Quote From Today's Watchman/Witness Wednesday [Archive]

UntoHim

07-03-2019, 08:19 PM

Witness Lee
"Even to know the church is not adequate. We must go on to know the churches which are local."

This part might be even more disturbing and damaging then the first about knowing God not being adequate. We all know that when Witness Lee said "the churches which are local" he really and truly meant THE CHURCHES WHICH ARE LOCAL THAT ARE UNDER HIS MINISTRY AND FULL CONTROL. And now it has become very clear that this was the case going back to the early days in Taiwan and SE Asia. Our dear Brother Lee was hiring and firing elders and co-workers and intervening in the government and function of local churches at his personal whim going all the way back to at least the 1950s.

The churches under Witness Lee's ministry have never really been local at all. While Lee was alive, they were not "answering each to the Lord". No sir. If they were to be considered a "local church in the Lord's Recovery" they answered only and always to the person and work of Witness Lee. Today, these "ministry churches" still answer to the person and work of Lee, but it is through the interpretive lenses of the Blended Brothers in Anaheim. Same company - different boss.
-

Trapped

07-17-2019, 10:02 AM

Today's Witness Wednesday is doing me in too:

Do not simply know God according to what He does, but know Him according to what He is. Whether or not God does something for us means nothing.

Again I say....whaaaaaaattt??

Okay, I do understand in the sense of, for example, if you pray for God to do something and He doesn't, He is still worthy to be praised. But Lee speaks in such absolutes it makes it hard to ever take anything he says seriously. By his statement I could say that whether or not God sends His Son to die for our sins......means nothing!

Cal

07-17-2019, 10:16 AM

Ohio

07-17-2019, 10:21 AM

Okay, I do understand in the sense of, for example, if you pray for God to do something and He doesn't, He is still worthy to be praised. But Lee speaks in such absolutes it makes it hard to ever take anything he says seriously. By his statement I could say that whether or not God sends His Son to die for our sins......means nothing!

This is why his Blended minions also think in such absolutes. They used to attack the GLA for playing electric guitars simply because W.Lee deemed the piano and the acoustic guitar alone to be "holy" for meetings.

John Darby demanded all of his assemblies to sing a cappella, while condemning the use of a piano as a "wooden brother."

Absolutism produces exclusivism, which produces Laodicea, the land without love.

Cal

07-17-2019, 10:33 AM

countmeworthy

07-17-2019, 12:12 PM

Lee was actually a terrible communicator.

Look at all the debate between LSM and GLA about "what he really meant." Endless parsing.

You shouldn't have to decipher the teachings of a contemporary minister, let alone someone who claims to be MOTA. There are plenty of clear Christians teachers. Why even bother with him?

No kidding!!
I hated listening to his tapes and listening to him at meetings, conferences, trainings.

However at the time I appreciated the life studies because 1) they were easy to read/understand, 2) we at least were studying the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. His focus and thread were 'Christ and the church'... translation: the LC, Lord's recovery, LSM....

Thank GOD I from the get go was so grateful I truly got saved from hell, from the life I was living, experienced the Power of the Cleansing Blood, and the washing of the Word of God in my being. I appreciated the fellowship of my local church community (San Diego and the blessed elders I was under).

Above all, I never forgot and still haven't that JESUS CHRIST through His Life giving Spirit saved me and delivered me. My focus was/is HIM..

He makes it so much easier for me/us to discern the true teachers/preachers He raises up who point us to HIS WORD, To Christ.

But Lee and his minions IMHO did very little to point the saints to Christ... to trust HIM, to follow HIM, to get to intimately know HIM.

Lee like many church pastors did / do not want to lose their 'flock'. So they control them by twisting God's Word. Lee was a master of manipulation!

awareness

07-17-2019, 09:08 PM

What's the meaning of local churches? It's a true fellowship of true believers into Christ in a certain locality.

But we shouldn't say this is the day of local churches because, by doing this we're forsaking universality of church. So,what's universal church? It means all true believers in Roman catholic church, all true believers in all denominational churches, free groups, independent Christians and including true believers among Lord's recovery movement. This is universal aspect of church not only church under LSM.
And all believers throughout history too.

HERn

07-18-2019, 09:32 AM

Cal

07-22-2019, 09:31 AM

Ron Kangas quote:

"I'm so thankful I have my companion, my wife, to travel with me wherever I go, but I'm the co-worker. I'm the one ministering. She is nothing. She is no one. She is my wife. I will never crown her, I will never exalt her, that's to damage her."

"Ugh!" is all I can say.

I hope she gave him an earful about that. How crass can you get?

Suffice to say Kangas didn't write the Song of Songs. :hysterical:

least

07-22-2019, 10:11 AM

Ron Kangas quote:
"I'm so thankful I have my companion, my wife, to travel with me wherever I go, but I'm the co-worker. I'm the one ministering. She is nothing. She is no one. She is my wife. I will never crown her, I will never exalt her, that's to damage her."

Ron Kangas made only one crown.
One crown, he puts on his own head.
He is someone. He exalts himself the 'delegated authority'.

She is no one. He said.

UntoHim

07-22-2019, 11:18 AM

Jo S

07-22-2019, 12:35 PM

Ron, Ron, Ron.

I have never heard any sister say she wants to be crowned or be exalted in any way. (I wish I could say the same thing about you Blended Brothers) I do believe that sisters would like to not be treated as a second class citizen, relegated to only cooking, cleaning and babysitting. They also don't want to be considered as "nothing" and "no one". I never heard Witness Lee say such a thing. I have never heard or read where Watchman Nee uttered such nonsense. And we all know that you certainly did not get this notion from the Bible.

-

Nee did do the extreme opposite and rather than Christ, he gave women spiritual authority over him during his formative years. Because of those influences, he mingled false spirituality into Christian doctrine and it became what it is today, the Lord's Recovery.

BTW, who exactly is this Kangas character? Is he a Blended brother?

It's an appalling thing to say of your wife "she is nothing". You may not have to exalt her but that doesn't mean you need to put her under your feet either. It seems Mr. Kangas confuses women for the serpent and is crushing the wrong creature.

With that said, feminism isn't the solution to misogyny yet it seems that those are the only two options society presents us.

So who's right in their view of women? Kangas or Nee?

This seems to be the order of the day in politics. Create a false dilemma and make people choose. Liberal or conservative, LSM or GLA, misogyny or feminism ect.

By allowing only two options, whether intentional or not, choosing or focusing your energy on one only helps give validity to the other.

Ohio

07-22-2019, 01:05 PM

BTW, who exactly is this Kangas character? Is he a Blended brother?

Ron Kangas:

The most Blended af the Blendeds

Princeton Theological School Graduate

Long time chief editor for Lee's books after a "storm" knocked out other editors like John Ingalls.

Presently Chief Theologian of The Recovery.

One of their primary conference speakers.

Cal

07-22-2019, 01:37 PM

So who's right in their view of women? Kangas or Nee?

Are they the only choice we have?

Cal

07-22-2019, 01:38 PM

Ron Kangas:

The most Blended af the Blendeds

Princeton Theological School Graduate

Long time chief editor for Lee's books after a "storm" knocked out other editors like John Ingalls.

Presently Chief Theologian of The Recovery.

One of their primary conference speakers.

Excruciating bore.

Ohio

07-22-2019, 04:19 PM

Excruciating bore.
After Lee passed, Ron Kangas emerged on the scene, and visited a number of places to minister.

TC approached him, and attempted to complement him on his gift of teaching.

Ron shooed him away, like one would brush off a mosquito. Or a leper.

Jo S

07-22-2019, 04:27 PM

After Lee passed, Ron Kangas emerged on the scene, and visited a number of places to minister.

TC approached him, and attempted to complement him on his gift of teaching.

Ron shooed him away, like one would brush off a mosquito. Or a leper.

Ohio, why do you think Ron did that? And why do you think Titus felt it necessary to compliment Kangas? I think your statement implies something but you're not being clear on what that is.

If you view that circumstance through the lense of Titus being a meek and humble servant of God innocently complimenting his fellow brother then yeah it's terrible manners BUT if viewed through the lense of politics and power plays then accepting a compliment from a political rival is viewed as weakness and detrimental to one's judgment. In that case Titus was being deceptive and Ron was just being a shrewd politician.

Do you know what Chu's and Kangas's relationship was like prior to Lee's passing?

Jo S

07-22-2019, 05:08 PM

Are they the only choice we have?

Igzy, it was a rhetorical question... The third option is; neither of them were right.

Cal

07-22-2019, 08:43 PM

If you view that circumstance through the lense of Titus being a meek and humble servant of God innocently complimenting his fellow brother than yeah it's terrible manners BUT if viewed through the lense of politics and power plays then accepting a compliment from a political rival is viewed as weakness and detrimental to one's judgment. In that case Titus was being deceptive and Ron was just being a shrewd politician.

Or Chu was just being clueless (because Kangas has no teaching gift) and Kangas was just being an ass (because that comes naturally for him).

Anything more complicated than that, including your theory, is even worse.

(Whatever happened to just receiving a compliment graciously?)

Ohio

07-22-2019, 09:24 PM

Ohio, why do you think Ron did that? And why do you think Titus felt it necessary to compliment Kangas? I think your statement implies something but you're not being clear on what that is.

If you view that circumstance through the lense of Titus being a meek and humble servant of God innocently complimenting his fellow brother then yeah it's terrible manners BUT if viewed through the lense of politics and power plays then accepting a compliment from a political rival is viewed as weakness and detrimental to one's judgment. In that case Titus was being deceptive and Ron was just being a shrewd politician.

Do you know what Chu's and Kangas's relationship was like prior to Lee's passing?

Because Ron doesn't know how to say "Thanks."

awareness

07-22-2019, 09:51 PM

Because Ron doesn't know how to say "Thanks."
Lots have change with Ron. He has a new wife, and a cold heart. He's not the warm hearted brother I once knew. And I suppose the LC delusion, and prolly a power trip, is what changed him for the worse.

Ohio

07-23-2019, 05:52 AM

Lots have change with Ron. He has a new wife, and a cold heart. He's not the warm hearted brother I once knew. And I suppose the LC delusion, and prolly a power trip, is what changed him for the worse.
It's amazing how much pride can hide behind high peak doctrines.

Jo S

07-23-2019, 10:43 AM

Lots have change with Ron. He has a new wife, and a cold heart. He's not the warm hearted brother I once knew. And I suppose the LC delusion, and prolly a power trip, is what changed him for the worse.

Harold, then remember that warm hearted brother you once knew in prayer.

Cal

07-24-2019, 02:15 PM

Seems the home page quotes have been of the outlandish variety lately.

This week, Watchman Nee:

"Whenever man touches God's delegated authority he touches God within that person; sinning against delegated authority is sinning against God."

Yawn. Well, all true "sins" are against God, so this statement is really saying nothing of any substance. It's simply a threat.

It's more LR intimidation. More threats. More fear. More balderdash.

awareness

07-24-2019, 03:18 PM

RambleOn

07-24-2019, 03:52 PM

Who is God's delegated authority today?

Lee claimed to be, but he's gone. So who now?

LSM. Could be a BB, could be the publication work, could be an LSM sanctioned locality. Could be DCP, an arm of LSM. Could be BFA, or LME, or KGB or GRU. (Wait what?) If you are perceived as attacking anything associated with LSM, you are opposing God's delegated authority.

Jo S

07-24-2019, 04:42 PM

Who is God's delegated authority today?

Lee claimed to be, but he's gone. So who now?

Ask an LSM member, it's the Blendeds

Ask a GLA member, it's Titus Chu

Ask someone else, it's Luther, or Calvin, or Pope Francis, or Joseph Smith, ect...

Then ask the independent free loving mystic they'll say it's up to them and their inner guidance or feelings.

And then there's the truth.

Scripture does say that Satan is the authorized god of this age. So when Local Church leaders caution in coming against their authority, their warning is valid. If you're not covered by Christ, you will get burned.

With that said if you truly are in Christ Jesus, then he's your master.

awareness

07-24-2019, 07:46 PM

Ask an LSM member, it's the Blendeds

Ask a GLA member, it's Titus Chu

Ask someone else, it's Luther, or Calvin, or Pope Francis, or Joseph Smith, ect...

Then ask the independent free loving mystic they'll say it's up to them and their inner guidance or feelings.

And then there's the truth.

Scripture does say that Satan is the authorized god of this age. So when Local Church leaders caution in coming against their authority, their warning is valid. If you're not covered by Christ, you will get burned.

With that said if you truly are in Christ Jesus, then he's your master.
Good point about all the delegated authorities. Guess it's a need of the flesh to have them "in the flesh."

Jo S

07-24-2019, 08:18 PM

Good point about all the delegated authorities. Guess it's a need of the flesh to have them "in the flesh."

Then thank God Christ came in the flesh so we were able to relate.

Ohio

07-31-2019, 11:36 AM

This latest quote is so disingenuous --
In the Lord's recovery there is no such practice of a "centralization of the churches" and a "centralization of the work." We do emphasize that all the churches should be one in the Body of Christ, not by the way of forming a federation but in the way of adequate fellowship in the Spirit in the organic union of the divine life. My, My, how does one even begin to unpack this?

For example, I departed just prior to the actual GLA quarantines. Titus Chu was expelled for not submitting to the Blendeds in Anaheim. They basically told us that.

That, my friends, is the very DEFINITION of "Centralization of the Work."

The level of blindness and deception at LSM is truly incredible.

Cal

07-31-2019, 03:48 PM

In the Lord's recovery there is no such practice of a "centralization of the churches" and a "centralization of the work." We do emphasize that all the churches should be one in the Body of Christ, not by the way of forming a federation but in the way of adequate fellowship in the Spirit in the organic union of the
divine life.

:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:

Yes, just label your "federation" an "organic union" and you can justify anything!

:xx: :xx: :xx: :xx: :xx:

Sons to Glory!

08-01-2019, 12:56 PM

Harold, then remember that warm hearted brother you once knew in prayer.Best response on here, IMHO.

Cal

09-18-2019, 07:48 AM

"Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now the "four-in-one" God. These four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. The Three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated or confused." Witness Lee A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing

This strikes me as Lee daring someone to call him heretical. And no one should be blamed for doing so.

Sons to Glory!

09-18-2019, 09:05 AM

This strikes me as Lee daring someone to call him heretical. And no one should be blamed for doing so.I wonder if we shouldn't use any of these phrases to describe God: Truine, Trinity, 3-in-1, etc. They are all extra-biblical and not found specifically stated in scripture.

UntoHim

09-18-2019, 10:58 AM

Well, strictly speaking, EVERYTHING outside of the canon of Scripture is extra-biblical. When the 27 books of the New Testament were "accepted", the canon was closed. Every word ever written or spoken since that time could be considered as "extra-biblical". Since the end of the 1st century there has been a set of normative interpretations, expressed in writings, creeds and statements of faith, and is commonly known as orthodoxy.

Someone's teachings could be considered as biblically orthodox. Yet they are extra-biblical by definition. Someone's teachings could be considered as unorthodox, yet not necessarily heretical, per se. Yet another persons teachings could be considered as biblically unorthodox, yet not rank heresy. Finally, there is rank heresy.

Witness Lee, over the years, pretty much covered the gambit, from totally orthodox, all the way through to rank heresy. To say that "the Triune God is now the 'four-in-one' God" is rank heresy...no matter what the context, or any attached conditions, provisos or qualifications. And just because the same person also taught the orthodox version of the same teaching, this does not in any way mitigate the heresy. To my knowledge, no Local Church prominent leader or co-worker has repudiated this absurd teaching. (and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any such miracle)

So the bottom line is: There are extra-biblical teachings, doctrines and statements that are to be considered as orthodox. There are also extra-biblical teachings, doctrines and statements that are to be considered as heretical. We don't burn heretics at the stake anymore (thankfully)..but we should put a torch to their false, heretical and harmful teachings.
-

Ohio

09-18-2019, 11:14 AM

Sons to Glory!

09-18-2019, 11:32 AM

Crickets are number 5!? I had no idea!

Cal

09-18-2019, 11:49 AM

No, I'm #5. THEN you hear the crickets.

Ohio

09-18-2019, 01:30 PM

No, I'm #5. THEN you hear the crickets.

No, no, no ... don't you guys understand anything? :rollingeyesfrown:

It was Philip Lee. It all makes so much sense. But no body would admit it ... except for the crickets. Get it?

Sons to Glory!

09-18-2019, 06:34 PM

No, no, no ... don't you guys understand anything? :rollingeyesfrown: Like Jesus' disciples, just us sheeple here! (God compares us to sheep for a good reason . . .)

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56d36e9d86db43f4f77637c1/1557104933948-KXL78YWDGGK9X05MF4I3/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kI4QtmQGPAVkoP6N6zL2VctZw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZamWLI2zvYWH 8K3-s_4yszcp2ryTI0HqTOaaUohrI8PInPlckkKk-SDu4jPeN36XlQziT6dJFcvemHKIvp6KuWsKMshLAGzx4R3EDFO m1kBS/Sheep+with+pail+on+head.jpg

least

09-18-2019, 07:48 PM

Like Jesus' disciples, just us sheeple here! (God compares us to sheep for a good reason . . .)

"God compares us to sheep for a good reason . . . "

Top blended wise husband: -
"I will never crown my wife. The bucket will damage her."

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56d36e9d86db43f4f77637c1/1557104933948-KXL78YWDGGK9X05MF4I3/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kI4QtmQGPAVkoP6N6zL2VctZw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZamWLI2zvYWH 8K3-s_4yszcp2ryTI0HqTOaaUohrI8PInPlckkKk-SDu4jPeN36XlQziT6dJFcvemHKIvp6KuWsKMshLAGzx4R3EDFO m1kBS/Sheep+with+pail+on+head.jpg

Sons to Glory!

09-20-2019, 04:05 PM

Witness Lee, over the years, pretty much covered the gambit, from totally orthodox, all the way through to rank heresy. To say that "the Triune God is now the 'four-in-one' God" is rank heresy...no matter what the context, or any attached conditions, provisos or qualifications. And just because the same person also taught the orthodox version of the same teaching, this does not in any way mitigate the heresy. To my knowledge, no Local Church prominent leader or co-worker has repudiated this absurd teaching. (and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any such miracle)

So the bottom line is: There are extra-biblical teachings, doctrines and statements that are to be considered as orthodox. There are also extra-biblical teachings, doctrines and statements that are to be considered as heretical. We don't burn heretics at the stake anymore (thankfully)..but we should put a torch to their false, heretical and harmful teachings.
-Okay, so back on topic . . .

Yes, 4-in-1 is a bit much. But it is very hard to describe the union that we've been brought into by the good pleasure of our Father, is it not? Lee may have gone overboard (I agree with that) and pushed the envelope. But, as you point out, He could also be mainstream. And through His ministry, I must say, I came to see that there was more to the organic union that God has brought us into, than what a lot of mainstream Christianity routinely acknowledges.

(So go ahead now and let 'er rip!)

Trapped

12-18-2019, 05:35 PM

Okay, okay, so today's not Witness Wednesday, it's Watchman Wednesday.

But what on earth does Watchman's quote mean?

I read it and it comes across something like "arghblhararhglhbahralrhghahlble"

(I actually think the quote is circular referencing back to itself as an example of the stifling of productive thought.......)

The quote is:

"If any person desires to think, he must possess memory, imagination and reasoning power; but the Christian has presently lost these powers, hence is unable to think. He cannot create, deduce or recollect, nor can he compare, judge and apprehend. Therefore he cannot think. And should he attempt to do so he experiences a kind of dazed sensation which stifles any productive thought."

Unregistered

12-18-2019, 08:49 PM

Watchman Nee, might had a dazed sensation ad prophesied concerning his Lee-Blended 'spiritual decendants'.

This branch of his 'decendants' as Nee predicted -"has presently lost these powers, hence is unable to think. He cannot create, deduce or recollect, nor can he compare, judge and apprehend. Therefore he cannot think. And should he attempt to do so he experiences a kind of dazed sensation which stifles any productive thought."

-

OBW

12-19-2019, 05:32 AM

Trapped,

So you are beginning to see the nature of the ones who would be the Minister of the Age. They get away with jibberish because it sounds so spiritual.

I'm sure someone said or wrote something about this very statement saying how enlightening it was.

And since it was from the Spiritual Man which was essentially his first book, it just shows how spiritually "enlightened" Nee was in his early days. Fast-forwards to Authority and Submission (aka Spiritual Authority) and since everything else fits in between, you have to wonder if there is any reason to take anything he wrote seriously.

But many did, including many who did not follow Lee.

I'm not saying that there are not true statements in any particular writing of Nee or Lee. But with the junk like that little quip mixed in, it looks like the true has been hijacked to serve the false.

Sons to Glory!

12-19-2019, 09:07 AM

I'm curious - what do you-ins think are Nee's and Lee's best books (and I suspect everyone will probably automatically include what they think are their worst . . .)?

UntoHim

12-19-2019, 11:26 AM

Firstly, Watchman Nee only wrote one book - The Spiritual Man. (which he wrote in his early-mid 20s)
Witness Lee, to my knowledge, only wrote one book - Watchman Nee—A Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age (a highly self-serving and dubious biographical history of the life and times and ministry of Watchman Nee)

I think it is important to keep in mind that all the other publications are transcribed/edited versions of Nee and Lee's spoken ministry. In the case of Nee, all the publications were taken from the personal notes of members of the Little Flock/Local Churches in China. In the case of Lee, most publications are simply transcribed/edited versions of his spoken ministry - the vast majority which were taken from conferences and the semi-annual trainings. Do to the technology of electronic recording, the LSM publications of Witness Lee are vastly more accurate and faithful to the spoken messages. Yet we also know that many of Lee's most controversial speakings were edited out of the printed publications by Ron Kangas and other editors.

The problem with your question, my dear brother SontoGlory!, is that in most cases the publications contain some very biblical, healthy teachings AND ALSO some very unbiblical, unhealthy teachings. In fact, I think it would be hard to find one of the publications of Nee or Lee that is totally one or the other. And this is what makes them so very dangerous to younger and/or new believers, or those brothers and sisters who have little to no history of being taught biblical, healthy and theologically orthodox teachings.
-

Sons to Glory!

12-19-2019, 12:36 PM

Okay, but I actually didn't ask how they got into print, just which books were the best (and worst).

Many on here may be quite biased against ANY of their publications, so let me start it out by stating one best for each.

NEE - The Normal Christian Life Several I know, including myself, have gotten (and continue to get) liberating help from this book.

LEE - The Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life In reading this book with some Ohio LC bros (back in the 80s), I had perhaps the strongest bubbling-up enjoyment of the Lord I've ever had.

Alright, load up your cannons . . . :duck:

OBW

12-19-2019, 02:49 PM

StoG,

It's been too long to try to say what might qualify as the best.

But I would never rate them according the kind of "bubbling-up enjoyment" I got from them because emotions are fickle.

As for The Normal Christian Life, as I no longer have printed versions, I wanted to at least peruse the book briefly before making any (very old) comments and note that they have either left it out of the LSM online collection, or changed its name.

But I will say this for Nee's books. The ones that made it to regular Christian bookstores were mostly of the "inner life" genre. And while there is nothing entirely wrong with that phase/side of Christian thinking, it is too caught up in introspective and "spiritual" things/activities. (I put "scare quotes" around "spiritual" because I am not convinced that it is true spirituality in the Christian sense, though it surely is in the broader sense.) Sometimes it might be accurate to call them "faux spirituality" because they often have the veneer of uber spirituality while being rather thin in practical application. And since there is no such thing as a spiritual/secular divide to a true Christian, anything that has no real application to regular "secular" living is not really very spiritual. Add to it the fact that Nee was also pushing his peculiar/sectarian teachings even in those books and you have more to avoid.

As for the others — like Authority and Submission, and the Normal Christian Church — whatever might be of value in them is only found sandwiched between what should not be taken seriously, therefore of little value as a resource (unless you are studying abnormal Christian teaching).

The short version of my answer would be that (from my perspective) trying to decide which Nee/Lee books are the best is sort of like trying to decide which dangerous, illegal drug you would rather be forced to take. They all provide highs and are highly addictive, but it all comes at a severe cost. Maybe snorting a little coke might be less onerous than the almost instantly addictive effects of heroin or some of the others. But it is still nothing to desire.

Back to the books . . . .

I know this may seem over-the-top. But even if you are sure you can ferret out what is wrong in any of them, would you rather take your chances, or reject them all and find something truly worthwhile elsewhere? Another way to ask that question is, "are you sure that their teachings are safe enough risk remaining captured in their fog of garlic?" I know that the "church life" is appealing, and the people are worthy of serious consideration. But they are equally trapped circling a spiritual drain of sorts. Is it in your best interest to hang on to any of it?

I realize that I am often the most outspoken in this way. Mostly because I am certain that anything you find there that is truly of value can be found elsewhere. And it won't be hiding the same kinds of errors that it will be when it comes from Nee/Lee/the LC.

Not saying nothing else has any problems. But the nature and severity of those problems are on an entirely different plain in the LC.

Sons to Glory!

12-19-2019, 05:30 PM

But I would never rate them according the kind of "bubbling-up enjoyment" I got from them because emotions are fickle.Gosh, and I thought I asked a pretty simple question! (BTW: The "bubbling-up experience" came with a lot of light)

OBW

12-19-2019, 07:13 PM

BTW, does anyone have an answer to the "where is The Normal Christian Life" in the LSM online books question? I would like to look at that book again — at least a little.

Trapped

04-01-2020, 10:09 PM

current Watchman Wednesday quote:

If any person desires to think, he must possess memory, imagination and reasoning power; but the Christian has presently lost these powers, hence is unable to think.

All I can say is: what?

This is unintelligible gibberish. Anyone have any ideas what he means?

Ohio

04-02-2020, 05:40 AM

This is unintelligible gibberish. Anyone have any ideas what he means?
Easy. Nee was willing to do all the thinking for us, all the thinking we will ever need. Who wouldn't follow such a man, who would do all of our thinking for us?

Isn't this basically the LC message we heard from Lee? The steady drumbeat of "Thou shalt have no opinion" translates into "you are unable to think for yourself. Let me do that for you."

Almost sounds like those "re-education camps" China has become famous for.

Sons to Glory!

04-02-2020, 08:16 AM

If any person desires to think, he must possess memory, imagination and reasoning power; but the Christian has presently lost these powers, hence is unable to think.
Wow - did he really say that? And what's the source or book?

UntoHim

04-02-2020, 08:38 AM

Quote from The Spiritual Man. StG I'm surprised you would question if Watchman Nee ever said such a thing. His writings are filled with these kind of concepts. It's classic Nee. And to be sure, Witness Lee never disavowed anything Nee ever wrote or spoke - in fact he doubled down on much of the mystical/metaphysical nonsense. Where do you think he came up with his unbiblical and dangerous "get out of your mind" garbage?
-

Sons to Glory!

04-02-2020, 09:34 AM

Well I really haven't read a lot of Nee's stuff. Mainly just 3-4 of his most popular books. Always shied away from things like Spiritual Man, as others have always indicated it was somewhat questionable.

UntoHim

04-22-2020, 10:00 AM

Freedom

04-22-2020, 10:31 AM

Sons to Glory!

04-22-2020, 12:49 PM

"There are some who say that He is called the Father, but He is not really the Father."

Notice how Witness Lee does not reference, by name, the "some who say that he is called the father, but He is not really the Father.". The only people who say that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is called the Father (as in God the Father) are documented heretics like the "Oneness Pentecostals" and Jehovah's Witnesses. People who teach such nonsense are properly named as heretics, so why should Witness Lee get away with making the same kind of heretical statement and escape the same label?
-So you are crystal clear on the nature of the Triune God? I must say I am not, and have just put all that aside as one of those things He will show me when I'm ready and it's needed. Until then, I just tell myself, "If I could comprehend the nature of God, then He is not God and infinite." Accordingly I do not really know how to process things like the Son shall be called Father and "He that has seen me has seen the Father." (Isaiah 9:6 & John 14:9). Read plenty of things on this over the years, but no clear revelation as of yet.

So perhaps you have seen something more - can you help then?

Trapped

04-22-2020, 02:52 PM

Cal

04-22-2020, 03:40 PM

All speculation about the Trinity is just that--Speculation. I've speculated myself. To some extent this may help us in our experience. God did not prohibit such speculation.

The problem occurs when you hammer your speculation as a Truth your listeners need to believe. I don't think any teacher should do that. To do so is to say "I know" when you don't.

UntoHim

04-22-2020, 03:42 PM

So you are crystal clear on the nature of the Triune God? I must say I am not, and have just put all that aside as one of those things He will show me when I'm ready and it's needed. Until then, I just tell myself, "If I could comprehend the nature of God, then He is not God and infinite." Accordingly I do not really know how to process things like the Son shall be called Father and "He that has seen me has seen the Father." (Isaiah 9:6 & John 14:9). Read plenty of things on this over the years, but no clear revelation as of yet. So perhaps you have seen something more - can you help then?

Firstly, I'm not the one who has claimed to "have seen something more" - That would be Mr. Witness Lee, who boldly proclaimed that "The traditional explanation of the Trinity is grossly inadequate and borders on tritheism". Regrettably, Lee's something more was to come up with a teaching that borders on modalism (and more than one reputable theologian has proclaimed this more than just bordering).

I'm not claiming to be crystal clear on anything. Again, that's the kind of attitude that is displayed by Witness Lee and his followers. Of course the Blended Brothers have taken this haughty attitude to all new heights of foolishness and absurdity. Fortunately, most mature Christians take one look at Lee's teachings on the Trinity and soundly reject them, which probably explains why none of his "books" can be found in Christian bookstores or seminary libraries. It also explains why, despite the grandiose claims of his followers, hardly anyone has ever heard of the man outside of the walls of Local Church meeting halls and conference centers.

While I can understand and appreciate your point about comprehending the nature of God, I think you are selling God a little short in this regard. Has he not given us some "apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers"? (Eph 4:11) Surely you no longer subscribe to Witness Lee's claim that we can simply disregard 2,000+ years of Christian teachings, doctrines, interpretations and commentaries (aside from a few cherry-picked teachings of those in the line of his supposed "recovery")...do you? The church has been grappling and debating over these matters of the Trinity and the nature of God and Christ almost since the days of Pentecost. This is what many of the doctrinal declarations, statements of faith and creeds are all about. Of course, they are not to be taken with the same authority as the Word of God, but they are simply man-made fences and guidelines that have served the church well. Many times they stand as a protection against the heresies of self-appointed apostles like Witness Lee. And thank God for that.

When I get some time I will be happy to give you my personal understandings and interpretations of Isaiah 9:6 & John 14:9, but in the meantime I think Trapped has given us a very good start (as usual!)
-

Jo S

04-22-2020, 04:34 PM

Well, I have to say it's one thing to admit we may not be able to be crystal clear on the nature of the TG, but it's another to see all the verses in the New Testament that talk about the Son and the Father in ways that are undeniably distinct one from the other and yet take one verse from the OT to undo all that.

"I am in the Father" - two things can't be in each other if they are each other.

"I am in the bosom of the Father" - pretty hard to be in your own bosom.

"I don't do my will but the will of Him who sent me" - they have different wills!

I could go on and on, but it would just be more of the same.

As for John 14:9.....well.....Jesus is the image of the invisible God. God is invisible, but Jesus is His image. So if you've seen Jesus, the image of God, you've seen God, because Jesus is His image.

As far as Isaiah 9:6 - this is not a question to challenge anyone, but a real question of curiosity. If the child in that verse "will be called...everlasting Father", then where do we see that fulfilled? Is there a record of Jesus being called "The Father" somewhere later on? I'm not aware of it, but it seems like if "the Son is the Father" is true, then this prophesy should be shown to be fulfilled somewhere.

I appreciate the critical thought here, Trapped. Many members of the Lord's Recovery have lost that ability beyond the parameters set by Local Church doctrine. That goes for those in Catholic and many protestant circles (such as in Calvinism) as well, especially when it comes to Christology. When you're taught year after year that your soul is totally depraved and outside the group exists no truth only total darkness it's easy to lack the self esteem to allow yourself the permission to think and question.

As for Christology, on the one hand you have those that strictly hold to the trinitarian tradition decreed in the early Roman ecumenical counsels of the 4th century and then you have those that fall into other heretical teachings such as modalism, as you find in the LC's, and also arianism like that of the Mormons and JW's.

I personally take the safe route and stick to the plain and explicit words of scripture. If scripture says we have one God, the Father, I believe it. If scripture says Christ is God's only begotten son, I believe that as well. That's my Christology. I try my best not to read into the text.

Going by this discipline and shedding all preconceived notions and biases pressed on me by whatever majority I was surrounded by, verses like John 14:9 and Isaiah 9:6 became clear and rather simple to understand.

In John, "horao" is the Greek term for "seen". People often presume this verses use of the term is for the the type of sight that comes by our physical senses but this word can also mean to perceive or see with the mind. It's clear to me Christ's usage of the term was that of the latter, meaning to perceive, because he would not break scripture and scripture specifically says that "no one has seen God" (as in physically seen). So the only way to see (or horao) the Father is through perception. And the only way to perceive an invisible God is by revelation. Like you said, Christ is the image of God. Since Christ was not separated from God by sin, thereby in close relationship with Him, he was able to embody the truth or nature of God. Why does Thomas say "my Lord and my God" at the feet of Jesus? It's not that he was necessarily declaring Jesus to be Almighty God, he happened to get the revelation right there and then not only of the reality of God the Father but also of Jesus as His actual son. He doubted until that point. It's these verses you'll see twisted in trinitarianism and modalism to suite their dogma.

As for Isaiah 9:6, the keyword to recognize is; “and his name shall be called”

Names in the Hebrew culture were symbolic and believed to be prophetic. Jesus, in John 1:42, ‘called’ Simon by a new name (Cephas/Peter which means “rock”) to signify his future ministry as representative of being the “rock” or foundation of his gospel spreading to the entire world.

Just as Simon was to represent the rock of Christ's church, in the same way the Messiah’s names given in Isaiah 9:6 and in Matthew 1:23 were meant to signify whom Jesus would represent in this ministry on earth (Hebrews 1:3). Isaiah is not to be interpreted as who Jesus will be but what he will represent.

The fact is if you're tied down to a specific tradition, you simply won't be allowed to reach these conclusions. It's why I encourage the individual relationship with God first and then the corporate. This is so you can allow yourself to think critically outside of the confines of any given group and to also have the confidence to approach God directly for an answer or revelation of scripture rather than having to go through the "priesthood". Local Church members know well enough where following man leads you. Critical thought may help you avoid indoctrination but it should also help bring you to God Himself. Cynicism is absolutely a good thing in the correct context.

"And as for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But just as His TRUE and genuine anointing teaches you about all things, so remain in Him as you have been taught. " 1 Jn 2:27

Sons to Glory!

04-22-2020, 04:37 PM

Thanks Trapped, UntoHim & Jo S. I hear you . . . and I know starting down the road of trying to figure out if He's 3-in-1 or 1-in-3 or some variation, is a non-starter for me and I just see no profit in it. He is Who He is, and without revelation we can't . . . oh well, you hopefully get my point. No profit.

And UntoHim, you seemed to agree somewhat with Lee that much of Christianity skirts too much in the realm of tritheism (I tend to agree, for what it's worth), but as you also pointed out, Lee probably went too far toward modalism. Maybe so, but I don't care to spend too much of my very limited mental resources trying to discern how far WL actually went, and whether he stepped over some theological line in that particular regard. (at the Bema I don't believe any of us will be judged for whether we had a distorted view of the mysteries of God's Triune nature)

Jo S

04-22-2020, 04:49 PM

Thanks Trapped, UntoHim & Jo S. I hear you . . . and I know starting down the road of trying to figure out if He's 3-in-1 or 1-in-3 or some variation, is a non-starter for me and I just see no profit in it. He is Who He is, and without revelation we can't . . . oh well, you hopefully get my point. No profit.

I don't see a 3-in-1 or a 1-in-3 God in scripture. I see a 1-in-1 God and also a 1-in-1 Son. The Father is unique as well as the Son. You do find a lot of false dichotomies or even trichotomies within Christendom so I'd encourage people to try and avoid those traps. You're right StG, seek revelation. That comes through a personal relationship with God.

UntoHim

04-22-2020, 09:42 PM

Jo S

04-22-2020, 10:21 PM

Revelations are great. In fact, revelations of God are the life-blood of every believer. Hopefully all our revelations are coming from God, just as the Lord Jesus proclaimed to Peter: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven". (Matt 16:17)

Unfortunately, the Lord Jesus is no long with us in the flesh. We no longer have the luxury of having him tell us what is and what is not a revelation from God. But we do have the next best thing...the precious Word of God in writing, which has been preserved for us by the blood, sweat and tears of many devout and courageous men and women of God down through the ages.

Revelations are great. Yet they must be compared and contrasted with the Word of God which he has preserved for us in written form. When revelations become detached from the written Word of God, especially when these revelations are disseminated by a so-called apostle or Minister of the Age, there is great potential for much damage to be wreaked upon a large number of God's people. Such is the case in the Local Church of Witness Lee. And such is the case with Witness Lee's teachings on the Triune God.
-

Very true. Revelation should never contradict the plain words of scripture or extent beyond scripture. However, if we solely rely on scripture then by who's interpretation are we going to go by? Scripture still has to be interpreted. When you get down to it, scripture interpreting scripture is circular reasoning.

God's word, first and foremost, is alive and active. Even though we can read scripture, the truth that is in it still has to be revealed to us on a personal level otherwise all whom have read scripture would be saved, even the atheists.

You need to first have the foundation of revelation in your own life. Even thought you may have been raised to know about God, that doesn't mean you actually know God. He still has to be revealed to you individually through a tested faith and granted repentance.

Sola Scriptura is the mainstream philosophy in Christianity but I personally strive for Sola Scriptura through the revelation of the living word. If I don't understand something in scripture, my first inclination is not run to the commentaries. I store it up and ask God to help me understand. He has been faithful to reveal things to me in scripture in His perfect timing. You just have to be patient. But many desire to be spiritual giants so they try to quickly absorb as much knowledge as they can and in doing so lean on their own or someone else's understanding. Then they go on to create abhorrent Christian groups that are rooted in half truths.

Unregistered

04-23-2020, 05:07 AM

I just had to stop and comment on the "Witness Wednesday" quote currently on the front page.....

"To know God is not adequate. To know Christ is also not adequate. Even to know the church is not adequate. We must go on to know the churches which are local. If we are up-to-date in following the Lord, we will realize that today is the day of the local churches."
The Seven Spirits for the Local Churches Living Stream Ministry, 1989

I just.......I mean......am I the only one who reads this and thinks....."ffffffwwwwhhhaaatttt??"

KNOWING GOD OR KNOWING CHRIST IS NOT ADEQUATE??? You mean Lee's local churches are a higher sphere than God?!?!

:stunned:

Can you give me sources pls?

UntoHim

04-23-2020, 06:44 AM

The sources for what?
-

Ohio

04-23-2020, 07:45 AM

Can you give me sources pls?

You have the quote, the author, the publisher, the date, and the book.

What else do you need?

Freedom

04-29-2020, 03:40 PM

His teaching is a system which is based on his theology and terminology, and cannot be understood without first being trained in that terminology.This statement is a good way to summarize a lot of what is wrong with what was taught by WN/WL. There is something very deliberate about the lingo used that is intended to obstruct people from questioning what was being spoken.

Trapped

04-29-2020, 04:08 PM

This statement is a good way to summarize a lot of what is wrong with what was taught by WN/WL. There is something very deliberate about the lingo used that is intended to obstruct people from questioning what was being spoken.

That's actually one thing that stuck out from the CRI We Were Wrong edition, and drove me up the wall. They often heavily implied that the fault lies with the general public for not taking the time to read through ALL of Lee's ministry to understand the entire breadth of what he meant by a certain word.

Well, those words are, for example, "Christianity", which already has a standard meaning in the English language. In reality the fault lies with Lee who hijacked a positive word and twisted the meaning into something negative, and who then expected everyone else around him to go along with it.

Or a certain concept, like the Son is the Father. CRI criticizes detractors for not thoroughly reading and getting into and parsing ALL of what Lee said about the Son and the Father in order to understand all the "twofoldness of the truth" or how "balanced" he was (read: contradictory).

To me, if someone is so dumb as to make a statement like "the Son is the Father" and not balance it out in that very paragraph or chapter or book so that his shocking and heretical words are not misunderstood, but instead blames everyone else for not somehow digging out all the sporadic parts in his ridiculous numbers of rehashed books where he touches on the topic.....then he's a pretty poor choice for "minister of the age" if you ask me.

I'm so sick of what a clown show so much of the LC is. I feel like vomiting them out of my mouth too.

Trapped

04-29-2020, 04:16 PM

Oh the article linked under today's quote is phenomenal.

It also says, "Instead of being taught biblical things in biblical terms, we are forced to learn a system before we can understand what is being taught about the Bible, and thus, this teaching must be run through the filter of the system of interpretation being employed. A failure to learn the system makes reading Nee’s work confusing and not really understandable to the uninitiated. For example, terms like “soulish” and “soulical” (neither of which are in the Bible or the English Dictionary) are used repeatedly. Soulish essentially represents worldly or non-spiritual attitudes and behavior, while soulical represents spiritual attitudes and behavior. Had Nee simply used the biblical terms themselves rather than inventing other terms, the book would be far more helpful to the average reader, and its errors more obvious."

It's great.

https://www.douglasjacoby.com/watchman-nee-on-soul-spirit-by-gordon-ferguson/?fbclid=IwAR2PxJ93PvwQib2pgRCyq5cg8ZJ1v-JVYCndqUHpUyH7oWFRwFGFQOLCIEA

Jo S

04-30-2020, 03:43 PM

"His teaching is a system which is based on his theology and terminology, and cannot be understood without first being trained in that terminology. Thus, instead of just studying the Scriptures, time must be taken to study the philosophy of a man. Many of his teachings are merely assumptions and opinions, and yet are emphatically declared by him to be Scriptural. The essential ingredients of Gnosticism are present in both subtle and blatant forms."

"Further, and this is where Nee’s and Lee’s teachings especially converge with Gnosticism, those who succumbed to Gnosticism believed that they had a special insight to spiritual knowledge, and saw their insight (intuition) as more important that the Bible’s specific teaching. They were very prideful and looked down on those who just simply clung to the specifics of the Bible."

I'm glad to see others have made the connection between the Local Churches and Gnosticism. In the mouth of two or three witnesses... Praise the Lord!

Trapped

05-12-2020, 10:25 PM

Today's quote from Nee:

God’s desires cannot be released without first passing through man, and God’s desires, when expressed through man’s desires, will be opposed by the power of Satan. In order to fulfill God’s desire, we have to pray, and in order to remove Satan’s frustration, we have to pray. We have to exercise the authority of prayer and release what should be released and bind what should be bound.

Does this make sense?

Did God not desire to make the universe and the earth and the animals, etc.....when man was nowhere in sight for God's desires to be "first passed" through?

Did Satan not oppose God BEFORE man was created (Nee makes it sound like Satan will only oppose God's desires when they are expressed through man's desires)?

What am I missing?

I feel like he's uplifting man over God somehow, but I can't put my finger on it.

Jo S

05-12-2020, 10:33 PM

aron

05-13-2020, 09:00 AM

I feel like he's uplifting man over God somehow, but I can't put my finger on it.

The problem with the term "man" is that it's functionally useless without qualification. Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:" (KJV)

The only "man" that I see without sin, crowned with glory and honour, is Jesus Christ. So to talk about "man" in general, as in humankind, esp vis-à-vis God, one needs be careful.

Or, Rom 3:23 - "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". But there's One in whom all the glory of God was pleased to dwell, so that "all men have sinned" also needs qualifiers. Properly speaking, all men except one have sinned and fallen short. The Last Adam did not.

I myself tend to generalizations because it makes good copy, as clearly did Nee. But really one shouldn't put too much into it. Once all the qualifiers are laid out it's not so dramatic or compelling as it first seemed.

aron

05-27-2020, 01:47 PM

Sons to Glory!

05-27-2020, 07:38 PM

(From today's 'Witness Wednesday')

Witness Lee: In the heavens, where man cannot see, God the Father;

Jesus: Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. ~John 5:19

Didn't anyone, ever, correct Witness Lee? All those thousands of messages, and nobody once stood up and said, "Um, Mr Lee... it says here that..."?

I mean, did or did not Jesus say that he saw the Father in heaven? So, why does Witness Lee say what he said? And why did nobody challenge him?My remembrance is Lee gave his own answer to this. I believe it was like this: "How can this be (that the Son saw the Father)? I don't know. It's a mystery" he would say with a smile and a chuckle. Therefore we just agreed to his preemptive response on the matter. Again, please don't quote me, but I remember this kind of thing being said a few times. Does anybody else remember that?

aron

05-28-2020, 04:21 AM

My remembrance is Lee gave his own answer to this. I believe it was like this: "How can this be (that the Son saw the Father)? I don't know. It's a mystery" he would say with a smile and a chuckle. Therefore we just agreed to his preemptive response on the matter. Again, please don't quote me, but I remember this kind of thing being said a few times. Does anybody else remember that?
Thanks for the observation. It sounds on par with my experiences in the meetings.

"When I see something, it's 'so clear', and when I don't see something, it's 'a mystery' ".

Actually, that's similar to my positions, probably, as with many others, if not most of us. In some regards, WL was no different from any of us, yet the problem is that with him it was all amplified. My ignorance and suppositions aren't being codified at training centres round the world. Thank God!

But even if so, the "mystery" of Jesus Christ on earth seeing his Father in heaven largely wipes out the meaning of the "Witness Wednesday" quote. (Again, I sometimes do the same, making generalisations which, if qualified as they ought, would not have the impact that I want. So I oversimplify, but at great peril).

But it's important that we don't be too harsh in our critiques of WL or the Blendeds, because in so many ways they show us ourselves, vain, grasping, foolish, full of ourselves. May we learn to show mercy to others, that mercy be shown to us. Yet may we expose error, where it comes forth, especially in ourselves!

But let's keep asking questions. How can the Son sit at the Father's right hand, if the Son is the Father?

"Well, it's a mystery"

Okaaay....

Ohio

05-28-2020, 06:40 AM

But let's keep asking questions. How can the Son sit at the Father's right hand, if the Son is the Father?

"Well, it's a mystery"

Okaaay....
Applying our faith to the word of God may not be the same as asking questions. Unfortunately we can get stuck in quicksand if questions remain in logic or the physical realm.

For example, Revelation 22.1 says, "the throne of God and the Lamb." Is the Lamb on the throne or at God's right hand? One throne or two? How big is that throne? I could go on . . .

And yes, it is a mystery. No doubt. We are not instructed to understand, but to believe and obey what we probably cannot understand. I didn't make the rules, God did.

aron

05-28-2020, 06:58 AM

And yes, it is a mystery. No doubt. We are not instructed to understand, but to believe and obey what we probably cannot understand. I didn't make the rules, God did.

I started this tangent by objecting to the statement posted: "Man cannot see the Father in heaven". Of course we can find a verse that supports this. But we can also see verses that don't support this at all. I was pointing out the 'inconvenient' verse that doesn't line up with the bald assertion of the Seer of the Divine Revelation (Lee's appellation for Nee, which he no doubt assumed for himself).

Now, as StG notes, the context of that quote may be some equivocation or circumspection by the speaker. We don't see that, just the quote. So I objected to the statement as it stands.

To me, that is the important thing. Not that I am 'right' or 'have the high peak truth' or even try to overturn others. My point in all of this is to say, "I will not be pushed around, I will not be bullied. If I don't see what you see, I won't sit there quietly and 'take it'. No. I have a voice. Right or wrong it is mine."

So I won't take "no man on earth sees the Father in heaven." Jesus' statement clearly belies that. Now, what does that mean? There are still mysteries there. But just to take the bland word as some truth or fact, No. Witness Lee's hold on my mind is over.

"For freedom, Christ has set you free. Stand fast, therefore, and do not be entangled again with the yoke of slavery."

The problem with Lee, following Nee, and shared by many others, is that they do systematic theology based on a few verses, in which they apply their own readings, guided by ignorant self-oriented intentions. (yes I do the same thing but I'm not opening training centres). And then the verses that don't line up with the 'revelation' they say, "Well, it's a mystery" or they try to minimize them or they say "That's Peter's fallen human concepts" (!!!) And I object to that system of enforced ignorance and superstition. And I will continue to object.

Freedom

06-03-2020, 10:40 AM

There is no need to have a new environment or a certain set of conditions to express the life of Christ. We should not cherish false hopes or think that we can live a spiritual life only when our environment is perfect.This is the type of LC talk that I think does more harm than good. While it's true to say that there will never be a 'perfect' environment, it is a misconception to think that it is never necessary to change one's environment.

As I see it, the danger isn't in wanting something better, it's in not knowing when it's time to get out of a certain situation, whether that be a situation involving abuse or anything else.

Sons to Glory!

06-03-2020, 12:01 PM

This is the type of LC talk that I think does more harm than good. While it's true to say that there will never be a 'perfect' environment, it is a misconception to think that it is never necessary to change one's environment.

As I see it, the danger isn't in wanting something better, it's in not knowing when it's time to get out of a certain situation, whether that be a situation involving abuse or anything else.I don't think the quote is saying that "it is never necessary to change one's environment" is it?

There is no need to have a new environment or a certain set of conditions to express the life of Christ. We should not cherish false hopes or think that we can live a spiritual life only when our environment is perfect.

Freedom

06-03-2020, 12:38 PM

I don't think the quote is saying that "it is never necessary to change one's environment" is it?

It doesn't say that, but it seems the implication in the statement is don't worry about environment as a factor in one's spiritual life. Maybe 90% of the time, the environment is just something that we have to learn to deal with, but what about the other 10% of the time?

I can think of several situations I saw in the LC where someone would be dealing with a concerning situation and the 'advice' they would receive was not to worry about the outward situation and just press on. Then eventually they would just lose heart, stop meeting, etc. In so many of these cases, there was the perception that taking an initiative to change one's environment was bad or selfish, when in fact, it was probably exactly what was needed in the situation.

Trapped

06-03-2020, 01:36 PM

In so many of these cases, there was the perception that taking an initiative to change one's environment was bad or selfish, when in fact, it was probably exactly what was needed in the situation.

As a church kid, I can second that this mindset is produced by this kind of speaking.

Sons to Glory!

06-03-2020, 01:58 PM

Let me just say that this mindset is not propagated only by the LC. For instance, psychologists counsel people all the time that just because they move away, it doesn't mean their problems will simply be left behind - this is running away to escape problems instead of confronting them. However, there certainly are also instances where a change is environment actually is the most prudent thing.

So there shouldn't be a hard rule for this. What is really needed is being sensitive to what the Lord is leading, through the Anointing in each believer, right?

Trapped

06-03-2020, 03:22 PM

I think the issue with it, or at least my issue with it, is the inherent face slap that always seems to come with so much of Nee and Lee's teachings.

Nee said, "There is no need to have a new environment or a certain set of conditions to express the life of Christ. We should not cherish false hopes or think that we can live a spiritual life only when our environment is perfect."

Nee said this as part of his response to a Q&A. The question he was answering was from a sister, who asked "I feel weak physically all the time. This frustrates my spiritual walk. What should I do? How can I know the resurrection power of Christ?"

His answer comes across more as a "you don't need to have such a foolish thought as to want a change of circumstances" with a sprinkle of "just take Christ as life" and a dash of "stop talking about your problems" thrown in.

The subsequent paragraph is a lot of "you must" and "you shouldn't" and "you need to". It's rigid where it needs to be loving. He ends a paragraph by saying, "It would be wonderful if God granted you the grace of a sanguine and healthy body. But if He does not give you a healthy body, and instead leaves you as you are, you should humble yourself before Him. This is the discipline of the Holy Spirit, and it is upon you so that you will learn to express the transcendent life of Christ."

The overriding impression this gives a person is that God is a harsh commander punishing or disciplining her for some unnamed transgression by weakening her. This is simply not true, and this kind of reckless speaking is where many church kids have gotten the idea that God is out to flatten them like a pancake for no reason.

She's not asking or expecting only a perfect environment. She's down and depressed and needs understanding and encouragement, not a slap that her discouragement about her situation is the problem.

Sons to Glory!

06-03-2020, 03:51 PM

Nee said this as part of his response to a Q&A. The question he was answering was from a sister, who asked "I feel weak physically all the time. This frustrates my spiritual walk. What should I do? How can I know the resurrection power of Christ?"

His answer comes across more as a "you don't need to have such a foolish thought as to want a change of circumstances" with a sprinkle of "just take Christ as life" and a dash of "stop talking about your problems" thrown in.

The subsequent paragraph is a lot of "you must" and "you shouldn't" and "you need to". It's rigid where it needs to be loving. He ends a paragraph by saying, "It would be wonderful if God granted you the grace of a sanguine and healthy body. But if He does not give you a healthy body, and instead leaves you as you are, you should humble yourself before Him. This is the discipline of the Holy Spirit, and it is upon you so that you will learn to express the transcendent life of Christ."

The overriding impression this gives a person is that God is a harsh commander punishing or disciplining her for some unnamed transgression by weakening her. This is simply not true, and this kind of reckless speaking is where many church kids have gotten the idea that God is out to flatten them like a pancake for no reason.

She's not asking or expecting only a perfect environment. She's down and depressed and needs understanding and encouragement, not a slap that her discouragement about her situation is the problem.Okay, that's more information on that and it does seem a little condescending. Sorta reminds me of the Nee book title, "The Breaking of the Outer Man for the Release of the Spirit." The part of that which was always off-putting to me was the first part about the "breaking of the outer man." While there is certainly the principal of death and resurrection in the Christian life, I don't know that the Lord is making us focus on the death aspect. And the experience of the cross (death & resurrection) is not something we can pursue and attain apart from Christ. In other words, the cross and all God wants us to experience is brought to us in Christ and by looking to Jesus, the Author & Finisher.

Maybe it was just me, but putting "breaking of the outer man" at the beginning of that title seem to mean God's focus was first and foremost about breaking me utterly. For that reason, I was never able to get into that book and read more than just a few pages, because I had that negative notion about it (right or wrong).

The experience of the cross is not a heavy, burdensome thing, and Jesus tells us as much. Death is a painless thing - just ask dead people :rolleyes: . . . they feel no pain and can provide zero response. In my book, death is something to go through quickly so resurrection happens, therefore why focus much on it?

Anyway, just my opinion, but it just seems the emphasis is off when the loving purpose is really about bringing us into resurrection life, not crushing us. (BTW - many of these books now leave off that part and it's just "The Release of the Spirit.")

Curious

06-04-2020, 04:04 PM

For myself, I didn't realise that when the Lords prayer says, 'deliver us from evil' it really meant, 'steep us in evil till we've learnt our lessons!'

There are some things we cannot change, like world events or being jailed for the last 20 or so years of our lives.(!) We need to make our peace within those, as WN's quote directs. Hopefully he followed his own advice when most relevant to himself!

Jabez prayed that he would have an easy and blessed life! God was happy with that, more than his brothers who did not make such a request.

In a certain context, like the story of Job, WN's words fit. There can be a purpose within our struggles and disappointments. The testimony here is that acknowledgement of this inevitable component of life can be misapplied and made into a reason to allow oneself to passively accept mistreatment from others. Eliminating all the scriptures about standing up for what is right and protecting the weak and vulnerable. It was even a poor application at the time WN spoke it. It's then gone on to help create leverage for abuse which the LC seem to be experts at doing.

Freedom

07-01-2020, 10:17 AM

In order for us to learn to be an authority, we must also learn to set ourselves apart from the brothers and sisters. We need to refrain from many things which we otherwise could do or say. We should be separated in our speech and in our emotion. We cannot be too loose or easy-going. Sparrows fly in company, but the eagles fly alone. If we can only fly low and not suffer the loneliness of flying high, we are not qualified to be an authority. In order to be an authority, we have to be restricted and must separate ourselves.When I saw this quote, what immediately came to mind is that many of those who are in leadership positions in the LC tend to mimic this type of behavior. I always wondered why so many of the elders would come across as unapproachable, and over time, it became apparent that the whole authority structure is built off of things like that. It has nothing to do with who is qualified to be in a leadership position. It's all about who is best at acting more spiritual and superior to others.

Trapped

07-01-2020, 12:37 PM

The whole quote harshes my mellow. I'm trying to see where there is one Biblical thing in this teaching that Nee says we "have to" and "must" do.

The focus on having authority is the wrong focus, entirely.

There is no thought where believers need to "set themselves apart" from other believers to be anything special.

What on earth does it mean to be separated in our emotion? This is not Biblical.

Why are eagles better than sparrows in the church?

God never says He calls us to be lonely in the church.

And on and on.

And yet Nee says this as if it's some spiritual truth that we all must fall in line with.

Balderdash.

Honestly, at this point, when I talk to other Christians who have heard of Lee and Nee, who themselves shy away from Lee but say they love Nee......I just tell them to be careful. I've seen the same pattern of unbiblical stuff wrapped up in good sounding stuff in Nee's teachings that I see in Lee, and I say run from it.

Ohio

07-01-2020, 01:02 PM

Read Paul's message to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20.17-38.

Then compare Nee's statement to what Paul lived and shared.

Cal

07-01-2020, 04:18 PM

Watchman Nee was a masochist. And like many masochists, he could not resist bringing others into his self-indulgent and self-gratifying suffering.

Sons to Glory!

07-01-2020, 05:09 PM

Today's Watchman Wednesday (from "Authority & Submission"): In order for us to learn to be an authority, we must also learn to set ourselves apart from the brothers and sisters. We need to refrain from many things which we otherwise could do or say. We should be separated in our speech and in our emotion. We cannot be too loose or easy-going. Sparrows fly in company, but the eagles fly alone. If we can only fly low and not suffer the loneliness of flying high, we are not qualified to be an authority. In order to be an authority, we have to be restricted and must separate ourselves.In our leadership training business we teach some of this to brand new, inexperienced front-line supervisors. That is, they were recently non-management and there does need to be a little distancing from those they supervise in order that they might be able to use authority effectively (some authority comes from position, but to use it effectively comes more through respect). However, too much separation is also not good - there needs to be a balance. But many young leaders have difficulty using authority, so this is the best way to get them going in their new position IMHO. And they quickly need to develop other skills like listening, empathy, developing others, etc. I don't know if any of that balance is conveyed in the larger context of this quote by Nee. However, I do remember this was one of those books I've heard that is not high on the recommended list . . . (I wonder if it came from when he was younger)

When I think of this in terms of the leading ones in my ekklesia, I don't see these "eagle" principles on display. That is, I work and interact side-by side with these brothers all that time, and never get the impression that they are "eagles" soaring apart and above me! (I think they actually love me and everyone else, and want to be around others!)

Read Paul's message to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20.17-38.

Then compare Nee's statement to what Paul lived and shared.Good verses and a great example of Servant Leadership (aka Christ)!

Freedom

07-01-2020, 05:50 PM

Curious

07-01-2020, 09:59 PM

There is an obvious reason why Watchman Nee makes no scriptural reference in this statement. Soaring like an Eagle is biblical, but not in association with a leadership role. Its just sophisticated sounding nonsense, that's all!

Raptor

07-02-2020, 03:34 AM

Nee:
"In order for us to learn to be an authority, we must also learn to set ourselves apart from the brothers and sisters. We need to refrain from many things which we otherwise could do or say. We should be separated in our speech and in our emotion. We cannot be too loose or easy-going. Sparrows fly in company, but the eagles fly alone. If we can only fly low and not suffer the loneliness of flying high, we are not qualified to be an authority. In order to be an authority, we have to be restricted and must separate ourselves.2

Jesus: Matthew 20:25-28
You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their superiors exercise authority over them. It shall not be this way among you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”

It seems that Nee's description of an authority, an eagle, fits the "ruler of the Gentiles" flying high, alone and above the sparrows, superior and lording it over the sparrows, exercising authority over them. And the Lord´s description of someone great is of another sparrow, but one that flies low, even lower than the other sparrows, serving them and slaving for them, together with them, not alone.

Ohio

07-02-2020, 05:27 AM

Here we see on full display Nee's accommodation of Darby's leadership position among the Brethren into a Chinese context of "Recovery" becoming the 20th century MOTA -- Minister of the Age.

Sons to Glory!

07-02-2020, 01:25 PM

Nee in particular had a big misconception regarding leadership. He equated leadership and authority. Of course, authority is a characteristic of leadership. But it's not even the first thing that comes to mind in most discussions of what being a leader involves.

My impression is that Nee was viewed as a leader even when he was a young adult, so for all we know at that age he might have viewed being a leader as a role involving nothing more than telling others what to do. At least that is the type of view that some of his ministry seems to reflect.Someone of a keener intellect certainly may be looked to as a leader, whether they have the wisdom and skills to be in that role - intelligence does not necessarily translate into effectiveness. Does anyone know how old Nee was when that book (or speaking) was done?

And if he was older at that point, age also does not a good leader make! In our business we see people all the time who have been in leadership roles for many years, who do not practice certain effective basics. They don't understand why their people are behaving a particular way ("These people are driving me nuts! Can you fix them?"), without realizing they've created many of these things themselves . . .

Ohio

07-03-2020, 08:25 AM

The whole quote harshes my mellow. I'm trying to see where there is one Biblical thing in this teaching that Nee says we "have to" and "must" do.

Honestly, at this point, when I talk to other Christians who have heard of Lee and Nee, who themselves shy away from Lee but say they love Nee......I just tell them to be careful. I've seen the same pattern of unbiblical stuff wrapped up in good sounding stuff in Nee's teachings that I see in Lee, and I say run from it.

Lee attracted attention in the US after many read Nee's The Normal Christian Church Life. I heard many testimonies of this back in the day.

History shows us that neither Nee nor Lee ever followed this book, the so-called "Blueprint" for a healthy, recovered, NT church. That's why I concluded the whole program was a farce.

Curious

07-03-2020, 10:09 PM

In our business we see people all the time who have been in leadership roles for many years, who do not practice certain effective basics. They don't understand why their people are behaving a particular way ("These people are driving me nuts! Can you fix them?"), without realizing they've created many of these things themselves . . .
And look at the poor Chinese government trying to get their heads around these rebellious people in Hong Kong! The British government had no such struggles, the people so cooperative then, and so obstinate now! The poor Chinese government are being 'driven nuts' by all this opposition! How to 'fix' them? Denying them freedom of speech, and squashing them like ants, being arrested and held with no trial. Well, this is just trying to manage it all with the force it clearly requires, not possibly making things worse. After all, the people of HK are the meanies, saying nasty things about the poor, mistreated People's Republic of China!

Its so hard when you are absolutely right all the time and others just can't see it! The world thinks you are a monster, and don't realise what a mistreated victim you really are. The fact another governing body got a totally co-operative response and did so without all this force, (in fact, enshrining the right to disagree in the population), just totally lost on the (self) righteous Chinese government!!

Ohio

07-04-2020, 05:06 AM

Someone of a keener intellect certainly may be looked to as a leader, whether they have the wisdom and skills to be in that role - intelligence does not necessarily translate into effectiveness. Does anyone know how old Nee was when that book (or speaking) was done?

And if he was older at that point, age also does not a good leader make! In our business we see people all the time who have been in leadership roles for many years, who do not practice certain effective basics. They don't understand why their people are behaving a particular way ("These people are driving me nuts! Can you fix them?"), without realizing they've created many of these things themselves . . .

The messages were give after Nee was "restored" by Lee to the ministry in 1948, when Nee was 46-47 years old. The elders of the Shanghai Christian assembly, whom Nee himself had appointed, had removed him from the ministry in 1942 for improper relations with women. (Ref Dr. Lily Hsu book.)

Nee's teachings on authority all but guaranteed that he would never again be disciplined from within the collection of "Little Flock" churches he had created. Troublesome also were the decisions Nee made, as the presumptive authoritative spokesman for the entire movement, with the CCP in the months after these teachings were given to all the elders and workers.

Freedom

07-08-2020, 06:33 PM

However, if you live the church life, the very Christ whom you offer to God will heal you. He is better than any psychiatrist. Do not go to a psychiatrist - come to Christ and offer Him to God. Then you will be healthy, sober, and emotionally balanced.This is a good example of the dangerous types of things that WL taught. I imagine that when WL was up there giving all these messages, some heard these things and ran with it, others heard it and just shrugged it off, knowing very well that it was nonsense. But in either case, no one would dare characterize anything that WL taught as falling into the category of being optional or okay to disagree with.

When people are dealing with issues like substance abuse or mental health, there are often cases where some type of professional help or intervention is necessary. When WL said instead that the church life would heal people of all those problems, everyone who took his words at face value was automatically setup for failure.

Even worse, that eventual failure means that person inadvertently becomes a counterexample to something that WL taught, even if they had no intention of expressing disagreement or opposition to that kind of teaching. I can think of a number of people I knew in the LC who suffered from mental health issues. They were almost always looked down on. The were treated as if anything they were suffering from was their own fault because if they were right with God, then the church life would have fixed their problems already.

Trapped

07-08-2020, 08:42 PM

This is a good example of the dangerous types of things that WL taught.

When WL said instead that the church life would heal people of all those problems, everyone who took his words at face value was automatically setup for failure.

They were treated as if anything they were suffering from was their own fault because if they were right with God, then the church life would have fixed their problems already.

This stuff in the LC just makes me mad. It makes me mad that everyone in the LC knows that WL taught this stuff, but the co-workers turn around and put articles up on "shepherding" sites that make it seem like it was never taught and that "of course we have always taken mental health seriously".

Someone showed me a Q&R (not Q&A mind you, because, of course, no one has all the answers *eye roll*) on youtube recently that is apparently of various co-workers giving their responses and input and fellowship to questions that were submitted. I think one of the questions had to do with the negative way the ministry spoke about marriage. And one of the co-workers responding had the audacity to say (paraphrased) "this question just shows how delusional young brothers in the church can get"......WHEN THE VERY QUESTION WAS PRECISELY ABOUT WHAT IS IN PRINT ABOUT HOW WL SPOKE OF MARRIAGE IN THE MINISTRY.

When you start manhandling such delicate and weighty topics as mental health and marriage, the responsibility for your errors skyrockets because the direct effects are so devastating and long-lasting.

It's a sick place.

Curious

07-08-2020, 08:49 PM

What dies it even mean, that we are to 'offer Christ to God' ? WL says that twice in the short quote offered, but I've never heard that idea before. It seems nonsensical, maybe someone has an explanation?

Also, there are many Christian professionals in the area of mental health. Good psychology is not necessarily in conflict with the principles of the Bible. Of course the best outcome is to combine them together, but the same principles that work at the core of psychology are named in the bible too. They may be named differently but they are there.

Nell

07-08-2020, 09:29 PM

I have the same question. What does that mean? How do you do it? Is there a New Testament verse supporting this teaching?

Given what we’ve heard from Minoru and RK lately, it sounds like a good reason to seek advice from a mental health professional. :xx:

Freedom

07-08-2020, 09:54 PM

When you start manhandling such delicate and weighty topics as mental health and marriage, the responsibility for your errors skyrockets because the direct effects are so devastating and long-lasting. It's a sick place.

It really is sick - the victim-blaming, the gas-lighting, etc. The longer I was in the LC, the more people I saw getting hurt by it. How hard would it be for them to simply distance themselves from some of the things that WL taught? How hard would to be for them to take some of that stuff out of print? Most people in the LC know exactly what WL said. It's insulting to everyone's intelligence for them to write articles about how they've never discouraged people from getting treatment for mental health.

The LC has been around long enough that there has been plenty of opportunity to observe the outcome of these different teachings. Lots of people have had the exact same objections to certain teachings. Likewise there are lots of similar patterns in the ways that people have been hurt by the LC or some of these teachings. The evidence is all there right in front of everyone's eyes.

Whenever anyone calls out LC leadership on these readily-apparent issues, it seems they double down. The LC will accuse people of having certain motives, or claim that they are misinterpreting what WL said (even though he's been dead over 20 years). They're not really fooling anyone besides those who choose to be ignorant.

Ohio

07-08-2020, 10:09 PM

What dies it even mean, that we are to 'offer Christ to God' ? WL says that twice in the short quote offered, but I've never heard that idea before. It seems nonsensical, maybe someone has an explanation?

Based on the OT sacrifices, the children of Israel had to offer a sacrifice to God for their sin, peace, trespass offerings based on Leviticus. WL taught that Christ was the reality of every offering, and today we can offer Christ to God as our sin, peace, trespass offerings. WL had a "monumental" conference on this, with books written, and followup messages on the topic. After that conference he regularly spoke of this.

Ohio

07-08-2020, 10:19 PM

This is a good example of the dangerous types of things that WL taught. I imagine that when WL was up there giving all these messages, some heard these things and ran with it, others heard it and just shrugged it off, knowing very well that it was nonsense. But in either case, no one would dare characterize anything that WL taught as falling into the category of being optional or okay to disagree with.

When people are dealing with issues like substance abuse or mental health, there are often cases where some type of professional help or intervention is necessary. When WL said instead that the church life would heal people of all those problems, everyone who took his words at face value was automatically setup for failure.

Even worse, that eventual failure means that person inadvertently becomes a counterexample to something that WL taught, even if they had no intention of expressing disagreement or opposition to that kind of teaching. I can think of a number of people I knew in the LC who suffered from mental health issues. They were almost always looked down on. The were treated as if anything they were suffering from was their own fault because if they were right with God, then the church life would have fixed their problems already.

In the early days, there were some miraculous healings and answers to prayer in the church life. Tragically, it seemed that WL took credit for these wondrous events rather than giving all the glory to God. It is in this context that WL made the arrogant comment above. As the years wore on, and WL usurped the Lord's place in the LC, these stories basically disappeared.

Nell

07-08-2020, 10:43 PM

Curious

07-09-2020, 01:14 AM

Based on the OT sacrifices, the children of Israel had to offer a sacrifice to God for their sin, peace, trespass offerings based on Leviticus. WL taught that Christ was the reality of every offering, and today we can offer Christ to God as our sin, peace, trespass offerings. WL had a "monumental" conference on this, with books written, and followup messages on the topic. After that conference he regularly spoke of this.

Thanks ohio and Nell, for your responses to this question of mine. That makes sense and gives context to this assertion.

It seems to me that it creates another religious activity that can easily become void of real meaning. 'Offering Christ back to God' can become just more words and an excuse not to have a humble, repentant heart. Which I think is essential for a maturing Christian.

My assessment is that God looks at the heart, and the conscience of a person with a humble heart guides them to repent of recognised sin before God and man.

God is interested in our attitude towards ourselves, others and Him. I think this is more important than dissecting it theologically. Just cause Jesus is the one final appropriation for our sin, doesn't mean we only appeal to him once for forgiveness. That does not need to be a logical restriction on the meaning. He died once to save us from our sins. We appeal to him for help every day of our lives.

Saying 'sorry' to a person for an aggrievance is a form of demonstrating respect to that person. Respect alignes with love and giving dignity. It is essential for healthy relationships. So it makes sense that it is a necessary part of loving God too. Love God as you love others... that is back to front, we are to love God more, so part of that is to repent to Him if it's right to repent to our brother if we get it wrong, as we are bound to do along the way. It is the practical part 9f recognising we are fallen and rely on God's grace. His grace demonstrated by forgiveness and to be experienced daily.

I know that's a rant but I feel strongly about this topic.

UntoHim

07-22-2020, 11:46 AM

Ohio

07-22-2020, 12:05 PM

During all the years I have been in the church life, I have not seen one person who spoke negatively about the church who was under God's blessing. On the contrary, all who have said that the church was poor, low, or dead have been under a curse. -- WL
Common sense requires us to ask, "WL, how about all the negative things you have spoken about other Christians and other churches? Didn't you build your ministry on the negative speaking of other Christians and other churches?"

Sons to Glory!

07-22-2020, 12:18 PM

On the contrary, all who have said that the church was poor, low, or dead have been under a curse. Those who speak positively about the church, declaring that the church is lovely and that it is God's house, receive the blessing. - Witness Lee

Translation into plain English: Those who are even slightly critical of the religious sect that I created will be under a curse. Those who mindlessly and shamelessly speak positively about my person and work (my authority and personal ministry), and the religious sect that I created, will be blessed.
-Frankly, I din't see what you saw regarding this quote, when I first read it. However, I think I understand why you would say that. I take it to mean the entire, universal church . . . not just the LC.

What I might have an issue in what WL said here in the first part, about all those who speak low of the church "have been under a curse." Where does he get that? In Christ and the new man, haven't all these curses been removed? Was Saul under a curse when he persecuted the church? Perhaps, but God turned it all into a blessing. But I'm still hard pressed to find this specific curse principle in scripture - maybe someone else can find that.

As regenerated people, we see both the apparently messed-up state the church is in, and yet by faith we know He is building it and He's "got this!" It just depends on what we focus on - the seen or unseen realms.

But here's my legal disclaimer on this and all maters: "I'm a man who has walked on this earth less than seven decades - so what do I really know?!" (one thing hopefully - to look to Him in everything)

Sons to Glory!

07-22-2020, 12:45 PM

Common sense requires us to ask, "WL, how about all the negative things you have spoken about other Christians and other churches? Didn't you build your ministry on the negative speaking of other Christians and other churches?"Exactly! It is one thing to speak about how Christians are in the wilderness, being merely sustained by manna and that they need to be satisfied fully in the good land. I think WL's position was that the LC had entered into the good land, and that the rest of Christianity were still wandering in the wilderness. First of all, I think it arrogance to say that we have arrived (and a little like Laodecia), but then to rail at others because they haven't made it in yet . . . doing that over and over just sets up fleshly pride and division, devoid of love. ("We're on the right side of the river and you guys aren't! You're so hopeless and dumb over there!")

BTW - I'm reading a book now by Major Ian Thomas ("The Saving Life of Christ"), where he lays out how most Christians have resigned themselves to being merely "sustained" in the wilderness. Saved ones have come out from Egypt, but most are not really being fully satisfied and resting in the good land yet. But his is an exhortation to look to Christ in all things, not a condemnation. I think what WL and the LC got into was condemnation.

UntoHim

07-22-2020, 12:54 PM

During all the years I have been in the church life, I have not seen one person who spoke negatively about the church who was under God's blessing. - Witness Lee

To Witness Lee, the terms "church life" and "the church" were synonyms for the exact same thing - The Local Church sect that he created, and in which he was the unquestioned, dictatorial leader. Sorry to be so blunt, but this is the raw, unvarnished truth.
-

Trapped

07-22-2020, 01:42 PM

To Witness Lee, the terms "church life" and "the church" were synonyms for the exact same thing - The Local Church sect that he created, and in which he was the unquestioned, dictatorial leader. Sorry to be so blunt, but this is the raw, unvarnished truth.
-

Agreed. If he had just said "the church" there would be wiggle room to say Lee might have meant the true church on the earth, composed of all believers. But since he used the phrase "the church life".....this means he's talking about his own movement (which in his eyes is the entirety of "the church" anyway).

And even if he meant the church in general, what he's saying, as usual, doesn't hold up at all. Plenty of atheists, anti-theists, etc, speak against the church and yet plenty of them encounter God and get saved, and the sun shines and rain falls on them just as on Christians. Moreover, what on earth was going on in Revelation in the seven letters to the seven churches besides "speaking negatively" of the condition of those churches? Lee's words here end up putting a curse on Jesus Christ Himself, which is just ridiculous. I'm dumbfounded at this point how often people have to shut off their minds to accept so much of what Witness Lee said.

Trapped

07-29-2020, 12:26 PM

Today's quote:

It is not a question of right or wrong; it is a question of whether or not one is like the bearer of the cross. In the church right and wrong have no place; all that counts is bearing the cross and accepting it's breaking. This produces the overflowing of God's life and accomplishes his will. --Watchman Nee's Testimony

UntoHim, do you choose Wednesday quotes specifically to MAKE us throw our hands up?!

This teaching, to me, seems to be one of the most insidious and interwoven in the LC......that "right and wrong have no place" in the church. It's almost precision engineered to be used in an abusive manner. Jesus and the apostles called wrong things wrong all over the place. God is the standard of right and wrong. The ten commandments are right and wrong. God punishes wrongdoing. This teaching genuinely makes me scratch my head, that it could have been read by so many eyes and heard by so many ears in the LC, and yet not a single person.....of tens of thousands of people.....says "this is totally upside down".

Well, I guess when you say that in the church right and wrong have no place, then you are inherently prevented from saying "that is wrong", aren't you.

Now I understand the term mindbender.

Ohio

07-29-2020, 01:04 PM

Today's quote:

It is not a question of right or wrong; it is a question of whether or not one is like the bearer of the cross. In the church right and wrong have no place; all that counts is bearing the cross and accepting it's breaking. This produces the overflowing of God's life and accomplishes his will. --Watchman Nee's Testimony

This teaching, to me, seems to be one of the most insidious and interwoven in the LC......that "right and wrong have no place" in the church. It's almost precision engineered to be used in an abusive manner. Jesus and the apostles called wrong things wrong all over the place. God is the standard of right and wrong. The ten commandments are right and wrong. God punishes wrongdoing. This teaching genuinely makes me scratch my head, that it could have been read by so many eyes and heard by so many ears in the LC, and yet not a single person.....of tens of thousands of people.....says "this is totally upside down".

Well, I guess when you say that in the church right and wrong have no place, then you are inherently prevented from saying "that is wrong", aren't you.

There is a corollary to this well worn LC platitude: "We only care for life!"

After 30 years in the LC, I had thought this saying still had merit until that one day I remember reading that this was Philip Lee's favorite saying. Ugh! That explains everything.

UntoHim

07-29-2020, 02:11 PM

UntoHim, do you choose Wednesday quotes specifically to MAKE us throw our hands up?!
Guilty as charged your honor
https://i.imgur.com/162gjNi.png?1

Now I understand the term mindbender.
Witness Lee learned from the best...and then so did we. God have mercy.
-

countmeworthy

07-29-2020, 02:38 PM

I remember drinking the kool aid in 1975. “ It’s not a matter of wrong or right but a matter of life!” How could l have fallen for that lie? I totally get that solely good works do not get us to heaven. Neither do they lead us to Jesus. (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and countless brilliant “good” people have rejected the Savior of their lives and of the world, Jesus Christ the King of kings.

But to say it’s not a matter of right or wrong in our newness of Life is truly as Trapped wrote, A Mindbender!

And btw, even in my time in the LC, I had no liberty in my spirit to do wrong!! The Holy Spirit was always ready to convict me, not to confuse it with condemnation. The power of repentance and the power of applying the Blood on my sins, strengthened my spirit and conscience.

One of the first scriptures the Holy Spirit imprinted in my spirit and soul was 1 Corinthians 10:13

No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

Today's quote:

It is not a question of right or wrong; it is a question of whether or not one is like the bearer of the cross. In the church right and wrong have no place; all that counts is bearing the cross and accepting it's breaking. This produces the overflowing of God's life and accomplishes his will. --Watchman Nee's Testimony

UntoHim, do you choose Wednesday quotes specifically to MAKE us throw our hands up?!

This teaching, to me, seems to be one of the most insidious and interwoven in the LC......that "right and wrong have no place" in the church. It's almost precision engineered to be used in an abusive manner. Jesus and the apostles called wrong things wrong all over the place. God is the standard of right and wrong. The ten commandments are right and wrong. God punishes wrongdoing. This teaching genuinely makes me scratch my head, that it could have been read by so many eyes and heard by so many ears in the LC, and yet not a single person.....of tens of thousands of people.....says "this is totally upside down".

Well, I guess when you say that in the church right and wrong have no place, then you are inherently prevented from saying "that is wrong", aren't you.

Now I understand the term mindbender.

Trapped

07-29-2020, 03:23 PM

And btw, even in my time in the LC, I had no liberty in my spirit to do wrong!!

The frustrating thing about this teaching is that, when taken to task, they as always, can twist it around to make the task-taker seem crazy. On one hand, in the ministry they say something like "wrong is still wrong, but life is higher than right." So they'll point to that and say, "see wrong is still wrong" and make it look like they are taking the highest purest most undefiled route, that is angelically floating above those dirty people who are merely doing "good".

But when you actually do try to point out something as "not right" they try to claim that very thing isn't "wrong" but is "following life". What a mess.

And now we are starting to blend up the garden of eden trees into an unintelligible mess that God never taught. Because on the one hand, they teach that good and evil are both of death (which is not true), but here we have evil is still evil and good is now something else. And where is all this in Genesis? crickets....

And the reality is, when you DO try to call something wrong that is wrong, that's exactly when they roll this saying out to stop you from pointing the wrong thing out. So they use it in an abusive way while they try to pass it off as the most pure way possible. It's sick.

countmeworthy

07-29-2020, 05:23 PM

I hear you loud and clear. We all do! What saddens me is that type of teaching not only screws up people’s minds, especially young kids but they push them away from their true Savior and Almighty God.

More than ever do people need Jesus today to guide them and give them peace in this screwed up world.

Thankfully we have a Loving and understanding, sympathetic God Who knows how to fix and mend the broken people.

The frustrating thing about this teaching is that, when taken to task, they as always, can twist it around to make the task-taker seem crazy. On one hand, in the ministry they say something like "wrong is still wrong, but life is higher than right." So they'll point to that and say, "see wrong is still wrong" and make it look like they are taking the highest purest most undefiled route, that is angelically floating above those dirty people who are merely doing "good".

But when you actually do try to point out something as "not right" they try to claim that very thing isn't "wrong" but is "following life". What a mess.

And now we are starting to blend up the garden of eden trees into an unintelligible mess that God never taught. Because on the one hand, they teach that good and evil are both of death (which is not true), but here we have evil is still evil and good is now something else. And where is all this in Genesis? crickets....

And the reality is, when you DO try to call something wrong that is wrong, that's exactly when they roll this saying out to stop you from pointing the wrong thing out. So they use it in an abusive way while they try to pass it off as the most pure way possible. It's sick.

Ohio

07-29-2020, 05:24 PM

Cal

07-29-2020, 10:11 PM

And that's the point Kangas made when he recently condemned the late John Ingalls for living according to his conscience, as if RK had a "better way."

Their is a better way -- love -- long absent at LSM.

Right. And without love the way of "life" (quote quote) is as bad as any.

Love is sacrificial, but it is also wise. It knows when to stand for what is right and when not to.

Nell

07-30-2020, 08:43 AM

The frustrating thing about this teaching is that, when taken to task, they as always, can twist it around to make the task-taker seem crazy. On one hand, in the ministry they say something like "wrong is still wrong, but life is higher than right." So they'll point to that and say, "see wrong is still wrong" and make it look like they are taking the highest purest most undefiled route, that is angelically floating above those dirty people who are merely doing "good".

But when you actually do try to point out something as "not right" they try to claim that very thing isn't "wrong" but is "following life". What a mess.

And now we are starting to blend up the garden of eden trees into an unintelligible mess that God never taught. Because on the one hand, they teach that good and evil are both of death (which is not true), but here we have evil is still evil and good is now something else. And where is all this in Genesis? crickets....

And the reality is, when you DO try to call something wrong that is wrong, that's exactly when they roll this saying out to stop you from pointing the wrong thing out. So they use it in an abusive way while they try to pass it off as the most pure way possible. It's sick.

Trapped,

I found this article on "gaslighting" which seems, in some ways, to parallel what you're saying.

A predator uses gaslighting to turn victims into dependent, unquestioning and compliant puppets, willing accomplices in their own destruction, completely unaware that they are being coerced or manipulated in any way.

Kept in this virtual dark by their abuser, they live in a world of subtle fear, where it is dangerous to ask questions, where submitting to the abuser is the only way to keep the peace.

Victims of gaslighting are ultimately convinced that their sense of unease is due to their own inability to cope with their environment, rather than the intentional, calculated work of the predator who is tricking them. Often, it is such a frightening prospect to question the abuser’s authority, that the very idea of rebelling becomes inconceivable. Most sinister of all, the victims of gaslighting predators are conditioned to believe that their abuser is their only source of reliable information, comfort, and safety.

https://www.openmindsfoundation.org/gaslighting-how-predators-take-control-by-turning-down-the-lights/

countmeworthy

07-30-2020, 01:46 PM

Thanks for sharing that article Nell. Many times victims, Christians and non Christians fall prey to false teachings, false hope, false security and false love. Then they blame themselves for being blindsided, when it was the perpetrator, the abuser who manipulates them to feel guilty.

May we all trust Jesus to rescue us from the deceivers for He is our Deliverer and Healer of our souls. Soon the wicked, religious and otherwise will be put in their place by the Mighty God.

Trapped,

I found this article on "gaslighting" which seems, in some ways, to parallel what you're saying.

A predator uses gaslighting to turn victimsinto dependent, unquestioning and compliant puppets, willing accomplices in their own destruction, completely unaware that they are being coerced or manipulated in any way.

Kept in this virtual dark by their abuser, they live in a world of subtle fear, where it is dangerous to ask questions, where submitting to the abuser is the only way to keep the peace.

Victims of gaslighting are ultimately convinced that their sense of unease is due to their own inability to cope with their environment, rather than the intentional, calculated work of the predator who is tricking them. Often, it is such a frightening prospect to question the abuser’s authority, that the very idea of rebelling becomes inconceivable. Most sinister of all, the victims of gaslighting predators are conditioned to believe that their abuser is their only source of reliable information, comfort, and safety.

https://www.openmindsfoundation.org/gaslighting-how-predators-take-control-by-turning-down-the-lights/

Sons to Glory!

08-02-2020, 09:25 AM

Exactly! It is one thing to speak about how Christians are in the wilderness, being merely sustained by manna and that they need to be satisfied fully in the good land. I think WL's position was that the LC had entered into the good land, and that the rest of Christianity were still wandering in the wilderness. First of all, I think it arrogance to say that we have arrived (and a little like Laodecia), but then to rail at others because they haven't made it in yet . . . doing that over and over just sets up fleshly pride and division, devoid of love. ("We're on the right side of the river and you guys aren't! You're so hopeless and dumb over there!")

BTW - I'm reading a book now by Major Ian Thomas ("The Saving Life of Christ"), where he lays out how most Christians have resigned themselves to being merely "sustained" in the wilderness. Saved ones have come out from Egypt, but most are not really being fully satisfied and resting in the good land yet. But his is an exhortation to look to Christ in all things, not a condemnation. I think what WL and the LC got into was condemnation.I saw my post again this morning and thought I'd make a little correction to it. While what I said about WL thinking all Christians are just wondering in the wilderness, and that the LC has entered the good land - I think this was probably true of his speaking. However, new light I've received this past week is that ALL Christians actually are in the good land, which is just Christ Himself. What I've seen is that while "it's of God we are in Christ Jesus" (! Cor 1:30), our unrenewed minds may tell us otherwise. So while we are in the Good Land (again, this is Christ), we may be deceived and rather than trust the truth, we trust our experience which says we're just all messed up in the wilderness!

As you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him
Colossians 1:30

Unregistered

09-16-2020, 02:32 AM

I read a quote from when LSM went into PRC in '79. "The age of the Word is over - it is now the age of the Spirit." And how much nuttiness followed that?

I've googled it, but couldn't find the info. Can you tell me the provenance? thanks

Sons to Glory!

09-16-2020, 10:11 AM

This is taken from today's "Witness Wednesday."What must be done to the grapes to make them wine? They must be pressed. To make God and others happy, you must be pressed. You rejoice to learn that Christ is the barley, the resurrected Christ within you, and that He is enough to meet every situation. You say Hallelujah! But do not say Hallelujah too easily, for immediately following the barley is the vine. The grapes must be pressed to bring cheer to God and man. You too must be pressed. The more you drink the wine of Christ, the more you will realize that you must be pressed. You must be broken in order to produce something in the house of the Lord to make others happy. When reading this the first time I thought, "Well that's not too far off." But after reading it again a few times, I began to be uncomfortable with it. My sense is that this wanders too far into the judgmental side of things and here are my streaming thoughts about it - just wanted to air thoughts and see what others might say.

One thing many of us picked-up in the LC under WL was regarding judgment. The Bema Seat teaching was held over us in a fearful way. That is, we might not measure up in God's eternal purpose, and He would have to then deal very harshly with us. And if we tried to escape His judgment, especially by leaving the LC, He would really come down on us and maybe even take our life. The thought was God eternal must get His purpose regardless. This is a fearful thing planted in the hearts of many exposed to this teaching.

But then - praise God - He showed me the foundation of all He does with man is out of His incredible love for us - while we were yet sinners way off the mark, He died for us! His purpose is all about His love and saving poor, lost sheep. And not just initially, but He who began a good work in us is loving us faithfully to complete that work. Yes, those whom He loves he disciplines, but it is 100% out of love and toward setting us free in a continual sense, because Jesus took all the wrath of God toward us. We are now His children who have been brought into the fellowship of the Son and are being ushered into His glory! Hallelujah!!!

So this quote by WL is a little troubling in that it seems to make it sound like it is God's good pleasure to crush us (see bolded in quote above). Mature Christians know the Lord will use everything to set us free and gain more of our hearts. And oftentimes the medicine is not that tasty to us, but the goal is always good, and needed, and done in agape love. "Perfect love casts out all fear, because fear involves torment."

Yesterday the Lord gave me a small appreciation for how He has set me free. "It is for freedom that Christ has set you free!" (Gal 5:1) His burden is easy, His yoke is light. Anything that feels heavy and onerous and burdensome and condemning and discouraging - this is not the freedom He has brought us into!

Trapped

09-16-2020, 10:25 PM

So this quote by WL is a little troubling in that it seems to make it sound like it is God's good pleasure to crush us (see bolded in quote above). Mature Christians know the Lord will use everything to set us free and gain more of our hearts. And oftentimes the medicine is not that tasty to us, but the goal is always good, and needed, and done in agape love. "Perfect love casts out all fear, because fear involves torment."

Yesterday the Lord gave me a small appreciation for how He has set me free. "It is for freedom that Christ has set you free!" (Gal 5:1) His burden is easy, His yoke is light. Anything that feels heavy and onerous and burdensome and condemning and discouraging - this is not the freedom He has brought us into!

Yep, and you've just hit the nail on the head of what a particular subset of church kids have lived under for several decades of their life into adulthood - that it's God's good pleasure to crush us.

What a poisonous, acid-dripping, caustic lie from the devil, liberally spread throughout the local church. It just makes me mad.

There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.

No condemnation! Think of how much condemnation came from and comes from the ministry and the co-workers over the saints about their condition, absoluteness, lack of being in the ministry, lack of migration, etc, etc.

But.......

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free!

Why did He set us free?

So we would actually, really be free!!!

Awesome.

awareness

09-16-2020, 11:13 PM

Nell

09-17-2020, 02:21 AM

Yep, and you've just hit the nail on the head of what a particular subset of church kids have lived under for several decades of their life into adulthood - that it's God's good pleasure to crush us.

What a poisonous, acid-dripping, caustic lie from the devil, liberally spread throughout the local church. It just makes me mad.

There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.

No condemnation! Think of how much condemnation came from and comes from the ministry and the co-workers over the saints about their condition, absoluteness, lack of being in the ministry, lack of migration, etc, etc.

But.......

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free!

Why did He set us free?

So we would actually, really be free!!!

Awesome.

Awesome indeed!

We should, IMHO, always bear in mind that, after being a Christian for 50 years, Lee himself confessed struggling under the weight of his own ministry.

In this particular quote, he reveals his own judgmental persona and projects it onto God, and prescribes that all believers become as judgmental as he is. “God’s good pleasure to crush us?” No. It was Lee’s good pleasure to crush us!

His ministry was based on his own personality.

"Living Christ" by Witness Lee (https://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?xid=08PZ8OCU0UGX9#) Is a series of 3 messages and is a pretty quick read, but I'm referencing the first message.
...
As Jane Anderson notes in The Thread of Gold, Chapter 24, 11h, "...he was struggling under the need of constant confession, trying to do something he called "living Christ", failing in his attempt, repetitively analyzing the matter, and then telling others they were failing in a worse way. He was certainly not preaching Christ or words of faith. His testimony was one of hopelessness and futility. This testimony was actually his own admission that what he had been teaching for many years was not working well at all."

If you struggle or struggled under the weight of Witness Lee's ministry, you're not alone.

Nell

Trapped

09-17-2020, 07:19 AM

Awesome indeed!

We should, IMHO, always bear in mind that, after being a Christian for 50 years, Lee himself confessed struggling under the weight of his own ministry.

In this particular quote, he reveals his own judgmental persona and projects it onto God, and prescribes that all believers become as judgmental as he is. “God’s good pleasure to crush us?” No. It was Lee’s good pleasure to crush us!

His ministry was based on his own personality.

That says so much, doesn't it?!

I know the verse says "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for/to those who are in Christ Jesus" but I think it's also okay to keep in mind "there is no condemnation FROM those who are in Christ Jesus" too. Not as a re-write of the verse, but in understanding, essentially, whether or not to give credence or the time of day to someone's words. If someone is condemning you, (and usually we can tell the difference between condemnation and truth in love), then they are not in Christ Jesus either.....and that means the shame of their condemnation is not on your head for whatever they said, but on theirs for their condemning words.

In other words, if Lee is condemning his readers, he is not in Christ Jesus. If he isn't in Christ Jesus at any given point, then he's just another sinner we can choose to listen or not listen to.

Nell

09-17-2020, 07:59 AM

That says so much, doesn't it?!

I know the verse says "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for/to those who are in Christ Jesus" but I think it's also okay to keep in mind "there is no condemnation FROM those who are in Christ Jesus" too. Not as a re-write of the verse, but in understanding, essentially, whether or not to give credence or the time of day to someone's words. If someone is condemning you, (and usually we can tell the difference between condemnation and truth in love), then they are not in Christ Jesus either.....and that means the shame of their condemnation is not on your head for whatever they said, but on theirs for their condemning words.

In other words, if Lee is condemning his readers, he is not in Christ Jesus. If he isn't in Christ Jesus at any given point, then he's just another sinner we can choose to listen or not listen to.

And then there's this:
Matthew 7 New King James Version (NKJV)
7 “Judge[a] not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what [b]judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Nell

Sons to Glory!

09-17-2020, 11:50 AM

In "The Recovery" a popular book of Nee's (at least it was at one point) was, "The Release of the Spirit." The pre-subtitle was "The breaking of the outer man for . . ." I think this phrase has been removed in later editions, but I could never get beyond that subtitle. To me it made it sound like either I needed to do some breaking or God needed to break me completely. This wasn't real appealing to me as a young Christian. As a more mature Christian, I do realize that that the cross needs to be applied to the Adamic nature in the flesh. But to focus on that can be a onerous, fleshly religion.

As the "Hast Thou Seen Him, Heard Him, Known Him?" hymn says:
"Not the crushing of those idols,
With its bitter void and smart,
But the beaming of His beauty,
The unveiling of His heart."

So as believers, do we focus on crushing those idols, or do we look to Him? Can I smash my hands so they won't hold onto earthly things; or do I look to Him and be so enthralled I automatically release the earthly thing? One way is a fleshly religion that's burdensome and painful; the other way is a sweet experience of death and resurrection life in Christ!

That's not to say I should allow myself to give occasion to the flesh - certainly not! But even an unsaved person can crush idols, yet they will gain nothing of Christ in the process. I think any emphasis we place on any action, other than focusing our attention on Him, is vanity. Flesh can do how much to please God? Nothing. So should we concern ourselves with breaking? I think that's above our pay-grade so to speak - our job is to look to Him.

And where is the power of the cross anyway? Is it not in the One who went through the cross? If we want all the power of the cross, there's only One who was victorious, and He experienced the cross to put the Son-life into us. (Think maybe I should write a book called, "The All-Inclusive Christ." Oh wait, I think that's been done before . . . :D)

That's just my buck-two-ninety-eight - maybe I'm all wet about that Nee book, because as said, I couldn't get past the subtitle to read it. Therefore, please correct any misconception I have.

Unregistered

09-21-2020, 11:37 AM

Trapped, that fellowship is outdated.

The local churches soon became "merely a procedure."

Then to know the local churches was also not adequate.

One must know the body of Christ!

Later, that too became inadequate and one must now know the unique new testament ministry.

Then you are up-to-date!

Get the picture? :rollingeyesfrown:

Weird! It's almost as if God's ministry changes at the whim of his "messengers"

Trapped

09-23-2020, 08:46 PM

Pretty sick of you baiting me with Wednesday quotes I can't help but respond to, UntoHim!!!

Watchman Nee's quote for today:

When you come close to Christians who are near to God, they make you feel God. They do not make you sense their tenderness and humility; rather, they make you feel God. When I began to work, I decided, at whatever cost, to obey the will of God. I thought I was obeying the will of God. However, whenever I went to see Miss Barber, after talking and reading a few verses from the Bible with her, I was aware that I was still lacking. Every time I saw her, I always felt something special—God was there. When you came close to her, you felt God. She had light. She was controlled by the light of God; therefore, when you came close to her, her light condemned your sin.

I think the primary bone I'm choking on is the thought that Ms. Barber's light condemned Nee's sin.

I know Christians are to be salt and light, so I don't think it's the "light" part that gets me. I think what gets me is the "condemned". If you as a Christian feel condemned being around another Christian......is that a healthy situation? Even Jesus, when facing verified sinners, didn't condemn. The ones Jesus condemned were the religious hypocrites. If Nee or Barber were in Christ Jesus, there should be no condemnation.

I dunno.....I kind of just get the sense Nee flaps his lips sometimes and doesn't exactly know what he's talking about.

Boxjobox

10-07-2020, 03:51 PM

The administrator posted this quote from W Nee:
A standard of living that is according to God can only be lived out by God. This is true because God is higher than we are. But this would be true even if God were lower than us; there must be the same kind of life in order to have the same kind of living. Only a bird can live a bird's life, and only a beast can live a beast's life. Therefore, only God can live God's life. Since Christ is God, only He can live out God's life. Christ has made it; He is perfect. Throughout history, only one person made it—Christ..

This brought back memories such as: W Nee knew all things about God, Christ, the Church and whatever he said was accurate and the perfect understanding of scripture. W Nee had the highest vision and we should conform our thinking to whatever he said. W, Lee followed W. Nee and stood on his shoulders, so to get the complete, highest revelation we must follow W Lee. I don’t really need to think through scripture by myself, just follow the synthesized words of Nee and Lee and perfection will come. If I don’t agree with something W Nee wrote or don’t want to follow something W Lee says, I have a problem with God, Christ and the Church. It is God’s will that I follow these men and die to my self and my opinions. It is my duty to purchase all material produced by these two men of God, and thoroughly assimilate their words as my own. I could go on and on, but I think this suffices in conveying my LC experience.

Now, when I read this Nee quote, I look at it as disjointed statements that do not connect, do not assist me in considering my Christian life, draw inaccurate conclusions, present a different gospel, produce a disillusioned following, are something to run away from, and make me appreciate that one day the light dawned on me to get out of that dysfunctional system of error.

Trapped

10-07-2020, 05:31 PM

Now, when I read this Nee quote, I look at it as disjointed statements that do not connect, do not assist me in considering my Christian life, draw inaccurate conclusions, present a different gospel, produce a disillusioned following, are something to run away from, and make me appreciate that one day the light dawned on me to get out of that dysfunctional system of error.

Yeah, I also wanted to say a few things about the quote but didn't have a lot of time, but you bringing it up spurred me on. For me the issue is......the Bible doesn't say "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.....and that Son 'made it'."

Christ's coming, while an example for us to be sure, is to save us. He's the Savior, the Messiah. I may be mistaken but the point of His "making it" is not that He made it, but that He is sinless and thus qualified to substitute for us all.

Also he switches between a "standard of living" and just "living animal X's life". It doesn't make sense. Goodness gracious.

It also bugs me that Nee makes an absolute type statement at the outset "can ONLY be lived out by God....because He is higher than us" and then immediately....what a shocker.....contradicts and undoes his still-warm claim by saying it's true even if He was lower.

Okay, so what's the big revelation then, besides that Nee likes to hear his own lips flap?

Yeah, I'm so glad to get out of the Nee/Lee formaldehyde.

Sons to Glory!

10-14-2020, 08:21 AM

UntoHim

10-14-2020, 10:40 AM

Sons to Glory!

10-14-2020, 11:02 AM

Who said there's anything wrong with it? Just because it's put up on the forum doesn't necessarily mean there's anything wrong with it. It's put there to foster discussion.:)

That being said...Lee's quip "You have to invite the Lord Jesus to lose your temper for you" is as nonsensical as it is unbiblical. I think the Lord Jesus might have some more important things to do than to lose our temper for us. We have the Holy Spirit living within us. We have the Scriptures at our fingertips. These are the things God has provided - the Spirit within and the Word without - these are the "remedies" for those of us with a temper problem. My 45+ years of experience and observation have confirmed for me that simply repeating "Oh Lord Jesus, please come and lose your temper for me", which goes right along with Witness Lee's "get out of your mind" teaching, will bypass the Holy Spirit's speaking within, and ultimately ignores the Scriptures without. The result is that we do not grow in knowledge or grace.

Others may have a totally different view. No problem! Let's discuss.
-Yeah, I also thought this phrase a little off - perhaps "awkward" is the right word. But I get the point. If the Lord lives in us (and He does), then inviting Him to participate in what we're doing is proper I think. In fact, I do it all the time. He is not in us just to be idle, but we still have to invite Him to participate in various things in our lives, right? That is, He still won't violate our free will. (though one could argue that according to Phil 2:13 that He is operating in us to help us be willing . . .)

Ohio

10-14-2020, 11:34 AM

From todays Witness Wednesday's main page quote (from WL 1975) What's wrong with this?
WL: When you are about to lose your temper, immediately you should call, “O Lord Jesus! I am about to lose my temper. Please come and lose Your temper!” You have to invite the Lord Jesus to lose your temper for you. Sisters often give their husbands a long face. However, from now on, whenever you are about to have a long face, right away you should call, “O Lord! O Lord Jesus!” -- Living with the Lord, LSM August 1975, p.7
In retrospect, I have always wished that Witness Lee would have called "O Lord Jesus" when he learned of his sons' profligate behaviors with sisters in LSM's offices. Perhaps then he would have acted in the interest of righteousness, rather than in his own self-interest, placing his own family above that of the family of God.

UntoHim

10-14-2020, 01:40 PM

Yeah, I also thought this phrase a little off - perhaps "awkward" is the right word.

The problem is that when the average Christian, in his local community church, hears the pastor/speaker say something that is a "little off", he can do some fact checking in the works/writings of as many orthodox teachers, theologians and apologists as he can get his hands on. The average Local Churcher cannot do this. They must swallow and accept Witness Lee wholesale. All other teachings are to be considered as the dead teachings of man. Only Lee's teachings have life, and only Lee's teachings are recovered truth.

Sadly, the phenomenon I have described above is still in alive and well in the Local Church of Witness Lee. And this is why we have one prominent ministry leader boldly proclaiming that he "is full of Witness Lee's spirit!" (Minoru Chen) and another leader: "The Recovery has reached the stage of the full recovery of the ministry, the vision given to the apostles! I'm not exalting anyone, it's just the fact! Darby did not have Brother Nee's constitution! Luther didn't have Brother Lee's constitution!"(Ron Kangas) These are not words of sober, godly men. These are the rantings of men who have sold their souls to follow a human being and his so called "ministry of the age". And this is why the Local Church of Witness Lee is widely known as a personality cult of sorts....at least it is to most of the very few people who have ever heard of Witness Lee and the Local Church.
-
Minoru Chen's Speaking (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwSeww7kCpg&t=21s)

Ron Kangas' speaking (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raemKKR6cVQ&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1WQoxTvrGDWz2dN8d7kfS8kc3xATc3AD7FnTRER lBGKv4V7UxoFp1ROwM)
-

Trapped

10-14-2020, 02:14 PM

From todays Witness Wednesday's main page quote (from WL 1975)

When you are about to lose your temper, immediately you should call, “O Lord Jesus! I am about to lose my temper. Please come and lose Your temper!” You have to invite the Lord Jesus to lose your temper for you. Sisters often give their husbands a long face. However, from now on, whenever you are about to have a long face, right away you should call, “O Lord! O Lord Jesus!”

What's wrong with this?

For starters, what's wrong with it for me is the complete lack of acknowledgement that temper and long face are sometimes completely justified. WL puts the condemnation on any and all emotion while neglecting to mention that the wife, for example, may have a "long face" because their husband regularly puts "the brothers" above her and her needs and their kids needs and spending time with the family, and yet it's just "that long face you often give" which must go. At it's core it's just another denial of mind/will/emotion and genuine human needs. There's no humanity or human nuance to it. Anything human or legitimate must go.

Trapped

10-14-2020, 02:21 PM

And this is why we have one prominent ministry leader boldly proclaiming that he "is full of Witness Lee's spirit!" (Minoru Chen) and another leader: "The Recovery has reached the stage of the full recovery of the ministry, the vision given to the apostles! I'm not exalting anyone, it's just the fact! Darby did not have Brother Nee's constitution! Luther didn't have Brother Lee's constitution!"(Ron Kangas)

These are not words of sober, godly men.

I think the word "sober" is a great word there. If I even try to put myself in Ron Kangas's shoes to say something like that, the impression I get is a hollow shell drunk on deception and status.

aron

10-17-2020, 04:17 PM

I think the word "sober" is a great word there. If I even try to put myself in Ron Kangas's shoes to say something like that, the impression I get is a hollow shell drunk on deception and status.

By the plain teaching of the apostle in the NT, Witness Lee wasn't qualified to be a leader in a local assembly, much less para-church leader [!] much less "the apostle of the age" [!!] or the most qualified spiritual person after Jesus and Paul [!!!].

Here is a quote from the internet:

In 1 Timothy 3:4, Paul says that an elder “must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive.” In the next verse he explains why: “for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” The obvious answer to the rhetorical question is that he can’t. In other words, if you can’t manage your household at home, you won’t be able to care for the household of God. If you regular lose control of your kids, why should you be trusted to lead and protect a flock? John Stott gets the biblical logic right: “The married pastor is called to leadership in two families, his and God’s, and the former is to be the training ground of the latter” (John Stott, Guard the Truth: The Message of 1 Timothy and Titus, 98). None of this is particularly controversial.
None of this is particularly controversial, it's fairly obvious. Unless, of course, you specialise in apologetics on behalf of the Local Church. Then you get the deliberate-ignorant ploy, and the specious-claim ploy. The hollow-shell drunk on deception and status, on 'life'.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/you-asked-does-an-unbelieving-child-disqualify-an-elder/

For those who don't know what I am referencing, Witness Lee called Titus Chu and told him, "You just bought 1,000 chairs" that WL's son Timothy was selling. And this was after the Daystar debacle. After! Nobody confessed, repented, or learned. No, the Lee Family Businesses must go on. So Titus called the GLA elders and told each of them, "You just bought 100 chairs".

And so on... the stories we could tell on this forum! How can you say the man controlled his family, with tales like this? And I'm not even touching Philip, here!

If a mature Christian can't manage their family, how can they manage God's church? And if not, how can they be the greatest spiritual leader of the last 2,000 years? The claim leans on sleight-of-hand deception, willful ignorance, and outright lies. Drunk on self-entitlement, self-obsession, the so-called "sense of life". But look at John's gospel: it consistently places 'light' as a paired precondition of 'life'. Do Living Stream Ministry leaders love the light? No - they hate the light! The last thing they want is discussion of Daystar and Timothy Lee's gold chairs. So then, what's the 'life' they tout? A life of cobwebs and vapours, of mirrors.

How much money did Witness Lee raise from LC "investors" for his son Timothy's Motor Home business? Don Rutledge wrote that one young man got an inheritance, laid it at WL's feet - how much was that? That got the ball rolling; then, Boston loaned $100,000 (this was when 100K could buy something). That's just one locality - there were dozens of USA localities. And how about Taiwan? How much did the Lee family collect, in total? How much did Timothy keep, when the dust had settled? If you really love life, you should love the light.

aron

10-18-2020, 05:09 PM

Ron Kangas' question of "who can match Witness Lee" as minister of the ages is similar to the charismania-infected dialogue in the "Latter Rain" groups, in which the degree of hysteria equals the degree of anointing equals God's hand upon one or another so-called "chosen vessel", all of which overturns rules of common sense and plain biblical interpretation as understood by the average guy or gal on the street.

This is of course a view from afar, but the view seems to emerge consistently, no matter the case at hand. Subjective criteria rule the day, until the "leaders" at some point are gone astray, in the view of the common, objective observer (I suppose that's why they say you need "the vision" - to over-ride common sense).

An example is the Lakeland Revival: one personality that emerged to the forefront was Todd Bentley, a bearded, tattooed Canadian who apparently had a penchant for punching old ladies when "in the Spirit". This outrageous flamboyance so impressed the Revival managers that they deemed him an apostle. But when it became known that he had fleshly appetites that couldn't be contained, even with any degree of spiritual anointing, what to do? His fellow apostles finally, after 10 years of 'failure' and 'restoration', reduced him permanently (?) from leadership position, but he still protested, saying that his case was a demonstration of the "brokenness" inherent in the Christian journey. He just couldn't be a 'regular' Christian! He was the "broken David"!

But the NT word is clear: brokenness and repentance may be part of the Christian journey, but it's not part of the Christian leader. The leader must be above reproach.

Yet how many, caught by an inflated sense of self, have tried to avoid this simple calculus? Witness Lee, Watchman Nee, Jerry Falwell Jr, David Yonggi Cho, Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard, Joaquin Garcia, Neville Cooper... all these men maintained ecclesiastical power or position, even after the taint of scandal and abuse caught and overwhelmed them. Why? Because they were simply "too big to fail", at least in their eyes, a view shared by the poor dupes that kept following them abjectly. This seems to be the 'logic' at work here with RK.

Thus a man unqualified to be leader in any local Christian assembly is held up as the greatest gift of God to this or any generation.

Trapped

10-21-2020, 10:03 AM

Today's quote from Nee:

There is no lover of the Lord who does not cry. We should ache for sinners to the point of weeping for them. We should weep because God’s glory is challenged, and we should weep in anguish that the enemy is not yet bound….All those whose hearts are in the Lord’s work surely weep. Jeremiah was a prophet who was greatly used by the Lord. He was such because of his tears. He was anxious and felt responsible for God’s children, and he wept for them day and night.

THIS IS A HORRIBL----- oh wait. No, it's fine. I don't really have a problem with this one.

Aside from the "we should" making you feel bad if you just don't happen to be a weepy person.....I'm glad to read one quote that I don't have to get frustrated about.

Sons to Glory!

10-21-2020, 10:22 AM

Nell

12-02-2020, 10:09 AM

"Some might consider that they sacrifice too much time to come to the meetings. This thought is quite deceiving and quite misleading. We have to stand on the trustworthy word in God’s Holy Scripture. We have to trust in His promise, and we have to obey His commandment to come to the meeting. If you come to the meeting you are keeping His predestination, and the destiny of blessing will come to you.

It will come not only to you, one generation, but perhaps even to the third generation, or generation after generation.

Both you and your children will be under God’s blessing".

---Witness Lee

Wow. Just wow.

Trapped

12-02-2020, 10:14 AM

Wow. Just wow.

If you neglect the children God blessed you with, God will bless you! Makes total sense!

:eek:

UntoHim

12-02-2020, 11:25 AM

The Local Church of Witness Lee is now onto the 2nd and 3rd generation here in America. Has Lee's prophesy come true?

"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him."
Deuteronomy 18:22

How man times did Witness Lee "speak presumptuously?" A shorter list may be recalling how many times that he didn't speak presumptuously. And to think, thousands upon thousands were "afraid of him" for 50+ years. May God have mercy on us all.
-

Ohio

12-02-2020, 12:02 PM

I have found WL and LC promises to all be very manipulative. They use Bible promises to deceive you into forced compliance.

Trapped

12-09-2020, 11:05 AM

Brothers and sisters, the first thing we have to see this afternoon is that according to God's view, we are absolutely useless before Him. God sees us as being absolutely useless. We must likewise see ourselves as being absolutely useless. If we have not seen our absolute uselessness, we will never accept the appraisal of the cross, and we will never be able to say that we are crucified with Christ or that it is no longer we who live. If there is still hope in us, it means that we think we are still useful, and we will not say that it is no longer I.

And here we have yet another "drive by condemning" on the part of our favorite Nee and Lee.

I don't think God created "absolutely useless" beings. We may be unable to save ourselves, sure, but this is the absolute opposite of building up on Nee's part here.

I get the feeling that Nee stripped waist down and whipped himself in the evenings or something.

Somehow they've created a system where we are supposed to be "useful vessels" and "good building material" and yet are also "absolutely useless." It's just a system of cognitive dissonance. So many contradictory views hammered and mashed into the poor minds of those who've been deceived. (and I mean "poor" in a sympathetic way, not a disdaining way).

Ohio

12-09-2020, 12:35 PM

And here we have yet another "drive by condemning" on the part of our favorite Nee and Lee.

I don't think God created "absolutely useless" beings. We may be unable to save ourselves, sure, but this is the absolute opposite of building up on Nee's part here.

I'd like to know the context here. Perhaps that would explain why Nee suddenly felt the need to obliterate the self-worth of all his listeners. It seems to be a Recovery pattern. Like going to a AA meeting, "I am an alcoholic, I am worthless, I am a failure, I am hopeless without you guys."

I watched Lee do this at a "Culture" conference in Cleveland in 1989 during that "vast global conspiracy to overthrow the ministry." Lee basically beat us all down. He critiqued every valiant attempt to testify afterwards to support his message. Everyone walked out in silence, with their heads hanging.

It was basically a military style dress down with a Chinese accent designed to bring all the remaining faithful back into subjection, and to cut losses, since the LC's all over were hemorrhaging saints.

aron

12-09-2020, 01:14 PM

Somehow they've created a system where we are supposed to be "useful vessels" and "good building material" and yet are also "absolutely useless." It's just a system of cognitive dissonance.Whether you are "absolutely useless" or "good building material" and the "shiny bride" depends on the mood of the MOTA that given day. I've seen both. It's a completely dysfunctional relationship of co-dependency. When MOTA's happy, you're ecstatic - we're going on to glory, saints! When MOTA's unhappy...

I watched Lee do this at a "Culture" conference in Cleveland in 1989 during that "vast global conspiracy to overthrow the ministry." Lee basically beat us all down. He critiqued every valiant attempt to testify afterwards to support his message. Everyone walked out in silence, with their heads hanging.

I saw this as well. We failed to live up to the standard of the ministry, and WL threatened to quit. We all cried out with fear and shame. He said he was disappointed, felt that he was wasting his time with us. We were like, "Ooooooohhhhhh Looooooooooord Noooooooo!!" What a hullabaloo went up after they turned off the VCR. The Great Man had become tired of us, the Pathetic Church.

One thing worth noting in the quote by WN: "We must see ourselves as being absolutely useless." If WN was absolutely useless, why were we listening to him? So there's an unstated implication there - that WN has had a Zen Moment which the rest of us poor moo-cows haven't had. He's realized that he's absolutely useless while we're still spinning our "trying to be good" wheels. He's now in the Exalted Plain, far above all us hoi-polloi. Now he's ministering in Ascension, right next to Jesus as #4 in the Cosmic Chain.

So he's absolutely useless but now he's also the Elevated Zen Master. We, on the other hand, don't get it, never have and never will, so we have to keep buying his books and going to his trainings, and really work hard at seeing how useless we are.

Put different, if WL is as completely useless as WN says he is, then why restrictions like One Publication? Why not read all the completely useless authors out there?

Small Potato 1: "MOTA, is it true that we're all absolutely & totally useless before God?"
Spiritual Giant: "Yes, child, this is true."
SP 2: "Then why did I just fly across the country & pay money to sit in your training?"
SG: "Some of us are a little more completely useless than the rest."
SP 3: "Boy, ain't it the truth, though!"

Curious

12-09-2020, 04:10 PM

Note in this short quote, the term 'absolutely useless' appears 4 times, no less. Conviction through repetition, not reason.
Must've been the catchphrase of the moment at that time, for the unthinking faithful. However it didn't quite make it into all-time lingo!! (see thread on local church lingo).

Cal

12-09-2020, 09:45 PM

Watchman Nee was a lot of things, many of them good.

But he was also a blowhard. A big mouth, look-at-me, I'm special, I'm-the-guy, in-love-with-the-sound-of-his-own-voice blowhard.

Witness Lee, too.

I know, because it takes one to know one.

Blowhard.

Curious

12-09-2020, 11:42 PM

Blowhard.

Oh dear, Cal,

No wonder you only made it so far in the LC then failed......

Yes, well done on the choosing of a key word 'blowhard', and good points for repetition strikes too... much higher rate that our selected sample quote from watchman Née. But you lost it all by the direction you aimed your keyword /selected phrase. No no no no NO! This will never do! Elevate-self-at-all-times is the golden rule. How could you keep missing that! What to do with you:rollingeyesfrown:..... You had so much promise.....

Cal

12-10-2020, 09:32 AM

Oh dear, Cal,

No wonder you only made it so far in the LC then failed......

Yes, well done on the choosing of a key word 'blowhard', and good points for repetition strikes too... much higher rate that our selected sample quote from watchman Née. But you lost it all by the direction you aimed your keyword /selected phrase. No no no no NO! This will never do! Elevate-self-at-all-times is the golden rule. How could you keep missing that! What to do with you:rollingeyesfrown:..... You had so much promise.....

You're right.

Nee and Lee were blowhards. But I am the Blowhard of the Age.

How's that?

Curious

12-10-2020, 12:29 PM

You're right.

Nee and Lee were blowhards. But I am the Blowhard of the Age.

How's that?

There is hope for you yet!

Curious

12-11-2020, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by Nee:
"Brothers and sisters, the first thing we have to see this afternoon is that according to God's view, we are absolutely useless before Him. God sees us as being absolutely useless. We must likewise see ourselves as being absolutely useless. If we have not seen our absolute uselessness, we will never accept the appraisal of the cross, and we will never be able to say that we are crucified with Christ or that it is no longer we who live. If there is still hope in us, it means that we think we are still useful, and we will not say that it is no longer I".

To add to the commentary on this quote:

According to the bible we are fallen. No where does it say we are 'absolutely useless', or useless at all, in our unsaved state. There is no biblical passage to support the idea we are absolutely useless to God..... it's just clever sounding nonsense.

For one example (of thousands), a person with a natural musical talent may bless people with it while unsaved, or they may play dark and sinister music. They may become saved and use their talent for God, playing uplifting spiritual music. But they had the ability born in them and always possessed the talent regardless to what end they turned it. It was always useful for a purpose, whether good or bad, God focused or not. This goes for so many human talents and abilities that have helped the human race survive, manage and prosper themselves throughout history. So what does he mean with using the word 'absolutely? '

Millions of unsaved people have used their natural talents and hard work to build and create and invent, many things that have been very 'useful' to the human race, (which also happens to be God's beloved creation).

We are fallen, not useless. They are not the same thing. Lack of repentance and right relationship with God renders us useless to achieve His purposes directly in this world. Thats the way we can be useless to God. And the Bible explains that well.

WN does not explain his idea about what constitutes 'usefulness'. Its just fancy words that don't mean anything of any real depth or substance. Clever sounding nonsense! His teachings are actually confusing and distract from the truth.

I agree with Trapped, their is an air of self punishment in WN's words.

aron

12-12-2020, 08:29 AM

According to the bible we are fallen. No where does it say we are 'absolutely useless', or useless at all, in our unsaved state.

But Nee was speaking to the elect, telling church members, "We're absolutely useless". But to me this brings a logical dilemma: if we believers are absolutely useless, so too is Nee's teaching, his ministry. So there's a conceit built in, a dodge as it were, in the thought-schema upon which the Little Flock Restored Church of Watchman Nee and its off-shoot the Local Church of Witness Lee were founded. There, they hold their faith to one believer who has the "mantle" or the "oracle" and whose speaking connects previously useless humanity, both believers and unbelievers, back to God's calling and purpose. That person's speaking and ministry isn't vain or useless. That person's "experience of Christ" is the bridge for the rest.

Ultimately one's faith in rescue from futility is that there's one fellow - not female, as they're by nature unstable [nevermind Jessie Penn-Lewis, Madame Guyon and Mary McDonough] - connected to God's will. Witness Lee officially termed that position "the Seer of the Divine Revelation", and put that appellation on WN, and later claimed that for himself by extension.

But what happened to the faith of those who heard Nee confess to producing and holding pornography? Not merely the unstable young believers like Lily Hsu, but 'senior co-workers' like Ruth Lee became bitter nihilists, believing nothing. Because to believe, to hope, to struggle and suffer for one's faith, produced nothing. Ultimately WN's statement came true. Human effort, including his, was absolutely useless. And likewise what happens to the ex Church Kids who find out that WL ensconced his ne'er-do-well sons in positions to prey on the flock? Again, their foundation-stone is shattered, and they stagger away into the world, believing nothing.

There is only One whose hope, whose faith, whose struggle, whose efforts withstood death and entered eternal perfection. That One is the Saviour of the world. The rest of us should not assume any pride of place, or ruin will follow. Ruin to ourselves, and stumblings to others.

But to Curious' point, I need look no further than Cornelius. The angel told him, "Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God." This was a gentile, a non-believer in Jesus. Yet this one tried.

Ohio

12-13-2020, 11:44 AM

According to the bible we are fallen. No where does it say we are 'absolutely useless', or useless at all, in our unsaved state. There is no biblical passage to support the idea we are absolutely useless to God..... it's just clever sounding nonsense.

We are fallen, not useless. They are not the same thing. Lack of repentance and right relationship with God renders us useless to achieve His purposes directly in this world. Thats the way we can be useless to God. And the Bible explains that well.
Paul told the Corinthians that the less comely, the less attractive, the less gifted ones, are more necessary. Imagine that. The worse others consider you, the more Paul and his Lord consider you are more valuable.

Nee and Lee never believed they were useless. Not at all. They were MOTA's. All the rest of us were "useless," or so we were told, in order to bring us under their subjection.

aron

12-14-2020, 09:05 AM

Nee and Lee never believed they were useless. Not at all. They were MOTA's. All the rest of us were "useless," or so we were told, in order to bring us under their subjection.

Yes, when N & L said "we are all absolutely useless" they were using the royal "we". They were passed beyond the riven veil, living in ascension, and thus useful as Deputy God here on earth. The rest of us, well, that was clearly another story. I'll never forget how many times at trainings, and the same subject was raised yet again, and the Old Guard would stand up and testify how many years they had been faithfully following the Ministry and yet they had never understood this simple point before today.

And then they would swear to "revolutionize" or whatever their lives in accordance with this new vision from on high. (that's where the re-baptisms came in, the burnings of children's pictures etc).

And yet if you look in the Bible, the angel told Cornelius, "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God." I guess the angel never got the memo, huh? We had this strange end-point, where a few verses from Paul, held up by the Seer of the Age, would render great swaths of Scripture of none effect. The angels, Peter, Jude, James, even Jesus, they were evidently stuck on some "low gospel" where one paid attention to one's behaviours as if they mattered before God's throne. And don't even bother with the OT! The Psalms, Proverbs etc. Just vain attempts by fallen men to please God.

And yet where does Peter give room for this in his gospel on Pentecost Day? David had pledged obedience, fealty, and God's reward, that he would not see corruption. And David's Chosen Seed had accomplished this very deed. Nothing in Peter's speech about David's "fallen concepts" etc. Yet that's where we were taken. Nee's quoted speech on being "absolutely useless" before God is right in this vein. Lee took the ball and ran with it.

Ohio

12-14-2020, 11:21 AM

Yes, when N & L said "we are all absolutely useless" they were using the royal "we". They were passed beyond the riven veil, living in ascension, and thus useful as Deputy God here on earth. The rest of us, well, that was clearly another story. I'll never forget how many times at trainings, and the same subject was raised yet again, and the Old Guard would stand up and testify how many years they had been faithfully following the Ministry and yet they had never understood this simple point before today.

How did the "Old Guard" ever successfully teach us that WL alone was the voice of God? I wonder how many times WL's ministry was out of a mood, a human sentiment, and passing this on to the rest of us, actually was misrepresenting God. Was God totally disappointed with all of "degraded" Christianity? Was God actually frustrated with all of us eager-eared "moo cows?" After Max departed, why was it all of us who needed to repent for not being "policemen?"

So it's no wonder that brothers like Ingalls, Chu, So, Mallon, and so many former members of the Old Guard need to be demonized for decades. If they dared to no longer adulate the moods and whims of an aging or deceased Acting God, they must be expelled. How much better to have them all emulate Francis Ball, a self-proclaimed "ostrich with his head buried in the sand," knowing nothing but the latest directive from the podium.

Sons to Glory!

01-13-2021, 01:03 PM

God’s eternal purpose is fulfilled by the house and the city. In the house God is a Father, and in the city God is a King. Both the house and the city are the church, or we may say, the local churches. A local church, in one sense, must be the house of God, and in another sense it must also be the city of God.

Witness Lee
Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms p198The first part of this quote by WL was good. It got into trouble when he brought "local church" into it, because that phrase has the taint of elitism as used by him. Nothing wrong with saying a local ekklesia is a nearby expression of God's eternal purpose, but as used by WL and the LC now, it is a point of setting themselves apart from other Christians. In effect it is saying, "We've seen something more/better than others concerning the practical expression of the body of Christ. And therefore if you do meet with us, you are not really in His purpose."

Trapped

01-27-2021, 10:59 AM

Today's quote by Lee:

Since Christ is everything, there is no need for us to decide to do anything or to be anything. Instead, we should simply turn to the Lord and say, “Lord, thank You. You are my life and my everything. You are the real God and the real man. When I need love, You are love. When I need humility, You, Lord, are humility. Whatever I need, You are.

I think this is one that sounds good, and in one sense I don't disagree with it. Christ is all and in all, and nothing good dwells in us, and we can't do anything without Him sustaining us.

But on the other hand, I feel like this kind of quote makes it seem a little too much like it's not on us to do or be anything. But if it isn't on us to do or be anything, then God has no foundation for His judgment of any of us. We are told to obey His commands. If the thought is that "only He can do it" then, when God judges us and finds us not loving enough, etc....then we can just point to Christ and say "He didn't do that in me enough!" Well.....that doesn't work, does it.

I guess my takeaway is that often when Lee needed to be balanced, he wasn't. And when he needed to be straightforward, he was balanced and it took away from what needed to be said.

countmeworthy

03-03-2021, 09:22 PM

Watchman Nee is quoted in saying:

In Christ everything individualistic is ruled out. If we want to know the body life, we need deliverance not only from our sinful life and our natural life, but also from our individualist life. All individual life must go because nothing that is individualistic can reach God’s goal.

Can someone explain to me the purpose for this quote? Does anyone actually believe this absurd garbage? Am I missing something? And Where in the scriptures does it say we ought to know the ‘body life’? Everything I read in the scriptures is a road map to know the LORD!

Even the Father, Son and Holy Spirit Who are ONE are different from One another. As biblical proof, Who shed His Precious Blood so that we could enter into the Presence of God, the Holy of Holies. Who was crucified on the cross, died and resurrected? Was it the Father? Was it the Holy Spirit?

Nope it was the Son, the WORD Who was in the Beginning. He was with God and He was/is GOD. He became flesh and dwelt among us. HE was given a Name, a Name above all names. We all know His Name: Jesus Christ. It is written that every knee will bow and every tongue confess JESUS CHRIST is King of kings and LORD of lords.

With all due reverential respect to the Father and the Holy Spirit, the scriptures do say it is Jesus, the resurrected Savior to Whom every knee will bow and every tongue confess, not the Father, not the Holy Spirit ALTHOUGH in bowing our knees and confessing Jesus is KING and LORD, we are acknowledging the Father and the Holy Spirit too, for all Three are ONE.

All this which is no new revelation to any of us, or even if it is, totally deflects Nee’s mystical, irrational, obscure idealism bordering on thought Totalitarianism and cult oneness at best.

Née wants to sound so profound in his “deep” but false theory. It’s a proven failure! There is nothing biblical about his statements.

But I can now understand why back in the 70s, the men wore black skinny ties, white shirts, black pants. Occasionally some in their twenties wore jeans. But not often. Most of the women wore frumpy clothes. Everyone dressed alike. We tried to sound the same in meetings. Subconsciously we were trying to shed our individualistic lives, a la Nee’s goal. (Not God’s goal!)

I suppose the mostly pathetic outward appearance was trying to making a statement that we were not conforming to this world. YET our stinking thinking is what needed renewing!! Still does. (btw, since I am pretty much a homebody, I am no Glammy myself! :lol: :lol: )

In any case, God created us to look different from each other, with different personalities. But His ultimate goal is for us to be Glorified that we would be one with Him, that we would be the Bride of Christ.

P.S. I appreciate the scripture postings on the menu side. Good meditation food!

Trapped

03-03-2021, 09:47 PM

Even the Father, Son and Holy Spirit Who are ONE are different from One another....But I can now understand why back in the 70s, the men wore black skinny ties, white shirts, black pants. Occasionally some in their twenties wore jeans. But not often. Most of the women wore frumpy clothes. Everyone dressed alike. We tried to sound the same in meetings. Subconsciously we were trying to shed our individualistic lives, a la Nee’s goal. (Not God’s goal!) In any case, God created us to look different from each other, with different personalities. But His ultimate goal is for us to be Glorified that we would be one with Him, that we would be the Bride of Christ.
I totally agree that this "knowing the Body life" is not in scripture and I think it is ripe for dangerous misuse.

In comparing the Body of Christ to the human body, Paul so painfully clearly says there are distinctions of members, there are many members, there is not just one member (one giant member or one small one repeated over and over). The lack of distinction that Nee and Lee try to beat people up over the head to attain to produces a dead body in real life. Ours ears are totally different from our eyes from our hands from our collarbone from our toes....and thank God that's the case. Different in form, function, appearance, interaction with other members. That's how He made our bodies, and that how He composed the Body too.

Awoken

03-04-2021, 07:22 AM

Absolutely. And -

Ephesians 3
8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; 10 to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places,

Manifold
adjectiveFORMAL • LITERARY
adjective: manifold
many and various.
"the implications of this decision were manifold"
Similar:
many
numerous
multiple
multifarious
multitudinous
multiplex
legion
diverse
various
several
varied
different
miscellaneous
assorted
sundry
copious
abundant
myriad
divers
having many different forms or elements.

Does not sound at all like the "oneness" (read: SAMENESS) that is taught inside the "Recovery" and was a product of Lee/Nee's improper use of Scripture.

It should be obvious just looking at the way God created nature that He wants to express Himself in a rich, abundant way and that one man-made view is not adequate for that. Nature is incredibly rich and diverse. The "church life" aims to create the opposite of that, although of course even in the LR there are pockets of godly diversity in opposition to the crooked theology, which pockets blessed those of us who were stuck in the system and did indeed help us to know more of God, in spite of our errors.

UntoHim

03-04-2021, 08:29 AM

"All individual elements must go because nothing that is individualistic can reach God's goal."

Even the Father, Son and Holy Spirit Who are ONE are different from One another....But I can now understand why back in the 70s, the men wore black skinny ties, white shirts, black pants. Occasionally some in their twenties wore jeans. But not often. Most of the women wore frumpy clothes. Everyone dressed alike. We tried to sound the same in meetings. Subconsciously we were trying to shed our individualistic lives, a la Nee’s goal. (Not God’s goal!) In any case, God created us to look different from each other, with different personalities. But His ultimate goal is for us to be Glorified that we would be one with Him, that we would be the Bride of Christ.

Step aside Watchman...Move over One Minister...you've just been upstaged big time. Our "simple little sister" (remember that snarky slogan guys?:o) has given us a much more biblical, profound and practical explanation of what "the Body life" really is, and what it is all about. "Even the Father, Son and Holy Spirit Who are ONE are different from One another" Now THERE'S a message worth pray-reading!
-

countmeworthy

03-04-2021, 01:57 PM

Step aside Watchman...Move over One Minister...you've just been upstaged big time. Our "simple little sister" (remember that snarky slogan guys?:o) has given us a much more biblical, profound and practical explanation of what "the Body life" really is, and what it is all about. "Even the Father, Son and Holy Spirit Who are ONE are different from One another" Now THERE'S a message worth pray-reading!
-

I am very humbled by your kind words UntoHim.

“UNTO HIM—> JESUS, our Lord and King, our Shepherd, our Fortress , our High Tower, our Shield, our Solid Rock, our Protector, Healer of our souls, in Whom we Trust, Whose Goodness and Mercy follows us all the days of our lives, with a grateful heart Dear Jesus Christ BE ALL GLORY and PRAISE, Honor and Blessing that YOU along with our Heaven Father and Your Holy Spirit of Truth and Love are sooooo Worthy of forever and ever. Amen.”

Nell

03-24-2021, 10:29 AM

Do not till the ground or shear the sheep. Instead, eat the Lord! Do not expect Him to be your Prophet or your King. He came to be the bread of life to you. Therefore, eat Him! Only God is the right food; it is right for us to eat God only. If we eat anything other than God, we eat the wrong thing. Not surprisingly, every human being has been poisoned.

Here we go. When Lee attacks a topic, he excludes the remainder of the Bible in it's entirety. When he's talking about "eating," nothing else is valid.

If "every human being has been poisoned", does he include himself as a poisonee. I think the fruit of his "ministry" testifies that he is part of that group of those who have been poisoned.

Nell

Trapped

03-24-2021, 11:57 AM

Here we go. When Lee attacks a topic, he excludes the remainder of the Bible in it's entirety. When he's talking about "eating," nothing else is valid.

If "every human being has been poisoned", does he include himself as a poisonee. I think the fruit of his "ministry" testifies that he is part of that group of those who have been poisoned.

Nell

Also - He's the Lord of lords and the King of kings! We are awaiting the KINGDOM for heaven's sake.

I think I'll continue expecting Him to be my King, thanks but no thanks Witness Lee.......

Raptor

03-24-2021, 01:09 PM

Trapped

04-14-2021, 10:40 AM

"John So taught that the Lord Jesus only was the builder of the church....the Lord Jesus is the only builder, not including Witness Lee!"

Not included in the text of that quote is the look of indignation and shock on Witness Lee's face at the thought that Jesus alone is the builder and that He doesn't lean on Witness Lee to build the church, while he looks around and searches the faces of the people around him for pity and support.

:hysterical:

Sons to Glory!

04-14-2021, 11:33 AM

Trapped

04-14-2021, 02:42 PM

Interesting as there's also this verse in 1 Cor 3:15: "According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it."

But of course, it is Christ in Paul (and others) who is doing the building.

Context of the other of Lee's claims is what makes the difference. Lee grouped himself with Jesus in building the church. It was just "only Jesus, not Lee". Lee also didn't stand there including anyone else in addition to himself either. Lee self-proclaimed himself as the wise master builder of the current age, topping of a long lineage of unique special wise master builders. "Considering himself more highly than he ought".....to a tee. That whole chapter in 1 Corinthians is about not elevating yourself.

And honestly, I think some would question whether Lee was participating in the building work of the actual church. The local churches 1) shuffle people in the church around by just grabbing existing Christians off college campuses, and 2) build their cult kingdom. God may be the only one who knows how much any of that is part of the building of the real church.

I don't know necessarily if it's Christ in us who is doing the building.....the rest of that chapter in 1 Corinthians lays out pretty clearly that we will be judged by how we build. As I've mentioned in other places, if it's Christ doing everything, then we can't be judged for things since we just blame Christ for any lack.

Sons to Glory!

04-14-2021, 03:30 PM

God may be the only one who knows how much any of that is part of the building of the real church.Yes and amen!

I don't know necessarily if it's Christ in us who is doing the building.....the rest of that chapter in 1 Corinthians lays out pretty clearly that we will be judged by how we build. As I've mentioned in other places, if it's Christ doing everything, then we can't be judged for things since we just blame Christ for any lack.Well this is one of those mysterious things, isn't it? That is, how much is Him and how much is us . . . something I think we've gone around & around with on here without any firm conclusions. And it's something we grapple with often in our little local fellowship. Some day it'll all be clear!

HERn

04-14-2021, 08:39 PM

Luke 19:12-26
“A man of noble birth went to a distant country to lay claim to his kingship and then return....‘Conduct business with this until I return,’ He said.
But His subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We do not want this man to rule over us.’
When He returned from procuring his kingship,....He replied, 'And these enemies of mine who were unwilling for me to rule over them, bring them here and slay them in front of me.’ ”

Are you saying that WL is the man of noble birth?

Trapped

04-17-2021, 09:16 AM

Also - He's the Lord of lords and the King of kings! We are awaiting the KINGDOM for heaven's sake.

I think I'll continue expecting Him to be my King, thanks but no thanks Witness Lee.......

Luke 19:12-26
“A man of noble birth went to a distant country to lay claim to his kingship and then return....‘Conduct business with this until I return,’ He said.
But His subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We do not want this man to rule over us.’
When He returned from procuring his kingship,....He replied, 'And these enemies of mine who were unwilling for me to rule over them, bring them here and slay them in front of me.’ ”

Are you saying that WL is the man of noble birth?

I second this question. Raptor, sometimes you post just a verse in response to a discussion and don't provide any explanation for it. Frankly it sounds like you think I should be slayed because I don't want to follow Witness Lee? Further information from you would help.

Trapped

Raptor

04-17-2021, 11:36 AM

Trapped

04-17-2021, 12:09 PM

I think I´m going to leave this forum for good. Sorry Trapped and Hern, but your questions border on stupidity to think that I am referring to WL when I quoted a verse from Luke that clearly talks about Jesus as our King. Where do get these ideas? You just sit around all afternoon and come up with this stuff?

Trapped, you wrote a simple phrase about how Jesus is our King and I supported that with a verse that shows how serious Jesus considers His kingship. That´s all. It´s very simple, it´s self-explanatory. That is something that Luke wrote, word per word, and you guys stretch your imagination and go into the far reaches of neverlandm full of unfounded suspicions to imply I´m talking about WL?
What are you guys thinking? Are you serious? You really think I could be so stupid?

Trapped, you said "Also - He's the Lord of lords and the King of kings! We are awaiting the KINGDOM for heaven's sake. I think I'll continue expecting Him to be my King, thanks but no thanks Witness Lee......."

And I am simply saying yes, Jesus is our King, look what Luke said! Jesus is coming back to reign with full power and authority as King over the earth and all His enemies will be made a footstool for His feet. That´s all! FORGET ABOUT WL!

Man, what a waste of time.

Thanks for the kind words and the explanation, Raptor. It helped. Typing a few words along with the verse, rather than just a verse only, helps. It's hard to know what direction people are coming from here sometimes. People have interpreted verses in all kind of wacky ways here and everywhere.

Typing just 6 letters to say "I agree" when you posted the verse would have helped.

Forget about WL? The post was about what WL said. Kind of hard to discuss the topic without discussing the topic.

I do hope you stick around, but I won't miss being called stupid.

Trapped

HERn

04-17-2021, 09:04 PM

I think I´m going to leave this forum for good. Sorry Trapped and Hern, but your questions border on stupidity to think that I am referring to WL when I quoted a verse from Luke that clearly talks about Jesus as our King. Where do get these ideas? You just sit around all afternoon and come up with this stuff?

Trapped, you wrote a simple phrase about how Jesus is our King and I supported that with a verse that shows how serious Jesus considers His kingship. That´s all. It´s very simple, it´s self-explanatory. That is something that Luke wrote, word per word, and you guys stretch your imagination and go into the far reaches of neverlandm full of unfounded suspicions to imply I´m talking about WL?
What are you guys thinking? Are you serious? You really think I could be so stupid?

Trapped, you said "Also - He's the Lord of lords and the King of kings! We are awaiting the KINGDOM for heaven's sake. I think I'll continue expecting Him to be my King, thanks but no thanks Witness Lee......."

And I am simply saying yes, Jesus is our King, look what Luke said! Jesus is coming back to reign with full power and authority as King over the earth and all His enemies will be made a footstool for His feet. That´s all! FORGET ABOUT WL!

Man, what a waste of time.

Thank you Raptor for making that clear. I'm not sure what made me question your intention. Is there anything you would like to ask me?

Sons to Glory!

05-05-2021, 07:57 PM

From today's Witness/Watchman Wednesday (Nee)The system of fathers of the world church, the clergy system of the state church, and the pastoral system of the independent churches are all the same in nature. They are all Nicolaitans. In the Bible there are only brothers. There is the gift of a pastor, but no system of pastors. The pastoral system is man's tradition. If the children of God are not willing to return to the position of that in the beginning, no matter what they do, it will not be right.

Reminds me a little of something else I recently saw (sent to me by an old Baptist minister):

Many Pastors function like CEOs
■ Members are turned into customers
■ Other churches are seen as competitors
■ Evangelism is reduced to marketing
■ Church planting looks more like franchising
■ Numbers are primary measure of success
■ Prayer and Word study are replaced by formulas
■ Revival is reduced to a few days fund-raising program
■ Preaching sounds more like motivational speech. All the people do is shout "I receive, Amen," throughout the concert. I mean the "service"
■ Praise and Worship is turned into a performance. The best actors are made the worship and praise leaders
■ THE SPIRIT OF GOD is reduced to "emotionalism". No real power of GOD other than hypnosis and sensationalism.
■ The saints are entertained instead of equipped
■ Disciples of CHRIST have become puppets
■ The Church, once a living Body has now become a lifeless body
■ A leader's empire is built instead of THE KINGDOM OF GOD advanced
■ The pastor becomes the super man and JESUS CHRIST reduced to just another religious figure

UntoHim

05-06-2021, 01:11 PM

I would say this old Baptist minister is about as out of touch as Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. So sad. :rollingeyesfrown:
-

Sons to Glory!

05-06-2021, 01:39 PM

I would say this old Baptist minister is about as out of touch as Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. So sad. :rollingeyesfrown:
-Yeah . . . intesting. He meets with a group down the street now, I think they're basically nondenominational (I've been to a couple of their functions). He does some teaching there, but not sure what capacity. I wonder if this is what he thinks of their own pastor, or . . . (BTW: if you google "pastors function like ceos" it comes up with a lot of articles)

UntoHim

05-07-2021, 08:39 AM

In the Bible there are only brothers. There is the gift of a pastor, but no system of pastors. The pastoral system is man's tradition.

No, Watchman, in the Bible there are NOT "only brothers". Did you tear Ephesians 4:11 out of your Bible? "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." No, Watchman, the pastoral system is NOT merely "man's tradition", it is a biblical tradition. Watchman, you appointed pastors in your Local Church system. You called them "elders". And then you appointed yourself as the super-apostle of your Local Church system. And then you appointed Witness Lee to be your continuation in Taiwan. You knew Lee's character. You knew what kind of man he was. Still you gave over the Little Flock to a wolf.

Now Watchman, look at what has become of your Little Flock. Look what has become of the system you created. Would the sheep not have been better off going back that poor, poor fold? Would the sheep not have been better off in the care of those poor, poor pastors in that poor, poor fold?
-

Sons to Glory!

05-07-2021, 12:19 PM

Now Watchman, look at what has become of your Little Flock. Look what has become of the system you created. Would the sheep not have been better off going back that poor, poor fold? Would the sheep not have been better off in the care of those poor, poor pastors in that poor, poor fold?
-
As with anything man gets his hands into, the thing eventually manifested rottenness. But I don't know that I'd specifically blame the system Nee set up - wasn't it really based on the pattern the brethren had established? Yes, the LC and leaders acquired too much power & things went south. That is the propensity of the flesh in any human endeavor . . . to gain more power and control. To me, anything that encourages the function and participation of the members of the body of Christ is a good thing, and the current system which Protestants generally got from Catholicism, puts way too much into the leaders' hands too.

OBW

05-07-2021, 02:16 PM

The problem I have this whole way of thinking — one that eventually turned into certain ones even questioning whether Paul appointing elders was really a mistake or even going against God — is that if there was not to be leadership that others would be following, then why bother talking to the disciples about the ways of the Jewish leaders. You know. The part where Jesus pointed to the Jewish leaders as wanting the choice seats at the table. To be first. Then told the disciples that they were to serve, not to be served.

If Jesus went to a fair bit of trouble talking to them about aspects of leaders and leadership, what was the point if there weren't to be any? And even in the Jewish system, there was a tiering of priests. It may not have been permanent positions, but it was nonetheless there. And never spoken against. Jesus never said there shouldn't be an equivalent of the Sanhedrin. Surely Jesus was the High Priest.

By Acts 15, a bunch of the elders got together and heard from Paul as well as a number of others, they discussed, thought, and prayed, and then made a declaration for the churches. Seems that the first overt denominational meeting was held and a decision made in Jerusalem that affected every Christian. The "denomination" was the church. (Don't get hung up on the literal need for a name. The bugaboo is not really the name, but the fact that there is a hierarchy. And right there we find a relatively flat hierarchy.) It had been assumed (rightly or wrongly) that the problems discussed in that meeting had come "from James." So I would assume that they kind of thought of him as the current overall spokesperson for the group.

No, this did not grant the progression to a hierarchy that lords it over the flock. But it at least casts a cloud over the idea of simply independent assemblies (whether or not defined by dirt or political boundaries) that only had fellowship with the others to this little bit that generally could happen in a society in which travel and communication were actually much more difficult. And so a hierarchy of leadership was seen in Acts without anything hinting at it being a problem. As long as those leaders we there to serve the churches and lead them in the way to go rather than be superior and seek benefit from their position.

And to suggest that "anything man gets his hands into, the thing eventually manifested rottenness" can only be meaningful if we assert that there is nothing that is not simply rottenness because man gets his hands into everything he does. Therefore it is not simply that man gets his hand into it. It is more correctly that man gets his hand into it and is not aligned with the Spirit. And that happens no matter what kind of thing you are talking about. Not all the time. Not "simply" in certain cases and not others. But it does happen.

Sons to Glory!

05-07-2021, 03:01 PM

And to suggest that "anything man gets his hands into, the thing eventually manifested rottenness" can only be meaningful if we assert that there is nothing that is not simply rottenness because man gets his hands into everything he does. Therefore it is not simply that man gets his hand into it. It is more correctly that man gets his hand into it and is not aligned with the Spirit. And that happens no matter what kind of thing you are talking about. Not all the time. Not "simply" in certain cases and not others. But it does happen.Agreed: man without Spirit of God = disaster. And something that was done without the Spirit includes the whole clergy/laity nonsense that occured a century or two after the apostles. In Nee's Wednesday quote he talks about the Nicolaitans as being the originators of the clergy-laity system, which is something Lee taught too. What are your views on that?

Here's a good (I say "good" because I agree with it) blog on the subject I found and thought to share, from a Texas church pastor: Clergy/Laity - Good or bad for the body of Christ? (https://upwards.blog/2014/01/09/clergylaity-good-or-bad-for-the-body-of-christ/)

OBW

05-07-2021, 08:12 PM

The linked blog is rather duplicitous. It declares that there is this unbounded thing that is "a separate class of church leaders designated as ‘clergy’ who are over the ‘laity.' It then asks "Is it biblical? Is it helpful?"

And this is written by the "Lead Pastor of Upwards Church."

Now I know that there are examples of actual problems with clergy. Like when some preacher declares that he had some special place with God. Before my time, there was a preacher at First Assembly of God in Dallas that would remind everyone that they should come back next Sunday because he would see to it that the Holy Ghost would be there in a special say. And another young writer established his ministry by writing a massive text on spirituality and began to obtain a following.

And we can talk about all kinds of examples of real clergy problems.

But just because clergy teach the "laity" does not evidence a problem. And talking about clothes shows more lack of understanding than demonstrates incorrect attitudes of the clergy.

And some "lead pastor" is busy shooting arrows at "clergy."

For the most part, the people who try to cast dispersions at a stawman of "clergy-laity" are themselves clergy. Even in churches where they practice some type of more participative worship, ultimately there is still clergy that keeps it going and provides the meat of teaching. I am not saying that we shouldn't all participate in more study and "self feeding." But from the beginning there was the expectation that there would be some who labored in the word and teaching for the benefit of the rest.

(Sorry if this post is somewhat disjointed. A lot of distractions right now.)

aron

05-08-2021, 08:15 AM

If Jesus went to a fair bit of trouble talking to them about aspects of leaders and leadership, what was the point if there weren't to be any? And even in the Jewish system, there was a tiering of priests. It may not have been permanent positions, but it was nonetheless there. And never spoken against. Jesus never said there shouldn't be an equivalent of the Sanhedrin. Surely Jesus was the High Priest.

Jesus told the twelve, "You will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." There's your introduction of Clergy/Laity right there.

Later, the twelve appointed seven assisting deacons to wait on tables. Further degradation.

Then, they sent out Paul as apostle to the uncircumcision, just as Peter was apostle to the circumcision. Now you have specialization of ministries, and "of Paul" and "of Peter" and further rending of the whole.

No, much better to have one Super Apostle like Witness Lee, one unquestioned and untouchable Spiritual Giant, and the rest be small potatoes. That's clearly the Divine Plan. One Seer and Minister of the Revelation per age. Then you have the oneness around God's Deputy, and everybody functions, and the Body is built from each one part, and the measure and the stature and the fullness follows.

You just need to read [deeply] between the lines. As RG told fellow forum poster Hope, "He doesn't tell you what he wants." He's reading between the lines; then you have to read between his lines. Then it becomes oh so clear.

Sons to Glory!

05-08-2021, 08:49 AM

The linked blog is rather duplicitous. It declares that there is this unbounded thing that is "a separate class of church leaders designated as ‘clergy’ who are over the ‘laity.' It then asks "Is it biblical? Is it helpful?"
We're talking about the system here than tends to put much of the function of the body into an elite few - the members look to the clergy to function, and therefore generally become lethargic in their spiritual walk with the Lord (knowing Him AND doing His works). We're not talking about the behaviors of the clergy, rather the system. And this system often does no favor to the clergy people either, as there is often burnout on their part.

Does this mean there are no leaders? Of course not. Scripture points them out. But we're talking about a system that has gone to an extreme.

OBW

05-08-2021, 04:39 PM

We're talking about the system here than tends to put much of the function of the body into an elite few . . .And you have hinted at the real problem. It is not the clergy. It is the perception of those who want to be equal in every way and think that the era of enlightenment insists that it be true.

Jesus did not presume that everyone should be responsible to make theological decisions. He gave extra teaching to those that he took aside. That was not just the 12, but also some larger groups, like when he sent out the 70 (72? I suddenly can't remember the exact number. I guess that disqualifies me from discussions here.:D )

When you assert that it is the "system," then you make it seem you are making a generalization about any kind of spiritual leadership beyond "we are all just brothers and sisters in Christ." If you come back with the "priesthood of believers" as the counter to such leadership or specialization, then I would say that you don't really understand what priests generally did in the context in which they would have made that statement — Judaism. Priests in general did not do everything. But they did have certain general duties that others could not do, like actually make the sacrifices and do certain other functions. But they were not, in general, the Sanhedrin, nor were they all like the High Priest.

And Jesus taught his disciples about leadership that was not like that of the Pharisees. That was not about position, preference, superiority, etc. If there was to be no leadership, then there was no reason to even make those kinds of teaching.

And simply referring to the clergy as "an elite few," you show your disdain for those who have worked and studied hard to continue to work hard in study and teaching of the word for the benefit of the flock. Paul only needed to tell some that they ought to be generous in taking care of those persons. If he had to write to some church about this kind of attitude about it, there might have been more serious chastisement. Like the kind he gave the Galatians and others about chasing after Jewish rituals.

Yes, you can find some in almost any group of much size that either take some level of advantage of their position (actual or perceived position) and either try to make gain from it or in some way abuse their flock. Looking back at the group of leaders in the LC that I knew, there was an interesting collection. Some I always thought of as being worthy of the respect Paul mentioned. I knew of one that really wasn't, but even before anyone trotted out "deputy authority," there was not really much thought that speaking up would help. And there was at least one that I had doubts about that I later found to be among the best of them. This was in one assembly that varied from 100+ to as much as 250 during my time there. And, for the most part, it was not really even the LSM/Lee issues that were at play (from my perspective in hindsight, though I could be wrong in some cases).

You ask about Lee's teachings. This is one. It does also crop up in other small free groups and the like, but we didn't get it from them. We got it from Lee. And the reason we got it from Lee was not to point to an actual problem that needed a solution but to help ensure that we better appreciated our special place "on the ground" outside of poor, pitiful Christianity. Maybe you don't think you need that kind of superiority, but you have to admit that you are willing to help repeat someone's generic, universal slander of those who diligently serve their flocks because you (and many others) like the idea that your group is better because you don't have their kind of clergy.

But there is clergy even there in your assembly. They may run a loose ship and allow everyone to "prophesy," even though not all are "prophets." And they must not be the kind of clergy that brings a bad name to the job (and that is a good thing). But they are clergy, and by definition, they have some duties that are not yours. So in the strict application of "clergy-laity," you are part of the laity in those items. There may be fewer problems than at First Baptist Scottsdale, Sun Valley Congregational, or wherever (and I have no idea if those particular assemblies, by name, actually exist). But clergy is there. And so you should assert that, based on your experience and observation, clergy-laity is not some evil system as far as its application to your assembly is concerned. Therefore it is not simply some un-biblical thing.

And with that, we bring up an undefined term. What is "un-biblical"? It is not simply the lack of mention in the bible. It needs to be proscribed. And I can't find it.

Sons to Glory!

05-08-2021, 04:52 PM

But there is clergy even there in your assembly. They may run a loose ship and allow everyone to "prophesy," even though not all are "prophets." And they must not be the kind of clergy that brings a bad name to the job (and that is a good thing). But they are clergy, and by definition, they have some duties that are not yours. So in the strict application of "clergy-laity," you are part of the laity in those items. There may be fewer problems than at First Baptist Scottsdale, Sun Valley Congregational, or wherever (and I have no idea if those particular assemblies, by name, actually exist). But clergy is there. And so you should assert that, based on your experience and observation, clergy-laity is not some evil system as far as its application to your assembly is concerned. Therefore it is not simply some un-biblical thing.

Very philosophically stated - I'm convinced and declare myself a very proud member of the laity! (and I've suddenly got a powerful hankerin' to go sit in a pew . . . :D)

Ohio

05-09-2021, 05:46 AM

Very philosophically stated - I'm convinced and declare myself a very proud member of the laity! (and I've suddenly got a powerful hankerin' to go sit in a pew . . . :D)
Just some random thoughts early in the morning.

When on earth Jesus specifically instructed the disciples concerning "ruling like the Gentiles," loving to be first, demanding some special place in the kingdom, etc., yet never condemned a "system" of leaders / followers or in our vernacular a clergy / laity system. Why would elders, deacons, apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers be appointed or given to God's people if that were an evil system?

It is my conclusion that Nee and Lee had a practice of establishing false standards by which they could condemn the whole church of God, and then propose some new design based on some lost truth which they alone were privileged to "recover." The C/L system and the ground of oneness are two primary examples. They picked up this nasty practice from the Darby Exclusives.

Since these "standards" are false, yet appear Biblical, they require huge amounts of hypocrisy to carry out. They hate "pastors" yet promote fulltimers, coworkers, and blended brothers. They condemn hierarchy, yet have rigidly demanded adherance to their own. Seminaries bad, yet endless trainings are good. Supposedly new vernacular created a new reality. Lee even said this.

To a certain degree hating established order is lawlessness. When Jesus rebuked the hypocrisy of Jewish leaders, He did not condemn the entire "system." It was not, "Christ versus Religion," but Jesus versus hypocrisy, lies, sin, unrighteousness, bad tradition, etc. He never condemned some "system" because God authored the system established thru Moses. Yes, He established a new covenant, making the prior one old, yet still carried over much of the structure of elders, leaders, assemblies, shepherds, counselors, judges, teachers, prayers, songs, worship, faith, obedience, etc. in order to care for His people.

OBW

05-09-2021, 08:17 AM

StG,

In an assembly that I was for many years a part, there had been a teaching team, like at your Scottsdale assembly. There was a somewhat regular group, with some additional ones at times. Among them was the lead pastor. Sounds like that guy from the Upwards Church you linked, except that he didn't try to call everyone else's leadership clergy while hiding the fact that he was also clergy.

And this group I was part of didn't even have two locations for the lead pastor to be over.

You somewhat snarked about my "philosophical" response. But what did you want? A scripture reference that dictated a leadership structure? It seems to me that the evidence of Jesus' teachings was sufficient to at least imply leadership. He did not denigrate the Jewish structures of leadership, but he did chastise the actions of many of them. So the egregious actions of those leaders were chastised. But the fact of leadership was not. Instead, the right attitudes in leadership were taught.

It looks to me as if the scripture at least somewhat supports the overall status quo while those trying to chastise the "system" have nothing but a good-sounding philosophy to support them.

Now you are repeating the ruse of one of many snake oil salesmen that declare their form of leadership to be different. I am not talking about the guys that are your teaching team. I have no basis upon which to say anything about them. But Lee put the idea in your head. And in at least one of the teaching team's heads. And since that is part of the structure of the group that any others have joined into, it carries over to them even if they never heard Lee or read any of his books. It was there and is now part of them.

Ohio said it correctly.

And the worst thing is that some of the ones that try to hide the fact of their clergy-like leadership are sometimes guilty of the same kinds of errors (and sometimes even crimes) as the bad examples that they point to as they sell their tales of spiritual escape from "clergy-laity." You were correct to say that where man is involved there can be problems. But if that fact simply dismisses any effort of man because we can fail, then all is lost and we should close up shop and fall into our graves today since we are all fallen mankind.

Sons to Glory!

05-09-2021, 09:32 AM

Sorry for my "snarky" response . . . kind of a knee-jerk reaction. The measurement I see, regardless of what the system is, is related to the functioning of the members according to the life of Christ within them. Do the members grow in the knowledge and grace of the Lord that will help them pursue and draw close to Him on a daily basis? Is their faith being enhanced to do the works set before them by our Father? Is their daily walk with the Lord and abiding in Him getting stronger? Do they regularly speak and testify to others that He is working in their lives? Do they sing, pray and worship God with an abandon to self?

Or are they just showing up, beholding one person or a group of people, watching them function and do these things . . . while there is little evidence of the Lord being manifested in their own lives?

UntoHim

05-09-2021, 10:45 AM

To a certain degree hating established order is lawlessness. When Jesus rebuked the hypocrisy of Jewish leaders, He did not condemn the entire "system." It was not, "Christ versus Religion," but Jesus versus hypocrisy, lies, sin, unrighteousness, bad tradition, etc. He never condemned some "system" because God authored the system established thru Moses. Yes, He established a new covenant, making the prior one old, yet still carried over much of the structure of elders, leaders, assemblies, shepherds, counselors, judges, teachers, prayers, songs, worship, faith, obedience, etc. in order to care for His people.

Now you are repeating the ruse of one of many snake oil salesmen that declare their form of leadership to be different...And since that is part of the structure of the group that any others have joined into, it carries over to them even if they never heard Lee or read any of his books. It was there and is now part of them....But if that fact simply dismisses any effort of man because we can fail, then all is lost and we should close up shop and fall into our graves today since we are all fallen mankind.

Or are they just showing up, beholding one person or a group of people, watching them function and do these things . . . while there is little evidence of the Lord being manifested in their own lives?

Point #1: In my experience and observation for 50+ years, (both in and out of the Local Church of Witness Lee) the style of the Sunday morning meeting/service has little to do with "the Lord being manifested in their own lives". I have known and seen Local Churchers who were always popping up from their seats and giving loud, boisterous "testimonies", full of "praise the Lord!"s, "Amen!"s, "Hallelujah!"s and "the Lord showed me so and so through this wonderful message!" and then see little to no evidence of the Lord being manifested in their own lives. I've also known and seen little old Catholic ladies who have evidenced the Lord being manifested in their own lives to a degree that made me feel ashamed.

Point #2: The writings and teachings of the apostles and early church history clearly show us a local church of order, and even a certain structure. There ARE leaders. There ARE teachers. There ARE shepherds. Any "church" that says they don't need leaders or structure are setting the stage for disorder, confusion, and the real possibility of a false teacher influencing the church members. We have seen this dynamic play out again and again throughout church history. The Local Church of Witness Lee just happens to be the one we are all most familiar with.

Point #3: Through the teachings and practices established by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, many of us received a wrong understanding and appreciation of the biblical and historical purposes of the corporate meeting/service of a local church. This aspect is way too important and involved to just list some methods or styles in an abbreviated way. I will be happy to expand upon this if this thread keeps going.
-

OBW

05-09-2021, 11:42 AM

Is their daily walk with the Lord and abiding in Him getting stronger? Do they regularly speak and testify to others that He is working in their lives? Do they sing, pray and worship God with an abandon to self?

Or are they just showing up, beholding one person or a group of people, watching them function and do these things . . . while there is little evidence of the Lord being manifested in their own lives?The evidence is generally that they are growing. It just doesn't look like you want it to look for yourself, and by believing the slander of those of your sect, are happy to demean them. Their way is not full of shouts of "Oh, Lord, Amen, Hallelujah" so I guess it must not be meaningful.

I am beginning to believe that the real evidence of growth in Christ is growth that does not require a pep rally to get it moving. That doesn't need to feel superior to others to know the ways of Christ. That reflects simple diligence in obedience. You see, I know a fair number of those people that you seem happy to dismiss as "just showing up [and] watching them [clergy] function." I can assure you that these people are more grounded and solid in their faith than a whole lot of evangelical and inner-life people. They can dismiss the slander of the evangelicals and people like Lee, the Upwards Church guy, and other "we are in the spirit" kinds of people because they know in what they believe and it is not better feelings or methods. It is in Christ who died and rose for them which then continues in obedience to what he has commanded.

And while you continue to cast aspersions upon these people — believers in Christ — I wonder what manner of teaching you are buying into that makes it OK.

I know that you will then ask why I cast any aspersion at these people you follow. I just note that they are busy putting rules on their followers (and others) that they are/were not willing to put on themselves. You are insisting that the charges made by those you prefer are correct yet do not seem willing to look into whether they are right about what they claim concerning either the statements of scripture on the subject or the things that the ones they are disparaging are actually doing. You just take them as stated and move on.

And to think that you wanted us to simply give your group a generic pass when you won't even take a real look at one issue beyond restating their rhetoric.

Ohio

05-09-2021, 11:47 AM

Through the teachings and practices established by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, many of us received a wrong understanding and appreciation of the biblical and historical purposes of the corporate meeting/service of a local church.
It was entirely self-serving for Nee and Lee to strawman the "clergy/laity/system." If indeed the "Nicolaitan" teachings (Rev 2.15) and practices (Rev 2.6) can be understood by dissecting the word semantics, then we must understand the Lord's words here in context of scripture. How can the Lord suddenly hate a "system" of elders, deacons, apostles, prophets, shepherds, evangelists, teachers, etc. which was established in the New Testament to care for the church of God? Like I said, Nee and Lee followed the Exclusive Brethren to condemn the whole church for personal gains. That should stand out to us, both in the OT and the NT, are good shepherds and bad shepherds.

For me the defining narrative is here in the first Gospel, shortly before His death on the cross:When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the brothers, [James and John.] Jesus then called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. But not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."If there is a rotten Nicolaitan "system" out there, it must refer to those who violate the Lord's commands here. Peter referred to those who "lord it over" the church. Paul endlessly rebukes rotten leaders who peddle scripture for base gains. There are no scriptures which condemn leaders for simply being shepherds, pastors, teachers, evangelists, apostles, etc. The Bible always honors the position of leaders and recognizes those who faithfully serve that office.

I personally reject the condemnation by Nee and Lee of the so-called "clergy-laity-system." And btw the system they have created to replace it is far worse, and it should receive their condemnation instead.

Sons to Glory!

05-09-2021, 05:05 PM

What's in scripture is the standard we must go by, and it certainly does outline the gifts (pastors, teachers, etc.) that have been given to the body for its edification . . . as we've been discussing. But then the system of Catholicism came in for a thousand years. Are y-all trying to say that the system we have now (which in many places is akin to the pastor as CEO) hasn't taken ANY "leaven" from the Romish system?

It was stated that I "continue to cast aspersions upon . . . other believers," but that's not what I'm hoping to convey - it's about the system . . . which again I think has been, to some degree or another, carried over from Catholicism. And yes, I know, there are some in the RCC who are following the Lord wonderfully! For instance, I often listen to a RCC "father" on radio who is wonderful (until he goes into Mary-land nonsense), and some of the best gospel preaching I've heard came from a RCC priest presiding over a funeral I attended. But, from what I've seen, while there are some there following the Lord with some level of freshness, I think this is the exception and not the rule there. So no, I don't think the RCC system neither promotes or allows for the genuine growth in Christ in the vast majority of their members.

And for those that have studied ancient church history (I've read a few sources), you may have read that those (pre reformation) outside the RCC's influence often apparently had a pretty basic, non regimented and open format to their gatherings. Yes they probably did have the different gifts mentioned, such as pastors, elders, teachers, deacons, etc., but from what I've read, it wasn't nearly so formal and with big titles/positions like the RCC and which carryover, at least to some measure, toward that predominate system we have in Christendom today.

UntoHim

05-10-2021, 09:20 AM

Are y-all trying to say that the system we have now (which in many places is akin to the pastor as CEO) hasn't taken ANY "leaven" from the Romish system?

Are you trying to say that the system you have now (which merely substitutes many Local Church terms/teachings/practices with alternative words) hasn't taken ANY "leaven" from the Local Church of Witness Lee system? :)

Sons to Glory!
You really, really need to get out more bro. And I don't mean to listen to some radio preachers on the radio. I mean get out into the real world and have some honest, open fellowship and dialog with some other Christians. Go visit some other churches in your area. And before you go to another Christian service, ask the Lord to deliver you from this spirit of deception and critical attitude you have received from the teachings of Nee and Lee. You are woefully out of touch my brother. True Christianity is not "christless" anymore than any true Christian brother or sister is christless. And please don't tell us about all the false churches out there. Don't tell us about Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn or some other charlatan. They are not representative of the vast majority of churches and ministries out there.
-

OBW

05-10-2021, 10:47 AM

. . . But then the system of Catholicism came in for a thousand years. Are y-all trying to say that the system we have now (which in many places is akin to the pastor as CEO) hasn't taken ANY "leaven" from the Romish system?The problem with your statement is that you merely provide a broad-brush reference to a "system" that is Catholicism and thereby say that even what already was true is tainted because you can find it in that "system."

Surely a system that has no checks and safeguards can go awry. And the RCC proved that it lacked those safeguards when it just reassigned pedophile priests for years and even brought certain ones out from wherever they were and into Vatican City to avoid the embarrassment of prosecution of their stonewalling.

As for Mary worship and the "immaculate conception," that is actually a fairly recent happening, not something going back to the beginnings of the group.

But Jesus indicated that there would be leaders. And the person that he sought out to be specially trained (14 years off-the-grid) to evangelize the Gentiles talked openly about the tasks that those leaders would undertake that was not simply what everyone would be doing. Read 1 Cor 3 again and understand that in the context of this passage, the builders were the teachers, not the whole of the church. And the apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers were for the benefit of the church, not simply the church itself.

So broad-brushing the actual errors of the RCC into the whole of all clergy is to undermine the benefit that they actually bring to all of us. Without them, you wouldn't even have a teaching team of six in Scottsdale. You would simply have everyone bringing their private interpretation and you would be hoping that there would be a modern-day Paul to write a letter to your assembly in Scottsdale that was a lot like the one the original Paul wrote to Corinth.

Ohio

05-10-2021, 11:43 AM

The problem with your statement is that you merely provide a broad-brush reference to a "system" that is Catholicism and thereby say that even what already was true is tainted because you can find it in that "system." ... So broad-brushing the actual errors of the RCC into the whole of all clergy is to undermine the benefit that they actually bring to all of us.

Well said! Something I have been saying since I started posting here.

Whether the Catholics, the Recovery, or the Brethren systems, we must examine all teachings and practices in the light of the scriptures and the guiding principles provided in scripture. I believed the Great Shepherd often brings His children to a place in their walk where they must step back and take a good hard look at everything they have taken for granted. The early disciples confronted this when Jesus called them out of Judaism.

If I look at the early meeting practices in the LC's, there were definitely some positives. Members could pray, testify, worship in the meetings. One of the leaders would introduce scripture for all to read, and share based on his labors. Columbus was a wonderful example of this for a few years.

Then outside controls from Cleveland and Anaheim slowly took over, sometimes competitively. Their edicts robbed the elders of their ability to lead, and robbed the church of its liberty to assemble. These new mandated structures morphed into man-made systems regulated by Bishops in foreign locations.

The early church became degraded by the same phenomenon. Supposedly Bishops were selected to oversee the elders in numerous churches. Some were godly men no doubt, but once that position was established, it had to be filled by another when he resigned. A "system" designed to protect the church against "bad" local elders now must face the inevitable dilemma of a "bad" bishop. Thus the bishop of Rome was selected to oversee these regional bishops, thus setting the stage for Roman Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, etc. Answering to no one, not accountable to the church, these ones led the church far astray from God's plan.

Did not the Recovery follow this pattern? Originally we were promised local elders "each answering to the Lord." Then we got regional bishops training elders, appointing elders, giving conferences, writing books, etc. Then Popes and Cardinals rose up in Anaheim to "protect" the church from "bad" elders and bishops. History repeated!

Sons to Glory!

05-10-2021, 12:28 PM

Are you trying to say that the system you have now (which merely substitutes many Local Church terms/teachings/practices with alternative words) hasn't taken ANY "leaven" from the Local Church of Witness Lee system? :)

Sons to Glory!
You really, really need to get out more bro. And I don't mean to listen to some radio preachers on the radio. I mean get out into the real world and have some honest, open fellowship and dialog with some other Christians. Go visit some other churches in your area. And before you go to another Christian service, ask the Lord to deliver you from this spirit of deception and critical attitude you have received from the teachings of Nee and Lee. You are woefully out of touch my brother. True Christianity is not "christless" anymore than any true Christian brother or sister is christless. And please don't tell us about all the false churches out there. Don't tell us about Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn or some other charlatan. They are not representative of the vast majority of churches and ministries out there.
- Did I say "Christless" anywhere? I'll have to go back and look . . . nope! Didn't say it. (I know how you hate someone putting words in your mouth, so . . .) There is only one person I remember saying that word - WL! So perhaps you are reading my messages, but hearing WL in your head saying "Christless," because I didn't say that bro!

And maybe you haven't remembered all the times on here where I've said I've visited several other groups over the years, and had a real good time with them . . . but perhaps you didn't see all those posts of mine . . . (Granted, there are a large number of posts to keep track of on here, and you can't be expected to remember all of them.)

Again, once more, I'll repeat myself - I can talk about the system, without having disdain for the saints!
I think I'm done talking past each other, unless someone has a good reason to continue in this vein.

OBW

05-10-2021, 02:55 PM

Did I say "Christless" anywhere? I'll have to go back and look . . . nope! Didn't say it.You are correct that you did not say it here. And you might not have said it anywhere at any time in your several years of participation. But you are effectively repeating parts of an old LC mantra, sans the "Christless" part, that too many of us have heard and know the rest of. You may have intended to say less than the whole mantra. But by starting with it, you at least unwittingly inferred the whole thing.

And the problem, with or without that particular word, is that it is not based on anything more than some baseless preference. There is nothing that makes "no clergy" right. And if there is clergy, then there are those who are not clergy.

Label it as "laity" and insist it means just sitting around doing nothing. But on what basis do you apply the word? And on what basis does it simply mean doing nothing? And what do you define as "doing nothing? Not being ready to be a "prophet" in the meeting? Despite the tension over this particular preference, it is not generally accepted as the correct reading of that verse in 1 Cor 14. So then, what is doing nothing? Singing? Listening intently to those who have the gift to teach, prophecy, etc.? Taking in what is taught and putting it into practice in daily lives? Seems to me that this is more important in general that how much you actually say in some meeting. Ultimately more important for most of us. That is what we all are called to do. The "gifts" are distributed to various ones in the body. The action of bearing the image of Christ requires that we corporately and individually be seen as bearing that image.

But speaking in a meeting does not bear the image of God to the world. And if the meeting is not some kind of bible study, the focus should not be on me and what I have to offer, but on God, Christ, the Spirit, and what they are and have done. The only focus on me in those kinds of meetings should be when I stop to pray, confess, and repent. The rest is on the Word. On its application to our living. On Christ and his words and work.

Not the kind of exercise of self-gratification that so often is undertaken. And while that is limited to self-aggrandizement in songs in most places, the kinds of meetings that the LC and its clones undertake turn most of the whole thing into an exercise of self-gratification.

In the next meeting you attend, ask yourself whether the emotional excitement you might be getting from it is because of what you are hearing from a room full of people who are allowed to speak, or because of the experience of being allowed to speak (as others are responding positively). I will not deny that someone who was not "assigned" to speak might say something profound. But does speaking in synonyms and personal experiences really help you undertake the work of being a Christian better, or just make your experience of the meeting more enjoyable?

Don't just respond back in two minutes. Think on this for a few weeks as your sit, listen, and possibly speak in the manner of your assembly and try to assess it based on what is actually happening as you are engaged in it rather than in hindsight. I don't even care if you never report back on this. I would like you just to think about it. Not to be critical of yourself or those speaking. Or of what they say. But to ask yourself whether it is truly something of substance for the kingdom. Or mostly provides personal enjoyment and/or gratification. Something that seems important because it is not like other places.

Nell

05-12-2021, 08:44 PM

“As long as we are in this wonderful spirit, everything is all right. Moreover, the supply is here. Whatever we need is in our spirit. If we need light, here is the light. If we need comfort, joy, peace, rest, power, or patience, all these and something more are in our spirit. This is why the entire Bible eventually brings us to this point, stressing that we should walk in the spirit, live in the spirit, pray in the spirit, love our brothers in the spirit, have fellowship in the spirit, and do everything in the spirit. When we are in this spirit, everything is wonderful. All the problems are not only solved but are gone altogether.“

And then there’s this...assuming we can relate “living Christ” and the spirit as Lee relates above.

"Living Christ" by Witness Lee (https://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?xid=08PZ8OCU0UGX9#) Is a series of 3 messages and is a pretty quick read, but I'm referencing the first message.

Lee shares his personal testimony after being a believer for 50 years.

Into the first message Lee tells us that there are two sins: unbelief and "not living Christ and not living by Christ."

Then he tells us that the Lord asked him if he had ever confessed the sin of not living Christ. He replied that he had not. Hence Lee begins a lengthy discourse on his personal experience as he began to confess this sin and began "living Christ". He soon concludes that in his own experience "there is no end to the daily confession of this sin." And "it is extremely difficult for us to live Christ every moment of the day." (Yet he continued to teach "living Christ".)

He eventually concludes that "even the best brothers and sisters among us only "live Christ" 5% of the time." (Yet he continued to teach "living Christ.")

As Jane Anderson notes in The Thread of Gold, Chapter 24, 11h, "...he was struggling under the need of constant confession, trying to do something he called "living Christ", failing in his attempt, repetitively analyzing the matter, and then telling others they were failing in a worse way. He was certainly not preaching Christ or words of faith. His testimony was one of hopelessness and futility. This testimony was actually his own admission that what he had been teaching for many years was not working well at all."

This gives new meaning to "we don't care for right and wrong." Then, with this failure as a backdrop, he begins to teach us about "The Tree of Life and The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil."

If you struggle or struggled under the weight of Witness Lee's ministry, you're not alone.

Nell

Trapped

05-12-2021, 10:16 PM

“As long as we are in this wonderful spirit, everything is all right. Moreover, the supply is here. Whatever we need is in our spirit. If we need light, here is the light. If we need comfort, joy, peace, rest, power, or patience, all these and something more are in our spirit. This is why the entire Bible eventually brings us to this point, stressing that we should walk in the spirit, live in the spirit, pray in the spirit, love our brothers in the spirit, have fellowship in the spirit, and do everything in the spirit. When we are in this spirit, everything is wonderful. All the problems are not only solved but are gone altogether.“

Where does the Bible ever say "whatever we need is in our spirit"?

Where does the Bible say we should love the brothers "in our spirit"?

The Bible does not say we should pray in the spirit. It says we should pray with our spirit AND with our mind.

What does it mean that "when we are in the spirit, everything is wonderful"? If anyone was "in the spirit", surely it was Jesus. Does this mean everything was wonderful for His whole life? It was wonderful when people were after Him trying to kill Him? It was wonderful when He was sweating blood and distressed and asking that the cup be taken from Him? It was wonderful when God forsook Him? Were all of Jesus's problems not only solved but gone when He was on the cross? Were Paul's problems when he was pressed in every direction solved and gone altogether? Lee's statement here is simply false and unsupported.

It may be that we can maintain our trust in God and we can know that God is good even when we are swimming in problems, but things in human life don't always have to be "wonderful", and in fact the Bible tells us there will be suffering.

Lee sets up a false scene here, leaving the LC members wide open to be deeply discouraged and beating themselves up that they must not be "in the spirit" enough when their life is not simply wonderful and problem-free.

Nell

05-13-2021, 08:26 AM

...Lee sets up a false scene here, leaving the LC members wide open to be deeply discouraged and beating themselves up that they must not be "in the spirit" enough when their life is not simply wonderful and problem-free.

It also implies the heretical notion that it's possible to "not" be "in spirit" after once being "in spirit".

Romans 8:8-10 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Nell

UntoHim

05-19-2021, 09:35 AM

Sons to Glory!

05-19-2021, 01:27 PM

"One can render submission but not obedience to the delegated authority." - Watchman Nee

Is it just me, or does this sound as unbiblical as it is nonsensical? I don't have a copy of The Spiritual Man, and I'm wondering if Nee gives any solid biblical references to where someone actually "submits but not obeys".:xx:

- Is the Nee quote for today taken from The Spiritual Man or "Spiritual Authority" (as it says on the LCD homepage)? Turns out I actually have a copy of the 3 volume Spiritual Man on a bookshelf in the garage! I really have no idea where this even came from, though it does have a library registry tag in the back, so maybe it was stolen from somewhere! LOL I've never even picked this title up to read (had heard it was a little "out there") and I'm wondering if it was something I "inherited" from my ex-wife . . . (looks like that shelf could really use some cleaning off!)

Anyway, if there's someplace I should look in The Spiritual Man for that quote/context I can, but there's nothing related on the pages cited that I see.

And I think today's quote from Nee makes no sense whatsoever! Anytime I've heard anything from WN/WL in the spiritual authority realm I purposely glaze over as none of it ever registered in me.

UntoHim

05-19-2021, 02:37 PM

Ok, it looks like this quote is indeed from Authority and Submission. There is an online version from LSM, and this quote comes from pages 100 & 101 in this version found here: Authority and Submission (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Authority_and_Submission/8HldKXKDoi0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=obedience+is+a+matter+of+conduct+it+is+relative +submission+is+a+matter+of+attitude+it+is+absolute&pg=PA99&printsec=frontcover)
-

OBW

05-19-2021, 06:27 PM

"One can render submission but not obedience to the delegated authority." - Watchman Nee
-
Is it just me, or does this sound as unbiblical as it is nonsensical? I don't have a copy of The Spiritual Man, and I'm wondering if Nee gives any solid biblical references to where someone actually "submits but not obeys".:xx:I can't recall any, but it would have been so long ago that I probably wouldn't remember if I actually had.

I think this is Nee taking the thing Lee called "two sides of truth" to a most ridiculous extreme. And it is so utterly contradictory as to be in violation of the logical rule that something cannot be, and at the same time and instance not be. To submit without obedience is a non sequitur. If you submit, you must, by definition, obey. Otherwise, you are not in submission.

OBW

05-19-2021, 06:34 PM

I would have suspected Authority and Submission (aka Spiritual Authority) since the quote concerns submission, and by implication authority (a requirement to obey). In fact, one of the more important statements (implications?) is that you can never speak against a deputy authority. Only God can discipline them. Therefore you are always required to submit to them. How he could then suggest that you can submit yet not obey is evidence of a lack in his "superior intellect."

(I have some nagging thought that there is a movie where someone is mocking someone's self-proclaimed superior intellect. Maybe one of the Star Trek movies, like The Wrath of Khan. But I can't quite place it.)

Trapped

05-19-2021, 09:23 PM

When delegated authority (men who represent God’s authority) and direct authority (God Himself) are in conflict, one can render submission but not obedience to the delegated authority.
1. Obedience is related to conduct: it is relative. Submission is related to heart attitude: it is absolute.
2. God alone receives unqualified obedience without measure; any person lower than God can only receive qualified obedience.
3. Should the delegated authority issue an order clearly contradicting God’s command, he will be given submission but not obedience.
We should submit to the person who has received delegated authority from God, but we should disobey the order which offends God.

Can anyone give an example from the Bible that grounds anything Nee is blowing smoke about here?

What I have in mind specifically is - are there examples of someone in the Bible who represents God's authority while simultaneously being in conflict with God.....thus forcing someone to choose between obeying God's delegated authority versus God Himself? In this context, I am presuming Nee is not speaking of parental authority, or of secular authority (which I don't view as "representing God's authority" but being "an authority God has ordained"), but of some kind of spiritual authority in the NT church or in the Old Testament over God's people.

One instance comes to mind - Moses striking the rock. He was arguably God's representative and yet represented God wrongly to His people. But God punished Moses for it. And the people weren't put in a position of following Moses or God in that case.

I don't think God allows anyone to continue on in disobedience to God while also continuing to bear the honor of being "His delegated representative"........right? That's an upside down kingdom.

My other comment is, if I follow Nee's logic here, if obedience is related to conduct and submission is related to heart attitude, this seems to be an outward/inward distinction. I honestly don't understand what "relative" versus "absolute" have to do with anything.

Nee then further divides obedience into "unqualified" and "qualified"......without giving any further information or distinction or examples......good job Nee.

And then Nee says that if a delegated authority is in conflict with God, we should submit (i.e THE DEEPER OF THE TWO...the inward) to them, but not obey (outward) them? How on earth do you do that? How do you submit in heart but disobey in action? How do you submit inwardly but disobey outwardly?

Sorry, but Nee and Lee were masters of splitting human beings up into parts and pitting those parts against each other. I can't think of very many other things I've read besides "the ministry" that so frequently makes so little sense once you start untangling the apparently "high" and "deep" sweeping statements they make.

edit to add: because I'm only human, honestly seeing Nee's smug visage in that picture associated with the quote makes me want to smack him. To know that this teaching here is an abuse of the Bible, and this and other teachings of his were used to manipulate people to let him off the hook from his own sexual sins....and to know the cascading effects that has had on so many people since then....I just can't think about it.

OBW

05-20-2021, 08:30 AM

Since it is almost certain that this is from Authority and Submission (aka Spiritual Authority), it is worthwhile to review the events leading up to the release of the messages that were collected into the book.

At a point in time several years prior to those messages, Nee was accused of sexual misconduct. Lee described it as simply living in the same house as an aunt or something like that (not something to be making such charges about), but it has since been stated as something much more serious. And it does appear that Nee had some kind of on-and-off affair with a woman over quite some time. So the elders in the church (Shanghai? — I'm working from memory at the moment) excommunicated Nee. After a few years (appr 5?) Lee began to get support from many to bring Nee back, and shortly thereafter it came to be.

During Nee's exile, he began to work on the messages that he would give that ultimately became the book that is the source of this quote. And the result of the book was the creation of a kind of super-authority among mankind that was not subject to Matthew 18 discipline, or to what Paul called for when he said that an elder, upon the word of at least 2, should be publically reprimanded/disciplined. This was what we now know as "deputy authority." It meant that no matter how much a "deputy authority" was guilty of the sins that Paul would have said disqualified them from ministry, no one could even speak against them. It was considered like speaking against God.

And the meat of the book is built on a house of cards, starting with blanket statements in the first chapter that are simply not true, but stated as if unassailable, and therefore was accepted by his followers that believed him to be the smartest and most spiritual person they knew or that could be known.

OBW

05-26-2021, 08:49 AM

My breakfast includes more than twenty items, a real variety of food. This rich nourishment makes me very energetic. The principle is the same in reading spiritual books. Along with reading the Bible, we need to develop the habit of reading some profitable and nourishing spiritual books. If you build up the habit of reading the Word and spiritual books, you will be healthy spiritually and you will grow.

— Life Messages, Vol.1, LSM 1979, p.24First, I must say that having a morning breakfast of more than twenty items makes me think that he either has one bite of cereal with milk, one almond, one peanut, 1/2 of one section of orange, etc., or he reads the ingredients on the side of the cereal box and counts them all as independent items in his meal. Or he should have been gaining weight as if trying to qualify as a heavyweight boxer or getting the nourishment required to be an Olympic swimmer.

But all levity aside, when he says we need to read the Bible and "profitable and nourishing spiritual books," it sounds so good. Until you come to realize that the only ones that qualify (in his mind) are published by LSM and have either his or Nee's names on them. Preferably his.

HERn

05-26-2021, 08:21 PM

This sounds like WL hyperbole to me. Nobody eats 20 different things for breakfast. I’m ok with hyperbole from Jesus and Paul, but not from a claimed MOTA who took the saints money to build and sell RVs. I wonder when WL spoke this? I heard he was more orthodox during his early years. I also heard that he said that he gave the keys to the recovery car to the being being blinded brothers and then they drove the recovery car off the pier into the ocean. Anyone hear that? Maybe WL was captured and controlled by the being blinded brothers to create the LSM version of the local church.

UntoHim

05-26-2021, 11:06 PM

aron

05-27-2021, 03:45 AM

...when he says we need to read the Bible and "profitable and nourishing spiritual books," it sounds so good. Until you come to realize that the only ones that qualify (in his mind) are published by LSM and have either his or Nee's names on them. Preferably his.

Yes, we're limited to 14 HWMR, 2 Life-Study Messages, 2 books by Nee, and a couple of the "approved" books from pre-1926, before Nee started to write. The whole thing is an exercise in absurdity.

OBW

06-02-2021, 12:56 PM

Paul said, "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit", not one soul. The resurrected Lord is the life-giving Spirit; Therefore, His union with the believers is His union with the believers' spirit. The soul is only the personality of a man and is natural; it should only be used as a vessel to express the results of the union between the Lord and the spirit of the believer. The believer's spirit is joined to the Spirit of the Lord, and the two spirits being joined are one spirit. The result of this union is the capacity to serve the Lord in "newness of the spirit."And you have to give Nee credit for sticking to his "spirit and soul are absolutely separate" schtick. I really wish we still had access to that dissection of Nee's 3-parts discussion in The Spiritual Man. It was so enlightening to see how many verses used to define the spirit as different from the soul were really consistent with the soul.

Of course, since the genius said it, it must be true.

UntoHim

06-09-2021, 10:37 AM

"We released messages declaring that if you eat Christ, you will become Christ."

Compare and contrast with the actual words of the Lord Jesus Christ:
As the living Father has sent Me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me.

When we "eat Christ" we do not "become Christ". This kind of teaching is unbiblical at best, and when taken in conjunction with some of the other questionable teachings of Witness Lee, is actually outright heresy. To this very day, young people and new Christians are taught these kind of absurd notions. May God have mercy.
-

aron

06-09-2021, 10:49 AM

Compare and contrast with the actual words of the Lord Jesus ChristThe other thing about the actual words of the Lord Jesus Christ: they say "as" - 'I with the Father', "so" -- 'you with Me'. The two things are put as equivalents. One informs the other. As Jesus eats the Father, so should we eat Jesus. As Jesus obeys the Father, so should we obey Jesus. Not a word about pray-reading.

Jesus said, "My food is to do the will of the Father." Therefore, our food should be to do the will of Jesus.

Jesus taught, "Even as I do the Father's will and live, so will you live if you do my will." See John 15:10; 14:19.

See John 6:57 "Even as the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on Me will live because of Me."

It says this multiple times in John: "Even as I with the Father, so also you with me." Nothing about pray-reading, either by Jesus or by us. So yes, we should 'eat Jesus', just exactly the way that Jesus told us to - by obeying His will, just as he obeyed the Father's will. No more and certainly no less.

OBW

06-09-2021, 06:54 PM

One of the errors that Lee pulled was to over-emphasize the "eat" part. It is a very meaningful metaphor. But like a lot of other similes, metaphors, etc., if we get hung up on the terminology of the metaphor, we miss what it is actually talking about.

And when we read the whole passage, it is clear that even at that time many had no idea what he was talking about and quit following over it. He seemed so explicit. Yet not a single one of us has ever actually eaten Jesus' flesh or drank his blood. It is metaphorical. And when Jesus said it, he knew that it would be too extreme even as a metaphor, and the tagalongs would leave.

But if Lee just wants to throw around the "eat Jesus" terminology and say it over and over, then his goal is not to help anyone actually engage in the kind of diligence in the word and prayer to follow Jesus. It is to make his followers excited about saying controversial things and driving a wedge between them and the greater part of the body of Christ. He published a story about "Hunky and Dory in the Land of Food" in the old Stream magazine to make a big deal that the Bible is to eat, not for learning, prayer, and action. And then that song that talked constantly about eating Jesus and the chorus of "We'll masticate Jesus." (to the tune "More, More About Jesus") All shock and awe to condition his followers to extremes and keep driving that wedge.

And in doing this he makes the metaphor the emphasis and ultimately the goal. Nothing practical for living. Just a crazy metaphor without the thing it is intended to draw us toward.

aron:

I don't think the important thing is some equivalency of Jesus eating the Father like we eat Jesus. The only reference to the Father in the John 6 passage is that Jesus lives because of the Father, and that we will live because of Him. Yes, there is the reference to eating. But it does not actually say that we will live because of the flesh and blood we consume, except metaphorically. The importance is a spiritual supply, not the overlay of eating. And the eating is not automatically presumed to apply to the relationship between the Father and Son just because it says it with respect to us and the Son. I think that the parallel is that Jesus lives because of the Father and we live because of the Son. The reference to eating is important to us because our physical living is accomplished because of eating. Not sure there is an equivalency in that.

UntoHim

06-09-2021, 07:08 PM

Another plain, straight-forward verse with which to compare and contrast the unbiblical teachings of Witness Lee:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16

Thank you God that you have breathed out your Word to teach us, to reproof us and to correct us! Oh Lord Jesus, may your Word train us in righteousness! May we all become complete and equipped for every good work! May God have mercy.
-

aron

06-10-2021, 03:46 AM

aron:

I don't think the important thing is some equivalency of Jesus eating the Father like we eat Jesus. The only reference to the Father in the John 6 passage is that Jesus lives because of the Father, and that we will live because of Him. Yes, there is the reference to eating. But it does not actually say that we will live because of the flesh and blood we consume, except metaphorically. The importance is a spiritual supply, not the overlay of eating. And the eating is not automatically presumed to apply to the relationship between the Father and Son just because it says it with respect to us and the Son. I think that the parallel is that Jesus lives because of the Father and we live because of the Son. The reference to eating is important to us because our physical living is accomplished because of eating. Not sure there is an equivalency in that.
Jesus explicitly taught that "food" was to "do", not merely to hear. Luke 8:21 (NIV) He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice." God's word is manna from heaven, not because we pray over it but because if we obey it, we will live. "My food is to do the will of the Father" - even as this was his food, it becomes ours (John 4:34).

This seems to fly in the face of the "none can obey, all are sinners" and "it is grace, not works" gospel, which we all grew up on, which is Christian to its core. But Jesus is the Obedient Lamb; he's the paragon, the incarnation of obedience itself. Now, we in turn believe into him, and his obedience, and confess our former disobedience, and obey his command by loving one another, going on together, bearing one another in love, and always looking for the good in each other. He/her who has a sandwich shares half with him/her who has none. That's then obedience, that's our food which endures to eternal life. This is what I see Jesus teaching in John 6.

There's a lot in the NT about physical food as well, stories of thousands following this Prophet into the desert lands, and by the lakeshore, and becoming hungry. There were noted only a few small loaves and fishes. "But what are these few among so many?" So a lot of the talk was, in fact, about physical eating. We must always bear in mind that there was no Kroger or Walmart down the street.

But even that comes right to the spiritual application - the one who by faith shares some amount of his scarce resources with that one who has even less, puts themselves at peril, because what will they now eat on the morrow, who have just given all their food away? That's where obedience, based on faith, comes in. "Will not God also care for you, you who are of little faith?"

Such faithful obedience to the "royal law" of James 2:8 is our spiritual eating. This is the hidden manna, the tree of life. Nothing about self-focused repetitive noisemaking.

And just like my comments elsewhere recently on "God's economy", these ideas about "eating" are just that - ideas. Not truths. "Each one of you have revelations, tongues, interpretations" per 1 Cor 14. I put out my alternatives to WL's not so much to displace them, but to displace the idea that WL's must stand alone, uncritiqued.

Another theme that has loomed large in my mind is that of the meeting in Acts 15:7, that there was "much discussion". Not all of it was perfectly synched at all times, yet the participants remained. Powerful testimony of the life of God.

OBW

06-10-2021, 08:02 AM

Jesus explicitly taught that "food" was to "do", not merely to hear. . . .But the reference to eating is to the source of strength to do. And you implied that there is a parallel that Jesus is "eating" the Father just as we are to eat him. This is only relevant if there is a need to push the human metaphor of eating as an energy source to do what is required onto Christ.

I did not suggest that there are not a myriad of inferences of eating with respect to our needs for various tasks, from the obvious (like manna and making the journey from Egypt to the Good land) to others. And as background to this particular passage, he elsewhere said that we are not to live by bread alone, but by every word coming from the mouth of God.

All I said is that I do not see (or expect to see) that when Jesus said "I live because of the Father" he was implying that he "ate" the Father in the same metaphorical sense. The metaphor is to point to something other than physical eating. What is the purpose of insisting that Jesus said (or implied, since he did not say) that he was eating the Father? He only said that he received his source of spiritual energy from the Father. And in like manner we are to receive our source of spiritual energy from Him (Jesus). And since the method of receiving personal energy for humans is through eating, he used that metaphor to discuss it. No need to imply that the metaphorical terminology was applicable to his own situation.

The problem with Lee's teaching on the subject is that it almost ignores the act of taking in "every word that comes from the mouth of God" and instead sticks to the metaphor of eating. The purpose of the metaphor is to see beyond the metaphor to what is real. And "eating flesh and drinking blood" is not it.

Trapped

06-10-2021, 09:07 PM

I think the main value Lee's ministry has had for me is that his conclusions so frequently furrow my brow that it drives me to really search the verse/chapter/passage/book that he so recklessly handled.

I've read the latter half of John 6 numerous times now since yesterday morning (when Lee's quote was posted). I have to say that I first agreed with the Jews who grumbled about what Jesus was saying ("Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life") and I kind of grumbled myself, thinking the same thing as the disciples......."this is hard to take".

I just read it again. I noticed that I think in verse 35 Jesus actually says, in a backwards way, what eating His flesh and drinking His blood means.

35 Jesus answered, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to Me will never hunger, and whoever believes in Me will never thirst.

Up until that verse, all the discussion was about bread or manna only. Then Jesus mentions hunger AND thirst in verse 35.

What do hunger and thirst tie to? Eating and drinking. It seems to me that "comes to Me" is the eating, and "believes in Me" is the drinking.

So "eating My flesh" means coming to Him, and "drinking My blood" means believing in Him. So....no, we don't need to be Witness Lee, triumphantly shutting up other Christian ministers by claiming they don't understand that we need to "eat Christ". We need to understand the metaphor, so we can come to Him and believe in Him.

Half of me wonders if the Christian teachers were really "defeated" like Lee says they were, or if the typical ministry double-speak and refusal to hear just turned them away like has happened to so many others. Sheesh.

OBW

06-11-2021, 10:12 AM

I think the main value Lee's ministry has had for me is that his conclusions so frequently furrow my brow that it drives me to really search the verse/chapter/passage/book that he so recklessly handled.That might be better described as how God "worked all things for good."

I am not a proponent of the often spoken notion that God sent any of us into the LC to give us something. But I do believe that he will take what we give him — including time in the LC — to work our lives to our benefit.

It is even probably true of the ones who are still trapped within the LC. Somehow God is working things to their benefit. And that would take a truly Mighty God.

Trapped

06-14-2021, 10:40 AM

There is apparently a FB group called "Watchman Nee's Testimony". If you are friends with people in that group, or people in the group who are friends with other people who share a post, then people NOT in the group can see what is posted there. Recently this quote was posted:

"A fleshly man cannot submit. If you are of the flesh, you cannot get married. Do not think that marriage is something for the flesh. You have to realize that only a spiritual person can marry. In the eyes of the flesh, submission is most difficult. But in the eyes of the spirit, every time you are not submissive, you suffer a wound. If you do not submit, you can give yourself some breathing space, but you will be inwardly wounded.

Once a person asked me, "Why should wives be subject to their husbands?" I do not know. I do not know why wives should be subject to husbands. I only know that the God whom I serve says that wives should be subject to their husbands. I do not know why it is right to do this. I only know that wives should be subject to their husbands. One thing I do know: If a wife is subject to her husband, she always brings in spiritual blessing."

From Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 2) Vol. 38: General Messages (2), Chapter 30, Section 2

I know this isn't a Watchman Wednesday quote, but I found this teaching so off on Nee's part. Just. So. Off.

If you are of the flesh, you cannot get married? Um, what about the millions of unbelievers year after year who do? His statement means nothing.

Only a spiritual person can marry? What is defined as a spiritual person?

We HAVE to realize this? We don't HAVE to "realize" anything if it's patently not true. The more I encounter those "have to" "must" "need" phrases in the ministry the more they feel like being beaten over the head.

Since Nee focuses in on the wife submitting, I also looked up the larger ministry portion that this excerpt is from to see if he gave equal time or weight to the husbands laying down their life for their wives.

Nope.

He quotes the verse, but then has one or two very short paragraphs just on "loving" the wife. He then waxes on and on for numerous long paragraphs about wives submitting. Very, very biased teaching.

OBW

06-14-2021, 01:48 PM

He didn't even bother with trying to contort a verse to support his nonsense this time.

Of course, he did not really use verses as much as some think he did. He often littered his messages with verses that he ignored or manhandled. Oh, he correctly quoted some so that he was seen to be correctly preaching the Word. But those were typically not the verses that supported his main point(s).

Nell

06-15-2021, 07:03 AM

"A fleshly man cannot submit. If you are of the flesh, you cannot get married. Do not think that marriage is something for the flesh. You have to realize that only a spiritual person can marry. In the eyes of the flesh, submission is most difficult. But in the eyes of the spirit, every time you are not submissive, you suffer a wound. If you do not submit, you can give yourself some breathing space, but you will be inwardly wounded.

The word that comes to mind here is hubris.

"Hubris is the characteristic of excessive confidence or arrogance, which leads a person to believe that they may do no wrong. The overwhelming pride caused by hubris is often considered a flaw in character. Hubris can cause short-sighted, irrational, or harmful behavior since the person does not stop to examine their behavior or consider the opinions of or effects on others when behaving. Hubris often causes humiliation to whom it is directed. " (Investopedia)

Proverbs 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. 19 Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.

Nell

Nell

06-23-2021, 10:40 AM

"Calling on the Lord’s name solves all our problems. If you are filled with sorrow and worry,...are disappointed, discouraged, or distracted,...are weak or strong, call on the Lord. By calling you receive and take the living water."

Witness Lee
The Holy Word for Morning Revival - Crystallization-study of Exodus Volume 2

UntoHim

06-23-2021, 02:23 PM

Excerpt from YouTube video:
"How to kill our opinion? Lord Jesus kill! Lord Jesus kill!

Verse please?
-

Trapped

06-23-2021, 08:39 PM

Excerpt from YouTube video:
"How to kill our opinion? Lord Jesus kill! Lord Jesus kill!

Verse please?
-

What YT video?

UntoHim

06-23-2021, 08:58 PM

Sorry, the one there in the Listen Up! module.:)
~

Trapped

06-23-2021, 09:54 PM

Sorry, the one there in the Listen Up! module.:)
~

Ah. Got it, thanks!

(here, for future reference after the module goes away: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66iiy3vMwdQ)

"Calling on the Lord solves and dissolves all your problems," Lee says.

Hm. Really? Calling on the Lord solves a neglectful spouse? A rebellious child? A broken water pipe? This is the "just do xyz effortless thing and everything will be solved" stuff.

I don't see "calling on the Lord solves all our problems" in Acts 15 when there were problems needing to be solved. I see discussion!

I don't see Paul exhorting the Corinthians or Galatians to just call on the Lord to solve their problems; he smacks them upside the head and reminds them of the gospel and admonishes their behavior!

I've seen firsthand what calling on the Lord in the face of a needy teenager does - it drives them even further away.

Lee gives the example of a wife who is disgusted with her husband and stays disgusted for three days and of course makes it seem like it's her fault. Maybe the husband did something disgusting and won't repent? An offended spouse is not always irrationally or wrongly offended, sheesh Lee........