Originally Posted by Nell

Ever heard of passive-aggressive?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I know plenty of sisters who would laugh at Ron's joke. Brothers and sisters joking about each other is normal in a family of siblings including the family of God. In fact some brothers are on the receiving end of the sister's jokes so much I feel sorry for them.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Aron heard it. Drake admitted it was said by Ron Kangas. But he said it was a joke.

We are all supposed to laugh.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can someone explain to me how my challenging Ron Kangas derogatory comment, "Sometimes I think that the only thing worse than a rebellious brother is a spiritual sister," has become "wrapping yourself in the American flag to shore up your pitiful argument against Brother Ron the most pathetic thing to watch unravel?"

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

I am a Trumpster but I find your wrapping yourself in the American flag to shore up your pitiful argument against Brother Ron the most pathetic thing to watch unravel.

You take one statement (and an accurate one in my experience)and spin it into a moral campaign against the corruption of youth and a national crisis. And yet, you do hold a double standard as Evangelical calls attention to in these different aspects of your life. I know you are a patriotic American, and that is one of things I appreciate about you, but leveraging that is not only a logical fallacy of argument but also a bit of trampling it under your feet. Instead of demanding that others be held to a higher standard how about you demonstrate that right here in this forum?

If you can’t meet the standard you demand of others then at least be consistent to whatever standard you hold for yourself.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are not Christan ministers and leaders held to a higher standard?

The Bible says so, and btw, Paul wrote what he did during the reign of Caesar Nero. Not the nicest guy around.

And please keep your hatred of the USA over in Alt-Views.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are just demonstrating my point. You approve of a mysogynist God appointed leader of a country and you seem to ignore all the corrupt words out of his mouth (only Presidential humor right?) Then you act all high and mighty about the "mens club" in the local church and put on a show about caring about how women are treated in the local churches. Since the local churches are so small and insignificant as people say they are.. surely the God-appointed Presidential mens club should be the majority of your concern if you are such a champion of womens rights.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sounds like the two sons of Lee, which wrecked havoc on the LC's for decades.

Since you hail from DownUnder, be careful not to "spit the dummy" when despising God's appointed leaders in our country.

.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is another person in here with your username. He frequents the alternative views section and defends mysogynist alpha males in positions of power such as the POTUS. Maybe you know him.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not so sure Terry. There is only "humor" among those who have been trained to denigrate spirituality in sisters. Obviously Ron Kangas is accustomed to speaking at the "Men's Club" at LSM, and it just spilled over to a open meeting.

How many marriages in the LC's have failed because we brothers brought these pathetic attitudes home from the "Brothers' Meeting?" Should not Ron Kangas aspire to become a pattern of well-speaking to all the saints? Did not Paul instruct us, "to let no corrupt word out of your mouth, but only what is needful for building up, to give grace to the hearers?" (Eph 4.29) Kangas' flippant remarks here only serve to tear down the moral character in young LC brothers.

Should not Kangas, as chief spokesperson in the Recovery, learn also from Peter to readily "assign honor" to the sisters (I Pet 3.7), that his prayers be not hindered? Witness Lee's footnote 2 for I Peter 3.7 instructs husbands to "appreciate the preciousness, the valuable worth, of the wives, and apportion it, assign it, as honor to them duly and reasonably." Once again it seems that LSM's teaching does not match its practice. I would bet that WL stole uentsthis note from some other godly Christian author, and without proper credits, since his practice was at odds with it.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Cool, would you mind mentioning which parts fall into which category?

just curious

You seem really defensive of the guy, so I've just got to know if you admit he isn't above fault.

Headed to bed, will respond tomorrow.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

post 120, 122, and 124. You didn't address much of those, and then changed the subject by suggesting that there was only one "questionably offensive" situation involving Mr. Kangus and asked me to to tell you the others, when we both know there are more on this forum.

Originally Posted by Drake

Sure. I said that already.

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

I was in a meeting where he said, "Sometimes I think that the only thing worse than a rebellious brother is a spiritual sister."

Originally Posted by Drake

Kumbaya,

What was the subject and how did I change it?

Drake

Originally Posted by kumbaya

You agree with 85% of post 122?

Originally Posted by Drake

Right humbaya. I don’t usually address whole posts... in the one you are referring to I agreed with 85% of it. The 15% I didn’t agree with did not merit debate.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok, So far I have only read objections to that one statement If there is something else, where was it said?

Drake

Originally Posted by kumbaya

We are all entitled to our opinions. You didn't address my whole post btw. I had some good points!

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Ok, so I understand you're interpreting his meaning based on what you feel you know of him. I'm just pointing out, that there are many on this thread and members on other threads that have claimed to experienced a more sexist version than the person you describe.

Originally Posted by Drake

-3

Kumbaya>”"Love without truth is sentimentality; it supports and affirms us but keeps us in denial about our flaws. Truth without love is harshness; it gives us information but in a way that we cannot really hear it."

This is well put. In this case, i think Ron struck the right balance.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Kumbaya>”Maybe I have it all wrong- maybe I don't. But I'm pretty sure you don't either, only Mr. Kangus can answer this to the Lord.”

Of course, we all will answer to the Lord for every word and thought including those in our posts here.

We can reasonably know his meaning but our assessment will be based on what we know about the man, what we have heard him say in person or in other messages, in print and how often, where.....etc. His words are not demeaning of women at all from the brother I know. Ron didn’t say he valued a rebellious brother, he said SOMETIMES he thinks there is something worse. Aren’t some things worse than others? His is not a statement of worth.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Kumbaya,
He could have not used irony but then a direct approach would not have been satisfactory to you either. Brother Benson is direct almost always and I’m certain you would appreciate that even less. Yet, if a minister were to not speak about something the Lord lays on his heart then he would be useless.Drake

Originally Posted by awareness

OMG!!! I've got to hear this tape some way or another. Pleeeeease ... someone come up with it.

Originally Posted by Drake

Kumbaya,

He could have not used irony but then a direct approach would not have been satisfactory to you either. Brother Benson is direct almost always and I’m certain you would appreciate that even less. Yet, if a minister were to not speak about something the Lord lays on his heart then he would be useless.

but, what was demeaning about that toward women? It was specifically about sisters who allow their spirituality to carry them out from under the headship of their husbands, their parents, their local church, etc. or wherever the Lord has placed them and thereby become more of a problem than a rebellious brother. I have seen this situation firsthand in action and know exactly what Brother Ron means by it. It’s not demeaning to women, it’s a warning to sisters who allow their spirituality to overcome them.

Drake

Originally Posted by kumbaya

I’m not clear with what you meant when you said “he could have been more direct,” but if you meant calling someone out publically in a meeting- how about doing neither? Don’t do that and also don’t say something that could be interpreted as demeaning towards women.

Originally Posted by Drake

I understood exactly what he meant ... he could have been more direct but fewer would have preferred that. Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

How many marriages in the LC's have failed because we brothers brought these pathetic attitudes home from the "Brothers' Meeting?" Should not Ron Kangas aspire to become a pattern of well-speaking to all the saints? Did not Paul instruct us, "to let no corrupt word out of your mouth, but only what is needful for building up, to give grace to the hearers?" (Eph 4.29) Kangas' flippant remarks here only serve to tear down the moral character in young LC brothers.

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio>”Denigrating all sisters who desire to be spiritual cannot possibly be a witticism. ”

But he wasn’t denigrating all sisters who desire to be spiritual.

There are three references in the irony. There are rebellious brothers. There are spiritual sisters (I am married to one who far surpasses me in most areas)....And there are sisters who through their spiritual experiences become rebellious against headship in their household, against the leadership in the churches. The latter, or third, category are the “spiritual sisters” Ron was referring to. He is not a sexist by any stretch. As I said, he could have bluntly said the same thing but fewer would have been able to take it.

And irony is one way to express a point.

Drake

Originally Posted by kumbaya

There's a lot of people on here that have shared their personal experiences with Mr. Kangus and his sexist attitude/comments/actions towards women. I know we're in a culture now where everyone gets overly sensitive about so much- but it does seem like he's offended a lot of people when it comes to this issue.

You can dismiss it as irony or sarcasm, but "where there's smoke, there's fire." Given what many have said about his attitude towards women, his statement does seem to validate their experiences.

Love him or not, it comes off condescending to most.

Originally Posted by Terry

Originally Posted by Ohio

What a relief!

But Brother Drake, what would you say to all LC members, especially the FTT trainees, who have been affected by these demeaning attitudes towards women, exemplified by the Ron Kangas' quote above?

Ron Kangas, a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary and Editor-in-Chief at LSM, is the principal teacher and theologian at LSM, and his views are respected and propagated throughout the LC's.

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Ohio,

It is conversational humor. Brother Ron used a witticism, for sure irony and, depending on the context, perhaps sarcasm.

I have met all three character types mentioned is his statement so I get the humor.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

What a relief!

But Brother Drake, what would you say to all LC members, especially the FTT trainees, who have been affected by these demeaning attitudes towards women, exemplified by the Ron Kangas' quote above?

Ron Kangas, a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary and Editor-in-Chief at LSM, is the principal teacher and theologian at LSM, and his views are respected and propagated throughout the LC's.

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Ohio,

It is conversational humor. Brother Ron used a witticism, for sure irony and, depending on the context, perhaps sarcasm.

I have met all three character types mentioned is his statement so I get the humor.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

What a relief!

But Brother Drake, what would you say to all LC members, especially the FTT trainees, who have been affected by these demeaning attitudes towards women, exemplified by the Ron Kangas' quote above?

Ron Kangas, a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary and Editor-in-Chief at LSM, is the principal teacher and theologian at LSM, and his views are respected and propagated throughout the LC's.

Originally Posted by aron

I was in a meeting where [Ron Kangas] said, "Sometimes I think that the only thing worse than a rebellious brother is a spiritual sister."

Originally Posted by Drake

And Ohio, I would never ever do that.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Well Drake, I was relieved to read that you did not equate UFO's and nutcases with women.

Originally Posted by Nell

Years ago I heard a “message” on tape by Ron Kangas and the topic was “close encounters”. No. Really. Close encounters with UFO’s. There are up to 5 “kinds” and I think RK talked about up to the third kind. I don’t remember why on earth (no pun intended) he was “inspired” to speak on this topic and TAPE IT, but the tape made the rounds. It was surreal.

Do any of you remember hearing this tape?

Nell

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Whaaaaat???? This is something I’d have to hear to believe!

Originally Posted by HERn

I remember one blending conference where RK criticised an "ostentatious" brother. .

Originally Posted by Nell

Years ago I heard a “message” on tape by Ron Kangas and the topic was “close encounters”. No. Really. Close encounters with UFO’s. There are up to 5 “kinds” and I think RK talked about up to the third kind. I don’t remember why on earth (no pun intended) he was “inspired” to speak on this topic and TAPE IT, but the tape made the rounds. It was surreal.

Do any of you remember hearing this tape?

Nell

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Are you sure you didn't go to the Scientology meeting next door by mistake? What's your next slant on this Nell? Sexual abuse by alien abduction in the LC?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nell, the evidence we have overwhelmingly informs us that Lee publicly shamed Sandee Rapoport in order to retaliate against her husband for exposing Philip's immoral behavior at the church in Anaheim meeting hall offices.

At first I found this hard to believe. What minister would do such an horrific thing? Then I read that this was an ancient Chinese custom to beat your opponents by shaming their wives. Then it all made sense.

Originally Posted by HERn

It seems like in every message I heard RK criticised some saint or some region.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

A sister who attended a Thanksgiving conference a few years back told me about a situation that occurred with her and RK. I don't think she'd mind if I shared it. She said that RK talked about a "smug sister" for a good part of a message at the conference. She suspected he was talking about her due to certain circumstances. Someone asked him and turns out- he was! She doesn't meet anymore but not due to that reason (there are plenty others). I just thought it was shocking how he literally called her out like that and he didn't really even know the situation. She had refused to say hi to a (known) abusive older brother who would somewhat "taunt" her to get her to talk to him. He knew she didn't want to and he'd try to get her to anyways. Then he did it in front of RK, and RK goes on to talk about her being a "smug sister" in the Thanksgiving conference!

Originally Posted by Nell

Lee practiced "love and grace" toward his immoral sons, not against the sisters.

In 1977-78 Philip Lee was practicing his immoral lifestyle against women in the LSM office. Lee knew this. Max may have been the first brother who brought his son's sinful behavior to Lee's attention. Lee said nor did nothing (in public anyway). Yet, public disparaging remarks about women...sisters whose actions he sanctioned for years...were not a problem for Lee. Lee betrayed these sisters in an open meeting. "Cover the brothers" but "accuse the sisters."

Does anyone thinks these 3 sisters did anything among the sisters in the church without Lee's knowledge and blessing...as Sandee stated? He would have stepped on them like bugs. Memorial Weekend, 1977, he stepped on them like bugs anyway. A setup maybe?

If Lee wanted to "help" these sisters or "adjust" these sisters, in a way to care for them and/or care for the church, why not do it in private? Isn't that what Matthew 18 mandates? Instead he launched a public "sneak attack". An "ambush". He apparently believed that he was so "spiritual" that he could treat people any way he wanted...especially the sisters. This only fed the likeminded men in the church. Enter Benson Phillips who, also in a "ambush" / "sneak attack" crushed Jane and John Anderson in Houston on the same weekend. Was the timing of these two "attacks" planned? Jane was the target, but John, to his credit, stood with his wife.

Since Sandee was Max's wife, and this action was taken by Lee when Max was out of town, what's the message here? Max was actually called back from Chicago to Anaheim out of concern for his wife. There was another sister who was a victim of an ambush during this time, but her husband stood with Benson instead of his wife. Enter BenM.

Sinful behavior has consequences...far reaching consequences that ripple for years and years.

Nell

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Not exactly an example of love and grace on WL's part...

Originally Posted by kumbaya

I'm a newbie to this, sorry. Who did he publicly shame? As in, he did it in a meeting?

Originally Posted by Terry

I've listened to more than a few RK messages to know this is a consistent trait usually using a certain sister as an example. Yet, he can say it with the confidence knowing not one in attendance is going to make him accountable. This reverberates what's wrong with deputy authority teaching. Co-workers and elders irresponsibly can say what they want without being held accountable. After all in their mind they are the authority.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Pretty pathetic!

Where did Kangas get the license to use the pulpit to publicly shame a sister? or even a brother?

Oh ... wait a minute ... I seem to remember W. Lee doing the same thing.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

A sister who attended a Thanksgiving conference a few years back told me about a situation that occurred with her and RK. I don't think she'd mind if I shared it. She said that RK talked about a "smug sister" for a good part of a message at the conference. She suspected he was talking about her due to certain circumstances. Someone asked him and turns out- he was! She doesn't meet anymore but not due to that reason (there are plenty others). I just thought it was shocking how he literally called her out like that and he didn't really even know the situation. She had refused to say hi to a (known) abusive older brother who would somewhat "taunt" her to get her to talk to him. He knew she didn't want to and he'd try to get her to anyways. Then he did it in front of RK, and RK goes on to talk about her being a "smug sister" in the Thanksgiving conference!

Originally Posted by kumbaya

A sister who attended a Thanksgiving conference a few years back told me about a situation that occurred with her and RK. I don't think she'd mind if I shared it. She said that RK talked about a "smug sister" for a good part of a message at the conference. She suspected he was talking about her due to certain circumstances. Someone asked him and turns out- he was! She doesn't meet anymore but not due to that reason (there are plenty others). I just thought it was shocking how he literally called her out like that and he didn't really even know the situation. She had refused to say hi to a (known) abusive older brother who would somewhat "taunt" her to get her to talk to him. He knew she didn't want to and he'd try to get her to anyways. Then he did it in front of RK, and RK goes on to talk about her being a "smug sister" in the Thanksgiving conference!

Originally Posted by Terry

Just to put in my twosense. Anybody heard of Fanny Crosby? She was a sister who lived in the 19th century and into the 20th century (1820-1915). Over 8000 hymns are attributed to her. One of her most sung hymns is Blessed Assurance. #308 in the Hymnal.

Terry

Originally Posted by aron

3. Someone needs to tell Ron Kangas he is a borderline misogynist, if not a full-blown one. He really puts down the sisters. The contempt dripping from his voice is obvious to me, and quite offensive, and I am a brother! I can't imagine what it would be like as a female to sit there and take it as he endeavors to put them in their "proper" place. It is really odious. I bet it stinks all the way to high heaven.

Originally Posted by Ohio

And what a great line by Dorothy ...

"If you were really great and powerful, you would keep your promises!"

Originally Posted by aron

Fear is fear, manipulation is manipulation, control is control. In Pilate's case it is naked, in Lee's case it is cloaked. Subtle is more dangerous..

Originally Posted by aron

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nc2GSjmsYQ

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

What is super silly is the notion the local churches wield power like Pilate.... to kill people.

Now excommunication is a serious matter but it us not the same thing and your inability to distinguish them will trip you up.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

It's just your imagination. No comparison.

Originally Posted by aron

Fear is fear, manipulation is manipulation, control is control. In Pilate's case it is naked, in Lee's case it is cloaked. Subtle is more dangerous.

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

What is super silly is the notion the local churches wield power like Pilate.... to kill people.

Now excommunication is a serious matter but it us not the same thing and your inability to distinguish them will trip you up.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

""Don't you know that I have the power to kill you?" said Pilate (John 19:10). That's the kind of power wielded in churches like the LC. Fear-based power. "

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

>""Don't you know that I have the power to kill you?" said Pilate (John 19:10). That's the kind of power wielded in churches like the LC. Fear-based power. "

What a silly notion.

Originally Posted by Drake

Unreg >"...no need for headship ...."

What a travesty. Of course, there is a need, but more importantly a fact, of headship and authority in the universe.

Drake

Originally Posted by OBW

This need for claiming God's ordination on everything is something that has been bothering me for some time.

Originally Posted by aron

But God's sovereign arrangement, circa 50 or 60 AD Palestine, was not once and for all. Slavery as an institution ended, and eventually women were recognized as having the same personhood as men. Except in certain churches, of course. There, it is still first-century Palestinian social arrangements.

Originally Posted by Nee

"First Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 14, and Revelation 2 all show that God forbids a woman from teaching. Any sect that is started by a woman or headed up by one, or any group in which the woman occupies the same place as the man is highly suspicious. More than half of the heresies in the world have been started by women. For example, the founder of the Christian Scientists was Mary Baker Eddy, and the founder of the Seventh-day Adventists was Mrs. White. When the Bible speaks about Roman Catholicism, it also refers to the teaching of the woman Jezebel." [Watchman Nee, Messages for Building Up New Believers, Vol. 3, Chapter 20, Section 5]

"Paul forbade woman from doing the work of a teacher in 1 Timothy. The ascertaining of truth is a work that belongs to the teacher, and sisters should not do this. Some of the greatest heresies in this world come from women. The founders of the Christian Scientists, the Seventh-day Adventists, etc., have been women. The work of the sisters can be great, but the person of the sisters cannot be great. They should not expose themselves and should not be the ones to discern the truth." [Watchman Nee, Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 3) Vol. 58: Spiritual Judgment and Examples of Judgment, Chapter 13, Section 1]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

... Since there is no male or female IN CHRIST, then, when a woman becomes spiritual by being reborn spiritually, she is the same as a reborn man. Both man and woman should be assessed the same way. It is futile to keep harping on the sins of a woman who is still in the natural, because the focus should be on the spiritual, not the natural. I am a born again woman. I contend for the right to be as spiritual as a man, as able to learn directly from God, His Word and His Spirit, as a man. It is God Who teaches us all our roles in Him, whether as godly men or godly women. But nevertheless we all need no man teach us, for we all have the anointing. To represent that man learns directly from God but that woman needs a third entity -- a man -- to teach her, is NOT SCRIPTURAL. Paul could not have meant that. Surely he was speaking only in the context of speaking out of order in meetings, and somehow that was a problem in that particular early setting. Paul in other places, speaks very highly of certain women ministers.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

...It is futile to keep harping on the sins of a woman who is still in the natural, because the focus should be on the spiritual, not the natural. I am a born again woman.

Originally Posted by aron

Oooh... THAT cuts pretty close to the problem, no? They love Christ instead of "christandthechurch", ministry-style. And then they're wide open to love their neighbors, which might well involve putting the needs of those neighbors before the needs of the Mother Church. And so on, as religious organization takes a back seat to love. Big problem, here - can't have that, not for a minute.

Originally Posted by Ohio

One time in the crowded foyer of Cleveland's meeting hall, my elder was furious with me for a personal decision my wife and I made. He was screaming at me, just inches from my face, amidst the bustle of saints during break time. He made the stinging accusation, "can't you control your wife?!?"

Originally Posted by awareness

What about getting along with his wife? She was a dozy ... and a definite balance for Ron. But she didn't keep his head out of the clouds.

Given that it's no wonder RK made that statement about sisters. That and the fact that the Bible treats women like second class citizens, in the least, property, in the most, and Eve in the worst. Like Paul mentioned in 1st Tim. 2:14,

1Co_7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Originally Posted by Terry

Seems to me the thread should be renamed Ron Kangas' teaching on sisters. Something I cannot say about all the messages I have heard Witness Lee speak, but brother Ron, I cannot say I haven't heard a message when he isn't denigrating sisters.
I think Ron may have a problem with spiritual sisters because they tend to be Christ-centered instead of ministry-centered. That alone results in Christ versus Religion.

Originally Posted by awareness

Obscene ... but Biblical.

Originally Posted by aron

Oooh... THAT cuts pretty close to the problem, no? They love Christ instead of "christandthechurch", ministry-style. And then they're wide open to love their neighbors, which might well involve putting the needs of those neighbors before the needs of the Mother Church. And so on, as religious organization takes a back seat to love. Big problem, here - can't have that, not for a minute.

So "spirituality" becomes a big shibboleth. No, we want Organization Men (and Women), though and through. They are here for the Lord's Move. No loving your neighbors, or that spiritual stuff.

Originally Posted by Terry

Ron may have a problem with spiritual sisters because they tend to be Christ-centered instead of ministry-centered...

Originally Posted by Freedom

IMO, Ron's main problem is his inability to accept constructive criticism. He is the type who cannot accept blame, and I don't think he is able to admit to being wrong in any way. He has gone beyond his blended peers and insulated himself from all criticism. He calls the brother whom he considers to be his arch nemesis a "man of death". If he says that he considers "spiritual sisters" worse than those he would label as "rebellious", then I'm scared to know what he really thinks of women.

Originally Posted by Freedom

IMO, Ron's main problem is his inability to accept constructive criticism. He is the type who cannot accept blame, and I don't think he is able to admit to being wrong in any way. He has gone beyond his blended peers and insulated himself from all criticism. He calls the brother whom he considers to be his arch nemesis a "man of death". If he says that he considers "spiritual sisters" worse than those he would label as "rebellious", then I'm scared to know what he really thinks of women.

Originally Posted by awareness

What about getting along with his wife? She was a dozy ... and a definite balance for Ron. But she didn't keep his head out of the clouds.

Originally Posted by Ohio

When it comes to "raising up" the brothers and "perfecting them" by using public rebukes and shaming, a.k.a. "those weekly ice baths," the recovery is altogether unique. Even though they have no scriptural justification for how their leadership operates, they do have ... as their "founding mother" ... a dominant sister ... a missionary from a degraded denomination ... to vindicate their actions.

How in the world do they reconcile these pernicious anomalies?

Originally Posted by Freedom

Hmmmm, it sounds like Ron wouldn't have gotten along well with Nee's mentor (M.E. Barber).

Originally Posted by Freedom

Hmmmm, it sounds like Ron wouldn't have gotten along well with Nee's mentor (M.E. Barber).

Originally Posted by aron

"Sometimes I think that the only thing worse than a rebellious brother is a spiritual sister." - RK, current voice of the Blendeds.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Let's think about the converse/corollaries to these statements ...

Then the other half of the heresies were started by men.

Any sect started by a Chinese man or headed up by one is highly suspicious.

Originally Posted by aron

"Sometimes I think that the only thing worse than a rebellious brother is a spiritual sister." - RK, current voice of the Blendeds.

Originally Posted by Nee Lee

"First Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 14, and Revelation 2 all show that God forbids a woman from teaching. Any sect that is started by a woman or headed up by one, or any group in which the woman occupies the same place as the man is highly suspicious. More than half of the heresies in the world have been started by women.

Originally Posted by Watchman Nee

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Quote:

This is the basic and logical principle that we must care for: we can never express God or represent God by our own life. Consider your life. Your life is incapable of expressing God; it is only adequate to express yourself. ... At any rate, we all must admit that our natural life disqualifies us from expressing God and representing Him.

Witness Lee, Life-Study of Genesis

Well NO WONDER the LSM/LC is in disarray !!! They're reaping what they & Lee sowed!

Quote:
To a certain extent, a woman is not even qualified in life to represent her husband, because her life is not as high as her husband’s.
I wonder how Lee's 2 wives felt about this. They must have suffered something awful...unless they accepted their fate because 1) they were Chinese and 2) they were Lee's wives.

And just so everyone is clear Lee was not a Polygamist. Lee had 8 children by his first wife before she died. He remarried after his wife's death. I don't know if they had any children together.

It would also be interesting to know something about THEM. Anyone know?

Originally Posted by YP0534

And, yes, of course it's possible for a sister to have more growth spiritually than her husband. My observation while among the Local Church people was that this was usually the case. But Lee probably never considered what this might imply because he merely discounted it as the "abnormal" situation.

Originally Posted by bookworm

... In addition to our being enthralled with WL’s grasp of the scriptures, many of us also were very idealistic regarding paying heed to the Word. The verse I Corinthians 11:3, which states that “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” is an encouragement to women as they put their hope in God and trust that their husband will be under the headship of Christ. I for one believed that the more I submitted to my husband, the more accountable to Christ he would be. However, in daily living this may take quite a long time to be worked out due to fallen human nature. And surely this is why this is a problem not only in the LC.

Originally Posted by finallyprettyokay

And, I would hate to see this discussion moved to the Women's Only thread.

When this sort of bigotry exists, everyone needs to hear it. OBW, I really do understand your point. I do not enjoy entering into sort of theological discussions at all --- they usually seem so circular to me. But if you know that this is what women were taught at that place, it becomes relevant.

Control on any level was what WL was all about. All holds barred for the sake of control.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Good morning!

I have just read and caught up with the posts since yesterday. The first thing I did, YP0534, was note the time you started this thread. I had the same question as FinallyPrettyOkay, did you sleep?? But now that we know you have the ability to search on Lee/Nee's works (wow to that), I can see how you did this.

I note in Hope's post on the other thread that he had heard Lee make the same statement (about sisters and heresies) on numerous occasions. Keep in mind that many times the actual things Lee said in public were modified by the editing process. I have heard this from some who were involved. I have noticed that things I clearly remember hearing in some messages were different when they were published. Hope heard this behind closed doors, I suspect in male company only, which is more insidious.

Watch it there with that loaded language, bubba. A nit is the egg of a louse. The dictionary says nitpicky is to find insignificant details of something unsatisfactory, often unjustifiably. Hmmm... Okay, I’ll give you a pass this time. A nit-picker isn’t what is needed for this big topic, although getting rid of the eggs might be important. I think I’ll get out my gorilla-picker.

Aah, what a beautiful day it is going to be.

Thankful Jane

Originally Posted by Hope

I know for certain I heard WL say this and heard BP and others quote him. There was always an automatic knee jerk reaction by WL and his close circle toward strong women. But then they had the same reaction toward strong men who did not line up with the program.

I cannot ever remember any more than a passing mention that in Christ Jesus there is neither male or female.

This subject or problem is not limited to WL or the LC.

Hope

Originally Posted by Hope

I cannot ever remember any more than a passing mention that in Christ Jesus there is neither male or female.

Originally Posted by finallyprettyokay

YPO:

I have been wondering if it could have been Nee. None of these quotes seem like the exact one I was thinking of, but they all certainly make the case for Lee's feelings about women being waaaay less than men.

So, anything in the Nee stuff?

Originally Posted by finallyprettyokay

YPO:

Did you sleep last night?

Great work. Still, these do not sound like the quote I remember reading and talking about. Let's see, it would have been some time around 1973 or 74, maybe a little earlier, but probably not later than 74. Just by thinking about where we lived at the time.

The quote was concerning Genesis (I think) , and how 'sin and deception entered through woman' and thus women --- blah, blah, blah. We all know the drill by now.

Jane --- any of that time period ring a bell?

YPO, you are the Sherlock Holmes of old quotes! Anyone else?

What a rockin' group of people we are here!!!


FPO

Witness Lee, Life-Study of Genesis

Witness Lee, Life-Study of Genesis

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

The problem I have with what he wrote here is he left out THE BROTHERS!!

Witness Lee, Life-Study of First Corinthians

Witness Lee, Life-Study of Genesis

Witness Lee, Life-Study of First Peter

Originally Posted by Terry

FPO, back in the 60's when people started meeting what is now known as the Local Churches, not all of them were newly regenerated Christians. I'm sure many came out of Baptist, Southern Baptist, Mennonite, Jehovah Witness, Brethren, Presbyterian, among other possible backgrounds.
In many cases whatever their backgrounds were, attitudes and behaviors from these backgrounds came with them.

Terry

Originally Posted by finallyprettyokay

And all sorts of churches have these ideas, the LC is not alone in this.

FPO

Originally Posted by Terry

Brothers who may have contempt for sisters or have little thought for sister's meaningful contributions, I wouldn't call it a Local Church practice. Rather could a brother's upbringing forge their attitudes and behaviors towards sisters?

Terry

Originally Posted by aron

3. Someone needs to tell Ron Kangas he is a borderline misogynist, if not a full-blown one. He really puts down the sisters. The contempt dripping from his voice is obvious to me, and quite offensive, and I am a brother! I can't imagine what it would be like as a female to sit there and take it as he endeavors to put them in their "proper" place. It is really odious. I bet it stinks all the way to high heaven.

Originally Posted by YP0534

If you moved this one to Mary and Martha's house, I think I would have to ask for permission to visit there for this discussion. I do not think we should ignore this important issue.

But I would like to see this in another thread since, once again again, I'm not sure the Midwestern brothers have really been focused on this particular topic.

Although, I could be mistaken.

I'm not up on all the news from the Midwest.

Originally Posted by YP0534

One, I heard the repetitions of the express words of Paul, which present issues of their own. A brother I know and I have discussed this recently and he's of the opinion that some of this kind of talk may actually be later superimposition on the text by clerics. I haven't investigated that but it does seem plausible. In any event, to make too much of what Paul presumably taught doesn't even make sense in the context of the rest of the New Testament. If there is anything to it beyond Paul's own culture, it surely isn't much.

Originally Posted by finallyprettyokay

And, I would hate to see this discussion moved to the Women's Only thread.

When this sort of bigotry exsists, everyone needs to hear it.

Originally Posted by finallyprettyokay

You know, I absolutely remember this "teaching" clearly. I remember reading it, and talking about it.

Jane: WL said that all the major heresies in church history were introduced by women. You might not hear that the same way a woman would. I was told that sisters cannot get revelation from the Bible. Why? ... because they can be easily deceived, like Eve was.

I can not remember where I read it, but I clearly remember it. Jane, do you know where it was?

And then, of course, I heard so many times "this is so simple, even the sisters will understand". If only I had a dollar for each time ---

Simple-minded and all heresies and deception came from woman. Nice.

Originally Posted by YP0534

Are you kidding me?

I mean, I could believe it, I guess, because of the cultural context, but, it just seems so extreme!

Can you tell me where I could find this opinion in print? I've still got a bunch of old books on my shelf but I don't want this sort of thing in my house for sure! That's just ridiculous.

Honestly, the lack of knowledge of Christian history revealed in such a statement is astonishing. Women weren't even permitted speak on such topics for most of the last 2000 + years!

How can they be "silent in the church" and simultaneously the leaders of the heresies???

Originally Posted by YP0534

Thankful?

Are you kidding me?

I mean, I could believe it, I guess, because of the cultural context, but, it just seems so extreme!

Can you tell me where I could find this opinion in print? I've still got a bunch of old books on my shelf but I don't want this sort of thing in my house for sure! That's just ridiculous.

Honestly, the lack of knowledge of Christian history revealed in such a statement is astonishing. Women weren't even permitted speak on such topics for most of the last 2000 + years!

How can they be "silent in the church" and simultaneously the leaders of the heresies??? :rollingeyes2:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane