Originally Posted by Igzy

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think the Lord had big plans for the LCM, but the leadership totally screwed it up by instead clinging to their delusion that they had a monopoly on God. What remains is a small, quirky, somewhat sad denomination. Many good Christian are there. But then, many good Christians are in a lot of places.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Division among Christians is what I would consider to be an insurmountable problem with respect to what we are capable of solving. It falls on none of us to find a solution, and it would be presumptuous to think otherwise. That doesn't mean that Christians are endorsing division just because we aren't actively trying to solve the problem of division. It is an unfortunate fact of life that most realize is out of their control. Regarding division, my feeling is that our duty as Christians is to each do our own part, meaning that we don't purposely cause division. We aren't responsible for what others do or don't do.

I think that as Christians, there are plenty of problems out there that are perhaps 'tempting' us to find a solution to. In other words there are some problems best advisable to be left alone. This is where maturity comes into play. Mature Christian leaders should understand the problems facing Christians and should also understand what problems can be tackled, and what problems would just lead people on a wild goose chase. Nee and Lee were not mature leaders. The letter referenced in my last post demonstrates that Lee didn't have basic foresight to understand possible outcomes in forcing the matter of the ground. One immediate outcome was that it caused a division between little flock congregants and those under TAS' ministry. It took no time at all for it to start causing problems. TAS had obviously given the notion of the ground some thought and he saw exactly where it was headed.

What Nee and Lee did was to magnify the very problem they were trying to solve. Denominations seek to achieve unity through doctrinal agreement. That's a problem in and of itself, but Nee proposed that unity be achieved through a 'franchising' agreement. It's a difference in approach, but the same exact principle - unity through something other than Christ.

It seems clear to me that an obsessive pursuit of oneness is indeed a wild goose chase, and a ill-advised pursuit all together. Look at how big the LC has been on the notion of 'oneness'. Have they not had among the ugliest splits and divisions imaginable? How could that possibly happen if oneness was their goal? Weren't they all about oneness? They were indeed all about 'oneness', in fact they were obsessed with it. Virtually every LC split was rationalized by claiming that a dissenting group was harming oneness or creating division. Therefore you had to participate in the split and take a side in order to maintain 'oneness'. How ironic! Of course, in the LC, the missing part of the 'oneness' equation is Christ. Oneness isn't found or achieved in doctrinal unity or municipal unity. It is also not something to obsess over. As mentioned, the LC is an example of what happens when you take proposed solution to a problem and obsess over it. You end up with a much worse problem.

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Concerning the "Locality law", brother Sparks wrote to us in Manila from London on April 12, 1962:

"I can only take any position on what I believe to be fundamental. For me, the basis (or ground) of the Church is quite fundamental. I cannot accept that the basis is what is called "Locality". I believe that where Christ truly is, even if it be in only "two or three" there the Church is in effect. Christ is the "foundation" (or ground), and "other foundation can no man lay". But when I have said that, brother, I feel that you are, perhaps unconsciously, involved in the "Locality" position. Do you know that that is precisely and positively the teaching and position of the people called "Exclusive Brethren"? This teaching first went to Shanghai with the leading Exclusive Brethren who tried to capture the whole work of brother Nee. Brother Nee refused to be made an official part of that body, but the teaching got in, and has gone on ever since. When I came to Manila and Hong Kong I was very sorry to see that in both Assembly Halls there were for sale many of the books from the Stow Hill Bible Dept. in England. I feared that this would lead to both exclusiveness and division, and as late as last year one of the biggest divisions took place among them. Their whole church teaching is based upon this "Locality" law. (That is, the church ground.) Brother Lee is the strongest exponent of it in the Far East. I love brother Lee and will do all possible to avoid separation from him. We must all fight hard to prevent divisions, and our ground must be Christ in all His own... I shall continue to pray for you all, and that the Lord will get a great victory over all the evil powers which are working so hard to bring dishonour upon His name everywhere... Give my greetings to all the brothers and sisters.

Yours in the love and grace of our Lord Jesus,
T. Austin-Sparks"

Originally Posted by Ohio

There was no reason or information provided, and I doubt if TC considered he even had the need to provide it.

Originally Posted by aron

Lee said, "Who among you have I controlled?" But the reality was, if Lee publicly criticized something even so small as who you sat with, you were marked out.

This is actually an insidious type of control. Once the Maximum Leader gives even subtle cues that you're not in favor, invisible wheels start to turn and the system grinds you to dust.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

The first step [Lee] took was to speak against Sandee publicly in a meeting. He did this at a Middle Age conference that was being held in Anaheim while Max was at a young people’s conference in Chicago... at the Middle Age conference Lee publicly corrected Sandee and the other two sisters for sitting together in meetings. This might seem to be a little thing, but it sent a loud message that Lee was not pleased with Sandee. Sandee said things began to change from that time forward.

Originally Posted by Elden1971

[Watchman Nee (1) received or inherited a lot of “Spiritual Life” (Christ Himself) from many servants of God, especially from T. Austin-Sparks whom he first met in 1933. (2) he also received a lot of “church management” (????), or so-called “Bible Truths” (really not Truths, but only things, Jesus Christ is the sole Living Truth). He especially got the “local church” (one locality, one church) teaching or method from the Exclusive Brethren in London, while he was with them in 1933. After that time, he practiced or carried on this method in China. Witness Lee was the strongest exponent of this teaching in the Far East, and later in the USA and elsewhere! Unfortunately, this teaching leads the people of God into legalism and exclusiveness. Legalism and exclusiveness are deadly to life in Christ! “As of things that are made” - Heb 12:27 refers to this kind of man-made legalism and exclusiveness. Please read TAS’s book "According to Christ".Based on what he wrote, I think that Watchman Nee changed his position on this Locality teaching after 1951-1952. For example in a poem he wrote:

"He (not Locality) is most dear to me, The loveliest of all;
One whom my soul does seek, One whom I ever call.
He (not Locality) is my aid, in need, My help, in helpless hours;
Most precious at all times, Most faithful at all hours.
He (not Locality) is my endless joy, Changeless as years go by;
He (not Locality) is most dear to me, No greater love have I."]

We five young people had not met TAS (T. Austin-Sparks) yet and the Holy Spirit had not yet opened the eyes of our hearts so we were all following Watchman Nee’s teaching and method and unconsciously fell into legalism (or dictatorship, which condemns others) and exclusiveness (egoism and monopoly). Later, Witness Lee sent each one of us to other places in Taiwan to work. We were called to build up the body of Christ in our mind, but in fact, we really built the New Denomination (the Local church) in our hearts. At that time, no preacher, no elder, or anybody gave us higher spiritual light. Watchman Nee’s teachings were the highest in our minds.
excerpt from testimony of Herald Hsu...

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Well I'm wondering if Cassidy has moved into his friendly-ghost-disappearing mode. This is what I remember happening the last time I asked him a question. I think that question was about Lee's teaching on "He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit."

Or it could be he's just tired from a conference or some such this past weekend and just hasn't been up to foruming ....

Thankful Jane

Originally Posted by Cassidy

In all those '78 meetings PL never came up as an issue by anyone. Just never mentioned by either side.

Therefore, in relation to Max and his expulsion PL was never a factor. The things Max said and did on the road led to his dismissal.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Well then Ohio, what exactly did Max confess to at Thankful Jane's dinner table?

Originally Posted by Cassidy

However, as to the "lies" spread about Max I am not aware of what he meant by that in your conversation with him.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

All those incidents were recounted with many brothers and leading ones discussing these matters openly. In all those '78 meetings PL never came up as an issue by anyone. Just never mentioned by either side.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Therefore, in relation to Max and his expulsion PL was never a factor. The things Max said and did on the road led to his dismissal.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Reminds me of the Wizard of Oz where the witch turns the hour glass over and says "these things have to be done delicately, delicately"

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Sandee told us that if Lee had done something against Max too fast, it would not have worked well because there were many brothers and sisters in Anaheim who loved Max and Sandee for the personal care they had received from them.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

The first step he took was to speak against Sandee publicly in a meeting. He did this at a Middle Age conference that was being held in Anaheim while Max was at a young people’s conference in Chicago (pretty sure it was Chicago). Lee’s speaking against Sandee occurred Memorial Day weekend 1977.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But if you also look at the sister's rebellion you cannot explain that incident with anything that Max did other than the fact that Max and Sandy knew about PL.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What bothers me most is how does a so called spiritual brother full of spiritual discernment like WL put a lascivious man like PL into the position of office manager of the LSM. If you argue that he wasn't aware of what kind of man PL was that is equally heinous, this was his son and he doesn't even know what kind of man he was? If he was hoping for some kind of change in response to being put into this position it is still a failure on his part, yet as soon as Max confronted him that should have been the end of the experiment. Dealing with Max doesn't in any way explain the lack of dealing with PL, on the contrary it highlights the hypocrisy. And the hypocrisy continues as JI and others also complain about PL.

Cassidy's explanation is woefully inadequate. Why did WL put PL into that position in the first place? No explanation. Why didn't WL deal with PL when his sexual abuse was first brought to WL's attention? Why didn't WL deal with PL when others also confronted WL about PL? Why choose shipwreck instead of dealing with PL?

The first time I met PL it was abundantly obvious to me this was a lascivious man that had no business handling the things of God. Why didn't WL see this? Why didn't RG or BP see this? How can you trust their judgment when it is so plainly deficient.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is no double standard as far as I have seen. Brothers who are chosen for the top echelon exhibit ambition because they are willing to compromise. For example, RG and BP were willing to look the other way as PL abused saints (remember one of the abused sisters was sent to Houston, they were fully aware of who this man was) in order to satisfy their ambition.

However, this ambition is referred to as "aspiration", good ambition. This is as long as they are yes men. As soon as they get a backbone, like Max, they are booted out for "ambition".

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.

Originally Posted by Ohio

So many legitimate questions ... why? why? why? ... surrounding WL and PL.

Here's another one -- why didn't someone call the police on PL?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Cassidy's explanation is woefully inadequate. Why did WL put PL into that position in the first place? No explanation. Why didn't WL deal with PL when his sexual abuse was first brought to WL's attention? Why didn't WL deal with PL when others also confronted WL about PL? Why choose shipwreck instead of dealing with PL?

The first time I met PL it was abundantly obvious to me this was a lascivious man that had no business handling the things of God. Why didn't WL see this? Why didn't RG or BP see this? How can you trust their judgment when it is so plainly deficient.

Originally Posted by Terry

No argument here. Can anyone say there is not a double-standard in regard to ambition in the LC history?

Originally Posted by Terry

Based on how I read Thankful Jane's post, Max was admitting he was ambitious and eventually repented for his ambition. In years since, how forgiving has been the LC attitude towards Max? Does it matter he went to Francis Ball's memorial service? In the past I did ask a tenured responsible brother about Max. "Oh he was ambitious." Many who had been in the local churches in the 1970's would agree Max was ambitious. What is debatable is if Max's confrontation of Phillip Lee expedited Max's departure from the local churches.

Originally Posted by Ohio

For years I heard MR was ambitious, JI was ambitious, TC was ambitious.

What is wrong with Christians being ambitious?

It is truly stupid that ambition in the LRC is so condemned.

We should, however, be talking about how WL and PL and BP and RG etc. were just as ambitious.

Originally Posted by Terry

Based on how I read Thankful Jane's post, Max was admitting he was ambitious and eventually repented for his ambition. In years since, how forgiving has been the LC attitude towards Max? Does it matter he went to Francis Ball's memorial service? In the past I did ask a tenured responsible brother about Max. "Oh he was ambitious." Many who had been in the local churches in the 1970's would agree Max was ambitious. What is debatable is if Max's confrontation of Phillip Lee expedited Max's departure from the local churches.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think it is very clear that the same can be said of BP and RG in closing their eyes, closing their ears and covering their mouths when JI visited. They were motivated by ambition. The same can be said of EM and KR. The writing of the whitewash is just one example. They don't allow these guys to get to the upper echelon unless they have done things they are ashamed of. They are much less likely to expose the sins of WL, etal if it involves exposing their own sins as well.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Well then Ohio, what exactly did Max confess to at Thankful Jane's dinner table?

[/COLOR][/I]This incident was not a lie and it was indicative of the problem with Max. Something had to be done about it and was.

Now you are arguing on Max's behalf? Makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Ohio, stop putting words in my mouth. I don't care if you agree with me but I do care if you twist my words. It is not befitting a brother.

So knock it off.

The eye-witness account is that you heard a testimony. Now either that "SoCal brother" incident happened or it did not. Of course it did. Understand?

Now it was for those very kind of behaviors that Max was relieved of duties. It's simple. The complaints started flowing in . Your elaborate conspiracy theories are fanciful. It had nothing to do with PL. You are a decade off if you think that. Sorry friend, everything does not fit nicely into your "bad bad WL theory of everything".

You are over-complicating and contradicting yourself in the process. I won't give you the rope to hang yourself. I care for you too much.

Let the reader decide. No further explanation is required.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Ohio, stop putting words in my mouth. I don't care if you agree with me but I do care if you twist my words. It is not befitting a brother.

So knock it off.

The eye-witness account is that you heard a testimony. Now either that "SoCal brother" incident happened or it did not. Of course it did. Understand?

Now it was for those very kind of behaviors that Max was relieved of duties. It's simple. The complaints started flowing in . Your elaborate conspiracy theories are fanciful. It had nothing to do with PL. You are a decade off if you think that. Sorry friend, everything does not fit nicely into your "bad bad WL theory of everything".

You are over-complicating and contradicting yourself in the process. I won't give you the rope to hang yourself. I care for you too much.

Let the reader decide. No further explanation is required.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Cassidy, that was no "eye witness" account of any thing. That was pure delusion. How in the world does one leave Indiana (or Kentucky) and enter the state of Ohio, and the whole place "stinks" because all the folks back home spread rumors that TC and the GLA were "out of the flow?" Do you really believe that TC stunk up the whole state of Ohio? And that the stink stopped at the borders.

C'mon man! You thought that was an eye-witness account? That was utter nonsense. Shame on Lee and company for all the damages they caused to so many young children of God! When all these youth finally woke up from their WL-induced stupor, they exited the nearest door. Then Lee had to blame someone for that too. So he used Max. How convenient.

Cassidy, why are you not willing to admit that Lee disseminated and proliferated ridiculous rumors about TC because he was perceived to be a threst to his leadership. The blendeds all got this message, but it seems like these things never got explained to you. Don't you understand what Whistler was all about? Do you still think TC got the boot for wanting clean sheets and playing electric guitars?

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Was this eyewitness account one of those lies?: " One of the SoCal young people who was part of Max's entourage to bring us "brother Lee's burden," gave this testimony. "I was traveling across the country enjoying the Lord, until I came to Ohio, and then something started to stink." This was offered as added proof in the meeting that we were not "in the flow," and had somehow deviated from WL's leading because of TC."

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Well then Ohio, what exactly did Max confess to at Thankful Jane's dinner table?

Was this eyewitness account one of those lies?: " One of the SoCal young people who was part of Max's entourage to bring us "brother Lee's burden," gave this testimony. "I was traveling across the country enjoying the Lord, until I came to Ohio, and then something started to stink." This was offered as added proof in the meeting that we were not "in the flow," and had somehow deviated from WL's leading because of TC."

This incident was not a lie and it was indicative of the problem with Max. Something had to be done about it and was.

Now you are arguing on Max's behalf? Makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oh please. The lies told by Lee and company are that Max and his wife both were staging a coup d'etat to wrest control of the Recovery. They were both leaders of a rebellion to topple the ministry of WL.

Are you trying to say that you never heard this Cassidy? You really expect me to believe that? The whole Recovery heard this repeatedly for years after it happened. The real tragedy is that we never got to hear both sides of the story.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

However, as to the "lies" spread about Max I am not aware of what he meant by that in your conversation with him.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Not simple. Not straightforward. Not a "departure" but an "expulsion."

Max was not fired, he was betrayed—much more insidious.

...

Max did not portray himself as innocent when he gave us his account of events. He confessed that, much to his shame, he had functioned as Lee’s right hand man and carried out his wishes. He had done nothing without Lee’s blessing and approval. This included manipulating churches and elders. Max confessed to us his shame over this fact and made it plain to us that he had thoroughly repented for this behavior, admitting it was fueled by his own ambition.

This is the same kind of ambition that motivated those who helped Lee oust Max and cover Phillip’s sin in order to gain a place at Lee’s right hand. Those same men are continuing today to live out their ambition as some of the Lee-blessed Blendeds.

They continue to support and re-enforce the lies that began in that not-so-simple betrayal. Saddest of all is the fact that they really seem to believe their version of the Max story (as we can see by Cassidy's representation). That's how darkness works.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Not simple. Not straightforward. Not a "departure" but an "expulsion."

Max was not fired, he was betrayed—much more insidious.

In January of 2006, my son and I sat across the dinner table from Max and Sandee for several hours and heard directly from their mouths the story of what happened to them at Lee’s hand. It was not the story of a boss firing an employee. Max did not regard Lee as his employer, he regarded him as his brother, his dear friend, and a mentor.

Sandee said that both she and Max loved Lee like a father. They spent many hours with him in their homes, often daily. Sandee was a constant helper to the Lees, doing practical things for Lee himself, sister Lee, and even Lee’s daughter. When Sandee talked about Lee to us she always referred to him as “Witness,” never “Brother Lee.” I was stunned by this and commented on it. She said that is how it was among the three of them. They were on a first name basis and had a very close relationship, until the day that Max went to him about Phillip. After that everything began to change.

Max had trusted Lee would do the right thing for the Lord and the church; but instead, Lee began to take steps to discredit Max (and Sandee) and to push them out. He betrayed them and protected his son and himself. As the breakage between Max and Lee began to manifest, Sandee went to Lee in tears trying to bring about reconciliation. Lee was immovable. (So much for the "oneness of the body" and "oneness on the ground of locality.") He forged ahead spreading lies about Max. Those lies persist to this day. When Max and Sandee decided to leave, it was because they were backed into a corner under a tremendous pressure of rejection by all those who believed the lies. If you call taking the only option left to them a "departure," then you can say they departed, but I would call such a pressurized exit an expulsion.

Maybe only God and Lee and Phillip know why Lee did what he did to Max and Sandee, but the fact is that he did it. The fact is that his pet doctrines meant nothing to him when it came to his own personal interests. The fact also is that it is too late for him to make right his sin against Max and Sandee (and many others.) It is also too late for Phillip.

Max did not portray himself as innocent when he gave us his account of events. He confessed that, much to his shame, he had functioned as Lee’s right hand man and carried out his wishes. He had done nothing without Lee’s blessing and approval. This included manipulating churches and elders. Max confessed to us his shame over this fact and made it plain to us that he had thoroughly repented for this behavior, admitting it was fueled by his own ambition.

This is the same kind of ambition that motivated those who helped Lee oust Max and cover Phillip’s sin in order to gain a place at Lee’s right hand. Those same men are continuing today to live out their ambition as some of the Lee-blessed Blendeds.

They continue to support and re-enforce the lies that began in that not-so-simple betrayal. Saddest of all is the fact that they really seem to believe their version of the Max story (as we can see by Cassidy's representation). That's how darkness works.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Maybe only God and Lee and Phillip know why Lee did what he did to Max and Sandee, but the fact is that he did it. The fact is that his pet doctrines meant nothing to him when it came to his own personal interests. The fact also is that it is too late for him to make right his sin against Max and Sandee (and many others.) It is also too late for Phillip.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Max did not portray himself as innocent when he gave us his account of events. He confessed that, much to his shame, he had functioned as Lee’s right hand man and carried out his wishes. He had done nothing without Lee’s blessing and approval. This included manipulating churches and elders. Max confessed to us his shame over this fact and made it plain to us that he had thoroughly repented for this behavior, admitting it was fueled by his own ambition.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

The story of Max's departure is very simple and straightforward.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Moderator, (Igzy)

I see now what is confusing.... when I reply to a note like this one I see the title "Wild, wild, Midwest..." and think I am in the Wild Wild Midwest thread. But when I scale up to the top view I see this is actually the "ground of the church" thread.

I know you were moving stuff around to keep the topics aligned. Apologies for not recognizing that and adding stuff about the midwest events to this thread. I will look for that in the future.

Originally Posted by Ohio

And with that we will have to agree to disagree.

The version of events broadcasted by WL and LSM was spin, smokescreen, and slander.

Wasn't his first time, and wasn't his last.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

The story of Max's departure is very simple and straightforward.

Originally Posted by Ohio

But you have to admit that the post was not detestably "predictable," aye?

Fictionalized perhaps, but as they say, "inspired by a true story."

And surely closer to the truth than LSM's official version of events.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Ohio, what I see clearly is that you missed your calling in life as a fictional writer. For a moment there I did feel awestruck. Then the facts came rushing back and I came back down to reality.

Originally Posted by Ohio

No, I don't think so Cassidy. There were many, many saints willing to leave the GLA LC's immediately for greener pastures with Lee. Max converted them into ministry zealots almost overnight, and that was always Lee's goal. I know because I was one of these zealots ready to relocate, like tomorrow. By this point in time TC was viewed as a terrible hindrance to their empire in Anaheim, and a potential rival to their throne.

For Max to go into the midwest and leave with dozens of the brightest young ones would have got him another promotion and a pay raise. He would have returned to Anaheim and entered into their new meeting hall on Ball Road with all the pomp and circumstance of a victorious Roman general. Lee would have called a conference immediately and shared on II Cor. 2.14-16, with Ed Marks giving a glorious testimony to conclude the meeting by reading footnote #1 in verse 2.14.

Cassidy, think how glorious that would be! Max would then stand up to glowing admirations, and then declare to all the saints that he takes credit for none of this fruit, rather all the fruit belongs to God's New Testament economy, consummated in this little god-man Minister Of The Age from China, to a thousand resounding "amens, oh Lord's, and hallelujahs!" Cassidy can just you see it?!? Can you see the heavenly vision?

Originally Posted by Cassidy

The reason Max was relieved of duties, fired, or banished, whatever descriptor you prefer, was for the things he was saying and how he was saying it in the mid-west, New England, and elsewhere. If the incidents with PL had never transpired Max would still have been relieved of duties. You documented the issues in the mid-west and that same behavior was widespread.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

The reason Max was relieved of duties, fired, or banished, whatever descriptor you prefer, was for the things he was saying and how he was saying it in the mid-west, New England, and elsewhere. If the incidents with PL had never transpired Max would still have been relieved of duties. You documented the issues in the mid-west and that same behavior was widespread.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You have conveniently forgot about how Max thought Lee was an honorable and righteous man who would obviously take the appropriate measures to deal with his own son and employee, who had regularly molested the volunteer help.

Max was never "fired" for doing what he was paid to do. He was not even fired for dividing churches. He was banished for exposing son of Lee as a profligate philanderer. That was the one unforgivable sin. Their biggest mistake was trusting Lee. They should have called the police.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Third, why was PL so critical to LSM that WL engineered the Sister's rebellion, Max fiasco and preferred JI etal to leave rather than deal with? Is there some other sin that PL was covering, perhaps with regards to Daystar?

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Originally Posted by Ohio

I guess I have become a little too predictable. But let's spin that as "consistent."

Max was sent out to shake things up, which really means to undermine the regional and local authorities over the saints. He was only doing what Lee charged him to do, sending the young people to the campuses, and firing the elders who got in his way. So we have to ask what right does WL have to tell all the members of the body what to do? When all those young people rose up in defiance of their elders, they were clamoring for the elders to allow them to carry out Lee's burden, not Max's. Max was simply an intermediary, all his authority came from Lee.

Why does Lee never take responsibility for any of his failures and wrongdoings? He blamed it all on Max. Max took the hit for both of them, and he was shown the door, his reputation forever disgraced. Lee lived another day, his pristine image once again intact.

But let's not forget what was really going on behind the scenes at LSM. Philip Lee, the office manager, was molesting every pretty sister in sight, and when Max confronted him about it, he surely thought that WL would take a stand for righteousness. Boy was he wrong. Lee used the Chinese tradition of payback by shaming his opponent's wife, and thus Sandee Rapoport was ostracized in Anaheim before the church for some supposed "sisters' rebellion."

To display his hypocrisy in full sight, Lee proclaimed that all the members should have acted like cops to stand up to Max. Actually the only brother in the whole sordid affair who acted like a cop was Max, when he tried to protect the sisters by standing up to Philip Lee, daddy's little playboy.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Ohio,

No, I did not miss the assertion you made because it is the same one you always make -- WL is responsible for everything that went wrong no matter what he did. However, you want it many ways.

Please explain. The behavior of Max at the time, that you find so appalling, was stopped by Witness Lee. Was that the right thing to do at the time? Do you think Max should have been reeled in?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dear Cassidy, you obviously missed the point where I placed the responsibility squarely in Lee's lap. Max was just used as a pawn, and then branded a scapegoat, so that Lee could maintain his pristine image.

Did you find those verses in the book of James where he tells Christians to keep the law?

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Ohio,

Your objections now are quite similar to those of WL and the co-workers back then.

Shortly thereafter, Max was escorted out for such behavior.

Wasn't that an appropriate thing to do at the time?

Originally Posted by Ohio

This becomes more than obvious when they infer that they alone can know the "taste of the body, the feeling of the body, and the sense of the body."

Let me be painfully honest here. This whole line of teaching was developed in the Recovery due to rivalry and selfish ambition for power and glory.

Let me give an example. I heard this testimony back in the late 70's when WL sent out Max to shake up the TC-led Midwest. One of the SoCal young people who was part of Max's entourage to bring us "brother Lee's burden," gave this testimony. "I was traveling across the country enjoying the Lord, until I came to Ohio, and then something started to stink." This was offered as added proof in the meeting that we were not "in the flow," and had somehow deviated from WL's leading because of TC.

At the time I heard this I was in awe that such a person had such a keen nose, and wondered what in the world we were doing that was so wrong. Besides the obvious hilarity of this testimony, we now must consider what was happening behind the scenes in SoCal to cause this novice to travel across the country and make such an outrageous claim. Were all their young people infected with these ugly seeds of suspicion? They obviously came to the midwest to sow these same seeds of discord into all the young people here. And it worked! We had some horribly chaotic and antagonistic meetings as a result. The Bible says, "mark them which make divisions."

What was the source of evil there? Was it simply misunderstandings? You know, "everyone is entitled to mistakes." Absolutely not! The root of the problem was rivalry and selfish ambitions between the workers in the Recovery. That was the source of the teachings which developed into these extraordinary manipulations we now know as "the feeling of the body, the sense of the body, and the taste of the body," which were all built upon their misunderstanding of the "oneness of the body."

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then WL and the Blendeds use a phrase that is fair and reasonable and create a meaning that is rejected and false. It is as though they have disguised a false teaching in robes of light. Quite artful.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Or rather think of the ones in v4-6 as the ingredients of V3. to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace means to keep the One Body as the first item if you prefer to say it that way. Saying it that way does not feel as grammatically fluid but it is the same thought.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Look at Paul's admonition carefully ...

The one body, "with all lowliness and meekness, bearing one another in love, is diligent to keep the oneness of the Spirit." (Eph 4.3)

It may seem like a technical point, but the one body does not equal the oneness of the body, and that's why the Bible never uses this expression. The source of our oneness is not in the body, it is only in the Lord Spirit. That's why we must keep the oneness of the Spirit. God alone defines the rules for this oneness, and administrates its reality.

If this oneness were "of the body," then the leaders of the body could define the parameters of this oneness, and this, unfortunately, has been done many times in church history. That is why I have repeatedly said that distorted oneness is perhaps the most destructive heresy of all. Rome today still administrates her version of the "oneness of the body." LSM has their version of the "oneness of the body," and they make up all the rules governing this "oneness."

Originally Posted by Ohio

Look at Paul's admonition carefully ...

The one body, "with all lowliness and meekness, bearing one another in love, is diligent to keep the oneness of the Spirit." (Eph 4.3)

It may seem like a technical point, but the one body does not equal the oneness of the body, and that's why the Bible never uses this expression. The source of our oneness is not in the body, it is only in the Lord Spirit. That's why we must keep the oneness of the Spirit. God alone defines the rules for this oneness, and administrates its reality.

If this oneness were "of the body," then the leaders of the body could define the parameters of this oneness, and this, unfortunately, has been done many times in church history. That is why I have repeatedly said that distorted oneness is perhaps the most destructive heresy of all. Rome today still administrates her version of the "oneness of the body." LSM has their version of the "oneness of the body," and they make up all the rules governing this "oneness."

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ohio did not deny there was one Body. He denied that "oneness with the Body" was a proper directive. This was my earlier point as well. Oneness with the Body implies you need to always conform to the group at any cost. It also suggests that conforming to the group is the same as conforming to the Lord. It isn't. But this is how the LRC interpreted it.

Accepting there is only one Body is actually liberating, because it establishes that the directives of any subset of the Body (e.g. the LRC) cannot be absolutely binding, because they cannot claim to be the whole Body that presumably (on their part) you need to be one with.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

"The narrow way is not the ground of oneness, it is the way that leads to life. Our ground is not oneness with the body, it is Christ. Listen to what Paul teaches us in Ephesians 4.1-6"

Ohio,

okay, I did.

Verse 4 says "One Body.."

Verse 5 says "One Lord..."

There are seven ones there in Ephesians 4:1-6 (Body, Spirit, Hope, Lord, Faith, Baptism, God & Father) and all contribute equally to the ground we stand on as believers.

On what scriptural basis do you eliminate the oneness of the first item listed (the Body) in your statement above?

Originally Posted by Cassidy

"The narrow way is not the ground of oneness, it is the way that leads to life. Our ground is not oneness with the body, it is Christ. Listen to what Paul teaches us in Ephesians 4.1-6"

Ohio,

okay, I did.

Verse 4 says "One Body.."

Verse 5 says "One Lord..."

There are seven ones there in Ephesians 4:1-6 (Body, Spirit, Hope, Lord, Faith, Baptism, God & Father) and all contribute equally to the ground we stand on as believers.

On what scriptural basis do you eliminate the oneness of the first item listed (the Body) in your statement above?

Originally Posted by OBW

You might be right. I did mostly say that you were trying to morph it in, not insist on it.

But the problem even there is that it is the stringing of metaphor after metaphor together to arrive at a construct that is not stated.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible says to prove all things, and we have proven that these so-called "gifted members" called Blendeds at LSM do not speak for the Lord or for the body of Christ. In fact, they regularly mis-represent the Lord by condemning the the greater body of Christ.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is a mischaracterization. I never "insist" on the oneness of the Body. That sounds more like "keeping the oneness of the Body".

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Originally Posted by OBW

It does not, despite ZNP's attempts to morph it in, insist upon oneness of the body.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Oh, please. More OBW lecturing. Your logic here is the same as saying arsenic is not good for you and mudpies are not good for you, so therefore there is not much difference between arsenic and mudpies. Who would believe that? No one, except apparently you.

Unbiblical means teaching a principle that is contrary to what the Bible actually teaches. There is nothing about cars or hamburgers that do that. But "oneness of the Body" distorts the biblical teaching of oneness.

Originally Posted by Ohio

That was never so evident as when Max promoted Lee's burden to go to the campuses. I was distinctly told by the older brother overseeing my brothers' house, "yours is not to question authority, only to take orders as to which campus you will be sent to."

And I will readily admit that LC leaders pressured me and manipulated me into making certain decisions that I would not have made on my own.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Ohio

Most Christians would probably view things as you just said, but the Blendeds did not use the expression like that.

Perhaps that is because you didn't stick around to see how the Blendeds used this expression to manipulate their followers. And let's make it clear that these Blendeds learned this from WL.

It is no different from how the media is manipulating public opinion. Behind the scenes the Blendeds sowed seeds of suspicion about TC and the GLA. At elders trainings they would make innuendos that those "in the know" would apply to TC. In trainings they would use code words like the "feeling of the body, the taste of the body, the sense of the body is such and such." Whistler was portrayed by the Blendeds as "the feeling of the body" is to reject the ministry of TC, so we as the "deputy authority of the body" must take action to quarantine TC to maintain the "oneness of the body."

As my old friend Paul Cox used to say, "the feeling of the bahhhhhhhdy."

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Perhaps the expression "keeping the oneness of the Body" would have that meaning.

I don't see how that is the only reasonable meaning of "the oneness of the Body". To me the "oneness of the Body" indicated that there could be an amazing coordination in service of different saints guided by the Lord's hand.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem with the unbiblical term "oneness of the Body" is that it implies that there is a larger group that you need to make efforts to be one with. It focuses on being one with a group, rather that with God.

The Bible as far as I can tell does not send this message.

The Bible tells us to "keep the oneness of the Spirit." That is very different from keeping the so-called oneness of the Body.

Keeping the oneness of the Spirit means clinging to Jesus. It means majoring on the majors and minoring on the minors

Keeping the "oneness of the Body" means dropping your personal convictions and engaging in group-think. It means when the chips are down letting others do your thinking for you.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I heard Witness Lee, over the course of about 20 years, most of the time IN PERSON WITH MY OWN EARS talk about "the oneness of the body". In fact it was one of his main topics. He talked about "the oneness of the Spirit" too...but it was always linked to the oneness of the body. (which we all knew meant following his person and work). [/COLOR]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem with the unbiblical term "oneness of the Body" is that it implies that there is a larger group that you need to make efforts to be one with. It focuses on being one with a group, rather that with God.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Since I wasn't getting orders from WL I never equated WL with the "head".

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Ohio

Our Lord's own words in John 4.21 show us that this "ground" of the church, the place where the apostles have laid the foundation Christ, cannot be a place we can visit in our car. To those who think they can drive to the "proper" place to worship, the Lord would say to them, "You worship that which you do not know." (John 4.22) If there is such a proper ground of meeting and worship, then it must be as the Lord has instructed us "in Spirit and reality." (John 4.2-24)

It's also interesting to note that WL and the Blendeds loved to speak of the "oneness of the body," as if there was some scripture that spoke of this. Please note there is none! It may sound spiritual, but it is not scriptural. The Bible only speaks of "being diligent to keep the oneness of the Spirit." Someone needs to share this with the Blendeds.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I wonder how much of it was a reaction by young Chinese idealism against perceived British colonialism manifested through denominational mission boards. Didn't Margaret Barber, Nee's earliest mentor, have a falling out with her own missionary board in London? In his ecclesiastical books, Nee addressed denominations and their failures head on. Lee, however, went way past this, and literally condemned all things Christian, except, of course, his own member churches.

Nee took the so-called "pattern" found in Revelations 2-3, John's 7 epistles, and then shoe-horned the rest of the New Testament into it. There's nothing wrong, for example, to say that your group is a "church in New York City," using the model of the church in Ephesus, but to use Acts 14.23 and Titus 1.5 to definitively declare that the entire "true" church in that city must be under one set of elders appointed by the self-appointed apostle is akin to those Appalachian snake handling churches trying to "recover" their long-lost "true" church based on Luke 10.19 and Acts 28.5.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think it started with a genuine desire to discover how to "do church."

Originally Posted by Igzy

Sadly, that soon morphed into a belief that there must be a way to distinguish "true churches" from "false churches." (Of course the idea that the means of determination was quite simple made that belief even more attractive, aka deceptive.)

That in turn led to the belief that on-the-ground churches were true and not-on-the-ground churches were false.

That in turn led to a convenient way to keep members in the fold, by telling them "the only way to meet was 'on the ground,' and, oh by the way, we are the only ones doing that right."

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's also interesting to note that WL and the Blendeds loved to speak of the "oneness of the body," as if there was some scripture that spoke of this. Please note there is none! It may sound spiritual, but it is not scriptural. The Bible only speaks of "being diligent to keep the oneness of the Spirit." Someone needs to share this with the Blendeds.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Ohio

I never heard this until after Lee died.

TC would never refute things WL said, but after he passed away, TC started refuting a number of topics,just because the Blendeds were saying them.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, in brief

1. Yes, I think it is a valid and Biblically sound exercise to look for the "ground of the church"
2. Yes, I agree that such a critical concept must have a clear word in the NT.

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's also interesting to note that WL and the Blendeds loved to speak of the "oneness of the body," as if there was some scripture that spoke of this. Please note there is none! It may sound spiritual, but it is not scriptural. The Bible only speaks of "being diligent to keep the oneness of the Spirit." Someone needs to share this with the Blendeds.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I believe that Ephesians 4:3-6 gives us 7 ones and these are the things that all NT believers should be able to stand on. These are the things that make us one. This is the ground on which the church should be built. From this verse Paul moves to 4:12 which makes it very clear that the context of this chapter is the building up of the body of Christ.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think it started with a genuine desire to discover how to "do church."

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Therefore as to WN and WL's ministries I find it very disturbing that they would embrace such a flimsy teaching that should have been rejected and make it the cornerstone of their work.