not deviating a bit from the path."

The Pledge

1986 - Elders and co-workers agreed to be in one accord to carry out a new move in the recovery under the absolute leadership of brother Witness Lee, declaring that he was indispensable to their oneness as the one trumpet in the Lord’s ministry and the one wise master builder of the churches. Indeed, this "pledge" clearly defined a new track and a new mindset for the elders and co-workers in the recovery:

Among the churches, the factors of oneness increased from the seven found in Ephesians 4 to a few more announced in this pledge: one ministry, one leadership, one deputy authority, and one divine oracle - even oneness with a ministry office and its manager was a factor of our oneness! Any dissenting opinion to brother Lee as the commander in chief was not to be tolerated; and matters of concern were not to be made an issue of, no matter how legitimate.

This new mindset became galvanized in conferences, trainings, and church meetings. The elders’ trainings conducted by brother Lee were especially useful to fortify the minds of the leading ones and to instill in them new standards of expectation in the churches. In those intense meetings and times of fellowship utilizing days at a time with one another, much instruction came forth concerning the details of carrying out the Lord’s new move in the churches. In these ways, the new mindset in the local churches was born.

Letters From Former Intimate Co-workers

In my contact with former leading ones in the recovery during, 2001-2002, they were all consistent in these three areas: 1) Their love for the brothers in the recovery and all members of the Body of Christ. 2) Their perplexity over a mindset exercised in the recovery leading to their departure. 3) Their love and regard for God's Word and their adherence to it.

They were also all open to reconciling fellowship with those heading up the recovery today.

---- Original Message -----
From: "Albert Zehr" <ajzehr@
To: <sisitt@msn.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 11:08 AM

> Dear Brother Steve, Greetings and thank-you for the copy of your
> letter. Once again I am moved by your desire to facilitate reconciliation.
> Although I am quite busy, I felt compelled to share with you some points I
> felt the Lord brought to me after reading the letter. Sorry that these are
> not highly developed or polished, but they do come from the heart.
>
> -In their hearts these dear ones have elevated the teachings of
> Witness Lee and the doctrines of the recovery to be commensurate with the
> WORD. They perceive these to be God's "present day speaking." Unconsciously, this makes them infallible and unquestionable. They become part of one's very faith and foundation.
> -This stance requires total subjective loyalty and acceptance and
> makes an objective review impossible if not blasphemous. The longer one is in this mode the more of the lifetime that has been built on it the more
> inconceivable it becomes that it might be a deception.
> -Everything else is measured by this "vision" and nothing can measure it.
> -Perhaps you have never personally sold yourself to this extent. If
> so, then the above sounds extreme to you, at the same time others may also have sensed that you were never really clear about the "vision."
> - When the Lord began to expose this "spell" in my life I was left
> in a place of confusion and dispair. In this state the Lord brought me to
> the song, "On Christ the solid rock I stand, ALL other ground is sinking
> sand."
> I cried out, "Oh Lord, You and You alone are the only true and
> unquestionable reality in my life. I am willing to subject everything else
> to objective and sober discernment. Only after this could I love and
> appreciate Witness Lee and his teachings while objectively discerning his
> strengths and weaknesses and allowing them to be balanced by the Word and
> the teachings of other Godly leaders.
> -Dear brother Steve, I admire your sincerity and desperate plea to,
> "come let us reason together." But. Sorry, my brother, this is impossible
> while one is subjectively committed in unquestioned loyalty to a
> cause. Their reactions will always be the same as yours would be if I would come to you and say, come let us question the authenticity of the Bible.
> -I commend you for your diligence and willingness to make yourself
> vulnerable to misunderstanding and alienation. I pray that the Lord will
> strengthen you with much grace and divine encouragement in your spirit.
> -Your booklet may bring some light and understanding to some
> hearts. But, I believe something else must happen first. Each individual
> heart must receive a fresh revelation of the total, exclusive all
> sufficiency of Jesus Christ alone. Everything else, can and must from time
> to time be re-examined. Our security and foundation must rest on Him alone.
> If we are threatened and made defensive by questions it suggests that we
> have been adding to that foundation.
> -Another consideration I submit to you. It is very easy to bring a
> battle into the realm of flesh and blood. In this realm it becomes a matter
> of being for or against persons. Actually, the dear ones do not want to be
> obstinate, unreasonable and defensive. This is the realm into which they
> have unwittingly succombed to and are now entrapped by. This battle can
> only be successfully fought in the realm of the spirit. Our most effective
> strategy at this time is to war in the spirit through prayer and fasting.
> Only as this power of darkness is broken can the light break through. Only
> as the captives are set free can they rise up afresh to regain their
> freedom in Christ. Here I believe is the most effective front to do battle
> for the most dramatic results.
> -If you could find two or three others who would agree to
> prevailing prayer in this realm, we might be amazed what might happen.
> -I recognize this is a bit of an abrupt end, but it seems to be all
> that I feel led to write at this moment. Much love and grace, in Christ,
> Albert Z

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Matteson
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:02 AM
To: Steve Isitt
Subject: Re: book

Thanks for sending the book. I look forward to reading it. I too think it's amazing that the brothers in the local churches who profess to be one with all the saints refuse to attempt reconciliation with those who left. For myself, I long to have fellowship with the ones still there. It seems their strong perverted concept of "the ground" causes them to be so exclusive that they even can't talk to those they consider not on "the ground". It boggles the mind! So much for doctrine that is not based in the reality of Christ's life. Dave
--
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Isitt
To: matteson
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 8:05 PM
Subject: book

Hi Dave,

I have sent my book to you that I have failed to do until now. It should get to you early in the week.

It is very interesting to me to see that ones who have left the "recovery" can so easily identify with what I have written about and perfectly understand my heart. Ones in the recovery, the few leading ones who have received it are quite alarmed about it and have asked me not to take the Table or function in the meeting. I was also removed from a home meeting I was beginning to attend where an elder attended. The discipline is in place until I get "this book matter cleared up". I was not actively distributing it. Five books total in Seattle/Bellevue. The matters I brought up for fellowship in that book were for the sake of building a bridge of communication to those who left. The brothers who left are open for this; the ones in the recovery are not at all open. It is an amazing development that has taken place among us over the last 12-13 years.

Yours in Christ,
Steve I.

(Two emails)
Dear Brother Steve,

Thank you for sending all the correspondence you have had with other brothers. Though I have not replied for some time, I want you to know that I am still very interested in your burden. There are many dear brothers in the LSM that I would love to have restored fellowship. Certainly two of them are Sherman and Dave Higgins. I met a brother the other day coming out of a store into which I was entering. I recognized him as one I had seen at times in the past, and then suddenly I knew his name, Rick Scatterday. We greeted one another and had most cordial and happy fellowship for a few minutes, with no mention whatever of any problems in the past or any special relationships to cloud us. It was most encouraging. Rick is travelling and ministering in various places.

May the Lord continue to bring His people together with Himself as the Head and center and the only focus. That is His house.

In His name, John.

From: JIngalls2@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 11:59 AM
To: SteveIsitt@msn.com
Subject: Re: Fw: letter to Dan Towle

----- Original Message -----
From: [email]JIngallsmail]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 12:00 PM
To: SteveIsitt@msn.com
Subject: Re: My book

Dear Brother Steve,

I appreciate your sending me your letter to other brothers regarding your
book and your letter to me. I am sorry you have to go through this turmoil and, as you say, a "disappointing and confounding experience." I can fully understand this. May the Lord take you through it with Himself.

…We should be discerning with all and in all. Only the Lord Jesus
is spotless and peerless. I totally agree with you that we should address
the real situation and listen to the Lord's voice concerning it. That is
what we attempted to do in 1987 to 1989.

You mentioned Doug Higgins... I knew him very well when he lived in Spokane and was close to him. I didn't know that he was in Seattle. I haven't had any contact with him in 15 years. Oh, that the Lord would do something to break down these barriers, these walls! Oh,
that we could all be together under His headship with His centrality!

Your brother, John.

RETURN

This letter was not from a former co-worker, but it is concerning one. Ken Unger had been trying to hold two sides together during the new way transition in his locality. His desire and endeavor was surely to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace, but eventually, he received a letter from his fellow elders, asking him to leave the eldership. Keeping the oneness of the Body had apparently been hindering the progress of the one accord in his locality for the Lord's new move in the churches A brother told me that brother Lee wanted Ken to "get off the fence". He had stayed longer than other brothers who had left the recovery, trying to find a way for the church in Huntington Beach.

I thought I should let brothers in Anaheim know that I had an encouraging contact with Ken, and that he was interested in having fellowship with them. So I wrote to Ed Marks, hoping he could visit Ken.

I didn't hear back from Ed. Neither did Ken hear from him.

My letter to Ed:

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Isitt
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 11:16 PM
To: EdMarks
Subject: Ken Unger hopes for fellowship with you

Hi Brother Ed,

In a visit to Southern California last month, Dec. 3-10, I felt to visit different ones who were once among us in the recovery. It was quite an exercise and profitable to be with them. The exercise was in having a right spirit and an accommodating heart. What was consistent with them all was their love for the Lord and their considerable interest in the church and in the recovery...

Brother Ed, they were also alike in their very painful and perplexing experience in the church life that eventually led to their leaving. None imagined they would ever leave, but now they have left and the deep wounds are there. I was impressed with their willingness to forgive and to believe in the Lord's sovereignty, but they, nevertheless, are still hurt.

Praise the Lord! It was good to go to them, to consider their experience, and to pray with them. In the prayer, in each visit, we were raised up to the throne and received some sweet dispensing and some comfort as members of God's universal household meeting in a home.

Again I say, Praise the Lord! ...past their wounds is their spirit that matches God.... Brother, just the love and understanding shown them by us will please God...Who knows what love and understanding could bring in to the recovery concerning those of our family who have become estranged....

There is one brother that stood apart from others ... Ken Unger. He said he never left. He has quite a story to tell in this regard. He said that if I were to talk to him seven years ago he would have broken down crying. In his last contact with Brother Lee, after twenty meetings with him, they embraced in a very emotional scene. He said he has never had such a sense of glory with a brother.

I asked him if he would like to meet with one of the brothers and I mentioned your name. He said, "sure, I would like to meet with Ed, I know him." His attitude toward the brothers in Anaheim and concerning the recovery was one of understanding and respect. I was surprised by this and refreshed.

He is not wholehearted where he meets, but it is where he can get some fellowship and relatedness at this time. He said, "I have to meet", indicating that he meets there because of lack of having much choice. He asked me to arrange a time with you, saying that he could not do it. Will you meet with him, Ed? His wife, too, desperately needs to know our love.

The hardest field is here, with "former members". It requires the most Christ to go to them. They are in great need of our love, and if they receive our love, this will revive them - and us. Over a year's time, perhaps a revival would be brought in! Some would return, and some would become useful, very useful and productive in the Lord's hand.

It is a joyous labor and according to the Lord's heart to go after the one that was lost and bring him back home. What a glory if our hearts could be so accommodating and enlarged for this! Praise the Lord!

Steve I.

Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 10:37 PM
To: SteveIsitt@msn.com
Subject: Re: Bill Mallon

Hi Steve
Regarding Bill's letter to W.Lee. A tragic story. What kept going through
my mind was W. Lee's word of fellowship (I was there), You brothers have
never learned how to fellowship (with me). To understand this whole mess, you have to try and understand the Chinese mentality, their cultural background,
ie, the way they think. And don't tell me that we are in Christ, the new man,
and culture has nothing to do with it. Well I'm afraid in reality, it has
everything to do with most of the frustration you are dealing with.

I remember many times listening to Bro. Lee say never touch the Chinese
mentality. I never quite understood what he meant. In secular language, the
word inscrutable is used to describe the Chinese. To me this means, you can
never pin them down or get them to admit error. You can never figure them
out, and they seem sooo humble.

If you have following the negotiations with the US and China over the downed
plane, you will get a clue about them; wanting the US to apologize for their
errors. Against all truth, facts, reasonableness, logic, whatever... they want
us to kowtow, bend our knee, save their face, their honor, etc. etc. It is
crazy!! And yet to get our men and women back we had to say some kind of
political ....We're very sorry.... to make a deal.

Now transfer all this and more to the way they dealt with Bill and others and
then you will know why you will go crazy trying to bring them to some kind of
accountability.

When we attended the memorial service for W. L., we were amazed at the pomp,
the exaltation. It was like attending a funeral for a head of state, or an
emporor, or a king, Not a humble servant of the Lord!! Did Jesus have such a
regal ending? Did any of the Apostles? No, all died just like their master
and Lord. When we brought this up [with others], they said it was cultural and
his family's wishes.

When I was reading Bill's accusations of the way the office and Phillip
handled things in the S.E., I was shocked at his frankness. I said to myself,
you never, never talk to Bro. Lee like that, in that tone. I surmised that
Bill was thinking that surely B. Lee was not aware of all these under handed
dealings and if he only knew he would take steps to clear everything up and
possibly restore his standing in the S.E. NOT SO. It doesn't work that way
in the Chinese culture. The one at the top is Lord. You do not question, or
criticize, never, ever!! or you are through, finished. All those elders
mentioned by W.L. became a threat to his controlling and they had to be
subdued or removed. I think you had a little taste of this recently with the
brothers in Bellevue.

The Texas brothers learned this early on and became the inner circle around
Bro. Lee to defend him and explain how things work to the rest of the elders.
You mentioned Ray Graver. Have you had any dealings with Ray? Do you know
him? I would consider him the hardest of all the Texas bros. to touch. He has
been loyal to the death from day one. He has been loyal without question to
Bro. Lee and LSM for thirty-five years. What makes you think he is going to
change now? Maybe you know something I don't.

Their concept of the kingdom is.....Me King,,,,you dumb!....And this attitude
is passed down the rank and file. The smallest elder acts the same way. Those
who had a mind of their own have left. Those who stayed have given up their
own integrity and surrendered their person to Bro. Lee and the system. This
system has permeated the LC leadership. Can you change it? Can the Lord
change it? Of course He will change it in HIS TIME. Judgment must first begin
at the House of the Lord.

I understand about blowing the trumpet and pushing buttons; but are their
ears open? Jesus said to each church in Rev.....he that has an ear let him
hear! Ephesus did not repent, did not hear and lost their lampstand. Did any
of the churches hear? The Catholic Ch. is still here today. Sardis is still
lukewarm, and the Lord is still on the outside of Laodicea knocking to
stopped up ears! Only Philadelphia heard the Lord's word and let the Lord in.

My friendly and brotherly suggestion to you. Seek out the wounded, the
oppressed, the downcast, the discouraged in your area. There must be
hundreds of castaways, lost sheep needing a shepherd. Jesus left the
ninety-nine and went out seeking the lost sheep. He did not convert too many
Pharisees! They had no heart nor ear to listen to him!

You have a soft shepherd's heart. Bro. Steve. I assure you these bleeding
sheep will have an ear to hear you and respond to your care. Perhaps you and your wife could be a team ....

The verse in John 10:9...and will go in and go out and find pasture...has
been our experience. The Lord led us in and the Lord led us out...into the
pasture,,, where the Chief Shepherd of the flock is taking care of so many
who have been rejected.

Please read Ezk. 34 and Jeremiah 23:1-4, Isa. 35:3-7, 40:11, 42:1-4,
58:6-12.....for reference.

aron

03-12-2015, 06:07 AM

... as she began to read she was soon cut off by him and could not finish. She was very discouraged but brother Lee granted her another visit to him with Ken at Ken’s request, and again she began to read and was stopped before getting through half a page...

Being MOTA means everyone listens to you, but you listen only to God. It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it. Right?

Ohio

03-12-2015, 06:17 AM

Being MOTA means everyone listens to you, but you listen only to God. It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it. Right?

Out in the world they put it another way -- "__it only rolls down hill"

Sometimes coarse honesty is preferred over spiritualized balderdash.

aron

03-12-2015, 06:39 AM

I had first encountered this spirit with local elders in 1996 and at that time began to consider tracing it back to its source. Something else compelling me to seek an understanding of this spirit was the lack of love and shepherding in the church in my locality. I began to search for answers by contacting former leading ones who left the recovery during a time of turmoil in the late eighties. They too had encountered this spirit in a major way during a time of crisis in the recovery...

Interesting that you use "this spirit" three times in sequence here. What is this spirit, whose effects are manifested here?

1. These spirits like to hide themselves. The last thing they want is to come to the light. They are very clever, and can get you to look away from the beam in your eye, and fixate upon the splinter. They'll give you half-truths, or quarter-truths, or eighth-truths, while withholding the rest. So you think you have something when you have nothing.

I base this largely upon the story in Mark 5, Luke 8, Matt 8. Jesus said, "Who are you", and the demon(s) replied, "Oh, there are a lot of us here" But they didn't want to be "destroyed before their time" (Matt 8:29). If they got paraded before men, then the disguise would be over, and they'd lose their power. So Jesus let them creep off into the herd of pigs. Interesting: why the release? I personally believe that He was showing his disciples something. Like a policeman who lets the thief sneak off to the gang hideout, to show where the operation was based. It wasn't a truce so much as a tactical maneuver. He was temporarily letting them go, but in releasing them he was revealing something. He was training his disciples.

2. By looking at the operations of these spirits, or "this spirit" if you will, eventually you'll see patterns emerge. That's why Ohio learned so much about the LC by studying the history of the Exclusive Brethren. That's why Matt saw similar patterns with the "no name" group he ran across. You can learn about the LC by reading about the Eastern Lightning (EL); behavioral patterns emerge. In the LC/EL case, recruitment methodologies were very similar. Approach your subject, but don't tell them where you're from. Just find common ground, and build a bond. Once you find a point of entry, and gain trust and opening, then you can begin to re-educate them. Eventually you'll get them to make a commitment, and then you begin to remove their exits. Later, when they want to leave, they don't know how. You've convinced them that their old world is gone, and there's no way back.

Obviously the EL is much, much more extreme. But that's why it is so good to "expose the spirit" that is operating. Otherwise it remains disguised. And that's why we can thank God for blunt people like RG and MP who "told it like it is." The masks were removed and you could see the spirit of control, the "yoke of slavery" fully revealed.

So it's good that Indiana collected these testimonies. These voices are part of the history of the LC, and are very instructive. Over time you can see the spirit emerge, for what it really is.

TLFisher

03-12-2015, 07:23 AM

I remember many times listening to Bro. Lee say never touch the Chinese
mentality. I never quite understood what he meant. In secular language, the
word inscrutable is used to describe the Chinese. To me this means, you can
never pin them down or get them to admit error. You can never figure them
out, and they seem sooo humble.

If you have following the negotiations with the US and China over the downed
plane, you will get a clue about them; wanting the US to apologize for their
errors. Against all truth, facts, reasonableness, logic, whatever... they want
us to kowtow, bend our knee, save their face, their honor, etc. etc. It is
crazy!! And yet to get our men and women back we had to say some kind of
political ....We're very sorry.... to make a deal.

Now transfer all this and more to the way they dealt with Bill and others and
then you will know why you will go crazy trying to bring them to some kind of
accountability.

When we attended the memorial service for W. L., we were amazed at the pomp,
the exaltation. It was like attending a funeral for a head of state, or an
emporor, or a king, Not a humble servant of the Lord!! Did Jesus have such a
regal ending? Did any of the Apostles? No, all died just like their master
and Lord. When we brought this up [with others], they said it was cultural and
his family's wishes.

When I was reading Bill's accusations of the way the office and Phillip
handled things in the S.E., I was shocked at his frankness. I said to myself,
you never, never talk to Bro. Lee like that, in that tone. I surmised that
Bill was thinking that surely B. Lee was not aware of all these under handed
dealings and if he only knew he would take steps to clear everything up and
possibly restore his standing in the S.E. NOT SO. It doesn't work that way
in the Chinese culture. The one at the top is Lord. You do not question, or
criticize, never, ever!! or you are through, finished. All those elders
mentioned by W.L. became a threat to his controlling and they had to be
subdued or removed. I think you had a little taste of this recently with the
brothers in Bellevue.

From dictionary.reference.com
Inscrutable-incapable of being investigated, analyzed, or scrutinized; impenetrable

It is a definition, but I rather compare the current email scandal of Hillary Clinton to how Witness Lee handled the late 80's turmoil, and currently how Philip Lin writes about it. The law applies to everyone else, but Witness Lee like Hillary won't succumb to requests for transparency. A blatant refusal to be investigated, analyzed, or scrutinized.

Ohio

03-12-2015, 10:11 AM

When we attended the memorial service for W. L., we were amazed at the pomp, the exaltation. It was like attending a funeral for a head of state, or an emperor, or a king, Not a humble servant of the Lord!! Did Jesus have such a regal ending? Did any of the Apostles? No, all died just like their master and Lord. When we brought this up [with others], they said it was cultural and his family's wishes.

During the early years, many well-respected brothers (e.g. Don Rutledge) spoke highly of Lee's humble, serving demeanor, how he was kind and very approachable. As time progressed, that dramatically changed. Lee's pride eventually permeated all of the leadership. Soon LSM became more noted for their arrogance and unrighteousness than for anything positive of Christian ministry.

aron

03-12-2015, 11:24 AM

These spirits like to hide themselves. The last thing they want is to come to the light...

Some may smirk and say, "Funny thing for an anonymous internet poster to write." True, but in my defense I'm not pretending to be something. I try to let those around me know that even if we're not be "good building material", God cares anyway. And I write not to create a movement nor oppose one; but because I like to think aloud. Writing helps re-program the brain; something that I needed after years immersed in the LC system. So I think aloud (i.e. write) and if anyone gets something that's fine. But I try to be straightforward about what my motives are.

And if I want people to respect my ideas, then I have to pay attention to theirs. You know, the old Christian basic, "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." If you want people to listen to you, then you have to listen to them. WL was so spiritually advanced, so elevated as "God's present oracle", that he didn't need to listen to anyone. In so doing, he revealed something of what spirit was at work there, and probably made himself irrelevant in any larger Christian conversation.

Ohio

03-12-2015, 12:06 PM

These spirits like to hide themselves. The last thing they want is to come to the light. They are very clever, and can get you to look away from the beam in your eye, and fixate upon the splinter. They'll give you half-truths, or quarter-truths, or eighth-truths, while withholding the rest. So you think you have something when you have nothing.

Excellent observation.

What signals me to agree are these actions of Lee and LSM ...

Subduing and lording it over the flock
Criminal activities covered up by the leadership
Excessive pride and arrogance, condemning everyone not under subjection, both within and without
Refusal to allow any accountability, within or without
Smear the reputations of those who speak their conscience
Vindicate their actions with "hidden" spiritual types from the OT

TLFisher

03-12-2015, 01:29 PM

Soon LSM became more noted for their arrogance and unrighteousness than for anything positive of Christian ministry.

Ohio, I'd include pride along with arrogance and unrighteousness. It was never more apparent when RK said at a NW blending conference which I paraphrase:

"I'm not going to step aside for anyone"

TLFisher

03-13-2015, 12:33 PM

The Texas brothers learned this early on and became the inner circle around
Bro. Lee to defend him and explain how things work to the rest of the elders.
You mentioned Ray Graver. Have you had any dealings with Ray? Do you know
him? I would consider him the hardest of all the Texas bros. to touch. He has
been loyal to the death from day one. He has been loyal without question to
Bro. Lee and LSM for thirty-five years. What makes you think he is going to
change now? Maybe you know something I don't.

Their concept of the kingdom is.....Me King,,,,you dumb!....And this attitude
is passed down the rank and file. The smallest elder acts the same way. Those
who had a mind of their own have left. Those who stayed have given up their
own integrity and surrendered their person to Bro. Lee and the system. This
system has permeated the LC leadership.

As this brother who sent this email to Indiana says, I would categorize as "Their concept of the kingdom is" being in line with the deputy authority doctrine. There is no "checks and balances". There is no humility.

Something I have considered there may be something to what the brother said about Ray Graver and fellow "Texas brothers". Because of their over the top zeal they had for Witness Lee and have for his ministry, ones who had been directly exposed to that behavior may see the zealous loyalty Graver and others possessed as being idolatrous or cultic behavior. While those of us from other geographic regions had not been directly exposed to behavior of that degree.

aron

03-13-2015, 03:43 PM

There is no "checks and balances". There is no humility. ...Because of their over the top zeal they had for Witness Lee and have for his ministry, ones who had been directly exposed to that behavior may see the zealous loyalty Graver and others possessed as being idolatrous or cultic behavior.

As Hank Hanegraaf put it, they possess "exceptional earnestness" combined with being "limited... in advanced theological training." (We Were Wrong, CRI 2009 p.30) Which makes them appear to be "unbalanced and ideosyncratic" at best, and "cultic" at worst. But, he says, this is all a misunderstanding. Well maybe it is all a misunderstanding. But they certainly walk like a duck, and quack like a duck...

Freedom

03-13-2015, 10:18 PM

As this brother who sent this email to Indiana says, I would categorize as "Their concept of the kingdom is" being in line with the deputy authority doctrine. There is no "checks and balances". There is no humility.

Something I have considered there may be something to what the brother said about Ray Graver and fellow "Texas brothers". Because of their over the top zeal they had for Witness Lee and have for his ministry, ones who had been directly exposed to that behavior may see the zealous loyalty Graver and others possessed as being idolatrous or cultic behavior. While those of us from other geographic regions had not been directly exposed to behavior of that degree.

I think it's fair to say that the LC had more than their share of leaders who shouldn't be in any sort of church leadership position. On the one hand it is so obvious where LC leadership has gone wrong, on the other hand the more I try to understand it all, the more baffling it is. It would be simple if LC leadership presented the LC for what it is and not something it's not. There are plenty of religious groups that are happy to follow an apostle-like "supreme" leader, and they have a central headquarters. For many groups that have those characteristics, there is no denial of those facts. In the LC, however, they vehemently deny such charges, yet the real situation is so obvious. The irony of it all is that supposedly "early Lee" would have condemned "later Lee".

From everything that I have read, I get an impression of the early days that is similar to what Ohio posted:
During the early years, many well-respected brothers (e.g. Don Rutledge) spoke highly of Lee's humble, serving demeanor, how he was kind and very approachable. As time progressed, that dramatically changed. Lee's pride eventually permeated all of the leadership. Soon LSM became more noted for their arrogance and unrighteousness than for anything positive of Christian ministry.Maybe Lee really was humble when he first started his ministry here. I wasn't around, so I wouldn't know. Obviously things changed quite a bit. My impression has always been that when Lee first started ministering here, he was not a central figure because anyone wanted him to be, but because everyone appreciated his ministry so much. Regarding Lee's early ministry here, John Ingalls is reported to have said "We were amazed at the riches that were pouring out of this man..." Whatever the initial view of Lee was, eventually that changed from him being a figure everyone appreciated to being him rationalized as a true "supreme" figure. Elders signed the statement saying "We agree that this leading is indispensable to our oneness and acknowledge the one trumpet in the Lord’s ministry and the one wise master builder among us…." So Lee went from being appreciated for his ministry to being considered "indispensable".

Indiana

03-24-2015, 01:59 PM

www.twoturmoils.com/LocalChurchHistoryOtherSideofStory.pdf

...And in 2013-14 this book by brother Philip Lin appeared which is deficient in giving pertinent detail of Local Church History yet is thought well of by him and endorsed by blending brothers.
It is the epitome of disingenuous reporting, however, and sums up such efforts over the years in the leadership to keep the hidden things hidden that ought to be renounced.

HERn

03-24-2015, 03:13 PM

I found the following quote by Dennis McCallum at http://www.xenos.org/essays/watchman-nee-and-house-church-movement-china

"Idealism

Nee was not only idealistic, he was hyper- idealistic. The word "compromise" was not in his vocabulary. Cliff points out that he bitterly denounced the western missionary churches because,

". . . (he) found the Christians of the missionary societies' churches half-hearted and compromising, and charged that the denominations were weighted down with what was to him man-made traditions regarding baptism, worship and ordination, teaching what was quite foreign to what he read in the New Testament."

and again,

"Convinced of the rightness of his unstructured assembly, free from denominational traditions, he asserted, `Those who really want to live entirely in accordance with the Lord's truth will know real freedom in our midst.'"37

Nee considered the western form of church life (especially the existence of denominations) "an affront to God".38 He berated western missionaries for shamelessly asking for money for themselves.39 He deplored the clergy/laity distinction that was so strong in western Christianity.40 "While the responsibility of expanding the work of the Church lay chiefly, if not solely on the shoulder of the pastor in the other denominational churches, Nee concentrated on training all the believers to do the work of God."41

Thus Nee manifests himself as a purist in terms of primitive biblical Christianity. Interestingly, Cliff points out that a number of western missionaries agreed with Nee's criticisms, and forsook the agencies that had sent them in order to work with Nee.42 This did not earn Nee any popularity with western churches.

Another aspect of the same purism was his refusal to become a part of the popular nationalism that was dominating China at the time. During the war with Japan, he refused to pray that China or Japan would win. "It must be possible," he said in 1940, "for British and German, Chinese and Japanese Christians to kneel and pray together. . . in China, Christians and Missionaries have too much intimacy with the state. . . we ask for neither a Chinese nor a Japanese victory, but for whatever is of advantage. . . to Thee. . . "43 This remarkable excerpt from a war-time sermon was not what the average Chinese wanted to hear!

In another area, Nee argued that Christian workers should not only refrain from asking others for money for their own ministry, but that they should also not give any indication of need whether verbally or otherwise.44

Unfortunately, like so many purists, Nee's meticulous insistence on even the smallest detail sometimes resulted in a violation of a major ethical imperative. Nee's idealism was one of his greatest strengths, but without prioritization, it also became a weakness.45"

End quote.

I wanted to add that perhaps much of what was attributed to the Holy Spirit in Nee was from his own supercharged, highly intelligent, compulsive "old man". Seems to me that if a person appears more spiritual than the Apostle Paul and even our Lord Jesus Christ, then what we're seeing is not from the Holy Spirit.

Ohio

03-24-2015, 05:03 PM

I found the following quote by Dennis McCallum at http://www.xenos.org/essays/watchman-nee-and-house-church-movement-china

Let's start a new thread with McCallum's biography.

Indiana

03-30-2015, 12:53 PM

...And in 2013-14 this book by brother Philip Lin appeared which is deficient in giving pertinent detail of Local Church History, yet is thought well of by him and endorsed by blending brothers.

It is the epitome of disingenuous reporting, however, and sums up the leaders efforts over the years to keep hidden things hidden that ought to have been renounced long ago. [/QUOTE]

Last summer, I was told by a long-time local church brother (retired elder) that I owe "these brothers" an apology, individually and publicly, for the extreme damage I caused them. He is Chinese and was listening to other Chinese in Southern CA who practice putting down truth and lifting up fiction - in the same manner Philip Lin does in his book. I later asked this Chinese brother, if he would like to help me write an apology to the brothers, and there was no reply for 3 weeks when he texted me that he was going to Hong Kong for a month. That is all he said. And, there has been no contact with me since. I knew he couldn't find a legitimate reason for me to apologize to anyone, but I would give him the chance to show me.

www.twoturmoils.com/LocalChurchHistoryOtherSideofStory.pdf

"Witness Lee said in 1988 he pondered seriously the concerns of several brothers who had been in contact with him, and he checked with the Lord earnestly to see if he was making any mistakes in his ministry. He concluded that he was all right before the Lord and that he should just “sail on”, and issued the command to the churches to do likewise. Philip, your book shows that you have followed that command. To sail on you had to sacrifice. You sacrificed firstly your conscience, and therefore the truth; having done that, it became easy for you to sacrifice your brothers, as brother Lee did and became the example to follow.

"This is the keystone of your book to me that you have done this again and merely repeat the same mistakes made by leaders before you. You have truly sacrificed and are still sailing on. Instead of manifesting the truth this time by renouncing the hidden things of shame, you glorify someone,and speak falsehoods about others, brothers who you know were right according to your conscience and who stood against the hidden things brought to your attention then, and now.

"This has been the way of the blending brothers, to sail over the truth. And after years of sailing, Andrew Yu and Minoru Chen, apparently endorsing your book, are sailing on over the truth again."

TLFisher

03-30-2015, 01:04 PM

Philip, your book shows that you have followed that command. To sail on you had to sacrifice. You sacrificed firstly your conscience, and therefore the truth; having done that, it became easy for you to sacrifice your brothers, as brother Lee did and became the example to follow.

"This is the keystone of your book to me that you have done this again and merely repeat the same mistakes made by leaders before you. You have truly sacrificed and are still sailing on. Instead of manifesting the truth this time by renouncing the hidden things of shame, you glorify someone,and speak falsehoods about others, brothers who you know were right according to your conscience and who stood against the hidden things brought to your attention then, and now.

"This has been the way of the blending brothers, to sail over the truth.
Well said. It's short and to the point.

Freedom

03-30-2015, 07:22 PM

"Witness Lee said in 1988 he pondered seriously the concerns of several brothers who had been in contact with him, and he checked with the Lord earnestly to see if he was making any mistakes in his ministry. He concluded that he was all right before the Lord and that he should just “sail on”, and issued the command to the churches to do likewise. Philip, your book shows that you have followed that command. To sail on you had to sacrifice. You sacrificed firstly your conscience, and therefore the truth; having done that, it became easy for you to sacrifice your brothers, as brother Lee did and became the example to follow.

"This is the keystone of your book to me that you have done this again and merely repeat the same mistakes made by leaders before you. You have truly sacrificed and are still sailing on. Instead of manifesting the truth this time by renouncing the hidden things of shame, you glorify someone,and speak falsehoods about others, brothers who you know were right according to your conscience and who stood against the hidden things brought to your attention then, and now.

"This has been the way of the blending brothers, to sail over the truth. And after years of sailing, Andrew Yu and Minoru Chen, apparently endorsing your book, are sailing on over the truth again."

Just like the CRI criticized past "studies" of the LC movement as not probing deep enough, Christian scholars and apologists (especially the CRI) who have come out in full support of the LC, also have not probed deep enough. I've been in the LC my whole life and I can say that my concerns didn't develop overnight, or even after a few years. It took me much longer than that to really develop concerns about it.

When it comes to Lee's fundamental teachings, everyone is going to have their own view on his teachings. Those teachings which have been addressed by outsiders are really only a small part of the picture. When it comes to some of the more intricate aspects of Lee's ministry, where has there been any detailed analysis from the outside? I completely agree that this is something that should have been done before arriving at any conclusions about the LC.

UntoHim

03-30-2015, 09:05 PM

Excellent observations Freedom.

The original studies of the LC movement could only have been as deep as Lee and his followers were open about what was REALLY taught behind the closed meeting hall doors. For the most part, Bob and Gretchen Passantino (original CRI researchers into the LC) went by all the publicly available literature they could get their hands on, and actually conducted a very fair and comprehensive treatment under the circumstances. I remember back in those days (circa 77-78) all of the Local Churches in Orange County were on alert for any strangers coming to the meetings. If anyone was suspected to be from CRI, or any kind of apologetic ministry, the meeting was converted to a "Local Church Lite" atmosphere, with a minimum of high volume "Oh, Lord Jeeeeeeesssssuuusss", as few "poor, poor Christianity" blasts as possible, etc. I heard the Passantinos did go to some LC meetings, but none at my Local Church.

Bob Passantino passed away in 2003 at only 52 years old. I highly suspect that he would have never endorsed the Local Church as Hank Hanegraaff et al did here recently. Gretchen Passantino Colburn past away just this past October, so it's too bad she didn't have the time to come to her senses regarding her part in that disgraceful "re-evaluation" of the Local Church of Witness Lee. Of course there is no doubt that Hanegraaff was the main proponent of that embarrassment of an "apologetic" work "We Were Wrong".

Here is a tidbit from Hank on his website:
This reality began to surface in 2003 when I asked Gretchen Passantino and Elliot Miller, editor-in-chief of the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL, to join me for a meeting with representatives of Living Stream Ministry. During the meeting I heard stirring affirmations of the very doctrines the local churches allegedly denied. One by one, and in their own words, representatives of the local churches testified to their belief in one God, revealed in three persons who are eternally distinct; to the reality that human beings can never ontologically attain Godhood; and to the fact that they were “only the church” as opposed to being “the only church.”

Notice when "this reality began to surface"? 2003 No doubt after Bob Passantino died. Coincidence? I think not. I'm afraid Mr. Hank heard "stirring affirmations" of what the LC brothers knew what he wanted to hear. What Hanegraaff should have done was pull out the latest HWMR or Training outline, ask some serious direct questions, and then watch em squirm in their seats. This is what a REAL Christian apologist does...I mean one that is not totally boozambled and snowed under by the very subject is supposed to be "studying". He should have also requested to go to regular LC meetings, unannounced, so as to see what really goes on in the meetings. I don't think he or any of his cohorts did this - what they did is go to "show meetings" that were especially orchestrated to place everything in the best possible light.

"and to the fact that they were 'only the church' as opposed to being 'the only church'.”
Wow, Hank got to hear something that I have never heard in my nearly 40 years of hearing and reading the teachings of Witness Lee! Hey, you young guys out there - maybe I've missed the newest and greatest coming out of Anaheim - do they actually teach this now...that they are "only the church" as opposed to being "the only church"? So if they are "only the church" in Anaheim then they should be accepting all those who are "only the church" in Anaheim, right? So if me and a few of you fellows out there all move to Anaheim and proclaim that we are "only the church" in Anaheim, will the LC brothers come and meet with us, submit to our elders and follow the teachings of our preferred guru?:)

Freedom

03-30-2015, 11:37 PM

"and to the fact that they were 'only the church' as opposed to being 'the only church'.”
Wow, Hank got to hear something that I have never heard in my nearly 40 years of hearing and reading the teachings of Witness Lee! Hey, you young guys out there - maybe I've missed the newest and greatest coming out of Anaheim - do they actually teach this now...that they are "only the church" as opposed to being "the only church"? So if they are "only the church" in Anaheim then they should be accepting all those who are "only the church" in Anaheim, right? So if me and a few of you fellows out there all move to Anaheim and proclaim that we are "only the church" in Anaheim, will the LC brothers come and meet with us, submit to our elders and follow the teachings of our preferred guru?:)

The following quote of Lee is found in the We Were Wrong issue of the CRI Journal:
In every denomination, including the Roman Catholic Church, there are real, saved Christians. They are God’s people belonging to the Lord. But the organization of the denominations in which they are is not of God. The denominational organizations have been utilized by Satan to set up his satanic system to destroy God’s economy of the proper church life.
Witness Lee, “Message Thirty-Four” in The Life-Study of Genesis (Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1987), Vol. 1, p. 464

This statement was included among other statements found in Lee's ministry to show examples of how Lee could supposedly be "misinterpreted". Obviously, the fact that he said denominations are a satanic system is concerning, but I think there is also another concern. When I read a statement like that, the very fact that Lee said "In every denomination... there are real, saved Christians", seems to imply that those "real, saved Christians" within denominations are a minority. Why else would he say that in the first place? Speaking for myself, I can say that at various times, I have been exposed to an attitude where those in the LC will imply that other Christians may not be "genuinely saved". I wouldn't say that attitude is extremely common, but I've certainly seen it.

On page 34 of the We Were Wrong CRI journal, there is a heading "The Surprising Inclusive of the LC". There they attempt to make an argument for why the LC is so "inclusive". I don't think the LC and inclusive even belong in the same sentence. The only time I can say that I've ever seen those in the LC involved themselves with other Christians was to allow the CRI to do their "research" and allow them to speak in some meetings. Where I'm from, I can't say I've seen any inclusion of other Christians or acceptance of other ministries. It is all a big lie coming out of the mouths of LC leadership and the CRI.

Had the CRI done their homework, they would know that not only do those in the LC have problems with inclusiveness of Christians outside the LC, they also have problems with inclusiveness of those on the inside who don't see eye to eye on certain issues. In the 80's, brothers who didn't want to answer to PL and the ministry office were excommunicated. More recently brothers were excommunicated for not adhering to a one publication policy (which was supposedly optional). These things are the antithesis of being inclusive. What happened to Steve after he started writing on LC history is another example of the lack of inclusiveness. The facts are all there in black and white, LC leadership and the CRI have chosen to present a false view of things.

TLFisher

03-31-2015, 12:47 PM

On page 34 of the We Were Wrong CRI journal, there is a heading "The Surprising Inclusive of the LC". There they attempt to make an argument for why the LC is so "inclusive". I don't think the LC and inclusive even belong in the same sentence. The only time I can say that I've ever seen those in the LC involved themselves with other Christians was to allow the CRI to do their "research" and allow them to speak in some meetings. Where I'm from, I can't say I've seen any inclusion of other Christians or acceptance of other ministries. It is all a big lie coming out of the mouths of LC leadership and the CRI.

Local Churches in general are conditionally inclusive. As long as fellowship is based on LSM publications, there is inclusiveness. Any other talk of being inclusive is hypocritical.

Freedom

03-31-2015, 07:35 PM

Local Churches in general are conditionally inclusive. As long as fellowship is based on LSM publications, there is inclusiveness. Any other talk of being inclusive is hypocritical.

Yes, the inclusiveness stops when it's obvious that someone won't accept the ministry. I've seen many Christians come through over the years, and it appears that they are initially accepted within the LC, but so many of them end up leaving when they realize that the group is only for those who appreciate and want to immerse themselves in Lee's ministry.

In the CRI journal, they made the argument that because there are other Christian groups that aren't so inclusive, that makes it okay for the LC to have exclusive and sectarian tendencies (such as putting down denominations). CRI seems to be more about defending the LC, then honestly considering why the LC has the legacy that it does.

Like UntoHim said, I think that LC leadership has to put on a different face to impress those observing from the outside. On the inside it's completely different. If you display a disinterest in Lee's ministry, you might be viewed suspiciously. If you fairly analyze LC history, it's cause for excommunication. There are so many documented cases of how the LC really treats members who don't conform.

I think what makes the issue hard for outsiders to understand is that in many cases the exclusivity and sectarianism is done in a way where it is not so blatantly obvious, at least nowadays. They are somewhat willing to accept other Christians, even tolerate them if they don't conform right away, granted they're not voicing any concerns. Usually, when it becomes obvious that someone isn't a good fit, the just ignore that person until he or she leaves by their own doing. It makes it harder to point a finger at the LC and say they are exclusive.

I have stated before that I have been to Bible studies that involved non-LC Christians attending. They obviously will bring their own Bibles and the brothers would be quick to tell them they're welcome to use their own Bible, however, they would also use it as an opportunity to tell them about the RcV Bible. Every LC Bible study I've been to has involved extensive use of RcV footnotes, so it would not be possible for someone to use their own version of the Bible. That's where the hypocrisy is, that the brothers put on an act of being inclusive, however, everyone very well knows that the only goal for new comers in a situation such as a Bible study is to get everyone using the RcV.

TLFisher

04-01-2015, 12:38 PM

Like UntoHim said, I think that LC leadership has to put on a different face to impress those observing from the outside. On the inside it's completely different. If you display a disinterest in Lee's ministry, you might be viewed suspiciously. If you fairly analyze LC history, it's cause for excommunication. There are so many documented cases of how the LC really treats members who don't conform.

That's why LSM has an editing team. To edit out content, they don't want outside observers to consume. It's completely different when (A) an outside organization such as CRI base their research off LSM publications compared to (B) another writer who might base their research off recorded messages given in trainings, conferences, or Lord's Day meetings.
When CRI did their research, LSM publications had already been diluted and sanitized for public consumption.

Lisbon

04-02-2015, 08:20 AM

That's why LSM has an editing team. To edit out content, they don't want outside observers to consume. It's completely different when (A) an outside organization such as CRI base their research off LSM publications compared to (B) another writer who might base their research off recorded messages given in trainings, conferences, or Lord's Day meetings.
When CRI did their research, LSM publications had already been diluted and sanitized for public consumption.

I may be far too simplistic but. CRI has read LSM for years and they even won a good battle in court with them. It still cost a bunch of money and they are not in business just for fun. They could do a lot of cheap talking to get those monkeys**** off their backs. When my sister showed Charisma's back talk after winning their battle in court, I told her it was all just crap and I still believe it. LSM is not the only ones who can lie. Business is business.
Lisbon

Freedom

04-02-2015, 08:13 PM

Over the years, I always had my reservations about the LC, but I didn't question things until more recently. The first lawsuits were before my time, but every now and then when I heard brothers refer to the lawsuits. It always made me feel defensive, thinking to myself "how dare people say certain things about the LC". By the time CRI came out in support of the LC, I think I was already becoming disillusioned, however, it made me feel better about the LC for a bit longer than I would have otherwise. I took the position that the LC couldn't really be all that bad if outsiders were willing to support it.

Before I really began to question things, I never had any doubts that I was involved with something positive, and I know at one point in time I viewed the LC as the only group working for God on this earth. If I had read Sacrifice and Sail On several years ago, I might have walked away with a really arrogant view of the LC. Lin calls W. Lee a "Bond Slave of Jesus Christ". Not only that, but the way Lin explains the history behind W. Lee, someone could easily walk away with some kind of distored view where various post-WWII events were all arranged by God so that WL would go first to Taiwan and then come to the U.S. for the main part of his ministry.

Obviously those in the LC hold Lee and his ministry in high esteem, and I'm sure many would feel that they really are "the Lord's Recovery", doing whatever it is that is going to bring the Lord back. They don't think any other Christian groups are doing that.

As a lifetime LC member, I felt I was part of something really special, however, I had still my reservations. As I grew more and more disillusioned, I began to ask myself why it was necessary for outsiders to come in (CRI and HH) and attempt to legitimatize the LC. The lawsuits were also attempts by LC leadership to do the same thing. Finally, I had to ask wonder to myself "we call ourselves the Lord's Recovery, and if we really are that, why can't we gain a positive impression with outsiders by our own virtue? If we are something so special, then why do we have nothing to show for it?"

Part of the problem is that those in the LC developed a persecution complex over time, and that has meant that "opposition" became the indicator that LC leadership were doing things right. Obviously those who follow God can expect opposition and persecution, but that alone is not an indicator that a group is following God. Jesus was strongly opposed by many, but those who needed healing knew whom to go despite what anyone said. Likewise, if those in the LC have something of benefit to offer people, then great, let people find come out for themselves. Jesus didn't go around suing those who spoke bad things about him.

It has been almost 20 years now since W. Lee passed away. That is plenty of time for people to learn about his ministry if they wanted to. Much to the disappointment of those in the LC, the masses have not flocked to Lee's ministry, rather they have been drawn to other, more positive ministries. Rather than accept this fact and responsibility for certain failures, LC leadership has attempted to improve their tarnished reputation through the use of lawsuits, outside support (CRI) and the mass distribution of LSM literature (BFA). More recently Lin's book appear on amazon telling a revised history of Lee and the local churches.

At the heart of the issue, I know my experience and no amount of propaganda set forth by LC leadership can change that. Lin's book is pure propaganda when someone takes into account the true accounts of LC history. At one time I thought that I was involved with something positive. When I consider, however, all of the antics that I've been exposed to in my own LC experience, I am not surprised that so many have made various accusations against the LC. It is no wonder that so many aren't receptive of Lee's ministry. Why can't LC leadership accept this?

TLFisher

04-03-2015, 01:29 PM

When I consider, however, all of the antics that I've been exposed to in my own LC experience, I am not surprised that so many have made various accusations against the LC. It is no wonder that so many aren't receptive of Lee's ministry. Why can't LC leadership accept this?

I don't know what the LC leadership think. Maybe they hold the view Lee's ministry is not for everyone?
It's as if they're saying God has many children, but only the elite see the vision Lee's ministry has through LSM publications.

TLFisher

04-03-2015, 01:40 PM

Part of the problem is that those in the LC developed a persecution complex over time, and that has meant that "opposition" became the indicator that LC leadership were doing things right.

Part of this persecution complex is the "Us versus Them" mentality. As was revealed in testimonies from the Great Lakes turmoil, if a brother or sisters was neutral towards LSM, they were by default deemed against LSM because of the "Us versus Them" mentality. "If God is for us, who can be against us?"

As a result it doesn't matter if the LC leadership is righteous or unrighteous, the persecution complex results in a Teflon effect where any unrighteous behavior is excused as "false accusations", "opposers", etc as we see in Phillip Lin's excusing of Phillip Lee's behavior. No doubt, there were turmoils, it's a matter of perspective who is reactive to the turmoil.

Cal

04-03-2015, 04:36 PM

At the heart of the issue, I know my experience and no amount of propaganda set forth by LC leadership can change that. Lin's book is pure propaganda when someone takes into account the true accounts of LC history. At one time I thought that I was involved with something positive. When I consider, however, all of the antics that I've been exposed to in my own LC experience, I am not surprised that so many have made various accusations against the LC. It is no wonder that so many aren't receptive of Lee's ministry. Why can't LC leadership accept this?

One simple answer. In order to do so they would have to admit Lee was fundamentally wrong about something. If they did that, it would be a seismic shift in the LCM worldview. All the stars they steer by would be rearranged. Finally, they would have to admit they are just another group. Which would blow their self-image to smithereens.

Like I said. Seismic.

Ohio

04-03-2015, 05:52 PM

I don't know what the LC leadership think. Maybe they hold the view Lee's ministry is not for everyone?
It's as if they're saying God has many children, but only the elite see the vision Lee's ministry has through LSM publications.

Exactly.

Like the marines. The few. The proud.

Freedom

04-03-2015, 07:47 PM

One simple answer. In order to do so they would have to admit Lee was fundamentally wrong about something. If they did that, it would be a seismic shift in the LCM worldview. All the stars they steer by would be rearranged. Finally, they would have to admit they are just another group. Which would blow their self-image to smithereens.

Like I said. Seismic.

I completely agree. It's not easy for anyone with an LC background to transition to the view that the LC is just "another group". This is exactly the view that LC leaders don't want members to arrive at. At the heart of the issue, I think LC leadership is fighting a losing battle on two fronts. They have to figure out ways to retain current members, and they also how to recruit new members. All groups have to do this, but because the LCM has defined itself as being "the Lord's Recovery" they have essentially given members a grandiose view as to what kind of group they are. Members are bound to eventually encounter a disconnect with that false reality. When I started to consider what the LC claimed to be, along with my own experiences, there was a considerable disconnect. Once I read the writings of former members, I realized that the current LC couldn't possibly all that it was made out to be.

Considering the commonly held beliefs are that Lee's ministry has "unlocked" the whole Bible, and that it's not possible for there to be any fundamental errors in LC teachings/practices, it follows that the LCM has set quite a standard for itself to live up to. Like I said in my last post, any group that calls itself "the Lord's Recovery" should be able to demonstrate that by their own merits. Because members see themselves as being part of something special, they have the expectation that their experiences will match that. When this doesn’t happen, as was the case with me, the disillusionment and disappointment come in.

Some LC members might not even view the LC as being something particularly special. They just like the environment, or the social connections they have. I’m sure LC leaders view this as dangerous, because when people are more or less “indifferent” to the fundamental aspects of the LC, there is no reason for them to stay once they grow weary of it all. This is where propaganda like Lin’s book comes in. In the beginning of Sacrifice and Sail On, Lin quickly admits that there is a whole generation that doesn’t know how the LCM formed here in the U.S., neither do they have an understanding of who Lee really was. Obviously Lin doesn’t present the real view of Lee, however, in the eyes of LC leadership, I’m sure they feel that the younger generation has to have at least some appreciation of Lee. If there are too many who are indifferent, then the LC would quickly collapse.

As to where the LCM is headed for the future, my guess is as good as anyone else. Maybe they have succeeded at creating a system that keeps people in, but as far as growth is concerned, I’m not all that convinced that they will have much success, if any. It's actually a perilous position to be in, because Lee's ministry ended almost 20 years ago. All they have to offer is what Lee spoke over the course of his life. His ministry is over, so the only thing that is "new" is the occasional spin the BB's will put on Lee's ministry, as well as what they call "the up-to-date speaking", which is really just a regurgitation of Lee's ministry. It’s not the best formula for gaining people, and that’s not even mentioning how relevant Lee’s ministry is to the average person in 2015.

I mentioned in my last post that they have sought to “legitimatize” Lee’s ministry through various methods. I assume that LC leadership would blame the lack of receptiveness to Lee’s ministry on “the opposition”. I would ask, however, how many people even care about Lee’s ministry? I bet most people have no idea who Lee even was, much less the controversy that surrounded his ministry. In my mind “the opposition” is just an excuse to rationalize the lack of receptiveness to Lee’s ministry.

To address just how “relevant” Lee’s ministry is, I did a quick little comparison. I went on Amazon and searched for the “ESV Study Bible”. That comes up ranked at #3013 in the “Books” category and has been available for sale since 2008. It is priced at $31. By comparison, the Recovery Version New Testament is ranked at #857,619 in the “Books” category, and if I am not mistaken, has been available for sale on Amazon before BFA even started. It is priced at $13, so if it was something people really wanted, it one could assume that it would sell reasonably well. Quite to the contrary, it doesn’t appear there is much interest in it at all. I would not attribute that to BFA giving them away for free, because when I did BFA distributions, people had never even heard of the Recovery Version before. Just consider the irony though, the value that Lee’s ministry holds in the view of the general public is that it has to be distributed, free of charge. Even then, who knows, most people probably just stick it on the bookshelf.

Cal

04-03-2015, 10:04 PM

As to where the LCM is headed for the future, my guess is as good as anyone else.

Reading your level-headed post I thought of how wise God is to limit our time. Imagine what life would be like if someone could come to power for centuries. I remember a story Lee himself told about how people came to Nee lamenting the evil world leaders during WWII. Nee told them not to worry, that they would have their time and then be gone. He was right. It is ironic that he was also making a prediction about himself, and his successor, Lee. Their time is gone. And their memory fades into the mist. Another generation takes over and makes their own mark, which itself fades. It's not tragic; it's the way it's supposed to be. Time catches up with everyone, and even the Age runs out on the Minister who thought he defined it.

TLFisher

04-05-2015, 02:20 PM

I completely agree. It's not easy for anyone with an LC background to transition to the view that the LC is just "another group". This is exactly the view that LC leaders don't want members to arrive at. At the heart of the issue, I think LC leadership is fighting a losing battle on two fronts. They have to figure out ways to retain current members, and they also how to recruit new members.

Some LC members might not even view the LC as being something particularly special. They just like the environment, or the social connections they have. I’m sure LC leaders view this as dangerous, because when people are more or less “indifferent” to the fundamental aspects of the LC, there is no reason for them to stay once they grow weary of it all. This is where propaganda like Lin’s book comes in. In the beginning of Sacrifice and Sail On, Lin quickly admits that there is a whole generation that doesn’t know how the LCM formed here in the U.S., neither do they have an understanding of who Lee really was. Obviously Lin doesn’t present the real view of Lee, however, in the eyes of LC leadership, I’m sure they feel that the younger generation has to have at least some appreciation of Lee. If there are too many who are indifferent, then the LC would quickly collapse.

I tend to think older generations and from younger generations; those who have gone through FTTA see the Local churches as being distinct and unique. Someone like a RK might even say only those meeting with the local churches are the Body of Christ. Thus they abhor the thought the so-called Lord's recovery is just another group of Christians.

I tend to think the younger generations don't see the local churches as being something special. It's what they know. It's the environment many churchkids were raised in. Practices are familiar. To attend a non-LSM fellowship is out of their comfort zone.
For some, social structure is predicated on the churchlife as seen in the local churches; LD meetings, prayer meetings, brothers meetings, sisters meetings, home meetings, Saturday morning cleaning service, etc. There is so much activity through out the week, only those you bond with through these activities become your social environment. There simply isn't any time for relationships outside the local church social environment.

Freedom

04-06-2015, 08:18 PM

I tend to think older generations and from younger generations; those who have gone through FTTA see the Local churches as being distinct and unique. Someone like a RK might even say only those meeting with the local churches are the Body of Christ. Thus they abhor the thought the so-called Lord's recovery is just another group of Christians.

I tend to think the younger generations don't see the local churches as being something special. It's what they know. It's the environment many churchkids were raised in. Practices are familiar. To attend a non-LSM fellowship is out of their comfort zone.
For some, social structure is predicated on the churchlife as seen in the local churches; LD meetings, prayer meetings, brothers meetings, sisters meetings, home meetings, Saturday morning cleaning service, etc. There is so much activity through out the week, only those you bond with through these activities become your social environment. There simply isn't any time for relationships outside the local church social environment.

This is probably true. In my experience, there are many in the LC, and ones that have come and gone who obviously aren't there for "the vision". Maybe they feel that the format of LC meetings gives them "a voice" that they wouldn't get at normal churches. Maybe they feel that the LC is the answer to their numerous problems. Whatever the case may be, these kinds of members do serve a purpose, if for nothing else than to fill seats.

The problem is, however, that those who aren't there for "the vision" are the ones who are also the most likely to leave. While activities and keeping a person busy can work for a while, I'm not sure how effective that is over the long term. Eventually LC members have to be implanted with some type of idea that they are special and won't see "the vision" at any other church. The FTTA accomplishes that to some extent, but there are still plenty who will never go or haven't gone.

Since WL is no longer here, that is an immediate problem when it comes to getting members to appreciate him. Incoming members are unlikely to know who Lee even is. They will eventually catch on that there is some kind of "paper pope", but this doesn't necessarily translation to an immediate appreciation of Lee. I've seen newcomers who seem obviously concerned about who exactly Lee is, but they choose not to make an issue out of it for whatever reason. With the younger generations, no matter how zealous someone is, they have never met Lee and can only base their appreciation of his ministry on what they read.

It's true that they have succeeded in creating some young Lee zealots. It could have happened to me too, however, I got to the point where I realized that Lee was a highly controversial figure and that since I had never met nor seen Lee, defending him was not my fight. That's a perfectly reasonable stance for a LC member to take, but obviously LC leadership cannot have any "neutral" or apathetic members when it comes to appreciating or promoting Lee. The minute that becomes common, the LC can no longer exists as it would implode.

Freedom

04-07-2015, 08:46 AM

When I look back at some of the views of the LC that I used to have, I realize that I liked feeling "special". I liked feeling that we really had recovered something that no one else had. I think this is what kept me with the program so long. I never needed to be convinced of anything. I had already bought into it all.

Ironically, it seems where the whole illusion started to dissipate was in regards to WN and WL. I appreciated both of their ministries, but as to who they really were as people, that I could have really cared less. What really got me, is when I realized that they were figures who were worshiped, and not just their respective ministries. Many held them in high esteem, as if they were absolute authorities in all matters (even though neither is alive today).

I went to numerous trainings where the BB's would make statements like "Brother Lee would have wanted us to do X" or "It was Brother Lee's desire that we build a training center in Boston". This kind of stuff bothered me a bit because I though to myself, "who cares what Brother Lee wanted, he's not alive anymore". During the Great Lakes split, I heard a lot of talk from the BB's about how WL's ministry had never ended. It forced me to come to the harsh reality that it wasn't just his ministry that people appreciated. It was WL himself, and for lack of better words, he was being idolized.

This is not a realization that I had overnight or even over a period of a few months. It took me a few years to fully realize this.