|
| 11-26-2008 07:33 AM | |||
| TLFisher |
Re: Whistler Trial and a Super-Sect Quote:
So Titus wanted to labor in China. Our brothers at LSM should have been supportive instead of verbally attacking his person. Is it really because of Witness Lee, or did our brothers at LSM perceive China as their own market to further the ministry of Witness Lee. Terry |
||
| 11-25-2008 07:42 AM | |||
| YP0534 |
Re: Whistler Trial Quote:
Well what about TC's being picky about the hospitality, huh??? Isn't THAT grounds for "quarantine"??? People, he DIDN'T LIKE THE TOWELS!!!! What more proof does one need? 
|
||
| 11-25-2008 05:19 AM | |||
| Ohio |
Whistler Trial Quote:
WL told TC not to preach the gospel in China. TC secretly went to China to preach the gospel. The BB's found out and publicly disgraced TC for this, because he disobeyed WL. How is this any different from the Sanhedrin forbidding Peter and John from preaching the Gospel? (see Acts 4.13-20) Their response: "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than God, you judge." And so, we too must "judge." |
||
| 11-25-2008 04:34 AM | |||
| Indiana |
Re: Whistler Trial and a Super-Sect Whistler I had not listened to these talks before (not due to lack of interest). Now I have done so, 2yrs + later. I simply am in awe. One precious brother after another speaking in such ignorance. Not necessarily ignorance about the brother they purposed to condemn; but ignorance about their own path. And, what is that path? The path of a Super-Sect that they have all helped to create and endeavor to promote. I mean, regardless of what is spoken about Titus, these brothers have serious issues. In other words, forget about Titus. His problems pale in comparison to those who have picked up the mantle to lead...... The letter from Titus that DT harped on is taken completely differently by many others who live outside of the obsessive mentality for a Man and a Ministry that DTow and his counterparts abide in. DT actually reported Titus' going into China to care for many Chinese believers, without any spiritual acknowledgment or rejoicing that dear saints were taken care of by Titus. I simply have no place to put this. Dan had no rejoicing brothers and sisters! that Christ was preached and saints were cared for. His only concern was if Titus was in line with WL or not. What an Obsession! These dear men conducting the Whistler Trial will be examined in the same way Witness Lee was examined for his book of fiction, i. e., FPR. Dear brothers and sisters, our brothers, who have served the churches well in certain respects for many years are totally obsessed. They are blinded. They have no idea what they are doing and have lost their way. Thus, they rely on the program. Brother Lee said… Brother Lee said…………… How ironic that Dan Towle would say at Whistler that in the Lord's recovery, "Truth must be king". Dan, you wouldn't know truth if it hit you upside the head - and it has done so numerous times. You spoke utter, complete, unadulterated nonsense at Whistler. What a shame that you have lain yourself down in a bed of lies again in a repeat performance from 1990! You have misrepresented God and man one more time, and it is all on record. |
||
| 11-20-2008 08:31 PM | |||
| YP0534 |
Re: Witness Lee contra Sectarianism Quote:
The audio and video files were both available again as of this date. (The video has multi-language over-dub of Chinese by default and you have to select the English from Audio and Language Tracks.) I thought there was a typo previously but the recordings appear to be nearly 5 hours in length! Ugh. I'm only about 20 minutes into it so far but I was struck with one point already: What did the word "division" mean in the first-century context? In other words, the ones who Paul would accuse of this in his day: what exactly were they doing and with whom or to whom did they do it? It doesn't seem like a scenario directly parallel to Titus Chu's circumstance is part of the New Testament record. (I speak here as if the accusations against him are justified, although I do not believe it to be the actual case.) I was also reminded in the speaking of the first 20 minutes that the word "rebellion" is not to be found in the New Testament for some reason. |
||
| 11-16-2008 11:48 PM | |||
| Indiana |
Re: The Actual Path Taken Although Brother Lee spoke of generality and acceptance, such as not bothering anyone who abides by the New Testament constitution, there are too many examples that he himself did not do so. So, if we are interested in truth and not mere rhetoric, we have to examine history This is so that we may learn. In the following excerpt from Deviating from the Path, some representative examples of deviation are used - and there are far more than these. I wanted to present this section because it does appear in a book, although a part of it I have shared already on this forum. Let us consider honestly if Brother Lee was on a path of deviation or not. Appendix 3 For two years before the new way began in the churches, Brother Lee did not attend meetings of the church in Anaheim. He was “disappointed with the church”. He spoke of going to another locality to build up that church, not Anaheim, as a model for others to follow. He considered Seattle and other places. Yet, he was in the church in Anaheim and not attending meetings. During that time away, at any rate, he considered a new way for the churches to take. He was nearly eighty years old and concerned for his ministry and the future. In October of 1984 a new way was taken, with strong emphasis on his ministry and on himself as the unique leader in the recovery. It is that strong emphasis that became such a problem and cause for consideration that the church ground had changed, as serious local needs were ignored, while LSM prospered in gaining their objectives in localities. The entity called Living Stream Ministry still looms large today. It surely is not limited to what Brother Lee stated were its limitations in Elders’ Training Book 9. He said it was “a little business office to serve my ministry for two things: to publish the messages in book form and to distribute these messages in both video and audio tapes. That is all the ministry office should do and nothing else.” He continued with a misleading word: “I did not have much time to check on everything related to the office in the past, but the ministry office has always had this specific function and no other function” (p. 61, ET Book 9). He had both the time and the knowledge of what his “little office” was doing in different localities and regions, because of contacts he had with such brothers as Bill Mallon and John So in the Southeast and in Europe, but he chose to ignore their pleas for his help in the midst of serious problems they were having with LSM. He also had the opportunity to understand more about what was happening in other localities had he been willing to listen. LSM was on the move into various localities according to plan. Examples of Ignoring Local Needs 1. Ignoring LSM Sister’s Report (see appendix 1, third point) As a sister working in the office of the Living Stream Ministry, a former elder’s wife wrote an eleven-page letter to Brother Lee expressing her concerns of the ill-treatment of the saints in different places at the hands of the LSM. She and her husband, in fact, went to Brother Lee to read him the letter, and as she began to read Brother Lee cut her off soon after she started, and he took over and dominated the time, sharing his own burden about “the Lord’s move.” The same thing took place in a subsequent visit when Brother Lee stopped her before she could get through half a page. He, then, dominated the remainder of the time with his own burden concerning the progress of “the Lord’s move” on the earth, not showing interest in her fellowship. The sister had become quite disillusioned about the church and now about Brother Lee, and withdrew herself from the church and LSM permanently. It was not that Brother Lee didn’t know what his representatives were doing in many places. He either knew or chose not to know. He knew that the function of his “little office” had grown enormously and that LSM was way beyond its bounds in their activities and disturbances in the churches in order to satisfy their objectives, and his. LSM had become far more than a publisher and distributor of books and tapes. 2. Ignoring the needs of Churches in Europe Attempts at fellowship with Brother Lee failed in Europe as Brother Lee ignored letters and word from the brothers there, while advising them “not to make an issue” of the chaos caused by LSM in the churches in England and Germany. Bill Kirkham wrote a letter to Brother Lee and told John So, “I’m enclosing a copy of the letter which I have just sent to Brother Lee. These matters have been troubling me so much that I felt I had no alternative but to write to our brother. I hope that Brother Lee may have time to write to help clear up this situation. I strongly pray that nothing will come between the churches in Europe to cause damage to the Lord’s testimony. Your brother in Christ, Bill Kirkham”. Bill Kirkham wrote five pages to Brother Lee, sharing about 1) the trouble caused by the brother who was set up as the head of the LSM operation in England. 2) the lies spread against John So, against the church in Stuttgart, and about the German publishers. 3) the fact that “In all the years of the Lord’s recovery in Europe, we have never had any shadow of division between here and Germany, but now we are hearing things that will cause such a division.” In Brother Lee’s response to such a grave letter, he said, “it would be wise and profitable not to make an issue of anything”, then mentioned the good news that a little branch office was to be set up in London, for the distribution of both the video and audio tapes in the UK. As John So shares, “What would you think if you received such a letter? In the meantime, the whole church in Blackpool was destroyed to the ground. Destroyed to the ground! [reference to trouble that had been caused by LSM]. One sister wept continuously for eight to nine months. Nothing was done to rectify any situation and meanwhile they were still boasting about continuing at that time for the furtherance of the Lord’s move. And am I rebelling? Conspiring? Are we rebelling in Stuttgart? Only the Lord knows who is really conspiring.” 3. Ignoring the issues raised by the churches in the Southeast Bill Mallon articulated the concerns in the Southeast in a letter to Brother Lee a month before he sent his 8-page letter to Brother Lee. Those concerns were: 1) The discrediting attitudes by those returning from Taipei, undermining my ability to serve, in spite of my demonstrating a positive turn for the new way of practice for all the churches to follow 2) The fabrications and rumors about my exercising control, holding on to a territory 3) While I never insisted or resisted fellowship, fellowship was nevertheless circumvented from me about crucial matters in the Southeast, the area where I served for 12 years 4) The false allegations that the migrations from Atlanta to Nashville, Knoxville, Greensboro, and Charlotte were instigated independently without fellowship with Witness Lee and other churches 5) The insistence of [Philip Lee’s] will upon others through intimidation 6) the promotion of blind accountability to the Taipei training and the office without due consideration for the Lord, the truth, and the saints in the local churches. An initial letter was also written by Bill in June of the same year, 1987, and he had fellowship with Brother Lee by phone during this 6-month period of time, in which he wrote three letters to Brother Lee, the third one being written in December. Since Brother Lee did not show interest in the Southeast problems, and took no action, Bill wrote this third letter, of eight pages. The following are quotes from Bill Mallon from that letter to Brother Lee concerning the problems the churches in the Southeast encountered with LSM (p. 20): “I can understand why you [Brother Lee] urged me several times to "forget," but this letter should indicate that the problem is not trivial, but seriously reaching to an acute condition and a critical stage.” “The tendency is to procrastinate, hoping the problem will go away; or, to ignore it, pretending it does not exist. But this is not responsible action.” “As someone said, ‘If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.’ In order to confront the problem and accept my responsibility, I wrote you a letter, and I cannot now forget about it and leave it alone until it is resolved. If our body is sick, we do not forget about it, but seek a diagnosis and a treatment.” “I appreciate the word that I should forget the circumstances and stand with the basic. This is a good word. But the circumstantial things were mentioned so as to point out to you the symptoms of a very serious root. I wrote the letter to give out signals that are symptomatic of a very fundamental problem.” Bill’s fellowship of concern about the Southeast churches was not only ignored by Brother Lee; it was unjustifiably condemned by him in his book, Fermentation. 4. Ignoring problems experienced by the churches in Southern California When the elders in Southern California came together and opened to one another about the real situation in their churches, Brother Lee showed little interest that serious problems were taking a toll on the members and on the elders. He did show much concern though for the progress of LSM and fully expected elders to submit to objectives, without showing regard for their feeling. John Ingalls – On the evening of Monday, December 14, 1987, Brother Lee called a meeting of the elders of Southern California. There was a fair number there representing most of the churches in the area. After prayer, Brother Lee opened the fellowship by giving a long word concerning the new way and its great success in Taiwan. Then he asked for fellowship from the brothers, desiring especially to know how successful the new way had been in their locality. Dick Taylor, an elder in Long Beach, started with a lively, full-of enjoyment kind of testimony, such as Dick is well-known for, thanking the Lord for the door-knocking and the Gospel preaching in Long Beach, but ending with an honest word about the depression and the discouragement among some of the saints. This was unusual for Dick but he was telling it like it was. Other brothers followed who also spoke very honestly about dissensions concerning the new way and discouragement among the saints in their localities, for which they were very concerned. In some places divisions had arisen over the new way. John Smith, an elder in San Diego, ended the time of sharing with an honest account of his concerns for the saints in his church, mentioning how he feared that with the overemphasis on methods, numbers, and increase the saints would become activity-centered instead of Christ-centered. What was extraordinary was the elders speaking up in such an honest and forthright way, knowing that such reports were not what Brother Lee liked or wanted to hear. We were not accustomed to doing this due partly to a sense of intimidation. To my knowledge this was the first time that had been done. This was encouraging. But Brother Lee was visibly bothered, and later reacted strongly to the brothers’ speaking, saying of one brother’s sharing (John Smith’s) that it was like pouring iced water on him. We were not the only ones who went to Brother Lee with our concerns during these days. We heard that Dan Towle, individually, and Frank Scavo together with Dick Taylor also went to see Brother Lee to express to him their concerns about the present situation. (p. 103) Witness Lee commented on the same meeting: Before I went to Irving in December 1987, I had an elders’ meeting with the leading ones in Southern California. During that meeting, John Smith stood up to say that numbers do not represent anything, and he went on to mention things such as statistics, budgets, work, and activity. By that time Rosemead had already rebelled, and this kind of speaking was a repetition of what was spoken there as accusations. By listening to all the sharing in that elders’ meeting in Orange County, I realized that the whole situation had been poisoned by John Ingalls.” (p. 59, FPR). This was Brother Lee’s reaction to brothers who shared from their heart about serious problems in their localities. He gave the impression that his own objectives were more important than listening to the Body and to the concerns of responsible elders for their localities. These speakings by Dick Taylor, John Smith, and others were from their own experience and had not been influenced by John Ingalls. Contrary to official assertions, John Ingalls had both legitimate and genuine concerns that he presented to other brothers for fellowship. If the concerns did not exist in the recovery, there would have been no need for John to make special contact with the brothers. What was interpreted as a “poisoning” was simply the elders responding to concerns for the saints, as morale began to sink and divisions began to develop. John Ingalls was not responsible for this. Throughout the recovery, brothers shared many of the same concerns. John Ingalls was faithful to address those concerns. Let the responsibility for the troubles in Rosemead, San Diego, and so forth lie with its source in Anaheim and in Irving, with the tandem leadership of W. Lee and son, Philip, and LSM. Appendix 4 In the following crucial fellowship with the elders, Witness Lee had the opportunity to repent and bring brothers together in Christ and take care of the oneness that was damaged by LSM in the recovery. Bill Mallon was already stumbled by LSM in the Southeast, and John So was well on his way down in Europe. But Brother Lee chose not to admit in a clear way to any wrong-doing on the part of LSM. As the head of LSM he should have taken responsibility for their divisive activities among the churches and for the sins of the manager in the office. Instead, he covered these sins, as if they didn’t exist. In such a pivotal elders’ meeting, that could have recovered the oneness through his repentance, Brother Lee did not humble himself and instead went on to speak of the “rumors and lies” spread by others. This sealed up the sin that festers in the Body to this day. Pivotal Elders’ Training Fellowship During the Summer Training in Anaheim in July 1988 John Ingalls In his second message of the elders’ meetings, Brother Lee spoke concerning our going on. After all our sessions and hours of fellowship with Brother Lee, we had hoped that he would take steps to clear up a number of things publicly.... |
||
| 11-13-2008 06:40 AM | |||
| Indiana |
Witness Lee contra Sectarianism? or building a sect? Was our brother Lee vs sectarianism or was he building a sect? Elders From the Church in Raleigh, N.C. Visit with Brother Lee -- January 1989 From John Ingalls' book - I include in this narrative a brief account of the visit of the Raleigh brothers to Brother Lee, as related to me by them, since it affords another window upon the actual situation and since Brother Lee asked the Raleigh brothers to convey some concerns and questions to the elders in Anaheim. In the summer of 1988 Tom Cesar of the church in Raleigh came to Anaheim to discuss with Brother Lee the points of a seventy-one-page compendium entitled Concerns with our Practice Regarding Truth and Life, which had been mailed to him earlier. The brothers in Raleigh had labored for many hours over this work in the expectation that Brother Lee would read it, be apprised of their concerns, realize the gravity of the situation, and hopefully make some major changes in the course we were taking. Under each point they had put together zeroxed copies of pages with quotes from Watchman Nee and Brother Lee’s earlier printed ministry together with quotes from his recent ministry to prove that there had been significant changes contradicting Brother Lee’s own teaching. While Tom was in Anaheim that summer I saw him, and learning that he had presented Brother Lee with this writing I commented, “I doubt that Brother Lee will read it. He doesn’t like to read things of that nature, that raise questions concerning his work or ministry.” In the early fall of 1988 Brother Lee wrote to the brothers in Raleigh saying that he desired to meet with them face to face and clear up their concerns point by point. Later in December of that year he telephoned and asked them to come to Irving, Texas for the elders’ meetings, and he would meet with them there. The Raleigh brothers were not free to come to Irving, so they agreed to come instead to Anaheim the week after the training to meet with Brother Lee. He said he would answer their questions. They arrived on Saturday, January 7, and met with Brother Lee that night. They met also on the Lord’s Day morning, afternoon, and evening, and again on Monday morning – a total of approximately ten hours. The first evening Brother Lee did most of the speaking, giving them a history of the “conspiracy and rebellion.” However, the brothers were able to say a few things. Tom pointed out how the church life was going down, and they were looking for answers. He said they had no problem with the matters of the new way, but how it was carried out was a problem. They were not concerned for right and wrong, but for God’s righteousness. They read some verses to him and quoted from the Normal Christian Church Life by W. Nee, but Brother Lee did not want to hear it. He said that he knew what Watchman Nee meant in that book, and what Watchman Nee meant then does not apply to today’s situation. He said, moreover, that there is no basic problem among us, but only a storm in Germany and Anaheim. John So, he said, exercises a strong control over Stuttgart, and just like Bill Freeman (a former elder of the church in Seattle) he is trying to set up another ministry. One of the Raleigh brothers then asked how you can identify another ministry. Brother Lee replied that it is very difficult. The brothers said that Brother Lee was very defensive at times and was like a ball bouncing from one matter to another. Tom Cesar asked, “Why can’t brothers come together to discuss their concerns without being considered to be conspiring? “ But Brother Lee, they said, had no ear to hear them. It was as if they were talking to the wall. He didn’t want to clear up their points; he hadn’t even read the outline they had presented to him the previous summer. He would not answer their questions directly. They were impressed that he never asked how the saints in the church in Raleigh were doing, as if he was not concerned for them. The brothers were very disappointed. (Taken from Speaking the Truth in Love, John Ingalls) |
||
| 11-12-2008 05:23 AM | |||
| Ohio |
Witness Lee contra Sectarianism Quote:
For me, what was perhaps the most unsettling, was the treatment (or should I say mistreatment, abuse, and slander) of godly men like George Muller and John Ingalls. They stood in the way of the extensive "housecleaning" efforts by John Darby and Witness Lee, of successive ages. Both of these men, "oracles of the age," continually shrouded themselves with talks of "oneness of the body," yet in reality cared little for this oneness. They had a another "agenda," in which they, and they alone, would be the "star" attraction. They successfully manipulated truths and facts in order to persuade "the faithful." Leading elders such as Muller and Ingalls, with their numerous "concerns," were the chief obstacles to their "stage production." Everything and everyone became expendable. Just baggage to be discarded. The ends justified all means. "Get with the program or get out." The "commander in chief" of the Lord's amy was leading us into battle, and there may be "a few casualties." Ones like John Ingalls should be considered "collateral damage." Throughout church history, many, especially insiders, when writing about John Darby and Witness Lee, have chosen to dismiss their many "mistakes," looking rather to the "greater good" of their many labors. Their demands for a "special place" in the body of Christ, filled with "special honors," and entitled to "special license," should not go unnoticed. |
||
| 11-12-2008 02:01 AM | |||
| YP0534 |
Re: hwah???????????????? Quote:
This excerpt doesn't exactly make that point, though, does it? Not complaining, really, but this just seemed like a somewhat large stretch. The excerpt does suggest further questions to me about the source. Is this a single, long, contiguous selection from "Deviating"? And who wrote that work? I'm just curious, really, being ignorant and finding this excerpt rather curious in at least a couple of ways. |
||
| 11-11-2008 11:59 PM | |||
| Indiana |
Re: Witness Lee contra Sectarianism???????????????? What would indicate to us in the following example that Brother Lee was remotely concerned for "keeping the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace?" As was stated previously, “He let the violations of the oneness of the Body occur, and he did so “at any cost”, losing co-workers, churches, and saints. He was after a new way, new “elders”, and a new mentality in the “churches”, while he labeled those who raised challenging questions as slanderers, perverted ones, rebellious ones, and so forth. He showed little regard for keeping the oneness of the Body. He was “cleaning house” and starting something new." For two years before the new way began in the churches, Brother Lee did not attend meetings of the church in Anaheim. He was “disappointed with the church”. He spoke of going to another locality to build up THAT church, not Anaheim, as a model for others to follow. He considered Seattle and other places. Yet, he was in the church in Anaheim and not attending meetings. During that time away, at any rate, he considered intently a new way for the churches to take. He was nearly eighty years old and very much concerned for his ministry and the future. In October of 1984 he initiated a new way to be taken in the churches, with strong emphasis on his ministry and on himself as the unique leader in the recovery. It is that strong emphasis that became such a problem and cause for consideration that the church ground had changed, as serious local needs were ignored, while LSM prospered in gaining their objectives in localities. The entity called Living Stream Ministry still looms large today. It surely is not limited to what Brother Lee stated were its limitations in Elders’ Training Book 9. He said it was “a little business office to serve my ministry for two things: to publish the messages in book form and to distribute these messages in both video and audio tapes. That is all the ministry office should do and nothing else.” He continued with a misleading word: “I did not have much time to check on everything related to the office in the past, but the ministry office has always had this specific function and no other function” (p. 61, ET Book 9). Actually, he had both the time and the knowledge of what his “little office” was doing in different localities and regions, because of contacts he had with such brothers as Bill Mallon and John So in the Southeast and in Europe, but he chose to ignore their pleas for his help in the midst of serious problems they were having with LSM. He also had the opportunity to understand more about what was happening in other localities had he been willing to listen. LSM was on the move into various localities according to plan. Examples of Ignoring Local Needs 1. Ignoring LSM Sister’s Report (see appendix 1, third point) As a sister working in the office of the Living Stream Ministry, the wife of former elder Ken Unger from Huntington Beach, wrote an eleven-page letter to Brother Lee expressing her concerns of the ill-treatment of the saints in different places at the hands of the LSM. She and her husband, in fact, went to Brother Lee to read him the letter, and as she began to read, Brother Lee cut her off soon after she started, and he took over and dominated the time, sharing his own burden about “the Lord’s move.” The same thing took place in a subsequent visit when Brother Lee stopped her before she could get through half a page. He, then, dominated the remainder of the time with his own burden concerning the progress of “the Lord’s move” on the earth, not showing interest in her fellowship. The sister had become quite disillusioned about the church and now about Brother Lee, and withdrew herself from the church and LSM permanently. It was not that Brother Lee didn’t know what his representatives were doing in many places. He either knew or chose not to know. He knew that the function of his “little office” had grown enormously and that LSM was way beyond its bounds in their activities and disturbances in the churches in order to satisfy their objectives, and his. LSM had become far more than a publisher and distributor of books and tapes. (taken from Deviating from the Path) |
||
| 11-11-2008 06:01 AM | |||
| Indiana |
Re: Witness Lee contra Sectarianism In Brother Lee’s pivotal speech of persuasion to the elders, he said, “As long as you do not do anything against our New Testament constitution, no one will bother you. Among us in the Lord’s recovery, there is nothing worth worrying about because basically we do not have any heresy or any kind of organizational control. Everyone in every church has the full freedom to go on.” This is surely non-sectarian speech. However, in between this speech and the Atlanta conference where Lee declared that the elders would be "dropouts" if they did not take the new way, the following took place. More Fellowship With Brother Lee - August 25, 26, 1988 John Ingalls “On Thursday, August 25th, Brother Lee asked me to come to his home for further fellowship. He said then that he would ask Godfred and Al to come to his home the following day, Friday. It seemed strange to me that he would separate us, asking me to come on one day and them on another. But he said I could come too on Friday if I liked. On Thursday alone with me, Brother Lee asked me what changes I thought he should have. This greatly surprised me. Perhaps he was thinking of my fellowship with him on June 22nd, when I told him that if he did not have some change, it would be difficult for the churches to go on. I said, "Brother Lee, please give me a moment to collect my thoughts." I was concerned what I should say to him. Then I proceeded to mention a few of the concerns previously mentioned. Moreover, I tried to impress him that I never tried to use the term "autonomy" in all of my speaking. Throughout these months I had told him this several times. I stated that I was burdened to speak about local administration together with universal fellowship (as we have in our hymn, #824, authored by Brother Lee and translated from Chinese: Administration local, each answering to the Lord; Communion universal, upheld in one accord.) He responded, "that’s my teaching." I agreed that it was indeed his teaching. So what was wrong? The next afternoon, Friday, August 26th, I joined Godfred and Al at Brother Lee’s home. Godfred spoke strongly, asking Brother Lee first if he had spoken anything against us recently. He replied that he had not. Then Godfred reasoned with him: How is it that you speak against autonomy, considering that a problem, but you will not deal with the problems that we brought to your attention. Godfred spoke earnestly and impressively. He said, "the center of the church should be Christ, but He has been replaced by you and your ministry." Brother Lee was touched by what Godfred said, and perhaps considering that what he had just alleged afforded some light for clearing up the problem, he said, "I like to hear that." I recall the scene vividly, and his words still echo in my ears. It seemed that this time Brother Lee appreciated the frank fellowship and was trying to warm up to us. But we could not seem to make any real progress. Brother Lee remarked that everything that had happened in Europe which had caused so great a problem between the churches and the Living Stream Ministry was just a misunderstanding. After the meeting Godfred told us that he wanted to leave the eldership and was fully disgusted with the whole situation.” -Two days later, John and Godfred gave the 16 points fellowship to the church in Anaheim, for which they were later “stoned”, although that fellowship was right and according to the New Testament constitution and need in their church. |
||
| 11-10-2008 08:50 AM | |||
| bookworm |
Re: Keeping the Oneness? Which Oneness? Quote:
It has been a while since I have visited this forum. This recent thread is very insightful. It makes me wonder when we will have an opportunity to read the next chapter of the book Don Rutledge is writing. I truly hope all continues well with him in these days. bookworm |
||
| 11-10-2008 02:33 AM | |||
| Indiana |
Re: Keeping the Oneness? Which Oneness? I shared a few days ago about the rhetoric of Brother Lee on keeping the oneness, as he assuaged the brothers in a pivotal elders' meeting. A short time after that meeting - maybe three months - he was a foreigner to that pivotal and assuaging speech about brothers being free to follow the New Testament constitution and that no one would bother them. The following is from Deviating from the Path in the Lord's Recovery: Appendix 1 Brother Lee Not Open to Opinion or Fellowship from the Brothers One Accord for the Lord’s New Move Elders Training, Book 7 In the beginning of the era of the new way, Brother Lee made it clear who was the leader among the churches in the recovery. There was to be "no uncertain sounding of the trumpet" for an army of followers to follow him as its unique leader. He gave the following analogy: "The citizens of the United States may say many things to criticize the government and the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. But when you get into the army and become a soldier, you lose the right to say anything." He continued, "you may be a member of a local church and yet have nothing to do with the ministry to fight the battle for the Lord's interest on the earth. All of you are the elders, the co-workers, and the apprentice elders, the leading ones, in the recovery. I am speaking to you all as the soldiers in the recovery, not to the citizens. I am speaking to the soldiers of the army. Are you going to remain in the army? You have to realize what the army is and what the army would do. The army has no capacity to take your opinion…” (pp. 80-81, ET 7) 1. Atlanta Elders Conference John Ingalls relates an elders’ meeting in which Brother Lee told the brothers how he felt about them and their ability to fellowship with him. He essentially informed them that they were not qualified to raise questions with him or to criticize anything he did. John Ingalls In September Brother Lee had a conference in Atlanta with two elders’ meetings, one on Friday, September 16th, (1988) and the other on the Lord’s Day, September 18th. The second meeting was exceptional with brothers from all over the country attending. I would like to briefly describe it, noting a few significant things that were said, (I myself was not present but I received reports from a number of brothers concerning it.) Brother Lee strongly vindicated the way he had taken against all criticisms. He drew a line; any who would not take this way, he said, are “dropouts”, and the Lord will have no mercy. Addressing the brothers, he said that none of them understood what he was doing. None knew what he was doing in Taipei; hence there was no one that he could fellowship with. When I went to Taipei, he said, “I did not fellowship with one person concerning what I was going to do.” He continued: “None of you is perfected. Who can say that he is perfected? So you are not qualified to criticize what I am doing. I didn’t include you in my fellowship – how can I? So let there be no more talk about anything I do. You criticize my young trainers in Taipei, telling me their mistakes, but I was doing everything; what they did was to carry out my burden. Don Rutledge, an elder in Dallas before moving to North Carolina, told me, “That meeting was the most devastating and discouraging experience of all my time in the church.” What particularly bothered him was Brother Lee’s attitude toward the brothers. The atmosphere, he said, was heavy, oppressive, and abusive. (Reports came to my ears from a number of brothers who attended that meeting; all indicated something similar.) Brother Lee had wanted to have a time of fellowship with Don immediately following the session, but Don was so troubled and depressed that he told Brother Lee he had to go home. As he walked out the door, Titus Chu came up and said to Don, "I’m afraid this will make our situation worse. I hope not”. |
||
| 11-06-2008 04:52 AM | |||
| YP0534 |
Re: Witness Lee contra Sectarianism I think it most likely that, as Lee himself never perceived his own sectarianism, devotees of his denomination are also unable to see it. It is a difficult question and one I wrestled with at the very start of my Christian experience and attending the formal Local Church meetings. The definition of the Local Church congregation as the single authentic instance of Christian assembly in every place, while clearly sectarian, proves to be a great hindrance to seeing that sectarianism clearly. They surely are believers. Any group of believers meeting together anywhere freely calls themselves "a church." This group says we are surely "a church" and no one can deny that. They then further say that other places are in fact sectarian divisions and not "churches" at all. This seems easy enough to perceive. The syllogism concludes that "a church" which is not a "division" of one sort or another is "the church." By conveniently ignoring or explaining away all of the clear indicia that in fact they are also a division, they become trapped into believing that they are unable to meet apart from this one group. The idea seems to me firmly rooted in the notion of "belonging" and founded upon a belief in a shared concept of "Universal Church." If we all agree on the big picture story, then we all belong to the same club wherever we live. You can generally disagree about minor issues as long as you have the same "Big Church" idea composed of similar "little churches" and this worked for awhile. The problem in the Local Church became irreversably manifest when the idea about "Big Church" subsumed every minor issue as well. Lee's declaration that they could by much effort bring the Lord back in 13 years was the major error of his entire life of teaching. You can't get the "Universal Church" built without knocking on doors in just the correct fashion, don't you know? Words about oneness relating to "Big Church" ideas were then exchanged for words about oneness in every little thing. You cannot be one in Christ without being one in HWMR became the lie. In fact, it becomes more than difficult to be one in Chirist if you ARE one in HWMR and such practices. This is why they need to pay the price to buy the eyesalve. |
||
| 11-06-2008 12:52 AM | |||
| Indiana |
Re: Seeking What is True and Determining Our Path I am interested in truth. This includes the pulling down of any high place, and the breaking of any idol. Let us consider: Was Witness Lee contra sectarianism in more than his spoken word? What path did he really end up taking? Asking this important question is for our learning dear brothers and sisters. It is also for determining our Path. Plymouth Brethren and the Local Churches We have the record of the Plymouth Brethren to compare ourselves to and saw how division came in through the system of Darbyism, as people were excluded for not holding the right concepts. They didn’t fit in with the assemblies that were united in a special unity around the world through Darby’s teachings. John Darby, accordingly, received the blame for this cutting off of fellow members from the fellowship of the Body. It is evident that the Brethren lacked love for maintaining their “brilliant unity” and in accommodating others for the building up of the Body of Christ. Their “Golden Age” was over in twenty years. Unity, their top-most objective was broken. As one of the Brethren leaders, lamented: "Our shame is public. It requires no spirituality to see that exactly that which we have professedly sought, we have failed most signally. The 'unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace' is most surely what we have not kept." - FW Grant Another brother observed, "The Brethren are remarkable people for rightly dividing the Word of Truth and wrongly dividing themselves!" - Griffith Thomas At the end of his sharing in "The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion", Witness Lee exhorted the leading ones, who had just spent at least two days castigating their former fellow co-workers, to “endeavor to keep the oneness of His Body AT ANY COST”. I have to say, it is not clear to me what Brother Lee meant by this word. He did the opposite of this exhortation in order to carry out the “big plans” that LSM had to move into localities around the globe. He didn’t keep the “oneness of the Body” at any cost then, or else he would have responded in a proper spirit and attitude to reports in the Southeast of violations of the oneness of the Body and of the oneness in the work between elders and workers. He would have done the same in England, Germany, and Rosemead when he heard of LSM usurpations, interferences, and control. His silence and lack of response was taken as the voice of complicity to the divisive work of Living Stream. He let the violations of the oneness of the Body occur, and he did so “at any cost”, losing co-workers, churches, and saints. He was after a new way, new elders, and a new mentality in the “churches”, while he labeled those who raised challenging questions as slanderers, perverted ones, rebellious ones, and so forth. He showed little regard for keeping the oneness of the Body. He was “cleaning house” and starting something new. Witness Lee, and his co-workers, set a system in place that others are maintaining well in the churches thus far, nearly ten years after his passing. But the sectarian mindset that is unavoidable in such a system is here. The churches of the Lord’s recovery have experienced much organization over the last twenty years by its leadership. In 2005, a proclamation concerning having only one publication in the recovery went out to the churches that will further organize the recovery under the domination of LSM. A type of control mechanism is being instituted by that “little office” of “limited function” to further systematize the already heavily systematized recovery. The divisive elements long embodied in the narrow heart of LSM representatives are surely being manifest today in the One Publication Proclamation. Division is resulting from the push and the emphasis, in the same way that division resulted from the strong push and emphasis in the LSM drive that began in the early eighties and plowed through the late eighties, creating havoc, and into the nineties with great momentum, until arriving at today with Proclamation in hand and a line drawn. There needs to be a return to the proper ground of oneness with no over-emphasis on a person, a ministry, or a way in order to afford the Lord an inclusive way to move in His Body in local churches, rather than to confine Him to the exclusive way of a man, a ministry, and a movement within a system. |
||
| 11-04-2008 01:48 AM | |||
| Indiana |
Re: John Ingalls responds to the rhetoric Yes, Brother Lee spoke against sectarianism, and it needs to be documented, but so does the real situation and the practical experiences that brothers like John Ingalls had with Brother Lee and his rhetoric on "keeping the oneness". Pivotal Elders’ Training Fellowship Summer Training in Anaheim - July 1988 John Ingalls shares: In his second message of the elders’ meetings, Brother Lee spoke concerning our going on. After all our sessions and hours of fellowship with Brother Lee, we had hoped that he would take steps to clear up a number of things publicly. This was surely an excellent opportunity, a perfect forum, and an appropriate time. He did give a few principles for our going on which would be helpful if practiced. He did say, "It is altogether wise and profitable that we do not expect all the churches to be the same," and, "Do not talk about who is for this or who is for that…We should not label ourselves or label others." We were thankful to hear these comments and urgings. But we were deeply disappointed that he did not go much further. What he should have cleared up he covered up, e.g., problems regarding the LSM office and the FTTT training in Taipei. We hoped he would have repented for some things that had caused many problems, not just for allowing saints from the U.S. to attend the training in Taiwan. We surely would have respected him had he done this, and the situation could have been altogether different than it turned out. At the close of Brother Lee’s second message, Dick Taylor (of Long Beach) and Frank Scavo (of Irvine) asked questions which Brother Lee attempted to answer. Dick’s question was quite appropriate and fit our situation. It was as follows: "Many times you reach a point in your experience where you have genuine concerns. How can you fellowship about these concerns without being considered as negative and thereby causing another problem? This is a concern to me and this is related to the freedom of seeking the Lord and the truth." In Brother Lee’s response he said that if you have a genuine concern for anyone in regard to the Lord’s recovery you should go to him alone without talking to anyone else. Any "pre-talk", he said, opens the door for the devil to come in. Now this may be true in many cases, but in our history of contacting Brother Lee over our concerns we felt we could not and should not do that. Since the issues were so momentous we needed fellowship for a clearer understanding and preparation for visiting him. In fact, Brother Lee and brothers around him have also had a lot of consultation among themselves regarding concerns for other brothers before going to them. I know because I myself participated in such discussions. Brother Lee’s attitude while speaking was gentle and persuasive; he was seeking in this way to reconcile all the brothers and to set a course that would calm any fears or anxieties and eliminate any problems. Many were very happy with his fellowship; I was not at all happy or at peace. During these elders’ meetings I sat next to an elder who had spoken with me a few times previously and was very sympathetic with our concerns, having much the same concerns himself. We agreed to meet together for some fellowship that evening over dinner. This we did, and as we ate we conversed about Brother Lee’s messages that day and their impact on the situation in general. The brother felt happy and said to me, "John, I think this is the best we can expect from Brother Lee. Be thankful." I tried to be; I tried to take his view. But in the depths of my being there was a nagging disappointment. Nothing had been dealt with. No wrongs had been righted. The root was not touched. The question loomed before us, What shall we do now? I knew I had to be true to my conscience and the truth I had seen. |
||
| 11-03-2008 08:58 AM | |||
| Indiana |
Re: Rhetoric vs Reality on Keeping the Oneness In book nine of the Elders’ Training fellowship, after serious damage and loss in the churches and among the co-workers was being reported, brother Lee alludes to mistakes that were made. The concerns the saints had were related to brother Lee and his leadership and also to his son, Philip, the Living Stream office manager, involving his control of elders and co-workers around the world, as well as his serious misconduct in the office of the Living Stream. It was at this point that brother Lee gave the following word in July 1988, about one month after Philip’s discharge from LSM. His fellowship here is actually dealing with, in his way, the over-emphasis related to the ministry, which was a major cause of separating the saints and causing division in the recovery. Our brother backpedals from a strong position of pushing ahead in the new way that caused many saints to stumble, and encourages the saints now to keep the oneness, while softly suggesting and barely hinting the fact that oneness had not been kept by those supporting him, his ministry, and the new way. He adopts a very general and accepting attitude in this fellowship below to the elders, an attitude that hadn’t been there to this point! He apologized for nothing and did not specifically admit to reports of LSM devastations or the specific abuses of Philip Lee, Benson or Ray. He just smoothed everything over and most brothers bought into it. But not John Ingalls. This was a pivotal elders’ meeting and the perfect stage and opportunity, John felt, for Brother Lee to rectify matters in the recovery. But he did not. Mistakes Were Made (comments in brackets mine) B. Lee: “Our going on should be according to what we have seen from the Word. There should not be any control, and the leadership is not in one controlling person. The teaching of the apostles must be the very leadership among us. We all must be under the teaching of the apostles. When I came to the United States, many brothers can testify that I never showed myself as a leader. The leading ones in the churches can testify that I never controlled any church or any saint. I never controlled anything, and I never would control anything. Rather, I would do as much as I could to withdraw from the so-called leadership. I do not mean that I am withdrawing from the Lord’s recovery. I have a burden from the Lord and I must be faithful to Him and to His commission, His charge. But be assured I will try the best to stay away from the leadership. “We all need to speak the same thing by the Lord’s mercy and grace (1 Cor. 1:10). There is absolutely no heresy among us. We do not have any basic problems among us, so it should be easy for us to avoid speaking differently and speak the same thing. Also, by His mercy, we do not have any organization. No one can control the local churches. No one can control anything because we do not have organization among us. I do not control; and the Living Stream office would not control [but actually did control very much]. Mistakes may have been made in the past [this is a soft admission that mistakes were indeed made], but let us live in today and forget about yesterday [and the mistakes?]. We do not even have tomorrow. We only have today in which to live. What happened yesterday is over. If anything was wrong in the past, we need the cleansing of the blood of Christ as the trespass offering. Past mistakes that have been confessed [confessed to who?] are under the cleansing blood. [Brother Lee alluded to mistakes being made, but did not say specifically what the mistakes were or who made them. He also did not encourage apologizing to those saints who were offended. As the head of LSM, he failed to denounce his son’s sins and his corrupting influence as business manager for his office. He also had nothing to say about his own tragic and costly mistake in allowing such an errant person to represent him and his work. Why is there no show of repentance in the heart of brother Lee for anything and everything that took place in his office in his name and that brought such damage to the recovery? Instead of receiving blame and admitting the evil and corruption of his son and his activity, he put the blame on others. He even went so far as to declare a few years later that there had never been any problem in the LSM operation all through the years (Song of Songs Training, last message, 1995). There is simply a word of adjustment given here to make a smoother way in the churches for "the Lord’s new move" – with those who were left to "sail on".] We need to forget the past and go on. We should not even have any expectation about what will happen tomorrow. We do not need to worry about tomorrow. We live today. No one controls you. All the local churches have the full freedom to go on. [Again, this word conflicts with a subsequent elders’ meeting in Atlanta, where brother Lee spoke harshly of the elders as dropouts if they did not take the new way. That word in Atlanta was given after his gracious word here about freedom to go on.] As long as you do not do anything against our New Testament constitution, no one will bother you. [Was this statement true? The elders in Anaheim tried this with the sixteen points they gave to the church there as a way to go on but were condemned for their stand, with brother Lee joining the condemnation, even orchestrating behind the scenes in using certain brothers to bring the Anaheim elders down. In so doing, he surely interfered with the local administration in the church in Anaheim.] Among us in the Lord’s recovery, there is nothing worth worrying about [Was there really nothing to worry about?] because basically we do not have any heresy or any kind of organizational control. Everyone in every church has the full freedom to go on. I hope that we would be so faithful and loyal to the Lord’s recovery. We should mean business with the Lord that the Lord’s recovery will be prevailing and even flourishing on this earth for the Lord’s purpose. [Although this was a very positive word, something had been buried and pressed down that should have been dealt with openly and clearly. I refer to the damage done in the churches due to the serious problems related to LSM and Philip Lee, and also due to the forceful nature of “the push” in the new way. These crucial matters related to the cause of division still lie buried today. They have not gone away.] “Concerning practices among us, such as head covering, baptism, or preaching the gospel, we should let these things be as they are among the saints. If some of the sisters want to wear a head covering, let them do it. If others do not, give them the liberty. We should have this attitude with all the practices in the church life that are outside our common faith. If some feel that they are burdened to visit people for the gospel, let them do it. Those saints who are burdened to visit people for the gospel should not insist on this practice. We should try to avoid different kinds of terms, slogans, and sayings, and try to do our best to keep the oneness in the Lord’s recovery. We must avoid anything that damages the freedom of the saints or the oneness of the Body of Christ. “It is altogether wise and profitable that we do not expect all the churches to be the same. This is impossible. Even twelve brothers within a local church cannot be the same in everything. If a local church has a burden to visit people in their homes, they should carry out this commission. They do not need to say that others do not preach the gospel in this way. If others feel they do not need to preach the gospel by visiting people in their homes, that is not your business. Do not talk about who is for this and who is for that. We should not talk in this way. We should not label ourselves or label others. If we want to practice a certain thing, we can do it. If others do not want to practice it, they have the liberty not to practice it. We should not question who is for a certain thing and who is not for a certain thing. This does not help you or anyone else. We all must endeavor to keep the oneness of the Spirit so that the Body of Christ can build up itself in love” (Eph. 4:3, 16). (Elders’ Training, Bk. 9, p. 61-63) This fellowship was given after John So was having severe bouts with Philip and LSM in Germany (which were ignored by WL) and led to division there, and WL's fellowship came seven months after Bill Mallon resigned from the work in the Southeast and shared in a letter to WL his grave concerns about the relationship between he and Living Stream co-workers. His letter illustrated the perplexity and type of frustration that Bill and others endured at the hands of the brothers representing the Living Stream Ministry and the damage to the oneness in the Body that resulted. Witness Lee ignored Bill’s concerns expressed in his letter and then defended his co-workers in his book (FPR) in response to Bill’s letter, while adding untrue and defamatory remarks about Bill and about his letter. Brother Lee himself didn’t keep the oneness in the Body, yet exhorted others to do so. Yet, they did not. The BBs-to-be instead followed WL's example of ignoring the concerns of elders while carrying out their agenda to promote a man and a ministry. Rhetoric on keeping the oneness is one thing; practicing genuine inclusive oneness is another. Former leading ones will attest sorrowfully to the huge discrepancy in Brother Lee’s spoken word and his practice. "Brother We" has followed suit Their One Publication Proclamation including statements such as "the ministry is indispensable to OUR oneness” is the manifestation and culmination of their goal to build up a sectarian utopia of those who are "of Lee", which naturally excludes those who are not. And this they have done along the path of their long-time agenda, and according to their misguided concept of New Testament oneness. Note: John So, with brothers representing nine churches in Europe, wrote their Letter of Disassociation with WL and LSM a short time after this word by WL, having had enough of the rhetoric and the abuse they had suffered. |
||
| 10-29-2008 10:05 AM | |||
| YP0534 |
Re: Witness Lee contra Sectarianism Mike, I don't disagree with any of your analysis. I just noted when reading that what he spoke itself isn't even implemented. They chose to divide within the denomination rather than accept those who declined to march in unison... |
||
| 10-29-2008 08:29 AM | |||
| OBW |
Re: Witness Lee contra Sectarianism Sorry to join this discussion so long after it appears to have died out. But this is my first look in about a month. I think that the issue is right there in the first paragraph you quoted. Let’s look at it again Any church which is a genuine local church standing on the ground of oneness and recognizing the other local churches as churches in one fellowship is a church, regardless of whether or not that church accepts the present new way. If a church chooses not to practice the new way, that church does not cease to be a church. To practice this would be sectarian. We do not practice this. We practice the all-inclusive church life. So its “Any church which ... (falls in line with certain forms) ... is a church.” That is the very problem. Every other “church” which does not fall in line with the “Recovery” edict on what is a church, is not a church, therefore it is OK to reject them. To say it more directly, “it is OK to be sectarian with them since it is not sectarian to reject them.” When you control the lexicon, you can define away the status as a “church” and therefore be free to be as sectarian as you want because it isn’t sectarian. Go figure. Then Lee continues by saying “We realize that if the Lord is to go on to make His recovery prevailing, there is no other way but this present move. However, if a church meeting properly would not take this present new way, then we still respect them as a proper church. We would still keep the fellowship with them, even though they do not feel the need of the new way. Even if they would oppose, we would not reject them. When they say that they are no longer a church in the recovery, then that is their cutting off the fellowship, not us.” When your oneness is defined by agreement over how you stand, any claim of oneness is flawed from the start. The teaching in these paragraphs was doomed from the start because they did not define oneness, they define boundaries for in and out relative to the LC denomination. And they further define those that are not in that denomination as “not churches” ─ not directly, but by extension. |
||
| 10-21-2008 04:15 PM | |||
| YP0534 |
Re: Witness Lee contra Sectarianism Quote:
For the record, I've also been waiting for 20+ years for LSM to publish the last of the Conclusion messages, which trainings I attended! For some reason, they even published an incomplete set of hardback volumes, in green-books covers, but most of the ones I attended have only come out in paperback over the past couple of years and still only incompletely. I can still vividly recall the little jingle that they made up at the time of those last messages: Quote:
The messages containing these words have been neglected for more than two decades now. I am mystified that LSM has not concluded "The Conclusion" after 20+ years. There were probably hard words in there about receiving the believers and not being sectarian but I haven't been able to keep up with all of my notes after all this time so I can't double-check it any more as I had intended to do so long ago. 
|
||
| 10-21-2008 03:27 PM | |||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee contra Sectarianism Quote:
"OK", I said to myself, "I'll fix you," and promptly canceled my DSO. Being a pack rat, I would still lug all those books from home to home, were it not for the sovereign God who flooded my basement last year. Except for the blue and green volumes, the rest of the books "caught the dreaded mold." |
||
| 10-21-2008 04:43 AM | |||
| Toledo |
Re: Witness Lee contra Sectarianism Quote:
I haven't really bid on much of WL's stuff on Ebay, though. I paid my "church tax" through the standing order for many years. I'm about four feet behind in my LSM reading. Some of my books still have the original rubber bands on them. Rather I regularly search Ebay for low cost or out of print Christian books by many other authors. |
||
| 10-21-2008 02:34 AM | |||
| Suannehill |
Re: Witness Lee contra Sectarianism Quote:
You're the guy who got all of my stuff, eh? I made the mistake of selling my original books and keeping newer copies...newer copies aren't the same. Sue |
||
| 10-21-2008 02:15 AM | |||
| YP0534 |
Re: Witness Lee contra Sectarianism Quote:
I intentionally did not say Lee was right about anything. After much consideration of the issue, I believe Elders' Training Books 7 and 8 represent the start of a dramatic decline in Lee's speaking. Not coincidentally, the text of the elders' allegiance letter is printed in Book 8. My impression is that this document represents the precise point where their sectarianism gave birth to denominationalism. Nonetheless, I have even found some nuggets in stuff spoken as late as 1996. It appears that in his latter days, Lee realized they had become a full-blown denomination, lamenting that all his efforts to institute his "new way" had not borne the intended fruit, but he no longer had any idea how to address the problems. I believe that was because he was never fully clear that he himself had helped produce the problems through his own efforts. After hearing the recent piece on The Bible Answer Man broadcast, I'm thinking that passages like this one are possibly being read again, but that such teachings are now interpreted as a basis for moving closer to mainstream Christianity and accepting an honored position among the constellation of denominations. I hear you, Toledo, but I'm the guy who has built much of his library by bidding on eBay over the last several years, presumably titles being sold off by saints who now reject Lee entirely. Some might say I'm actively looking for trouble via saved eBay searches. 
|
||
| 10-20-2008 04:22 PM | |||
| Toledo |
Re: Witness Lee contra Sectarianism Quote:
Portions like that are the reason that I still appreciate Witness Lee's ministry, even though, as Suannehill points out, the current masters of LSM seem to ignore Lee's clear teachings with regard to oneness and receiving the saints. |
||
| 10-20-2008 02:57 PM | |||
| Suannehill |
Re: Witness Lee contra Sectarianism Well...what happened to this teaching is the Blended Spin!!!!!!! The teaching was disappearing before Witness Lee passed...however, I did try to remind the locals of this and many other quotes. They heard NONE of them. All they knew was..."Well there IS such a thing as church law and ..." That made it alright to do whatever they wanted. Blendeds recognized only new elders who support BB and "The Ministry" above all else. Elders who served 20-30 years did not exist. |
||
| 10-20-2008 12:52 PM | |||
| YP0534 |
Witness Lee contra Sectarianism While looking for another quote, I came upon this. Amazing. Whatever happened to this teaching? Quote:
|
||
