Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee did the same leaving China -- attempted to squash the ministry of all the other ministers he was with.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And, as WL said near the end, the emphasis of the ministry was skewed so as not to include love. God's eternal purpose is wonderful, but men telling it without love becomes something of a dead law which just promotes fear and control.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I'm reading in Bill Mallon's notes (linked to on the "Bill Mallon's Passing" thread) and just read where WL said (in 77) he determined in 1963 that he had to take the full burden for the ministry here. That might have been fine for a short time, but others perhaps should have come to the forefront to teach, etc. Of course, WL probably didn't allow that. If it had happened, all of the pride of everything being so centered in one man might not have arisen so strongly, resulting in what the LC is today (Laodicea).

And, as WL said near the end, the emphasis of the ministry was skewed so as not to include love. God's eternal purpose is wonderful, but men telling it without love becomes something of a dead law which just promotes fear and control.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee did the same leaving China -- attempted to squash the ministry of all the other ministers he was with.

During his quarantine in Whistler, Titus Chu was repeatedly condemned in absentia for not working well with others. The clincher came from Benjamin Chen of NYC. For decades TC had claimed to have the archetypal spiritual companionship with BC spanning 50+ years. Then given the chance, BC threw him under the bus.

Obviously TC picked up this bad habit from WL.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I'm reading in Bill Mallon's notes (linked to on the "Bill Mallon's Passing" thread) and just read where WL said (in 77) he determined in 1963 that he had to take the full burden for the ministry here. That might have been fine for a short time, but others perhaps should have come to the forefront. Of course, WL probably didn't allow that. If it had happened, all of the pride of everything being so centered in one man might not have arisen so strongly, resulting in what the LC is today (Laodicea). And, as WL said near the end, the emphasis of the ministry was skewed so as not to include love.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I am always amazed when Lee gripes about the Recovery, as if he were not responsible for its failures and decline.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I was considering something I read in the last couple days, about brother Lee saying at the end that he regretted that love was not emphasized much in TLR.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Apostle Paul warned us that in the last days some Christians would be "without natural affection." (II Timothy 3.1,3)

In the Recovery they teach that it is only safe to trust and love their ministry. All other loves are risky.

Originally Posted by jesusislord

I have a question but didn't want to create a new thread:

When I went to my friends' church, they know how to social, their sermons teach about honoring parents. There are many aspect of relationship - family relationship, husband and wife relationship, friendship etc.. but in the Lc they don't teach this kind of stuff that much. I've heard arrange marriage, where 2 people get married with zero natural affection. They teach human relationship is too natural, the world is bad, rock music is babylon. I found it's super weird being a Christian under their doctrines.

Originally Posted by Raptor

Answers:
1. Because they make stuff up as they go for their convenience.
2. Because they make stuff up as they go for their convenience.
3. Because they make stuff up as they go for their convenience.

Originally Posted by Steel

Perhaps in one instance David was speaking according to his fallen flesh, and in another instance he was speaking according to the way of God.

Originally Posted by aron

Three questions for those presuming to write shepherding words:

1. (a) If women can't teach, why sell Mary McDonough's book "God's Plan" right next to those by Nee and Lee? In LSM's online catalogue of titles under "G", there it is, available for the public. Why the inconsistency in application?

1. (b) How do you think Dora Yu or Ruth Lee would have fared under Witness Lee, or under today's blended co-workers? Or, how would Jessie Penn-Lewis fare today? Or Peace Wang? Or Margaret Barber? How would they all find any place today, in the recovery they supposedly helped to found?

2. Why do some psalms of imprecations have footnotes panning them for being "natural" and "fallen" in wishing others ill, while others have near-identical sentiments being hailed as Christ's victory over Satan? Why the inconsistency in application?

3. The apostle wrote to avoid every appearance of evil (1 Thess 5:22). Don't you think that a church leader pressuring church members to invest in his immediate family's money-making schemes looks bad? No matter that it collapsed and the money disappeared - the very fact that it was set up looks bad. How was this not a blight on the church? Daystar showed Witness Lee's true colors - how can anyone say that this was a "flow from God's throne", or a "manifestation of God's deputy authority"?

Originally Posted by Steel

Your own words expose you as a mocker of members of the one church of God... Be careful of how you work out your own salvation, aron.

Originally Posted by aron

How to put it, then? "Temporarily bereft of critical mental faculties..."?

Originally Posted by aron

With some it's apparently gone on for decades, so the 'temporarily' part may be overly generous.

Originally Posted by Steel

LOL... Funny how you point to the few... But not the many... Surely scripture tells us there is a special judgement for those who think to teach... But just as surely scripture tells us there is judgement for all who simply think to speak... And even just to think.

Originally Posted by Steel

Referring to members of the Lord's body as "...brain-dead..." is not necessary for correction regarding what you think is ministry that is making a "...hash of scripture." . . . But I understand .

Originally Posted by Ohio

What's a few "exegetical clunkers" between friends?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Church history regarding those crowned MOTAs, Vicars, or Deputies has never been good. Since they have all ascended beyond human accountability, the obliteration of rivals and critics was never questioned, especially by those minions with similar aspirations.

Originally Posted by aron

I wonder what a fly on the wall would hear to the Lord speaking to those who sat quietly while a Bible expositor made hash of scripture. Am I really the first to notice the glaring discrepancy, here?

Originally Posted by aron

In Psalm 68, the psalmist wishing the destruction of his foes is held to be a type of the victorious Christ; elsewhere, such sentiments are "fallen" and "natural". . .? And the best a promoter of such ministry can say is, "Perhaps this is so". . .?

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, perhaps it is so. And given the extensive NT reception, perhaps not. Yet the the footnotes have no such qualfiers.

Originally Posted by aron

To his credit, Steel says the MOTA concept was perhaps taken a bit too far in the LSM-affiliated local churches. Yet this is not incidental to an otherwise useful Christian work. Rather, it forces the recipients into passivity. Exegetical clunkers pass by without comment because, hey, it's God's Oracle.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hi Steel,

My moniker is Igzy and I used to post here. Nice to meet you.

I'd like to be there when the Lord asks Witness Lee why he called people outside his movement "mooing cows." Or why he called those who were saved (saved!) by "worldly means" "Moabites."

But I'd also like to be there when God asks Paul why he called circumcision-happy Jews "dogs." And I like to be there when God asks David why he prayed that his enemy's children (children!) be "wandering beggars" and that no one take pity on them (Psalm 109).

aron's statement, by comparison, seems mild.

Please dispense with the opportunistic indignation. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Steel

I wonder what the fly on the wall would hear when you one day stand before the Lord and He asks regarding His church, what you meant when you said... "How brain-dead did the flock have to be to sit through these meetings."

Originally Posted by Steel

I wonder what the fly on the wall would hear when you one day stand before the Lord and He asks regarding His church, what you meant when you said... "How brian-dead did the flock have to be to sit through these meetings."

Originally Posted by Steel

Sure... A "group" being made up of more than one person... Which was my point...

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, I know, we're all fallen. Yes, sometimes I write according to my concepts (often?). But I'm not publishing my fallen human concepts as "spiritual truths" and selling them as the Recovery Version Bible with footnotes &c.

Originally Posted by aron

Talk about 'humble yourself'! Witness Lee should have humbled himself. Yet we got these confident "this equals that" statements, even when they clearly didn't line up with each other. How brain-dead did the flock have to be to sit through these meetings?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

"The Lord's Recovery" is a group.

Originally Posted by aron

I did ask the Lord & was told that Lee was seduced like Nee was before him, and chose a false path to power. But it's always good to get confirmation from the body of faith fellowship. A kind of external 'amen', as it were, to the inner voice. I appreciate you & Drake taking time & effort to respond. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Steel

Perhaps in one instance David was speaking according to his fallen flesh, and in another instance he was speaking according to the way of God.

Originally Posted by Steel

I'd suggest you ask the Lord the above questions when you see Him... And in the mean time, perhaps humble yourself and understand . .

Originally Posted by Steel

One person can be a "...group..."?

Originally Posted by Steel

Perhaps in one instance David was speaking according to his fallen flesh, and in another instance he was speaking according to the way of God.

Originally Posted by aron

When I use "supreme mastership" as analogous to the leadership style of Witness Lee in the local church system, aka the Lord's recovery, I do so in reference to the scholarly press. It's how observers characterize his style, and Nee's system.

Sorry Drake no confusion there. Just the objective views of witnesses, what really happened on the ground in the local churches.

Why I think Lee taught an erroneous concept of the minister of the age.

Such a notion wasn't formally put out by Paul. It was 'recovered' by Nee. No small conflict of interest, there.

The notion had no basis in the NT and had to be sussed out of the OT: Moses with Miriam and Aaron, etc. Well guess what - Jesus is the new Moses. Not Paul, or Martin Luther, or John Nelson Darby or Watchman Nee. If you want to be great, be the least. If you want to be MOTA, you prove that you are the least of all in the kingdom. Jesus made all this too plain.

Drake,

I assume you read the other two questions as well?

Originally Posted by aron

Appreciate that local church members have come on to defend teachings and practices.

Originally Posted by aron

Three things have bothered me, wanted to raise them and give defenders a chance to clarify.

Originally Posted by aron

1. Minister/ministry of the age. The apostle John clearly wasn't indicating Paul as MOTA. Either John was the new MOTA, post-Paul, or Paul never had been. But John was not building on Paul, but on Jesus Christ. John clearly never was a disciple of Paul.

Originally Posted by aron

John took pains to show at the beginning of the fourth gospel that he was there with Jesus before anyone else. And he's there at the end, on Patmos, not as a continuation of Paul, but as a continuation of the original revelation: "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel". And Paul likewise said that he received his revelation "not from those who apostles were before me". Yet neither ever discredited the other. They were peers. There was mutuality in the NT.

Originally Posted by aron

So where was precedent established for supreme mastership aka MOTA in the NT? Rather, in the gospels when they argued for primacy Jesus rebuked them.

Originally Posted by aron

Related, Wesley never discipled himself to Jonathan Edwards or vice versa. Yet they both had inspired ministries. Or was one an illegitimate deviation? A rebellion against God's established authority on earth?

Originally Posted by aron

Why didn't the Methodists go after the Congregationalists or vice versa?

Originally Posted by aron

Related, Watchman Nee read some 3,000 spiritual classics, so-called. Clearly these were from disparate sources, not all from MOTAs. Why can't we also read disparate sources and create our own synthesis? If there is a ministry of the age for every generation, why did WN draw on other, non-MOTA sources? If he did, why can't we? Clearly WN violated the "One Publication" policy in his spiritual path of development. Why can't we?

Originally Posted by aron

Related, why did "the age turn" when WL passed? Suddenly no more revelation, just curating the oracle's revelations?

Originally Posted by aron

Related, why didn't WL's admittedly "unspiritual" son Philip disqualify WL from local church eldership, much less being sole apostle of the age? Paul's advice to Titus (1:6) is straightforward. Why did WL seemingly get a separate set of rules? Why the "respecting of persons" with the case of WL & family? Another son, Timothy, was apparently as bad or even worse, but had a less prominent or public role in the ministry/church/family business. Either one of them should have disqualified WL from church leadership and/or responsibility.

Originally Posted by aron

2. Watchman Nee received prominent help from women. WL's biography makes this explicit and detailed. Why did women have prominent roles in the early recovery but cannot today? Either women had an illegitimate role in the early 20th century or they are illegitimately suppressed today. How can you have it both ways?

Originally Posted by aron

3. Why was David wrong to wish his enemies harm in Psalm 3, and yet in Psalm 68 wishing enemies harm was a type of Christ's victory over his enemies? The RecV footnotes are not consistent.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

...you are a sectarian group...

Originally Posted by Drake

aron, your confusion stems from the erroneous concept of a minister of the age as bolded above. Yours is not a scriptural definition nor one taught by the Lord's Recovery.

Drake

Originally Posted by Baruch

I came across a book with some interesting claims about Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and the local churches in mainland China and Taiwan. The book is "Religion and Democracy in Taiwan" by Cheng-Tian Kuo, SUNY Press, May 8, 2008. Mr. Kuo is a Professor of Political Science and Director of the Graduate Institute of Religious Studies at the National Chengchi University in Taiwan. Here is a paraphrase of some of the information presented on pages 50-52 of the book on The Local Church. The bracketed question mark in the paragraph below is by me indicating that the author must mean 70 million Christians in China (not 7 million) or he is way off on his facts.

Watchman Nee founded the Local Church in China in the 1920s. He was influenced by western evangelists, but "developed an indigenized theology critical of the principal churches but accessible to ordinary Chinese". Witness Lee was his "right-hand man". "The Local Churches constitute the majority of the seven million Christians in China [?] and include a membership of 91,000 Taiwanese associated with more than 170 churches in Taiwan. The Local Church is the second largest Christian denomination in Taiwan".

"The ecclesiology of the Local Church was a mixture of supreme mastership, equality of all believers, and a centralized decision core with strong local autonomy. Ni was the supreme master of all church members, including Ni's successor, Li Chang-shou, who served Ni as his own son. Ni's writings were the main, if not the only, instructional materials in Bible study sessions. His leadership and biblical interpretation was beyond challenge by his members; those who dared to question were driven out of the church. He appointed all elders in local churches. After Ni's death, Li succeeded him to supreme mastership. In addition to inheriting all the supreme powers Ni had, Li's writings, especially the Recovered Version of the Bible he edited, have replaced those by Ni in the church's Bible Study sessions."

The author later talks about the local churches in Taiwan:

"The Local Church headquarters makes important decisions about church activities and personnel. Local churches cannot but obey; otherwise, they would be excommunicated from the church, as occurred in the 1960s. Among the various charges against these saboteurs, Li mentioned that they challenged his leadership in general, including refusing to sing the eighty-five new hymns composed by Li for all member churches. These saboteurs were first suspended of their elder positions and left the Local Church one year later to establish independent churches. The Living Stone Church in Taipei is one of the remnants of this split".

If what this author states is true, then it appears that Witness Lee carried on Watchman Nee's original idea of spiritual authority. If that is the case, then the idea of following one set of teachings/ministry was all part of the original practice. I think the unhealthy level of control that followed had to be used to keep everyone following the same script (i.e. one teaching or ministry).

Has anyone else ever come across this author/book? The author does use references for many of his statements so it's probably worthwhile to follow the reference trail to see where it leads.

Originally Posted by Drake

aron, your confusion stems from the erroneous concept of a minister of the age as bolded above. Yours is not a scriptural definition nor one taught by the Lord's Recovery.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

aron, your confusion stems from the erroneous concept of a minister of the age as bolded above. Yours is not a scriptural definition nor one taught by the Lord's Recovery.

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

1. Minister/ministry of the age............So where was precedent established for supreme mastership aka MOTA in the NT?