Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee taught that fallen human culture always goes along with God's plan, but God is sovereign over it.

Originally Posted by aron

It may be that the "Christ" served up in the LC is Continental mysticism steeped in Oriental brine. There's nothing wrong with culture per se. We all have it. Lee pretended he had nothing but pure Christ. So we had no way to cope with the culture. Lee taught a lot about "fallen human culture". That's why I use the phrase. But he pretended he had none. And we believed him.

Originally Posted by aron

If any African-American church taught that they alone had "just Christ" whilst every other group was deformed, twisted, Satanic, darkened, Christless, fallen &c then they'd be criticised for it. And rightly so: nobody should set themselves against their fellows thus.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Surely you are talking about "reverse racism". Are you saying that just because the Recovery has "one color" it is racist?
What about the African American churches? Aren't they 99.9% African American?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree it's Chinese culture flavored and would take more work to gain the "typical Americans". It could also be the quality of the crab cakes, I don't know. Grandma's recipe for pot luck stew from mainland China may not be a hit. . .

Originally Posted by leastofthese

If Lee wasn't the "minister of the age" what was he really the minister of?

Originally Posted by A little brother

So is this arrangement for tearing down or building up barriers?

Originally Posted by A little brother

May be he did. The book of Corinthians addressed issues with the Corinthian culture of eating food that had been sacrificed to idols.

1 Cor 8:4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one.

Originally Posted by A little brother

I just showed the specific example you used was not exactly correct and you turned that into an argument of "Jesus always gave straight answers".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We tried to stop people speaking Chinese in the meetings, so we let them have their own meetings where they can speak Chinese as much as they want.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But if we can't see beyond the cultural divisions then we have no business calling ourselves the one body of Christ do we ? You are obviously treating the local churches as the "Chinese body of Christ" and Paul never made those distinctions where there is "no Jew or Gentile". Even though Paul and the other apostles traveled extensively in their time, the Bible is fairly silent about these sorts of matters. Paul never addresses cultural issues in his letters.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

He said so after not answering the first time. It was legally necessary for Jesus to condemn Himself to die by stating He was the Son of Man.

But this one example does not prove that Jesus always gave straight answers.

We have many chapters of gospels which prove that Jesus did not give straight answers. When asked a question he answered with a question, and when he did give some answer it was in the form of a riddle.

I think Lee's response to the Russia person was very clever and very spiritual too.

Originally Posted by Drake

For the same reason, Jesus spoke in parables.

Originally Posted by awareness

So I'm grateful for the MOTA claim. Otherwise I would have been in that cult 6 or 8 yrs longer. Thank ya Lord Jesus.

Originally Posted by aron

There are more data points suggesting Witness Lee was the leader of a Chinese-flavored personality cult than there are suggesting he was the apostle of the age. And those seem to be the two options here.

Actually, recent attempts to mainstream and legitimise Lee & LSM are perhaps pointing to a third path, that Witness Lee was a "global Chinese Christian leader" or some such. Theresa Zimmerman-Liu's work is in this vein, as well as 'gotquestions.org' which is now aligning with CRI. All these sources say that the lawsuits and cult-label controversies stem from culturally-derived misunderstandings, on both sides (e.g., Witness Lee as well as Harvest House).

But if that's so, then arguing that the LC movement isn't shot through with Chinese culture becomes more difficult. And we're back to wondering why the LC has an gotten an increasingly Asian face. And we then see their efforts to "gain African-Americans", like the one previously to "gain typical Americans" (i.e. Caucasian males).

The more LC looks like an Chinese sect, the harder it is to recruit non-Asian members. Why has the LC demographic tilted so strongly away from the rest of the USA in the past 30 years? The LC I first saw was full of Caucasian families with young children. Now most of those children are gone. A few are off in Europe or somewhere serving the ministry. The only ones left in the pews are recent (>10 years) immigrants from China. In some places they don't even attempt one meeting - the Chinese are off meeting by themselves.

"Oh, it's a language thing." But it has nothing to do with culture, right?

Originally Posted by aron

The more LC looks like an Chinese sect, the harder it is to recruit non-Asian members. Why has the LC demographic tilted so strongly away from the rest of the USA in the past 30 years? The LC I first saw was full of Caucasian families with young children. Now most of those children are gone. A few are off in Europe or somewhere serving the ministry. The only ones left in the pews are recent (>10 years) immigrants from China. In some places they don't even attempt one meeting - the Chinese are off meeting by themselves.

"Oh, it's a language thing." But it has nothing to do with culture, right?

Originally Posted by Drake

Let me ask you then: John Ingalls, Philip Lee.... would you still be in the Lords Recovery if those situations had been dealt with differently? Or are there other reasons more fundamental to your leaving?

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

For the same reason, Jesus spoke in parables.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You've presented one sample point only

Originally Posted by Evangelical

He said so after not answering the first time. It was legally necessary for Jesus to condemn Himself to die by stating He was the Son of Man.

But this one example does not prove that Jesus always gave straight answers.

We have many chapters of gospels which prove that Jesus did not give straight answers. When asked a question he answered with a question, and when he did give some answer it was in the form of a riddle.

I think Lee's response to the Russia person was very clever and very spiritual too.

Originally Posted by Drake

I'm getting the impression you expected more of a response from me.

Let me ask you then: John Ingalls, Philip Lee.... would you still be in the Lords Recovery if those situations had been dealt with differently? Or are there other reasons more fundamental to your leaving?

Drake

Originally Posted by A little brother

If this is what you believe, it explains well your behavior during discussions in this forum.

But you seemed to have overlooked how Jesus responded to question on His identity...

Mark 14:61-62 But He was silent and did not answer anything. Again the high priest questioned Him and said to Him, Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am. And you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the bright hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Hi drake

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Koinonia

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Did you ever realize that Christ rarely gave a straight answer to anyone? When asked if he was the Son of God Christ did not say "oh yes I am actually, I'm the second person of the Trinity, the son of the Father, God from God and light from light". He said "what do you think?".

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi koinonia

Yes, I did.

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Did you ever realize that Christ rarely gave a straight answer to anyone? When asked if he was the Son of God Christ did not say "oh yes I am actually, I'm the second person of the Trinity, the son of the Father, God from God and light from light". He said "what do you think?".

Because of the lack of straight answers from Christ, makes it easier for muslims and such to claim that Christ never said he was God's Son.

Your natural man sounds confused like this verse:

John 6:42 They were asking, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then can He say, 'I have come down from heaven?'"

Even Christ showed himself as the son of man and the son of God.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Brother Drake, did you read my response to you here?

Originally Posted by aron

And who has seen the quote where Samuel Chang was walking with someone when he said, "You have to watch out for Witness Lee's family." Then he clapped his hand over his mouth and said, "I shouldn't have said that. Please forget that I said that."

And what of the quote of Philip H. Lin, eventually author of Lee biography "Sacrifice and Sail on"? What was his quote - "I know you are right according to my conscience, but according to my culture I must support Brother Lee"? That was after he found out that Brother Lee's son had been caught molesting the help, and the church was thrust into turmoil. He still took his native culture over his God-given conscience, and still supported Brother Lee, and eventually even wrote an encomium of "God's humble servant".

Originally Posted by Hope

Linko was something that the office came up with. It was presented as an example of the wonderful God ordained leadership of the recovery. After a lot of money was raised and spent on the property and many plans made and a great hub bub made, the brilliant office learned that the land had not been approved for development and was basically useless.

I never supported this project and the young BBs promoted it as a means to humble the elders. Minuro [Chen] gave a stirring speech at an elders coworkers meeting about how the elders would be blessed if they went to Linko and shoveled dirt. He promised that the Spirit would enliven you as you shoveled dirt and they would be greatly rewarded spiritually if they gave up being an elder and went to Linko to shovel dirt.

Just another boondoggle. Just another ridiculous project proposed by the office and the deputy authority. How things had changed!! Yet the Daystar fiasco was the beginning in the USA of one scheme after another which was divinely judged.

Originally Posted by aron

Ohio is right. They wouldn't dare print it. But they always spoke it. For example, one time, in a meeting, Ron Kangas told us that when he first heard Witness Lee speak, Ron thought, "No self". Somehow Witness Lee had passed beyond self. Just pure God was apparently flowing out of the man. No self. . . this is patently nonsense. Only Jesus should be placed here, beyond the fall. No one else. We have not yet been set before the Judgment Seat. Jesus alone dwells in pure light. None of us should talk this way.

But Ron and others were mesmerised, and then they spent the rest of their lives trying to convince everyone it was real. But it wasn't real. No one should claim that they've "laid hold", and you all know what I mean. Paul wouldn't claim this. Yet we all pretended that Lee had laid hold. Again, nonsense.

Originally Posted by aron

41 of 43 retractions were from China. But that doesn't show us anything, right? Everybody does it. Watchman Nee's 'Spiritual Man' was acknowledged by the publisher to be copying Penn-Lewis without attribution. But everyone does it, right? Even when the publisher himself says in the preface that it's culturally-driven. Doesn't mean anything at all. Right?

Okeay, got it. Thanks. Good to know where you come down on this one. I'm sure everyone was on pins and needles, waiting.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Confucian ideals play a part for sure but copying also occurs in the West too and in Western churches. Plagiarism does not show a lack of creativity or creative potential. Big American corporations do it all the time.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Witness Lee was "spiritual" about it--except when he wasn't. He often boasted about the spiritual truths coming forth from the "little Chinaman."

Originally Posted by aron

Here is a fact: 41 of 43 high-profile scientific papers withdrawn because of plagiarism were from China. Copying is rampant in China. Watchman Nee's only written book was a uncredited copy of Jessie-Penn Lewis. The subsequent issues acknowledged as much in the publisher's preface to the second issue. They said it was a cultural thing: in China, to copy someone is to show them honor. But according to Drake this doesn't show anything about Chinese culture in the LC.

But as Drake says, this doesn't show anything. But your remark about Chinese restaurants shows everything we need to know.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee chose to respond in a spiritual way to address a question from the natural man.

Originally Posted by Drake

More of the same...this still has nothing to do with Asian or Chinese culture.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Aron's post mentioning Chinese lacking creativity has little basis in fact.

One only has to look at the vast array of menu options in a Chinese restaurant versus a European one.

Originally Posted by The Scientist March 2017

In 1999, China was responsible for 3.5 percent of scientific studies published globally, according to the journal-ranking database SCImago. By 2015, that number had leapt to 18 percent. Scientific output has exploded in the country alongside its flourishing economy and technological acceleration, leaving it second only to the U.S. in national research spending.

Growth, however, has not come without growing pains. In the late 1990s, three high-profile cases of plagiarism by Chinese researchers set into motion a national discussion over research integrity that continues today. Chinese academics warned at the time that if the country were to realize its potential as a research powerhouse, its institutions needed to crack down on dishonest research practices—not just plagiarism, but financial conflicts of interest and outright falsification.

Over the next two decades, Chinese government and academic institutions established ethics policies and educated students in how to avoid misconduct. But a string of high-profile retractions in 2015 raised doubts about the success of those efforts. In one widely publicized spate of retractions, BioMed Central pulled 43 papers for falsified peer review; 41 were written by researchers from China.

Scientific misconduct remains a thorn embedded in the side of China’s research enterprise, as a 2015 report from Nature Publishing Group observed. The country’s reputation for misconduct may well be harsher than is fair, given that misconduct is a problem found virtually everywhere. But the authors of the report write that the burden of this reputation “makes the need to tackle misconduct all the more important.”

Originally Posted by Koinonia

The LC is full of folkloric anecdotes to this effect. Another one that comes to mind, besides Ron Kangas' "no self" story (which I have heard countless times) is the story repeated over and over again about Witness Lee eating cheese and crackers. The story goes that a Russian sister told Witness lee that she thought that Chinese people did not eat cheese, causing Witness Lee to heroically respond "Sister, I'm not Chinese."

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, I appreciate your response. Thank you for being genuine. I can appreciate your decisions and your feelings because I understand them.

The problem that I have is this--in the Local Church those who feel differently are not treated with such grace or consideration. You have referred to "the failures, the sins, the turmoil," and we all know some examples. How much failure, sin, and turmoil does there need to be before a line is crossed? If someone leaves or becomes disillusioned due to actual grievances, actual abuse, actual unrighteousness, is that ever legitimate?

The answer seems to be no--because LC leaders and members equate spiritual principles with earthly things like groups and ministries and leaders. They equate the church that Jesus is building with their group, and because of this, there is no legitimate reason for leaving the Local Church or being disillusioned. The Local Church is "the church." There is no legitimate reason for disagreeing with Witness Lee's ministry. Witness Lee's ministry is "the ministry." There is no legitimate reason for questioning the actions and decisions of Local Church leadership. Local Church leadership is "God's deputy authority." Witness Lee's way is "the God-ordained way."

I once asked a brother who was a prominent leader during the Philip Lee debacle why he was not bothered by the gross sexual immorality, abuse, and coverup--why he went along with all of it. He answered with (rare) candor that he was bothered, but that he had decided for his own sake to "go on," be "positive," and "eat the tree of life." I don't question his motives, and I don't expect him to deal with problems beyond his capacity, but is this really the legitimate response of everyone involved? Was John Ingalls really a "rebel," a "leper," worthy of "quarantine" and censure for trying to address these things? Do LC leaders give any consideration to his conscience, or the psychological turmoil he must have suffered to be shunned and slandered for attempting to address real scandal and moral disgrace? Was his motivation really to bring down Witness Lee? Or to replace Witness Lee? Or protect "one-man-speaking," etc., etc? Is there any room for a different viewpoint? Is there any room for sympathy and respect?

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim to be "the local church," yet function as the Witness Lee group, based on mutual agreement that Witness Lee's leadership (and his followers' leadership) is the only one legitimate. You cannot claim to be "the local church," yet equate "the ministry" (Witness Lee's ministry) with the reality of Jesus' church (the one He is building), which includes every real believer.

So, while I understand your decisions, at a certain point we have to grapple with reality, and the reality is that 50 years ago Witness Lee came to this country and taught that "the church in X" is not a name, but an acknowledgment of a spiritual reality--that all believers in a city are the church in that city, and that the basis for meeting together is an acknowledgment of what already exists in the eyes of God, and must be general, and not based on any other thing--any practice, any ministry, or any other interest, tie, or bond. Churches shouldn't follow ministries, or be divided by ministries.

Unfortunately, that has gone out the window. Somewhere along the line, it changed.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Are you able to provide a source for this?

Originally Posted by Drake

Again Aron, these are generalizations,

Submissiveness, Collectiveness, Us vs Them

You are also describing the US Democrat Party. Hippie communes, and employers like Facebook, Google.

There really is no substance to these type arguments (Asian, Chinese). These are the worst of arguments because they attack a person's character based on their nationality, race, etc.

I find that disturbing. Disturbing not just because they are blatant arguments of fallacy, but because you keep advancing them so unabashedly.

Drake

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Are you able to provide a source for this?

Originally Posted by aron

No substance? Please read the two quotes below and tell me that they have nothing to do with fallen human culture.

And there isn't anything wrong with being Chinese. It just isn't divine, is all, and it was sold to us if it were. Witness Lee was supposedly tranformed beyond fallen human culture. And nothing could be further from the truth.





And for some reason or another God wants me to point out this obvious and inconvenient fact to Drake et al. These were the works of fallen human beings. No different from any other. Their thinking, their mindsets, their values, their behaviours were all shot through with fallen human culture. It's not about character, but about culture.

As I said earlier, the Bible makes it clear that godly men shouldn't set such children as Philip and Timothy Lee were upon the God's flock. But in this case fallen human culture demanded it. Guess what? Culture won.

And I do apologize for occasionally being impolite, and disrespectful. But the point remains.

Originally Posted by Hope

Linko was something that the office came up with. It was presented as an example of the wonderful God ordained leadership of the recovery. After a lot of money was raised and spent on the property and many plans made and a great hub bub made, the brilliant office learned that the land had not been approved for development and was basically useless.

I never supported this project and the young BBs promoted it as a means to humble the elders. Minuro [Chen] gave a stirring speech at an elders coworkers meeting about how the elders would be blessed if they went to Linko and shoveled dirt. He promised that the Spirit would enliven you as you shoveled dirt and they would be greatly rewarded spiritually if they gave up being an elder and went to Linko to shovel dirt.

Just another boondoggle. Just another ridiculous project proposed by the office and the deputy authority. How things had changed!! Yet the Daystar fiasco was the beginning in the USA of one scheme after another which was divinely judged.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Are you able to provide a source for this?

Originally Posted by Ohio

How does one provide sources for something commonly "known" by all in the Recovery. Obviously LSM would not publish this in their books.

Conversations like this provide strong evidence that Witness Lee was not just respected as an older brother, but even when matters of conscience and unrighteousness were on the table, all must submit to Lee, because not only was he "tranformed beyond fallen human culture," but even mature men of God "owed WL their very existence."

Witness Lee was more than just "transformed beyond fallen human culture," he was considered a demigod, and some even called him the "acting god."

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Are you able to provide a source for this?

Originally Posted by aron

Witness Lee was supposedly tranformed beyond fallen human culture. And nothing could be further from the truth.

Originally Posted by Drake

There really is no substance to these type arguments (Asian, Chinese). These are the worst of arguments because they attack a person's character based on their nationality, race, etc.

Originally Posted by Bill Mallon

On Philip Lee

“A few months ago, after Bob Ellis returned from the training in Taipei, he gave this admonition to the elders at a meeting of elders from the South: Turn everything over to the office and the ministry; Philip and Brother Lee have big plans for this area; it is imperative for us to give our coordination to Philip and the office, and they need evidences that we will do anything they want; we have to coordinate with Philip, and if Philip beats us to the ground, we have to learn to get up and come back”. Bill Mallon, Atlanta, 1987 letter of resignation from the work, to Witness Lee

Originally Posted by Don Rutledge

On Daystar and Timothy Lee

“Starting around 1972, Witness Lee expressed a concern for the financial suffering of the migrating saints and their need to be able to purchase proper meeting places. I was in a meeting of visiting elders and co-workers in which he introduced the Daystar business. He shared that his son Timothy had approached him about a business and that the business seemed to Witness Lee to be ideal for us (the local churches). The brothers and sisters could invest money, earn a nice profit of around 35%, and generate significant profit for the support of the new churches. He then spoke of manufacturing only the finest product. We could produce the product in Taiwan, which would help the believers there with employment and sell the product in the USA. He spoke at length concerning how the members of the churches should only invest their surplus and that he felt very positive that this was of the Lord. The business consisted of manufacturing and selling an expensive motor home. This was certainly a very different meeting than anything I had ever attended. I and others left with our heads spinning. I was bothered and asked James Barber what was going on. He replied that Witness Lee was God’s anointed and I should be very careful about criticizing. He declared that even if Witness Lee was wrong, God would bless the endeavor.

Shortly after this meeting, Witness Lee was scheduled to come to Houston for a conference in late 1972. I planned to attend. By that time I had left teaching for a sales job. The night before the conference I had a dream. I was sitting in the living room of Ben McPherson in Houston with Witness Lee. The other brothers in the room were very clear to me, as was where they were sitting. Suddenly, Witness Lee turned to me and said he wanted me to work for him in Daystar. In the dream, the Lord made it very clear I was not to take the offer. The next night there we all were, sitting in exactly the right seats. Witness Lee turned to me and offered me a job. Thank the Lord for the warning. I never worked for Daystar and never invested a dime.” Don Rutledge, testimony

Originally Posted by Drake

these are generalizations,

Submissiveness, Collectiveness, Us vs Them

There really is no substance to these type arguments (Asian, Chinese). These are the worst of arguments because they attack a person's character based on their nationality, race, etc.

I find that disturbing. Disturbing not just because they are blatant arguments of fallacy, but because you keep advancing them so unabashedly.

Originally Posted by aron

Another comment, posted on this forum 3 years ago regarding Asian culture dominating the LC.

Originally Posted by aron

Here's another observation, posted on this forum 3 years ago, regarding Asian culture in the LC

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I'm neither Western nor Asian but I live in a Chinese community. I like these people. Though I believe I'll be always an outsider for them. Anyway, in three words, I'd describe the Chinese mentality as:

1) Subordination;
2) Collectiveness;
3) “Us” versus “Them” mentality. (Well, that is slightly more than one word )

Generally, the Chinese are also lack of creativity and tend to imitate or copy someone else's models and patterns.

BTW, can you guess whose quote is this: "The individual is subordinate to the organisation. The minority is subordinate to the majority. The lower level is subordinate to the higher level"...

That was Mao Tse-tung's quote but it pretty much sums up the LC's value system.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I've been tooting this horn about the dichotomy between Eastern and Western cultures being at the root of the problems in the Recovery for years. Waking up to the realization that I had grown up in, and given my life to propagate, an incognito Chinese church was deeply disturbing, but the conviction only gets clearer as the years go by.

I stumbled in here today by chance. Wasn't even aware this forum existed. Reading this thread almost gave me goosebumps, to finally hear some traction for this understanding. In a discussion that I didn't personally initiate, no less. Actually, most of what I've had are monologues, not discussions. Nice to see that someone else can connect the dots.

Once you see this dichotomy clearly, I believe you'll recognize that nearly every gripe from disgruntled ex-members or frustrated current members has its roots in Asian cultural values that got institutionalized so deeply into the practices of the Local Churches that they create an atmosphere of expectations so rigid they are just as effective at enforcing conformity as posting a bouncer at the door, or a requiring a profession of doctrinal faith that one must sign in order to be fully received into the circle of fellowship. Some of the Asian cultural elements relate to standards of conduct that are pushed as if essential to the Christian life. Others elements are Eastern cultural values that make their way into doctrinal stances on minor truths, and then get stressed like major ones. The manifestations are numerous, but the root is the same. We (they) failed to distinguish between Lee's culture and his portion of Christ.

On the one hand, I believe this is the glaringly obvious "elephant in the room" that even the current leaders in the Recovery acknowledge has been wreaking havoc and hemorrhaging the life-blood of what, by all rights, should be a thriving organism. Whether they see the elephant for what it truly is or not is not for me to say, but I've been encouraged just to hear they acknowledge the problems it causes for them. And that encouragement is not rooted in cynicism toward them.

On the other hand, though, there is a reason why so many members can't see the elephant, and why the leaders (in my view) should be given some slack for failing to evict it. I bumped into it daily, got trampled by it with bothersome frequency, and wrestled with it on and off for over a decade before all the loose threads of my chronic frustrations got tied together by the common thread of Asian culture, at which point the resultant tapestry finally came together. It was a relief in the small sense that the puzzle finally got solved and yielded a coherent picture. But it was devastating at the same time -- my faith got rocked and my Christian life got shipwrecked by the disappointment. Blindness is not always willful, and the more painful the picture, the more innate subconscious defense mechanisms there are to prevent you from seeing it.

Plus, it's a complex picture, not a simple line-drawing. I blame no one for not being able to connect the dots without help. It took me about 30 pages even just to put my thoughts on the topic together when a brother asked me to connect the dots for him by giving detailed explanations rather than generalizations. It's like walking someone through calculus, when you can jump 5 steps at a time, but they need each little one spelled out for them separately in order to see the connections at first. I'll probably share pieces of that effort here as the discussion progresses, but I'm leery of becoming one more disgruntled bozo with an angry manifesto. (Sorry if that that offends anyone here; I trust most of you here, like me, have been there for a time, even if you've moved past that phase.)

For the record: I have no interest in WL, LC, or BB bashing. I bless the Lord for the privilege of growing up and giving my best years whole-heartedly to be receive what these people gained of Christ, and serve together with them.

Originally Posted by Drake

Now here is my point of view, my experience, and why the result may still seem the same to you but not to me.

When I came into the Lords Recovery forty years ago like most who came in around that time I was a Christian already. My testimony is recorded elsewhere in the vision thread. What I saw, what I experienced, the light and life, the care, the peace, etc. was way beyond anything I had experienced or saw up and till that point. In a word, I was gobsmacked. So I came in.

Shortly before I came in I had met Sal and some of the brothers involved in that first storm, then I came in, then the storm hit. I really liked those brothers, and when they left I had some serious soul searching with the Lord. How could they leave, what of their objections? I received a very clear speaking from the Lord to let the vision guide me, to keep pursuing life, light, peace and so I did.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

The problem that I have is this--in the Local Church those who feel differently are not treated with such grace or consideration. You have referred to "the failures, the sins, the turmoil," and we all know some examples. How much failure, sin, and turmoil does there need to be before a line is crossed? If someone leaves or becomes disillusioned due to actual grievances, actual abuse, actual unrighteousness, is that ever legitimate?

Originally Posted by Drake

Apparently, many have disagreed with Witness Lee, objected to LSM, the blended brothers, etc. They whispered it, spoke it, shouted it, pulled the ministry books off the shelf, took their criticisms to the web, opened forums to discuss those objections, met with Brother Lee, met with each other, left, met separately, started their own ministry, wrote books, wrote defamatory books, accused them of being a cult, .....

Originally Posted by Drake

Okay Koinonia. Now here is something we can discuss and though we may agree to still disagree I hope we can at least acknowledge an understanding of each other's point of view....

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, of course there is opportunity for disagreement--but not within the Local Church. And that is why the Local Church is not really local. It is the Witness Lee group, with an (apparent) understanding among leaders and members that any issue with Witness Lee, his program, his ministry, his history, etc., is off limits. The basis of the Local Church today is a common understanding of the role, importance, and superiority of Witness Lee, his books, and his organization. And there is no room for discussion.

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes, of course, Aron ! Why "in the world" would you think a meeting of the local church is the best place to voice disagreements?

Originally Posted by aron

But unfortunately Drake remains unconvinced. Seems he's a hard nut to crack.

Originally Posted by Ohio

“The Father is number one, the Son is number two, the Spirit is number three, and Witness Lee is number four; and then there are those who are with Witness Lee.”

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia)"Drake, the issue is what exactly you consider "discussion." There may be a lot of talk, but I have to agree with others that there really is no opportunity for disagreement with Witness Lee, Living Stream Ministry, the blended brothers, etc., etc. "

Koinonia,

Apparently, many have disagreed with Witness Lee, objected to LSM, the blended brothers, etc. They whispered it, spoke it, shouted it, pulled the ministry books off the shelf, took their criticisms to the web, opened forums to discuss those objections, met with Brother Lee, met with each other, left, met separately, started their own ministry, wrote books, wrote defamatory books, accused them of being a cult, .....

There is plenty of opportunity for disagreement!

Rather, I think you mean to say that those who have disagreements do not last long in the company. Sometimes they leave of their own volition and sometimes they are facilitated out the door. Fair enough. Yet, there is plenty of opportunity to disagree. We're here aren't we?

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Create your own A&C. What prevents you? Or you could just call it C if more appropriate. But, that is what this forum is about so you have your platform already. Just the A is missing but that doesn't really matter here. So you're good to go.

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

And notice where we are, here? Not in a meeting of the Local Church, but "in the world", where people have opinions, and voice them? Welcome aboard, Drake. Nice to have you join us.

Originally Posted by Drake

This is so over the top I don't know where to begin! Asian minds, Mao, Commies? What a tangled web you weave . Is that your compelling argument, Aron?

Originally Posted by Drake

Yet, there is plenty of opportunity to disagree. We're here aren't we?

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron, is that compelling? Have you nothing more substantive to present?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

. . . the issue is what exactly you consider "discussion." There may be a lot of talk, but I have to agree with others that there really is no opportunity for disagreement with Witness Lee. . .

Originally Posted by Drake

aron,

You may categorically do whatever pleases you..... your Chinese culture "is not comfortable with much discussion" argument has no merit because I have sat in hours, days, weeks, and probably months worth of discussions about many things including with many of those of Chinese heritage.

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

Drake, there's ample testimony on this forum & elsewhere that nobody could talk to Lee. They tried, in the wake of the New Way, and he complained they were "pouring ice water" on him. He expected Yes Men & no commentary.

So I categorically refute your statement.

However Ohio has corrected me. Once there was an attempt at discussion among peers, and it failed. TC wouldn't kowtow to BP & that was it. The Phoenix Accord, so-called, simply didn't match Oriental cultural expectations & it failed.

Originally Posted by Terry

Have you ever taken time to read the writings of Steve Isitt. There was one in particular titled Hear The Cases. A brother wanted to have discussion, fellowship etc regarding an elder in his locality. They listened, but there was no discussion towards a resolution or a reconciliation.
Depending on an elder or co-worker, there may be discussion regarding an issue to a point, but not to the point of contradicting the blended co-workers. They won't go there.
If there's discussion, it's superficial in nature. Otherwise any discussion suggesting mistakes were made or critical of LSM leadership decisions, most do not want to get started in such talk and prefer to keep everything positive.

Originally Posted by aron

Drake, there's ample testimony on this forum & elsewhere that nobody could talk to Lee. They tried, in the wake of the New Way, and he complained they were "pouring ice water" on him. He expected Yes Men & no commentary.

So I categorically refute your statement.

However Ohio has corrected me. Once there was an attempt at discussion among peers, and it failed. TC wouldn't kowtow to BP & that was it. The Phoenix Accord, so-called, simply didn't match Oriental cultural expectations & it failed.

Originally Posted by aron

The Phoenix Accord, so-called, simply didn't match Oriental cultural expectations & it failed.

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron)"My question is, where in the LC do you see meetings with "much discussion"? The answer is, No-where"

I hate to disappoint you. This "much discussion" happens so often in a local church, between the local churches, and between the churches and the ministry that I am surprised your objection isn't more along the lines of "too much discussion".

You'll need to find some other material to shore up your "Chinese culture" argument.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron)"My question is, where in the LC do you see meetings with "much discussion"? The answer is, No-where"
I hate to disappoint you. This "much discussion" happens so often in a local church, between the local churches, and between the churches and the ministry that I am surprised your objection isn't more along the lines of "too much discussion".
You'll need to find some other material to shore up your "Chinese culture" argument.

Originally Posted by aron

I'll give an example of Chinese culture in the LC....

Originally Posted by Koinonia

the reason the LC is primarily Chinese is precisely because it is cultural, not "local."

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I don't know that this has ever been printed. Minoru Chen likes to talk a lot about this, though. And entire sections of the FTTA's "God-Ordained Way" class has been dedicated to the need to gain "typical Americans" for a very long time.

Originally Posted by Drake

So yours is a USA viewpoint.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

30+ years of (recent) personal experience all over North America--which includes repeated exposure to LC leaders' own concerns over the "racial ratio" (Minoru Chen).

Originally Posted by Drake

Is it primarily? What is your reference?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well if a church which stands for locality is somehow cultural for being predominantly Chinese.

Then what do we call a group of white Americans meeting in a church which calls itself Eastern ....Orthodox (for example), or Roman. How come they are local when their culture is from another place?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Did someone say that?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, the reason the LC is primarily Chinese is precisely because it is cultural, not "local."

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What's exactly local about any denomination that bears the name of another country?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What's exactly local about any denomination that bears the name of another country?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, the reason the LC is primarily Chinese is precisely because it is cultural, not "local."

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,

At best this is a terrible misunderstanding.

First, it is a desire to reflect the local demographics in the local churches. The membership in the USA should not be mostly Chinese just because Brother Lee and Brother Nee were from China. So a concerted effort to break that propensity is a noble thing. No one is suggesting to add unsaved people to the churches to increase the demographic mix.

Second, some localities already have a racial mix that largely reflects the local society. In London as an example, there are some districts that have far more than 25 in that district alone from the black race but overall the membership for all districts combined appears to reflect that of London. Of course, the churches in Africa would also.

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

Back in the early '90s Paul Hon used to get the college students to go after 'typical Americans', i.e. Caucasians, especially the males. A white male Caucasian was the high prize of the calling in Christ Jesus. Land a white Caucasian male in your LC boat and you were really something.

This was the same trainer who told us, "don't waste your time" with the poor, the old, the sick. Those who couldn't repay us in this age. Go after the 'good building material' - white college students, especially the males.

The nice thing about Paul Hon and Ray Graver and Benson Philips: nomumbo-jumbo. They always told us like it was. Witness Lee would speak the spiritual stuff from the podium, and that would get printed. Then the LC overlords would tell us what it really meant, if you were still a bit dull and couldn't read between the lines.

So I always appreciated that. And I always remember it.

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,

At best this is a terrible misunderstanding.

First, it is a desire to reflect the local demographics in the local churches. The membership in the USA should not be mostly Chinese just because Brother Lee and Brother Nee were from China. So a concerted effort to break that propensity is a noble thing. No one is suggesting to add unsaved people to the churches to increase the demographic mix.

Second, some localities already have a racial mix that largely reflects the local society. In London as an example, there are some districts that have far more than 25 in that district alone from the black race but overall the membership for all districts combined appears to reflect that of London. Of course, the churches in Africa would also.

Drake

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Also, ZNPanneah, this effort, as shown in all of these letters, is not about the gospel. It's about trying to get black people to join the LC.

Originally Posted by ylhoff

Wow. Just wow. Are there still only 25 black people in the LC and someone finally noticed? Did diversity and inclusion suddenly become part of the program? So tempted to show up and disrupt ... Life as a minority in the LC was always hell. They need to stay the heck away from this group. Or maybe they are running out of people to torture? Besides, if black people are recruited, they won't get to wear the amazing Sunday hats. The word REAP reminds me of mind rape. Now I'm mad.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You sound incredibly judgmental.

11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.

12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Also, ZNPanneah, this effort, as shown in all of these letters, is not about the gospel. It's about trying to get black people to join the LC.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Did Witness Lee also teach that you should be led by the Spirit?

Did Witness Lee also teach that you should repent of dead works?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Witness Lee taught it. So, it is hypocrisy for LC leaders to practice it now as a matter of convenience.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nigel Tomes' article here on Black Slavery was so "hot" when it came out, that even the Concerned Brothers in the GLA didn't want to be associated with it.

Remember that simple paradigm that they had been operating under for many years under Titus Chu's leadership -- "Witness Lee good, Blended Brothers bad."

They were not ready to accept any part of "Witness Lee bad." So the Concerned Brothers website added a remote section, like our Alt-Views forum for these controversial writings.

Originally Posted by NigelTomes

The following was a paper written by Nigel Tomes and published on the ConcernedBrothers.Com website in 2006.


------------------------------

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Clem, Ricky, and Paul never taught that. Hypocrisy by who?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I agree with this. However, the fact is that Witness Lee specifically and explicitly taught against carrying out a Christian work with any kind of racial emphasis. This is hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee taught that?

What about his instruction to every LC back in the early 80's to carry out a work to Chinese immigrants?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I agree with this. However, the fact is that Witness Lee specifically and explicitly taught against carrying out a Christian work with any kind of racial emphasis. This is hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I knew Clem Rogers, one of the first brothers I met, went to his wedding, fantastic experience of Christ. I also know Ricky Acosta and applaud his concern for the gospel. I didn't comment because what is wrong with Christians being concerned with the spread of the gospel?

Paul was given the gospel to the uncircumcision, Peter to the circumcision. Maybe Clem and Ricky have been given the gospel to the African Americans.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

It's interesting to me that this thread rarely gets any comments ...

Originally Posted by ylhoff

Wow. Just wow. Are there still only 25 black people in the LC and someone finally noticed? Did diversity and inclusion suddenly become part of the program? So tempted to show up and disrupt ... Life as a minority in the LC was always hell. They need to stay the heck away from this group. Or maybe they are running out of people to torture? Besides, if black people are recruited, they won't get to wear the amazing Sunday hats. The word REAP reminds me of mind rape. Now I'm mad.

Originally Posted by NigelTomes

The following was a paper written by Nigel Tomes and published on the ConcernedBrothers.Com website in 2006.


------------------------------