Originally Posted by Freedom

It sounds like he enjoyed the same fate as James Barber, getting sent away to some remote place. It's ironical really. The LC is not just a system that turns on those who speak against Lee/LSM, but it also turns on those who have supported it.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I was told by a co-worker (serving both the GLA and SoCal) that GG was "too legal" for the other blendeds, so they maneuvered him out.

Originally Posted by Freedom

It sounds to me like GG was against the reinstatement of Philip Lee, however, maybe he read the letter to demonstrate loyalty to the ministry.

I don't know if this is fair to say, but I get the idea that maybe GG might realized he got the short end of the stick. He stayed loyal to Lee/LSM in the 80's, but nonetheless, eventually moved away from Anaheim which is the center of all things LSM.

Originally Posted by Terry

Another very interesting event transpired shortly before Br. Lee’s death. Two announcements were made after a meeting. First, a letter was read by Gene Gruhler which reinstated Phillip Lee into the church fellowship. Second, Gene announced his moving to Denver. To most this was coincidental.

After GG was gone you began to hear, behind the scenes, the joy from some of the blended speakers that he was finally gone. Ed Marks spoke some of the strongest words. There was no love lost.

Eventually after Br. Lee’s departure there was a reassigning of the regions of the work to brothers. GG had always taken care of the Mountain States. Now, even though he was living in Denver, Mel Porter was the new worker to oversee that region.

Four years ago, while in the Denver area doing research for a book, I visited Br. Gene, not related to the book. He did not speak about the things that transpired in Anaheim. He has very high standards for himself before the Lord. There was only one little sentence of three words spoken at the very end when I was leaving. I realized from them he had been maneuvered out of Anaheim with the view to purge him out."

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Not sure what you're asking as re Looper's passing.

As for Gruhler being "dumped", that had already happened by the time I heard Looper saying these things. So I wondered whether Looper was being credited for something that was actually Gruhler's brainchild, but of course had to be reassigned to a "faithful brother" after Gruhler got the out.

Also, I should point out that I know very little about what happened to Gene Gruhler. Though I do remember hearing people talk about him in these vague, general terms. Something along the lines of, "Last we heard, he was in Colorado somewhere, but no one really knows what he's doing." I heard people talk the same way about Bill Mallon, "Last we heard, he was in Florida somewhere, but as far as I know, he's really not doing anything there." (Whatever that means.)

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Has anyone on this forum met Stephen Kaung?

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can say the same thing about Titus Chu -- "only wanting others who would work for him (minions and yes men)"-- as you said about Witness Lee. In fact, that was the assessment of his lifelong companion in NYC, Benjamen Chen, at his Quarantine meeting in Whistler, BC, Canada.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can say the same thing about Titus Chu -- "only wanting others who would work for him (minions and yes men)"-- as you said about Witness Lee. In fact, that was the assessment of his lifelong companion in NYC, Benjamen Chen, at his Quarantine meeting in Whistler, BC, Canada.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Their staff don't seem to understand much about how the internet works either, even almost 20 year later here in 2014. Their most obvious misconception is the thought that by ignoring what is said on the internet that it will somehow just go away. Also having a disclaimer on their site along with their copyright that says "Your IP address is __" doesn't make me want to read their books. I can't think of any other site that has such a warning on it.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously the elderly Lee was not the internet mastermind. LSM had staff who were directed to look into these matters.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Ohio, I didn't realize the push to buy up lots of domain names came directly from Lee? I remember the push for individual localities to sign up for their "own" websites starting later, maybe around 1999. But maybe it had already been a couple years in the works.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Maybe he wasn't completely "happy" working with others, it's probably better to say he was at least willing to work with others. The contrast is that Lee only wanted others who would work for him (minions and yes men), although I'm sure that was also true of Nee, just to a lesser extent.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

As a kid I was told that CFP altered and/or added to Nee's messages to fit their own doctrinal agenda. That was the warning that only LSM's published versions of Nee should be trusted.

Troy Books, on the other hand, has claimed that LSM did the same thing. But I don't know if Troy Brooks is a particularly reliable source...

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Has anyone on this forum met Stephen Kaung?

Originally Posted by Terry

As a frame of reference, Stephen Kaung is the only one I am familiar with. If other brothers such as Stephen Kaung who were discipled by Watchman Nee, did not share Lee's emphasis on localism. They were more influenced by Nee and Sparks. Due to the agree to disagree relationship, Lee considered himself as having no peers.

Originally Posted by Ohio

He did. He said it was his greatest source of "persecution." Then he launched a program to buy up web names and instructed us to rack up hits
on LC/LSM sites to influence those fledgling search engines.

Originally Posted by Igzy

When I joined the LC around '75, they did carry the CLC (Normal Ch. Life, Sit Walk Stand) and CFP (Kaung) books. But then the word came down that those were "poor translations" and perpetrated by "rebels" or the "unclear" to boot. And that was the end of them in our bookroom.

Lee was nothing if not an information controller. He would have hated the internet.

Originally Posted by Freedom

What I find interesting is that I have seen very few people in the LC who have any non-LSM Nee books. Is this just a coincidence? If many of Nee's works have been translated by Kaung then that would explain it. I don't know how things were back in the old days, but it seems that currently a lot of Nee's works are ignored in the LC. I am surprised how much is out there that I have never heard of before.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I am not aware of any of Nee's coworkers whom Lee went on to work with. Lee had no peers, correct? I know that when Lee came to the US there were some Chinese saints like brother Samuel Chang who had already been following Nee/Lee, however, I would guess that they must have viewed Lee as a leader or father figure as opposed to one of their peers.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not sure about that. Why would he develop a theological construct -- one church one city -- which in effect condemns all others, if he was "happy" to work with them?

Both Nee and Lee worked a system of public shamings and rebukes which automatically placed them on top -- they alone were above reproach.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I suppose there is a lot that we will never know, however, what I do know is that Nee was happy to work with others, much more than Lee was. Also, after reading Steve's recent writing on Nee, it is clear that Nee was not the person that Lee portrayed him as.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here's how I understand it.

Except for a few books which he actually wrote, most of Nee's books were written from the personal notes of atttendees, since no actual recordings existed. If you have ever been in a meeting or a lecture, then you know that one's notes can differ greatly from another. Secondarily, these hand-written notes needed to be translated into English. Hence, another layer of subjectivity is introduced.

This is why two or three books by various publishers may exist based on the same spoken messages by Nee. Lee, of course, claimed his were the best, and all others were subject to error. Since he claimed that he alone was "Nee's closest and most faithful co-worker," we complied by canning all other books and buying LSM's bound blue volumes.

Originally Posted by Igzy

When I joined the LC around '75, they did carry the CLC (Normal Ch. Life, Sit Walk Stand) and CFP (Kaung) books. But then the word came down that those were "poor translations" and perpetrated by "rebels" or the "unclear" to boot. And that was the end of them in our bookroom.

Lee was nothing if not an information controller. He would have hated the internet.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I think many in the LC have the impression that LSM is the only publisher of WN works, or at the very least LSM has published all of Nee's works. If I search for "Watchman Nee" on Amazon, many of the results are books from other publishers.

What I find interesting is that I have seen very few people in the LC who have any non-LSM Nee books. Is this just a coincidence? If many of Nee's works have been translated by Kaung then that would explain it. I don't know how things were back in the old days, but it seems that currently a lot of Nee's works are ignored in the LC. I am surprised how much is out there that I have never heard of before.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I think many in the LC have the impression that LSM is the only publisher of WN works, or at the very least LSM has published all of Nee's works. If I search for "Watchman Nee" on Amazon, many of the results are books from other publishers.

What I find interesting is that I have seen very few people in the LC who have any non-LSM Nee books. Is this just a coincidence? If many of Nee's works have been translated by Kaung then that would explain it. I don't know how things were back in the old days, but it seems that currently a lot of Nee's works are ignored in the LC. I am surprised how much is out there that I have never heard of before.

Originally Posted by Friedel

Add

I do not think they ever had exclusive rights since all of Watchman Nee's books, with the exception of The Spiritual Man which he had in fact written, were transcripts of messages and therefore in the public domain. The language was polished and then published as books. Steven Kaung has been described as an excellent translator and that is how many of Nee's "books" were published in English in the US. (Regarding publishing rights of Watchman Nee's material Witness Lee possibly had another story.)

In England Angus Kinnear published a couple of books in hard cover, including The Normal Christian Life. He must have started in the 1960s and probably at the behest of his father-in-law, Theodore Austin-Sparks, who had probably received copies of messages from people he had met in Taiwan and elsewhere.

Witness Lee often put down Steven Kaung and effectively isolated him on the east coast.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I don't really hear them encourage anyone to read Nee these days. What I have also not heard mentioned is that LSM doesn't have exclusive publishing rights to Nee's materials.

Originally Posted by Friedel

They did publish it as a single volume. It is also Volume 33 of the Collected Works of Watchman Nee.

Originally Posted by Freedom

To my knowledge, LSM has never published "The Normal Christian Life", which is arguably Nee's best known work. I think that the LC mainly focuses on "The Normal Christian Church Life", which ironically doesn't espouse the current views in the LC.

Originally Posted by Terry

By the way Freedom, when I go to a LC home meeting I bring my New American Standard version.

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is where I really get frustrated with the LC. The exclusive use of LSM publications is rationalized by saying that WL has put "everything together" in his works. They say that there is no need to go to any other books outside of LSM publications.

It always amazes me how uncomfortable everyone gets when a newcomer brings their own version of the Bible. These things should be red flags, even to those in the LC. And to think at one time I thought that exclusively using LSM publications was completely normal.

Originally Posted by Terry

Whoa! I tend to think just as with the Bible, WL used from WN's ministry that which was expedient. Just as portions of the Bible that doesn't conform to Lee's ministry, similar with Nee's ministry, it gets ignored or passed over. WL's aligning to WN's ministry, is a type of riding on the coattails of WN's reputation.

Originally Posted by aron

The idea that WN & WL scooped up everything worthwhile from 2,000 years of Christian writing is arrogant and patently absurd. And the idea that once WN & WL started giving messages, and putting pen to paper, every other Christian ministry was rendered null and void, is equally arrogant and absurd.

Originally Posted by Freedom

The exclusive use of LSM publications is rationalized by saying that WL has put "everything together" in his works. They say that there is no need to go to any other books outside of LSM publications.

Originally Posted by Terry

True. Visiting last July, the morning revival being covered had some content on fellowship. Basically you've covered it Freedom. Ones in the local churches are open for fellowship as long as it's according to LSM publications.
I'm all for oneness and fellowship. How about dropping the LSM publications and fellowship according to the Bible?

Originally Posted by Freedom

My experience has been that many times they will say things like "we are open to fellowship with all Christians" or something to that effect. In the LC such statements are meaningless. First of all if it were really true, there would be no need to say that. Why would they need to clarify that? They need to say that because of WL's various statements blasting Christianity, Denominations, Protestantism and Catholicism.

I think a realistic view of the LC's willingness to fellowship with other Christians is that they are willing to have other Christians attend LC meetings. They are not willing to attend other churches.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

If they desire oneness, why do they not gather together with churches in their own neighborhoods? Why do their campus clubs avoid fellowship or interaction with other Christian clubs on the campus?

Originally Posted by Terry

Another practice I heard on my 2013 visit to the LC from my youth, is referring to non-LSM churches as "denominations". Everyone is meeting in division except the brothers and sisters meeting in the local churches. Time for a reality check.

Originally Posted by Terry

Another practice within the local churches, when a brother or sister leaves the local churches to receive actual care in a non-LC assembly, the attitude and speaking is "they've been lost to the world".

Originally Posted by Ohio

He came quite close to getting punched out.

Twice it happened to me too. Once I escaped, and the other time I was branded with a shiner for weeks.

Originally Posted by Terry

My experience was in 1985/1986 before the full time training came into existence.

Originally Posted by HERn

This why there is a need for mature saints to be around to rebuke the FTT graduate serving ones who are rebuking our young ones. My fear is that the FTT graduates are taking over the churches.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Ohio, do you care to be a little more specific as to what you mean by "physical confrontations"? That could mean a lot of things...

Originally Posted by Terry

In particular I know serving brothers and sisters mean well. Maybe there is a misplaced zeal concerning deputy/delegated authority and how to handle/interact with young people. Though teens may not respond, at least with my teen children they are observant.
What I witnessed at a Young People's Conference I was at, during a free time in the afternoon being with young brothers from my locality. One of them was talking to a young sister from another locality with her peers. A serving brother comes running over towards us speaking a rebuking word about brothers and sisters speaking to each other. I thought this was quite bizarre behavior reacting to the group of young people.
I want my children to be able to speak to peers of the opposite gender without feeling they're committing a gross sin.

Originally Posted by Terry

In particular I know serving brothers and sisters mean well. Maybe there is a misplaced zeal concerning deputy/delegated authority and how to handle/interact with young people. Though teens may not respond, at least with my teen children they are observant.
What I witnessed at a Young People's Conference I was at, during a free time in the afternoon being with young brothers from my locality. One of them was talking to a young sister from another locality with her peers. A serving brother comes running over towards us speaking a rebuking word about brothers and sisters speaking to each other. I thought this was quite bizarre behavior reacting to the group of young people.
I want my children to be able to speak to peers of the opposite gender without feeling they're committing a gross sin.

Originally Posted by Terry

My sentiment also. At the grade school level, not a problem. It was when my children reached junior high, (having witnessed bizarre and reactive behavior at YP Conferences I had attended as a teen), I wanted to shield my children from similar experiences.

Originally Posted by Ohio

There are a number of cases where certain gifted brothers were berated publicly to the point that younger brothers lost all respect for them, and began to also mistreat them. In one situation, Titus became so abusive publicly towards one brother, that he faced physical confrontations from others thinking they were standing up for the Lord and protecting His church.

Originally Posted by Ohio

There are a number of cases where certain gifted brothers were berated publicly to the point that younger brothers lost all respect for them, and began to also mistreat them. In one situation, Titus became so abusive publicly towards one brother, that he faced physical confrontations from others thinking they were standing up for the Lord and protecting His church.

Originally Posted by Terry

My sentiment also. At the grade school level, not a problem. It was when my children reached junior high, (having witnessed bizarre and reactive behavior at YP Conferences I had attended as a teen), I wanted to shield my children from similar experiences.

Originally Posted by Dave

When I was in Detroit I had two small children and I was watching what was going on..."oh Lord Jesus" repeatedly, the shouting in meetings, the constant pray-reading and that was the beginning of the end for me but not the deciding issue. I was concerned about raising my children in that environment. There were other issues and I was fully aware of the issues surrounding the Plymouth Brethren since we were similar.

The bottom line for me was when Ron K. and the other two elders in an open meeting berated another brother, Don O. and I for "not following brothers". Don and I had been involved in bringing in the young people and I had been working the University. We were doing some crazy stuff after going to Berkeley and seeing what they were doing. We were concerned that the elders were not willing to follow some things but we were certainly flexible. Rather than pull us aside and talk to us about it they decide to deride us openly in a meeting. We were just in our 20's and we were doing the best we could full tilt. Don O cried and I was just stunned. Using a basic right in our country there was no due process or fairness. In the end what they did was blow up the efforts of Don O and I and the pursuit of bringing in young people of which I had brought some into the LC from the University.

As we know, these were not unique responses from LC leaders because these are the practices of the LCs over the years!

Originally Posted by Dave

I was concerned about raising my children in that environment.

Originally Posted by Terry

Many like us who were raised in the local churches, don't know any differently. Meeting with other assemblies, I am quite fine with local churches being somewhat unorthodox. Unique? Not really. Speak with someone from the Exclusive Brethren and you'll realize the local churches are not so unique. Sure they might try to use high sounding words to appear unique, but not really.
Real issues for a former LC attendee such as myself are the practices (orthopraxy) that are sectarian and only produce division.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I think the LC sees being accepted by mainstream Christianity as necessary for survival. The problem with that is if they were to adopt mainstream teachings and practices, there would be nothing "special" about it. For any ministry to claim it is the the ministry of the age means that there is going to be something wrong with it.

So the LC can create the illusion of being orthodox, but it will never succeed at being orthodox.

Originally Posted by Terry

As I sum up your post Freedom, appears you're saying:
1. LSM/LC leadership want to appear/maintain image of orthodox to Christian scholars and public (see CRI).
2. In practice maintain/promote the Lee's ministry as "unique".
3. Of new contacts visiting LC meetings will either be turned away by promotion of a ministry and few will be drawn into the vision.

As a current LC elder once said..."the recovery is not for everybody".

Originally Posted by Freedom

It really seems like for LC leadership, there is a constant struggle to balance teaching and practice. For the Christian public they want to appear orthodox. I suppose that they have had some success at that in recent years, but I don't think just because Christian scholars state that the LC is orthodox is going to generate interest in the LC for outsiders.

In regards to doctrine, the LC has to maintain unique the unique teachings of WL. That is what makes it the LC. In regards to practice, they have to maintain their unique practices in order really unique in comparison with other "Christians".

To they outsider, they can create an image of having orthodox doctrines. That is relatively easy. I don't know how they can really do the same in regards to practice. About the best they can do is be very esoteric regarding what practices are revealed to whom.

It doesn't seem possible in the LC to gravitate towards normal Christian orthopraxy. Those who come in and do so don't seem to last very long. Those who stay quickly are drawn into the heteropraxy, and once that happens it is not easy to find a way out. I say that because I am still in the LC.

Originally Posted by aron

I wanted to move this from the "introductions" thread to here, because this really strikes at the heart of "orthodoxy" versus "orthopraxy".

After writing the above comments, I began singing the chorus of a little melody to myself: "Feed me Lord Jesus/Give me to drink/fill all my hunger/Quench all my thirst/Flood me with joy/Be the strength of my heart/Fill all my hunger/Quench all my thirst"

It all sounds so orthodox, doesn't it? Pleasnt little song, catchy melody. That is part of the "hook" to get the converts in. Make it seem so good, and proper, and "Biblical". Everything is seemingly by the book. But once you are in, and fully invested in the system, and you begin to see things that are not, in fact, Biblical, what can you do? Because the system's directives also say, "Maximum Brother is always right". They use, for example, the story of Moses and Miriam and Aaron, and the story of the drunken Noah, and they say this shows us God's plan of a normal church life.

So when Lee said to pan the Psalms, we all did. Even if Paul had written in his epistles to sing them, Lee said not to sing them. So in practice, we went with Lee, over the Bible. This is not heretical, per se, but rather deviant behavior. We paid lip service to the Bible, then went and did what the "God's oracle" told us to do. To me this looks unbalanced, and dangerous. Heteropraxy, if you will.

One day about 2 years ago I was getting interested in the Psalms and I went to LSM's website, on the "Music" section. At the top of one page they had the quote from Paul in his epistle, urging the saints to sing "Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs". And they had many, many music CDs for sale. But no Psalms! You could sing verses from Thessalonians, or Timothy, or even the outline of Lee's trainings ("Incarnation, inclusion, intensification!"). But no Psalms. Why? Because Lee had told us that they were "fallen concepts" and should be avoided. So Big Brother had spoken, and even if it made no sense we had to follow. Because, remember, Big Brother is always right. Even when he's wrong, he's right.

So they take great pains to appear orthodox, but when you start to hang around with them, you begin to realize that at best they are unbalanced and strange.

Originally Posted by aron

There is nothing wrong with using our own personal homilies to illustrate spiritual principles we see in the Bible. Preachers and pastors do it on Sunday morning from the pulpit: they use their own "parables" to illustrate themes and narratives found within the text.

But Lee's homilies became substitutes for scriptures, and common sense. Our thinking was reduced to WWBLS? What would Brother Lee say? If he talked about gophers, so did we.


... So eating, drinking, breathing Jesus became what Lee told us it was, no more or less. Lee's folk homilies replaced the Bible.

Originally Posted by Ohio

If we have learned anything from Richard Nixon, it's that the cover-up is almost always worse than the crime.

Originally Posted by aron

And when the problems came, we just "covered" them. We relabeled them as "Storms" and "turmoils" and "rebellions", instead of that unrighteousness was among us. So yes, we were covered. Our history was covered. The truth was covered. God's revelation was covered.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Freedom, I have a similar memory. I had also seen John Ingalls' name in the old books, and I remember mentioning his name in a home meeting. I also knew nothing of the history, though I had heard of a "rebellion" or "storm" in the 80's, but how would I have known that he was "involved" in that? Anyway, the response I got? People just stared at me. Made me really uncomfortable. You'd think I'd grown alien antennae or something.

Originally Posted by awareness

That's why it's become called "The Hidden History of the Local Church." They cover their past like a cat covers their ........ well that ... it ... without sh.

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks to bro Ohio I got hard copies of Jim's website, and scanned them into digital ... it's a mess but can be put together. Just to defy LSM I'll send them to anyone that requests them in PM.

Originally Posted by Dave

Originally Posted by awareness

That's why it's become called "The Hidden History of the Local Church." They cover their past like a cat covers their ........ well that ... it ... without sh.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Freedom, I have a similar memory. I had also seen John Ingalls' name in the old books, and I remember mentioning his name in a home meeting. I also knew nothing of the history, though I had heard of a "rebellion" or "storm" in the 80's, but how would I have known that he was "involved" in that? Anyway, the response I got? People just stared at me. Made me really uncomfortable. You'd think I'd grown alien antennae or something.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Before I ever read anything on the internet, I saw John's name in the hymnal introduction. I also saw it in the preface/forward to older copies of the classic LSM titles, and I saw it in some Life Sudy messages.

So there I was, a church kid who grew up after all these brothers had left. I never heard the names of any brothers like JI, it wasn't until I saw those names in print that I began to wonder who they were. I even asked someone about it and they said they didn't know. I thought to myself, hmmmmm this seems suspicious. Eventually I found out by reading these forums.

Originally Posted by Terry

Not only an ex-LC brother, but happened to be a former elder of the church in Anaheim. Of course the blendeds don't want to know how impressed John was with the trainees. Because the ministry portrays brothers like John anything but loving brothers in the Lord.

Originally Posted by Freedom

One area the LC has little focus on the community. It seems the community isn't worth their time. I know that they do have a "community" team in the FTTA. Last I heard, some of the trainees were talking about how the community team went door knocking in the area near the training center and happened to inadvertently visit the home of an ex-LC brother and talk to him. Of course we all know the LC's position on talking to "negative" ones, but trainees are not going to know the who's who of ex-members. Apparently there was some talk about keeping better track of where the community team is visiting. Sounds like they have more important things to worry about than contacting the community, such as censoring the trainees from ex-members.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I've also observed this type of thing. Full-timers and other local church members will go out of their way to coordinate the timing of when a particular "new one" from the campus will be introduced to the home meetings, the big meetings, the Holy Word for Morning Revival books, "calling on the Lord," etc. Even as I write this, I realize that this could be considered rather innocuous, or, it could certainly seem to some people like they have something to hide. And I think they do lose plenty of potential recruits on account of that.

But I think they're also willing to be content w/an overall retention rate, so to speak, that is much less than 50%.

Originally Posted by Freedom

With students, the process goes on from there and they use baby steps to introduce aspects and practices of the LC. I think there is a lot of consideration as to what to introduce to each person at a particular point in time. On a more general level, I have heard it said many times to not bring a newcomer to a Lord’s Table meeting right off the bat. To me, this kind of thinking clearly demonstrates that there is something about the LC that they wish to “hide” from newcomers.

Originally Posted by Freedom

They can present their picture of the LC for people like Hank Hanegraaff, but when it comes down to it, it's not the entire picture, nor is it an accurate picture.

Originally Posted by HERn

But, there are other practices that are not easily observed. It is (I think) these hidden practices that that reveal the true (at least to me) nature of the LSM-associated churches who self-designate themselves as "The Lord's Recovery".

Originally Posted by HERn

I was attracted to the LSM-associated local churches by their practices at the Lord's table and prophesying meetings. Simple spontaneous prayers and calling for hymns by "regular" believers and spontaneous testimonies with prophecies (micro-sermons) from anyone willing to stand up and speak seemed (at least to me) to be practices that could have occurred in the primitive church. It was because of these practices that I was willing to ignore some "red flags" regarding doctrinal issues. These practices were open, mostly harmless and easily observed. But, there are other practices that are not easily observed. It is (I think) these hidden practices that that reveal the true (at least to me) nature of the LSM-associated churches who self-designate themselves as "The Lord's Recovery". It became clear to me that some of the leaders who spoke much about following Christ and the New Testament were only following Witness Lee's interpretation of Christ and the New Testament. Another practice that seemed prevalent to me was that most of the brothers who became "leading ones" or elders were vetted and "approved" by other leaders outside of the locality who were more often than not associated with LSM. The LSM-associated local churches tout local control, but my observations convinced me everything is under the strong influence of LSM-loyal brothers often to the detriment of the feelings of the saints in the locality.

Originally Posted by OBW

But I know someone who heard a little about that stuff probably 20 years after the fact and started digging around a little. The result was eventually an exit from their numbers.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I've known people who remain in the Recovery, and remain quite loyal to the LSM/Anaheim leadership, despite being aware of the "skeletons in the closet". I wouldn't assume that just because Ham's dog Toto (so to speak) comes along and pulls back the curtain on Philip Lee, Daystar, and lackluster suit sales in Seattle -- that everyone who sees that is necessarily going to run for the hills.

Sometimes, these things cause people to become more entrenched.

Originally Posted by OBW

So instead of real change, they do their version of a Hail Mary, and convince the majority to stay. And they will continue to succeed with at least a core of followers as long as Toto does not pull the curtain back on the sins of the fathers.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Soon after, Looper died and Gruhler was dumped by the Blindeds.

Is there a connection?

Originally Posted by Terry

Maybe someone can comment further on this, but is there a correlation on the deputy authority practice and pride?

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I was in a meeting in which Don Looper discussed the pipeline concept. He referred to the fact that the term, "the pipeline", had been credited to him. While I don't remember exactly what he said, he did say something to the effect of, that he didn't think it had come from him, but that that's what people were saying. Almost as if he had resigned himself to taking credit for coining the phrase.

Does that make sense to anyone?

Originally Posted by aron

The pipeline concept was a formal attempt to stop the mass exodus of young people away from the Local Churches. It was organizational, and systematic, and was a reaction of man and not an action of God (along with about 45 other "moves" and "flows" that I can think of).

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I was in a meeting in which Don Looper discussed the pipeline concept. He referred to the fact that the term, "the pipeline", had been credited to him. While I don't remember exactly what he said, he did say something to the effect of, that he didn't think it had come from him, but that that's what people were saying. Almost as if he had resigned himself to taking credit for coining the phrase.

Does that make sense to anyone?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Gene Gruhler had everybody excited about the "pipeline." In case you forgot, at the time it was LSM's latest program for our children. Started with singing to babies still in the womb, and ended with them becoming full-timers.

Shouldn't leave his quotes in the Xerox machine.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

The sad thing is, in retrospect, it's possible that if I'd had the opportunity to get to know this sister, I might have been interested. She wasn't unattractive, I'd just really never talked to her before. So it felt like these guys were putting the cart before the horse, trying to get me to be interested when there had never been any real opportunity for mutual interest to develop in the first place.

Welcome to the Lord's Recovery. So, what else is new?

Originally Posted by aron

Just Google "Gene Gruhler" and it is one of the first links. It is from an anti-Christian web site.

http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/Misc%2...ainwashing.htm

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I agree with aron that this seems like a kind of psychological manipulation. Aron, is there a link to this quote?

I think this has been a kind of trend in the LRC over the years, that it has come to attract people who enjoy influencing, even manipulating, other people -- especially younger people -- just a tiny little bit too much. Maybe the word "interloper" could be used to describe this?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Both Nee and Lee taught that there should be twice as many sisters as brothers in a local church.

This was "based" upon the house in Bethany in John chapter 12, which supposedly was a true model or "miniature" of the healthy church life. Read about these ten distinguishing "characteristics" in the first footnote on John 12.1. The footnote item (5) says "having more sisters than brothers," but I heard elsewhere on a number of occasions that Nee prescribed a 2:1 ratio.

Even the footnote seems to contradict this "model" ratio by including Simon the leper. That would make 2 brothers and 2 sisters, perhaps a more "ideal" ratio.

This footnote is so typical of the ministries of both Nee and Lee. Both needed to maintain their "Seer" status by "seeing" truths and patterns in the Bible which no one else could "see." By "seeing" the proper sister:brother ratio in a "normal" local church they established a standard which no church could measure up to.

Originally Posted by aron

The psychological manipulation in the local churches is more effectively used on the females, I believe. The Local Church workers present propositions to create an emotional response. Men usually are more clinical, more questioning. Female listeners usually will get emotional. They're impacted by psychological pressure, and emotional appeal, then they uncritically accept the propositions at face value, and are emotionally committed.

Originally Posted by aron

When I was there I was approached several times by elders and "workers" about getting connected to some faithful sister who was pining away as the years rolled past. It didn't sound too romantic to me. So I managed to evade them.

Originally Posted by aron

One day I just walked out. I had no job, no money, no nothing. I was completely dependent upon them for housing, food, direction, etc. My family was gone and the "I'll never go back any more. No, no, no..." song had been sung so many times... but I just walked out. I got into a homeless shelter, got a menial job through a temp agency, and kept going. I was tired of seeing the same people every day, all of them afraid to do anything without "fellowship". I wanted to follow the Spirit.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Another phrase I remember hearing a lot was that "marriages/relationships happen very quickly in the church life" (I'm paraphrasing). This was said as if it is a good thing, or somehow a normal thing for folks in their group to develop a romantic relationship and then tie the knot quickly. Not sure if there's anything "Biblical" about that?

Originally Posted by HERn

Why is it that young women in the LSM associated local churches have such a hard time getting married? There are many dear single sisters in several localities that have wanted a husband for years. Is there a similar trend in other Christian denominations? Maybe in the "recovery" there aren't enough single brothers? But, I don't think that is the total explanation. Could this be a "sign" that the Lord's blessing is not on the "recovery"? You old-timers may have been out of the "recovery" loop for so long that you might not be aware of this demographic trend.

Originally Posted by HERn

Why is it that young women in the LSM associated local churches have such a hard time getting married? There are many dear single sisters in several localities that have wanted a husband for years. Is there a similar trend in other Christian denominations? Maybe in the "recovery" there aren't enough single brothers?

Originally Posted by GeneGruhler

During this time two always serve together. It does not matter if there are only two kids, two workers are always there. One is giving the lesson and the other is watching the faces. You can tell what point touches what kid. They have a long period of time in the mornings so when the lesson is over and they turn to other things, the worker that was watching the faces, takes the ones that were touched into another room and leads them to be definitely and personally saved if they are ready. But usually when they are touched their eyes tear or something. You can tell when they are ready.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Have you heard people say, in regards to this trend, something like, "It is Biblical"? This is what I was told by more than one brother. As I remember, it's based on the fact that at the end of some of the Epistles, Paul mentions more women than men (Dorcas, Phoebe, etc.). So this is the basis for saying that "it is Biblical!" that there would end up being this kind of imbalance in the local churches. (Is this taught specifically by Witness Lee, does anybody know? I believe it is, but I'm not certain.)

Originally Posted by OBW

I also have learned that some of the things we all thought were elder-initiated were actually things we presumed and acted on without thought. There was a lot of thought that everyone had to have elder's permission to date/marry. Seems that while they might provide advice if asked, they had much less to do with it than we thought. (At least in Dallas.) Doesn't mean there was no involvement. And probably different leading ones were different in approach.

Originally Posted by Freedom

To the best of my knowledge, this thought still exists in the LC today. I don't know how common it is, but in the LC I am in, I have heard something to this effect. I have also heard brothers from different LC's imply the same thing, that couples need to get some kind of permission to date/marry.

The problem is that there is really no official rule. If there was it would be easy to call out LC leadership and ask them why they think they have a say in people's personal lives. I know for a fact that some in the LC will say bad things behind the backs of couples who have broken this rule.

Originally Posted by OBW

Originally Posted by Freedom

This sounds about right. I don't think that everyone is aware of rules like these, however, most have some idea of what they are. I'm sure the assumption is made say if a couple is dating, then it has been "approved", regardless of if it actually has or not. No one wants to be the one to actually ask about these rules, or worse question the elders regarding the rules. It really leaves those in the LC in a bad situation.

Originally Posted by HERn

Why is it that young women in the LSM associated local churches have such a hard time getting married? There are many dear single sisters in several localities that have wanted a husband for years. Is there a similar trend in other Christian denominations? Maybe in the "recovery" there aren't enough single brothers? But, I don't think that is the total explanation. Could this be a "sign" that the Lord's blessing is not on the "recovery"? You old-timers may have been out of the "recovery" loop for so long that you might not be aware of this demographic trend.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

( P.S. As an aside, here's a link to John Myer's book, "A Future and a Hope: Church Life beyond the Local Church Movement" --
http://assemblylife.com )

Originally Posted by Freedom

I suspect that if we were to list some non-official LC practices that we have experience, there would be a common set of non-official practices that we have all seen. Likewise there would be some that are limited just to a single locality.

Originally Posted by OBW

Remember. I am speaking of a particular aspect of one locality. This is not an endorsement of the overall LRC system, or a suggestion that everything was hunky-dory. It was not.

Originally Posted by Freedom

This sounds about right. I don't think that everyone is aware of rules like these, however, most have some idea of what they are. I'm sure the assumption is made say if a couple is dating, then it has been "approved", regardless of if it actually has or not. No one wants to be the one to actually ask about these rules, or worse question the elders regarding the rules. It really leaves those in the LC in a bad situation.

Originally Posted by Freedom

The problem is that with regards to LC leadership, it is next to impossible to pin anyone down regarding LC practices. Because so much goes unspoken, they can take any stance they want to fit the situation and then change positions as the next situation comes up.

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm sure it looked different in Cleveburg and the surrounding environs. Yet even all of that might have been somewhat dismissed, or missed altogether by many of the regular rank-and-file. Of course you have a better idea on that.

Originally Posted by OBW

There was a lot of thought that everyone had to have elder's permission to date/marry. Seems that while they might provide advice if asked, they had much less to do with it than we thought. (At least in Dallas.) Doesn't mean there was no involvement. And probably different leading ones were different in approach.

Originally Posted by OBW

May have been the fault of the environment though. An environment in which almost everyone assumed that the edict of leadership was to marry or get far apart. That assumed that every marriage was vetted and passed on by the leaders or it didn't happen. So the natural thing to do was to go ask for permission to sneeze, and to ask which side of the nose to blow first. And to ask for permission to even talk to sister so-and-so and possibly take her to the Dairy Queen for a shake. And in some cases, I heard that if a brother asked a sister about going on any kind of sort-of date, she would ask if he had gotten an OK from the "brothers."

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is what happens to church people who LOVE THE LAW.

This is what happens because loving the law causes us to lose our first love for God, and our second love for our brothers.

Paul said to those who loved the law, "The whole law is fulfilled in one word -- you shall love your neighbor as yourself. But if you bite and devour each other, see that you are not consumed by one another." (Gal 5.14-15)

Thanks for the little snapshot into what has happened to the Recovery that helped to destroy it. Lee used his LSM to bring all the LC's under the law.

Originally Posted by OBW

Remember the badges for the training? Did your locality have extreme rules about wearing them? ... I was there probably 30 minutes before anyone else would even begin to arrive early. Went in and turned on the air. In the couple of minutes I was inside, this guy arrived. He saw that I had not yet put on my badge and tore into me. I almost tore into him (verbally).

Originally Posted by rayliotta

But this thought occurs to me, for folks who are just coming out of the Recovery -- which can be a traumatic experience -- as well as for those still in the Recovery, but who are having doubts: And that is, that people may benefit by hearing that their specific experiences were being mirrored elsewhere. Hearing tales of the bullying and "public shaming" experienced by others, may help to put in perspective our own experiences of being bullied or manipulated. (It helped me, at least a little!)

But as you point out, some of the specific practices or sayings were localized, which makes the conversation more challenging.

Originally Posted by aron

Look at all the trouble that was stirred up by Witness Lee when he said, "We need to contact the people who don't meet here anymore and find out what went wrong." So Steve Isitt contacted them and they didn't want to hear what actually was wrong. Better to focus on words and meanings of words. It is safer. So to get the Lord's Recovery to discuss orthopraxy is going to be very hard.

Originally Posted by OBW

I would agree. But it is so difficult to generalize the practices. Listen/read the accounts from the people who are from different cities and regions and the kind of experiences and practices are all over the map.

That could be because the underlying issues that bring certain practices to the surface are not uniformly occurring everywhere. So it would take a rather large body of people who actually see all of the practices to dig through the causes (if they are aware of them) and build cases for some common body of practice. Ohio has some amount of understanding of the things that TC did in the GLA. And that probably had a discernible effect on the other leaders in the region, although not necessarily in a uniform way (other than being submissive to improper punishment).

Originally Posted by Ohio

In the last ten years I have visited lots of diverse churches, and let me say that none of them got all their orthodoxy "perfect."

But neither did any NT church in the first century. The question is whether all their practices are sourced in the love of God and man, or do they only serve to build up some man's short-lived empire on earth.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I'd like to pose a simple and straightforward question to this forum:
Why do we seem to spend so little time discussing Recovery practice?
It's my personal belief that it's Recovery practice, more than Recovery doctrine, that has caused so much harm to so many people (and families) over the years.
So, a simple, friendly question: Why don't we talk more about that stuff here?

Originally Posted by aron

A few observations:

MP to awareness: "You will take my personality as your own"

Blended Brother to Bill Mallon: "We do as we are told"

Philip Lin to John Ingalls: "In my conscience I know that you are right according to the truth, but according to my culture I must follow Witness Lee".

RK: "Can we ever honor our brother Witness Lee too much?"

TC: "We owe Witness Lee our lives".

Anonymous: "Witness Lee - even when he's wrong, he's right"

All of these are kind of off the record observations, and not codified in official statements; yet a set of observations does allow some tentative hypotheses. Mine was that Asian culture in the LRC, both in teaching and practice, was far more pervasive than we had been led to imagine.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Love Ya'll knuckleheads....and I include myself..

Originally Posted by Terry

It's discussion on recovery orthopraxy, that drives me to participate on the forum. General Christian doctrines or discussions on other ministries and ministers, I am usually not interested in participation.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I'd like to pose a simple and straightforward question to this forum:

Why do we seem to spend so little time discussing Recovery practice?

It's my personal belief that it's Recovery practice, more than Recovery doctrine, that has caused so much harm to so many people (and families) over the years.

So, a simple, friendly question: Why don't we talk more about that stuff here?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Late 1984, as Lee was finishing the NT Life-Study, he repeatedly stated that, "we have recovered life, we have recovered the truth, and we now must recover the proper way." It all sounded so good! And Lee was then off to Taipei to work in his "laboratory" to recover the proper way.

Each of these stages deteriorated the LC's. Each of these stages brought new deceptions and controls from Anaheim. Each of those stages supposedly addressed inherent "problems" in the recovery. The 1st stage of "life," (~'65 to '77) took a genuine move of the Spirit during the 60's, where Lee was one of many ministers, and set him up in glory as the sole reason for all of God's blessing.

The 2nd stage, (~'77 to '84) in the aftermath of the so-called "Max rebellion," turned our attention from the experience of Christ as our life and center to an obsession with "truth," which was actually all of Lee's systematic theology. Lee became the sole arbitrator of all Christian doctrine. No one, neither within nor without, had any say in the recovery concerning the ministry of the NT. Lee's teachings, trainings, and books alone would be available to all the LC's for their daily consumption. His publications gradually replaced the scriptures themselves in the hearts of the faithful.

The 3rd stage (~'85 to '90) elevated Lee and LSM to dominance. Whether it was Lee or his profligate son Phillip, LSM was given complete liberty to lord it over the churches of God. He wielded more power than the Pope. Local elders were told to like it or leave ... quietly as a "gentleman." Every LC was now forced to follow every wind and wave of teaching from Lee, whether or not they needed it, wanted it, liked it, or believed it was even from the Lord or His word.

I have always said that Lee's orthopraxy was actually more damaging to the LC's, but it had to be preceded by a takeover by Leeite orthodoxy. The latter was the groundwork for the former. Bad teachings set the stage for destructive practices.

Originally Posted by aron

The "orthodoxy" idea is even skewed by this. What principles do we focus on, as we scan the text(s)? Is every church being "absolutely identical" an orthodox idea, or rather a cultural gloss superimposed on the text? How much of the LSM oevre is really orthodox, and how much human (historical reactivism, cultural, and personal) interpretation? Somehow Lee's incessant, frantic search for conformity, and uniformity, doesn't seem like "freedom of the Spirit" to me. But maybe that is my rough-tough American cowboy individualism surfacing here.

Originally Posted by OBW

And it is so hard to generalize off of observations. Is Mel Porter the way he is because of the LRC, or are his natural inclinations well-suited for being in leadership in such a group? Do the two aggravate each other?

The problem with so many of the practices is that they are not the cause, but the result. Orthopraxy came to be because of the variant in Orthodoxy. The question is whether we/they practice what we preach. It starts with a skewed Orthodoxy and plays out in a skewed and dysfunctional Orthopraxy.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I'd like to pose a simple and straightforward question to this forum:

Why do we seem to spend so little time discussing Recovery practice?

It's my personal belief that it's Recovery practice, more than Recovery doctrine, that has caused so much harm to so many people (and families) over the years.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

we discussed here that the most harmful aspects of the Lord's Recovery movement have little to do w/the doctrinal points

Why don't we talk more about that stuff here?