Local Church Discussions  

Go Back   Local Church Discussions > So, What About Woman? > Witness Lee's teaching on women

Thread: Witness Lee's teaching on women Reply to Thread
Your Username: Click here to log in
Random Question
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
04-01-2018 11:20 AM
awareness
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
Ever heard of passive-aggressive?
And how about onomatopoeia?
04-01-2018 09:29 AM
Nell
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Ever heard of passive-aggressive?
04-01-2018 08:28 AM
awareness
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
I know plenty of sisters who would laugh at Ron's joke. Brothers and sisters joking about each other is normal in a family of siblings including the family of God. In fact some brothers are on the receiving end of the sister's jokes so much I feel sorry for them.
I would have loved to have been there when Ron said it. Ron lived with a rebellious woman, Susan. She wouldn't let him get away with anything, and would shame him in meetings.

So the crack would have carried special meanings. I would have been rolling on the floor. And I didn't, and don't, think that about spiritual sisters. Yes, they can be annoying. But so can spiritual brothers. So can brother Ron. Ask Susan.
03-31-2018 11:12 PM
Evangelical
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

I know plenty of sisters who would laugh at Ron's joke. Brothers and sisters joking about each other is normal in a family of siblings including the family of God. In fact some brothers are on the receiving end of the sister's jokes so much I feel sorry for them.
03-31-2018 02:01 PM
awareness
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Joke, irony, sarcasm, or not, it's a great statement. Maybe it's funny cuz it's true.

I know a sister that it applies to right now. I fired it off to her. She's a sister that's been closely following the Spirit for decades. But the preacher of her church is a man that closely follows The Book.

And boy do they clash. Since they both believe they are being true to God, neither one will back down. She's got nothing against the book, but she won't back down until the preacher opens up to the Spirit.

Now if this sister is "worse," we need more of worse.
03-31-2018 12:33 PM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Aron heard it. Drake admitted it was said by Ron Kangas. But he said it was a joke.

We are all supposed to laugh.
No. A joke is something different. Irony and sarcasm as you display here so frequently is a different expression. For instance, the sarcasm you used above is not a joke. I describe Ron’s statement, and I assume it was accurate as stated, as irony. Perhaps a little sarcasm but mostly irony.

This is basic stuff Ohio. I’m surprised that you are struggling with it. I’ve made several sincere attempts to help you understand the differences.

Drake
03-31-2018 12:15 PM
Ohio
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Aron heard it. Drake admitted it was said by Ron Kangas. But he said it was a joke.

We are all supposed to laugh.
03-31-2018 11:58 AM
awareness
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Can someone explain to me how my challenging Ron Kangas derogatory comment, "Sometimes I think that the only thing worse than a rebellious brother is a spiritual sister," has become "wrapping yourself in the American flag to shore up your pitiful argument against Brother Ron the most pathetic thing to watch unravel?"
Well I certainly can't. Sorry.

Did I miss it? Have we proven Ron said it?

And regardless who said it it's a real whammy to sisters.

I question just what is mean by "wrong." Wrong could mean that a Spiritual Sister is a force that needs to be stopped ... but could be a force of God.

In that case, I think we need a whole lot of Spiritual Sisters.
03-31-2018 10:20 AM
UntoHim
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

*****************************************
No more patriotic/political stuff guys. Anything further will be deleted without notice.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
*****************************************
03-31-2018 10:19 AM
Ohio
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Ohio,

I am a Trumpster but I find your wrapping yourself in the American flag to shore up your pitiful argument against Brother Ron the most pathetic thing to watch unravel.

You take one statement (and an accurate one in my experience)and spin it into a moral campaign against the corruption of youth and a national crisis. And yet, you do hold a double standard as Evangelical calls attention to in these different aspects of your life. I know you are a patriotic American, and that is one of things I appreciate about you, but leveraging that is not only a logical fallacy of argument but also a bit of trampling it under your feet. Instead of demanding that others be held to a higher standard how about you demonstrate that right here in this forum?

If you can’t meet the standard you demand of others then at least be consistent to whatever standard you hold for yourself.

Drake
Can someone explain to me how my challenging Ron Kangas derogatory comment, "Sometimes I think that the only thing worse than a rebellious brother is a spiritual sister," has become "wrapping yourself in the American flag to shore up your pitiful argument against Brother Ron the most pathetic thing to watch unravel?"

Brother Drake, I have long believed you are on LSM's paid staff of wordsmiths. Only you could spin this!
03-31-2018 09:38 AM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Are not Christan ministers and leaders held to a higher standard?

The Bible says so, and btw, Paul wrote what he did during the reign of Caesar Nero. Not the nicest guy around.

And please keep your hatred of the USA over in Alt-Views.
Ohio,

I am a Trumpster but I find your wrapping yourself in the American flag to shore up your pitiful argument against Brother Ron the most pathetic thing to watch unravel.

You take one statement (and an accurate one in my experience)and spin it into a moral campaign against the corruption of youth and a national crisis. And yet, you do hold a double standard as Evangelical calls attention to in these different aspects of your life. I know you are a patriotic American, and that is one of things I appreciate about you, but leveraging that is not only a logical fallacy of argument but also a bit of trampling it under your feet. Instead of demanding that others be held to a higher standard how about you demonstrate that right here in this forum?

If you can’t meet the standard you demand of others then at least be consistent to whatever standard you hold for yourself.

Drake
03-31-2018 09:10 AM
Ohio
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
You are just demonstrating my point. You approve of a mysogynist God appointed leader of a country and you seem to ignore all the corrupt words out of his mouth (only Presidential humor right?) Then you act all high and mighty about the "mens club" in the local church and put on a show about caring about how women are treated in the local churches. Since the local churches are so small and insignificant as people say they are.. surely the God-appointed Presidential mens club should be the majority of your concern if you are such a champion of womens rights.
Are not Christan ministers and leaders held to a higher standard?

The Bible says so, and btw, Paul wrote what he did during the reign of Caesar Nero. Not the nicest guy around.

And please keep your hatred of the USA over in Alt-Views.
03-31-2018 08:00 AM
Evangelical
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Sounds like the two sons of Lee, which wrecked havoc on the LC's for decades.

Since you hail from DownUnder, be careful not to "spit the dummy" when despising God's appointed leaders in our country.

.
You are just demonstrating my point. You approve of a mysogynist God appointed leader of a country and you seem to ignore all the corrupt words out of his mouth (only Presidential humor right?) Then you act all high and mighty about the "mens club" in the local church and put on a show about caring about how women are treated in the local churches. Since the local churches are so small and insignificant as people say they are.. surely the God-appointed Presidential mens club should be the majority of your concern if you are such a champion of womens rights.
03-31-2018 07:29 AM
Ohio
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
There is another person in here with your username. He frequents the alternative views section and defends mysogynist alpha males in positions of power such as the POTUS. Maybe you know him.
Sounds like the two sons of Lee, which wrecked havoc on the LC's for decades.

Since you hail from DownUnder, be careful not to "spit the dummy" when despising God's appointed leaders in our country.

.
03-31-2018 07:03 AM
Evangelical
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
I'm not so sure Terry. There is only "humor" among those who have been trained to denigrate spirituality in sisters. Obviously Ron Kangas is accustomed to speaking at the "Men's Club" at LSM, and it just spilled over to a open meeting.

How many marriages in the LC's have failed because we brothers brought these pathetic attitudes home from the "Brothers' Meeting?" Should not Ron Kangas aspire to become a pattern of well-speaking to all the saints? Did not Paul instruct us, "to let no corrupt word out of your mouth, but only what is needful for building up, to give grace to the hearers?" (Eph 4.29) Kangas' flippant remarks here only serve to tear down the moral character in young LC brothers.

Should not Kangas, as chief spokesperson in the Recovery, learn also from Peter to readily "assign honor" to the sisters (I Pet 3.7), that his prayers be not hindered? Witness Lee's footnote 2 for I Peter 3.7 instructs husbands to "appreciate the preciousness, the valuable worth, of the wives, and apportion it, assign it, as honor to them duly and reasonably." Once again it seems that LSM's teaching does not match its practice. I would bet that WL stole uentsthis note from some other godly Christian author, and without proper credits, since his practice was at odds with it.
There is another person in here with your username. He frequents the alternative views section and defends mysogynist alpha males in positions of power such as the POTUS. Maybe you know him.
03-31-2018 06:51 AM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by kumbaya View Post
Cool, would you mind mentioning which parts fall into which category?

just curious

You seem really defensive of the guy, so I've just got to know if you admit he isn't above fault.

Headed to bed, will respond tomorrow.
In March Madness terms you took an open shot from three point territory but your foot was on the line so I gave you two points. You’re calling for a review using the replay?

Any disagreement I had was not relevant to the topic. Suggesting taking the 2 and call it a win!
Drake
03-31-2018 06:27 AM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by kumbaya View Post
post 120, 122, and 124. You didn't address much of those, and then changed the subject by suggesting that there was only one "questionably offensive" situation involving Mr. Kangus and asked me to to tell you the others, when we both know there are more on this forum.
Oh. No, I wasn’t changing the topic, rather I was simply responding to something you introduced.

In 124 you said there were other posts showing something Ron said was sexist so I asked you where . Rather than change the subject I was building on it.

Now, I remember your story about the smug sister at a conference. Taking the most critical view of Ron in that scenario I still can’t get anywhere close to “sexist”. So he thought she was smug. “Smug” is sexist? I’ve been called worse in this forum so were members being sexist toward me?

Drake
03-30-2018 11:04 PM
kumbaya
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Sure. I said that already.

Drake
Cool, would you mind mentioning which parts fall into which category?

just curious

You seem really defensive of the guy, so I've just got to know if you admit he isn't above fault.

Headed to bed, will respond tomorrow.
03-30-2018 11:02 PM
awareness
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
I was in a meeting where he said, "Sometimes I think that the only thing worse than a rebellious brother is a spiritual sister."
Now that's a keeper bro aron. Thanks muchly.
03-30-2018 11:02 PM
kumbaya
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Kumbaya,

What was the subject and how did I change it?

Drake
post 120, 122, and 124. You didn't address much of those, and then changed the subject by suggesting that there was only one "questionably offensive" situation involving Mr. Kangus and asked me to to tell you the others, when we both know there are more on this forum.
03-30-2018 11:01 PM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by kumbaya View Post
You agree with 85% of post 122?
Sure. I said that already.

Drake
03-30-2018 10:56 PM
kumbaya
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Right humbaya. I don’t usually address whole posts... in the one you are referring to I agreed with 85% of it. The 15% I didn’t agree with did not merit debate.

Thanks
Drake
You agree with 85% of post 122?
03-30-2018 10:54 PM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Kumbaya,

What was the subject and how did I change it?

Drake
03-30-2018 10:52 PM
kumbaya
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Ok, So far I have only read objections to that one statement If there is something else, where was it said?

Drake
Oh, come on!

Fine, besides this one.... Jane Anderson's personal account in her book, personal accounts by former members being "bullied" into staying married despite abuse (detailed account in this forum), my own friend being "called out" by him in a meeting for being a "smug sister"(I mentioned previously in the thread).

I think it is VERY SAFE to say that deserved or not, Ron Kangus is NOT POPULAR among former saints.

You know this, everyone knows this.

I don't know if it has merit or not, but you know this forum is full of claims referring to it. You're changing the subject here.
03-30-2018 10:49 PM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by kumbaya View Post
We are all entitled to our opinions. You didn't address my whole post btw. I had some good points!
Right humbaya. I don’t usually address whole posts... in the one you are referring to I agreed with 85% of it. The 15% I didn’t agree with did not merit debate.

Thanks
Drake
03-30-2018 10:45 PM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by kumbaya View Post
Ok, so I understand you're interpreting his meaning based on what you feel you know of him. I'm just pointing out, that there are many on this thread and members on other threads that have claimed to experienced a more sexist version than the person you describe.
Ok, So far I have only read objections to that one statement If there is something else, where was it said?

Drake
03-30-2018 10:41 PM
kumbaya
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
-3

Kumbaya>”"Love without truth is sentimentality; it supports and affirms us but keeps us in denial about our flaws. Truth without love is harshness; it gives us information but in a way that we cannot really hear it."

This is well put. In this case, i think Ron struck the right balance.

Thanks
Drake
We are all entitled to our opinions. You didn't address my whole post btw. I had some good points!
03-30-2018 10:40 PM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

-3

Kumbaya>”"Love without truth is sentimentality; it supports and affirms us but keeps us in denial about our flaws. Truth without love is harshness; it gives us information but in a way that we cannot really hear it."

This is well put. In this case and by this definition i think Ron struck the right balance.

Thanks
Drake
03-30-2018 10:37 PM
kumbaya
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Kumbaya>”Maybe I have it all wrong- maybe I don't. But I'm pretty sure you don't either, only Mr. Kangus can answer this to the Lord.”

Of course, we all will answer to the Lord for every word and thought including those in our posts here.

We can reasonably know his meaning but our assessment will be based on what we know about the man, what we have heard him say in person or in other messages, in print and how often, where.....etc. His words are not demeaning of women at all from the brother I know. Ron didn’t say he valued a rebellious brother, he said SOMETIMES he thinks there is something worse. Aren’t some things worse than others? His is not a statement of worth.

Drake
Ok, so I understand you're interpreting his meaning based on what you feel you know of him. I'm just pointing out, that there are many on this thread and members on other threads that have claimed to experienced a more sexist version than the person you describe.
03-30-2018 10:34 PM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Kumbaya>”Maybe I have it all wrong- maybe I don't. But I'm pretty sure you don't either, only Mr. Kangus can answer this to the Lord.”

Of course, we all will answer to the Lord for every word and thought including those in our posts here.

We can reasonably know his meaning but our assessment will be based on what we know about the man, what we have heard him say in person or in other messages, in print and how often, where.....etc. His words are not demeaning of women at all from the brother I know. Ron didn’t say he valued a rebellious brother, he said SOMETIMES he thinks there is something worse. Aren’t some things worse than others? His is not a statement of worth.

Drake
03-30-2018 10:27 PM
kumbaya
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Kumbaya,
He could have not used irony but then a direct approach would not have been satisfactory to you either. Brother Benson is direct almost always and I’m certain you would appreciate that even less. Yet, if a minister were to not speak about something the Lord lays on his heart then he would be useless.Drake
Aside from my point below about neither of us being able to know what he REALLY meant- I feel to address this first part of your post too, I apologize for picking it apart! I just feel this needs to be pointed out.

Being "direct" is fine- but it's totally relative. I just saw a quote today (there are many versions of it) from Timothy Keller....

"Love without truth is sentimentality; it supports and affirms us but keeps us in denial about our flaws. Truth without love is harshness; it gives us information but in a way that we cannot really hear it."

I don't bring this up to have a debate with you about what Brother Kangus REALLY meant.

But, if he was MORE direct- to the point of being cruel and without love, then you're right-I would have a problem with it. So would Jesus.

Being "direct" shouldn't contradict what the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 13:1-7 (I admit, I had to look it up, but it's such a good passage and it came to mind)

I'm sure you agree in theory, but I think it's important to remember that Brother Kangus is not above sin or unhealthy personal biases/indoctrinations. None of us are.

I don't think it's preposterous to say that there have been some "off color" statements in the history of local church meetings that many could be offended by. Also, you can be aware of this and also give grace to people who may have been a part of those offenses.

My point is, you seem very defensive of Mr. Kangus.
03-30-2018 10:22 PM
Nell
Re: RK, but waaaaaaaaay off topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
OMG!!! I've got to hear this tape some way or another. Pleeeeease ... someone come up with it.
Check with your buddy Don Hardy.
03-30-2018 09:53 PM
kumbaya
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Kumbaya,

He could have not used irony but then a direct approach would not have been satisfactory to you either. Brother Benson is direct almost always and I’m certain you would appreciate that even less. Yet, if a minister were to not speak about something the Lord lays on his heart then he would be useless.

but, what was demeaning about that toward women? It was specifically about sisters who allow their spirituality to carry them out from under the headship of their husbands, their parents, their local church, etc. or wherever the Lord has placed them and thereby become more of a problem than a rebellious brother. I have seen this situation firsthand in action and know exactly what Brother Ron means by it. It’s not demeaning to women, it’s a warning to sisters who allow their spirituality to overcome them.

Drake
I don't see it this way at all. You think its a warning to sisters to not let their spirituality overcome them? What does that even mean? The point was- why did he have to do either (be direct or be passive aggressive)? What purpose does it serve to 1) be direct publicly about something most would agree should be said in private or 2) say something that could EASILY be taken offense to?

I don't think you can accurately "interpret" Mr. Kangus' quote in the way you're attempting to do so. What he said does HINT to the idea that a sister shouldn't have the NERVE to be as spiritually inclined as a brother could be. In the case that a sister was- he'd take a rebellious brother over her. That is how MANY take that statement.

You are entitled to your opinion about all the different ways that Mr. Kangus's statement COULD be interpreted and your claims to know what he REALLY meant.

But, just looking at the statement- it suggests that women need to know their place and that even a rebellious brother is valued higher than a spiritual sister.

I hope he didn't mean it. But, he seems like a smart guy. He seemed skilled in the art of passive aggressiveness- especially with this comment.

Maybe I have it all wrong- maybe I don't. But I'm pretty sure you don't either, only Mr. Kangus can answer this to the Lord.
03-30-2018 09:35 PM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by kumbaya View Post
I’m not clear with what you meant when you said “he could have been more direct,” but if you meant calling someone out publically in a meeting- how about doing neither? Don’t do that and also don’t say something that could be interpreted as demeaning towards women.
Kumbaya,

He could have not used irony but then a direct approach would not have been satisfactory to you either. Brother Benson is direct almost always and I’m certain you would appreciate that even less. Yet, if a minister were to not speak about something the Lord lays on his heart then he would be useless.

but, what was demeaning about that toward women? It was specifically about sisters who allow their spirituality to carry them out from under the headship of their husbands, their parents, their local church, etc. or wherever the Lord has placed them and thereby become more of a problem than a rebellious brother. I have seen this situation firsthand in action and know exactly what Brother Ron means by it. It’s not demeaning to women, it’s a warning to sisters who allow their spirituality to overcome them.

Drake
03-30-2018 09:15 PM
kumbaya
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
I understood exactly what he meant ... he could have been more direct but fewer would have preferred that. Drake
He could have been more direct in what way? As in, he could have publically shamed someone? I’m just curious to what you’re meaning. I understand it’s easier to give grace when you know someone. Alternatively, it’s easier to be unbiased when you don’t know them.

I’m not clear with what you meant when you said “he could have been more direct,” but if you meant calling someone out publically in a meeting- how about doing neither? Don’t do that and also don’t say something that could be interpreted as demeaning towards women.
03-30-2018 07:36 PM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Ohio>”They all thought Ron was speaking the truth.”

Of course he meant it.

Were you in that meeting with Aron? If not then you have no ground to be so high minded about it. You are then inferring what someone told you without first person experience to the event.

Now it is doubtful that I was in the same meeting where Aron heard Ron say it but I have been in enough of them, including my home, to know that Ron probably did say it. And knowing what I know, and reading the statement as written, it is clear that he said it as an irony and was speaking what he believed just as you are here speaking what you believe. You are one of the most sarcastic people I’ve ever known but your delivery does not mean you are any less sincere.

Drake
03-30-2018 06:58 PM
A little brother
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
How many marriages in the LC's have failed because we brothers brought these pathetic attitudes home from the "Brothers' Meeting?" Should not Ron Kangas aspire to become a pattern of well-speaking to all the saints? Did not Paul instruct us, "to let no corrupt word out of your mouth, but only what is needful for building up, to give grace to the hearers?" (Eph 4.29) Kangas' flippant remarks here only serve to tear down the moral character in young LC brothers.
May be it also relates to how the leaders themselves view marriage. I don't know much about this area, but when I watched the following youtube video talking about how WL married his second wife sister Lee (5:00 to 10:00 in the video), I simply didn't understand what WL was thinking. And I was disturbed when I heard the laughters in the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcOW5ZriHiQ&t=506s

Looks like RK also remarried last year a middle-aged sister after his wife Susan passed away in 2016. (Not 100% sure. Got this from a google translated fellowship message from RK in early 2017. https://translate.google.com/transla...212&edit-text=)
03-30-2018 06:16 PM
Ohio
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Ohio>”Denigrating all sisters who desire to be spiritual cannot possibly be a witticism. ”

But he wasn’t denigrating all sisters who desire to be spiritual.

There are three references in the irony. There are rebellious brothers. There are spiritual sisters (I am married to one who far surpasses me in most areas)....And there are sisters who through their spiritual experiences become rebellious against headship in their household, against the leadership in the churches. The latter, or third, category are the “spiritual sisters” Ron was referring to. He is not a sexist by any stretch. As I said, he could have bluntly said the same thing but fewer would have been able to take it.

And irony is one way to express a point.

Drake
Sorry, but the spinmeister Drake was not there at the time to interpret all of Kangas' ironies to the brothers listening, including aron. They all thought Ron was speaking the truth.

When sisters Jane Anderson and 2 others were suddenly attacked in Thread of Gold, Benson Philips apparently missed the irony too. He was merely copying Lee's actions, thinking that made him a "spiritual brother."

Drake, do you see how this works?
03-30-2018 05:58 PM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Ohio>”Denigrating all sisters who desire to be spiritual cannot possibly be a witticism. ”

But he wasn’t denigrating all sisters who desire to be spiritual.

There are three references in the irony. There are rebellious brothers. There are spiritual sisters (I am married to one who far surpasses me in most areas)....And there are sisters who through their spiritual experiences become rebellious against headship in their household, against the leadership in the churches. The latter, or third, category are the “spiritual sisters” Ron was referring to. He is not a sexist by any stretch. As I said, he could have bluntly said the same thing but fewer would have been able to take it.

And irony is one way to express a point.

Drake
03-30-2018 05:48 PM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by kumbaya View Post
There's a lot of people on here that have shared their personal experiences with Mr. Kangus and his sexist attitude/comments/actions towards women. I know we're in a culture now where everyone gets overly sensitive about so much- but it does seem like he's offended a lot of people when it comes to this issue.

You can dismiss it as irony or sarcasm, but "where there's smoke, there's fire." Given what many have said about his attitude towards women, his statement does seem to validate their experiences.

Love him or not, it comes off condescending to most.
Sure. I am sharing my view. Your perception is different than mine. Ron has sat at my table. So I don’t perceive him at all the way you do. And he does have a sense of humor he displays now and again with witticism.

I understood exactly what he meant ... he could have been more direct but fewer would have preferred that.

Drake
03-30-2018 01:30 PM
Ohio
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
Those with more maturity in life might see the humor in brother Ron's speaking.
I'm not so sure Terry. There is only "humor" among those who have been trained to denigrate spirituality in sisters. Obviously Ron Kangas is accustomed to speaking at the "Men's Club" at LSM, and it just spilled over to a open meeting.

How many marriages in the LC's have failed because we brothers brought these pathetic attitudes home from the "Brothers' Meeting?" Should not Ron Kangas aspire to become a pattern of well-speaking to all the saints? Did not Paul instruct us, "to let no corrupt word out of your mouth, but only what is needful for building up, to give grace to the hearers?" (Eph 4.29) Kangas' flippant remarks here only serve to tear down the moral character in young LC brothers.

Should not Kangas, as chief spokesperson in the Recovery, learn also from Peter to readily "assign honor" to the sisters (I Pet 3.7), that his prayers be not hindered? Witness Lee's footnote 2 for I Peter 3.7 instructs husbands to "appreciate the preciousness, the valuable worth, of the wives, and apportion it, assign it, as honor to them duly and reasonably." Once again it seems that LSM's teaching does not match its practice. I would bet that WL stole this note from some other godly Christian author, and without proper credits, since his practice was at odds with it.
03-30-2018 12:46 PM
Terry
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
What a relief!

But Brother Drake, what would you say to all LC members, especially the FTT trainees, who have been affected by these demeaning attitudes towards women, exemplified by the Ron Kangas' quote above?

Ron Kangas, a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary and Editor-in-Chief at LSM, is the principal teacher and theologian at LSM, and his views are respected and propagated throughout the LC's.
Those with more maturity in life might see the humor in brother Ron's speaking. FTTA trainees however may not due to lacking maturity in life and may receive the speaking as literal instead of sarcasm or whatever the intent was.
Just being a blended brother, Ron is given a measure of credit most brothers and sisters in the local churches are not afforded. In practice, above reproach.
03-30-2018 12:42 PM
Ohio
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Brother Ohio,

It is conversational humor. Brother Ron used a witticism, for sure irony and, depending on the context, perhaps sarcasm.

I have met all three character types mentioned is his statement so I get the humor.

Drake
Sorry Brother Drake, but Ron Kangas was not speaking "conversationally."

He was speaking publicly. Many heard him, including aron. Kangas spoke derogatorily of LC sisters, without clarification -- totally misogynist and contrary to the spirit of love in the Word. It was very similar to his flippant comments about Steve Isitt being a "man of death."

Don't you realize that the LC reaps what has been sown into the members by LSM? I have always hated cheap humor that tears at the fabric of society. Denigrating all sisters who desire to be spiritual cannot possibly be a witticism. Does he now give license for all spiritual sisters to provide sarcastic or ironical mocking of all preachers from LSM? Now that would be well deserved!

And please clue us in on the "third character type" in his pathetic "witticism?"
03-30-2018 12:13 PM
kumbaya
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
What a relief!

But Brother Drake, what would you say to all LC members, especially the FTT trainees, who have been affected by these demeaning attitudes towards women, exemplified by the Ron Kangas' quote above?

Ron Kangas, a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary and Editor-in-Chief at LSM, is the principal teacher and theologian at LSM, and his views are respected and propagated throughout the LC's.
Is this question open to all?

1) Women settle (in marriage, in career or lack there-of, other life choices)
2) Women don't give their opinion if it would conflict with a man's alternative one
3) Over time, it seems some women lose their ability to make a life decision on their own, without fellowship with the brothers. Of course, fellowship is good- it just seems like they can tend to revert back to a child-like mentality. I know this is so harsh, I hesitate to even post it.

I truly say all this with love bc I believe its a result of spiritual abuse and I just think there need to be awareness. I realize these examples are extreme, and I'm generalizing a lot! But, I've seen the trend.
03-30-2018 11:59 AM
kumbaya
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Brother Ohio,

It is conversational humor. Brother Ron used a witticism, for sure irony and, depending on the context, perhaps sarcasm.

I have met all three character types mentioned is his statement so I get the humor.

Drake
There's a lot of people on here that have shared their personal experiences with Mr. Kangus and his sexist attitude/comments/actions towards women. I know we're in a culture now where everyone gets overly sensitive about so much- but it does seem like he's offended a lot of people when it comes to this issue.

You can dismiss it as irony or sarcasm, but "where there's smoke, there's fire." Given what many have said about his attitude towards women, his statement does seem to validate their experiences.

Love him or not, it comes off condescending to most.
03-30-2018 08:49 AM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
What a relief!

But Brother Drake, what would you say to all LC members, especially the FTT trainees, who have been affected by these demeaning attitudes towards women, exemplified by the Ron Kangas' quote above?

Ron Kangas, a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary and Editor-in-Chief at LSM, is the principal teacher and theologian at LSM, and his views are respected and propagated throughout the LC's.
Brother Ohio,

It is conversational humor. Brother Ron used a witticism, for sure irony and, depending on the context, perhaps sarcasm.

I have met all three character types mentioned is his statement so I get the humor.

Drake
03-30-2018 06:56 AM
Ohio
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
I was in a meeting where [Ron Kangas] said, "Sometimes I think that the only thing worse than a rebellious brother is a spiritual sister."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
And Ohio, I would never ever do that.
What a relief!

But Brother Drake, what would you say to all LC members, especially the FTT trainees, who have been affected by these demeaning attitudes towards women, exemplified by the Ron Kangas' quote above?

Ron Kangas, a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary and Editor-in-Chief at LSM, is the principal teacher and theologian at LSM, and his views are respected and propagated throughout the LC's.
03-30-2018 05:26 AM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Well Drake, I was relieved to read that you did not equate UFO's and nutcases with women.
And Ohio, I would never ever do that.
03-30-2018 05:23 AM
Ohio
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Well Drake, I was relieved to read that you did not equate UFO's and nutcases with women.
03-30-2018 04:56 AM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Maybe this deserves a separate thread,

I did not hear Brother Ron speak on UFOs but assuming he did I'm glad he brought it up.The phenomenon is not going away and will ramp up in the latter days consummating in what will be best described as a spectacular aerial display designed to impress even the most skeptical. My personal belief is that it is related to spiritual forces interacting with humanity not unlike "as it was in the days of Noah" and "angels of light".

To my knowledge Brother Lee nor Brother Nee ever spoke on the "UFO" topic other than the related biblical incidents about the Nephilim, the latter day signs and wonders in the heavenlies, and a little about the antics of the False Prophet. Though the descriptions are similar they never made the connection to UFOs but apparently Brother Ron did.

An accurate understanding of the phenomenon has been clouded by ET or "beings from another planet" enthusiasts and equally so on the other side by skeptics who dismiss every manifestation of the phenomenon as natural occurring or only observed by nutcases. The Bible provides the proper insight into what is going on there.

Drake
03-29-2018 08:50 PM
awareness
Re: RK, but waaaaaaaaay off topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
Years ago I heard a “message” on tape by Ron Kangas and the topic was “close encounters”. No. Really. Close encounters with UFO’s. There are up to 5 “kinds” and I think RK talked about up to the third kind. I don’t remember why on earth (no pun intended) he was “inspired” to speak on this topic and TAPE IT, but the tape made the rounds. It was surreal.

Do any of you remember hearing this tape?

Nell
OMG!!! I've got to hear this tape some way or another. Pleeeeease ... someone come up with it.

I sat at Kangas' feet. He's intelligent, and deep, and very pensive at times, especially while driving, and he knew a lot about just about all religions. He was schooled at Princeton Theological Seminary, remember.

Once at a dinner invite, from a worker buddy, we witnessed to a dyed-in-the-wool New Ager. And Ron easily conversed with him in his vernacular, with a personable sense of ease, understanding his universalistic type views and illusions, and concepts like, "a drop of water in the ocean" type of universalism mysticism.

So it doesn't surprise me at all that he could have something for UFO's.

UFO's are controversial in the Christian-wide community. Here's something from a "friend" of brother Ron's :

From CRI :

7. THE UFO PHENOMENON IS INDICATIVE OF A SPIRITUAL QUEST

"One of the characteristics of our postmodern society is spiritual curiosity. This helps explain why books such as Left Behind and Harry Potter that are poles apart in their worldviews can simultaneously share a secular bestseller list. The popularity of spiritual topics, in my opinion, is a reflection of a society that is hungry for meaning and purpose in life, which they mistakenly believe will be fulfilled via contact with extraterrestrial civilizations or proof that life exists outside of planet earth. In effect, for some, the search and hope for ETI amounts to a quest for an extraterrestrial savior."

http://www.equip.org/article/seven-t...ow-about-ufos/
03-29-2018 06:48 PM
Nell
Re: RK, but waaaaaaaaay off topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kumbaya View Post
Whaaaaat???? This is something I’d have to hear to believe!
Understood. I hope someone else can confirm having heard it. The most impressive thing (if you can call it that) was he spoke with a straight face. Of course, it was audio only but he was dead serious.

Nell
03-29-2018 02:12 PM
aron
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by HERn View Post
I remember one blending conference where RK criticised an "ostentatious" brother. .
I was in a meeting where he said, "Sometimes I think that the only thing worse than a rebellious brother is a spiritual sister."
03-29-2018 07:21 AM
kumbaya
Re: RK, but waaaaaaaaay off topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
Years ago I heard a “message” on tape by Ron Kangas and the topic was “close encounters”. No. Really. Close encounters with UFO’s. There are up to 5 “kinds” and I think RK talked about up to the third kind. I don’t remember why on earth (no pun intended) he was “inspired” to speak on this topic and TAPE IT, but the tape made the rounds. It was surreal.

Do any of you remember hearing this tape?

Nell
Whaaaaat???? This is something I’d have to hear to believe!
03-28-2018 09:30 PM
HERn
Re: RK, but waaaaaaaaay off topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Are you sure you didn't go to the Scientology meeting next door by mistake? What's your next slant on this Nell? Sexual abuse by alien abduction in the LC?
Well, apparently there was sexual activity in the LSM office. It was probably alien since it was demonic.
03-28-2018 08:59 PM
Evangelical
Re: RK, but waaaaaaaaay off topic.

Are you sure you didn't go to the Scientology meeting next door by mistake? What's your next slant on this Nell? Sexual abuse by alien abduction in the LC?
03-28-2018 08:00 PM
Nell
RK, but waaaaaaaaay off topic.

Years ago I heard a “message” on tape by Ron Kangas and the topic was “close encounters”. No. Really. Close encounters with UFO’s. There are up to 5 “kinds” and I think RK talked about up to the third kind. I don’t remember why on earth (no pun intended) he was “inspired” to speak on this topic and TAPE IT, but the tape made the rounds. It was surreal.

Do any of you remember hearing this tape?

Nell
03-28-2018 07:20 PM
Terry
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Nell, the evidence we have overwhelmingly informs us that Lee publicly shamed Sandee Rapoport in order to retaliate against her husband for exposing Philip's immoral behavior at the church in Anaheim meeting hall offices.

At first I found this hard to believe. What minister would do such an horrific thing? Then I read that this was an ancient Chinese custom to beat your opponents by shaming their wives. Then it all made sense.
Same allegedly happened to Christian Chen's wife while he was out of town.
Just a random occurrence? Not hardly.
For the Chen's one door closed and another door opened.
03-28-2018 07:11 PM
Terry
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by HERn View Post
It seems like in every message I heard RK criticised some saint or some region.

It is sad. From Ecuador to Seattle, Washington to Jacksonville, Florida that does seem to be the trend, but give him grace.
03-28-2018 05:58 PM
HERn
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by kumbaya View Post
A sister who attended a Thanksgiving conference a few years back told me about a situation that occurred with her and RK. I don't think she'd mind if I shared it. She said that RK talked about a "smug sister" for a good part of a message at the conference. She suspected he was talking about her due to certain circumstances. Someone asked him and turns out- he was! She doesn't meet anymore but not due to that reason (there are plenty others). I just thought it was shocking how he literally called her out like that and he didn't really even know the situation. She had refused to say hi to a (known) abusive older brother who would somewhat "taunt" her to get her to talk to him. He knew she didn't want to and he'd try to get her to anyways. Then he did it in front of RK, and RK goes on to talk about her being a "smug sister" in the Thanksgiving conference!
I remember one blending conference where RK criticised an "ostentatious" brother. It's funny how out of the entire earth I thought of one brother. That was Satan speaking through RK. His speaking was destructive and caused the saints to judge their brothers.

It seems like in every message I heard RK criticised some saint or some region.
03-26-2018 10:16 AM
Ohio
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
Lee practiced "love and grace" toward his immoral sons, not against the sisters.

In 1977-78 Philip Lee was practicing his immoral lifestyle against women in the LSM office. Lee knew this. Max may have been the first brother who brought his son's sinful behavior to Lee's attention. Lee said nor did nothing (in public anyway). Yet, public disparaging remarks about women...sisters whose actions he sanctioned for years...were not a problem for Lee. Lee betrayed these sisters in an open meeting. "Cover the brothers" but "accuse the sisters."

Does anyone thinks these 3 sisters did anything among the sisters in the church without Lee's knowledge and blessing...as Sandee stated? He would have stepped on them like bugs. Memorial Weekend, 1977, he stepped on them like bugs anyway. A setup maybe?

If Lee wanted to "help" these sisters or "adjust" these sisters, in a way to care for them and/or care for the church, why not do it in private? Isn't that what Matthew 18 mandates? Instead he launched a public "sneak attack". An "ambush". He apparently believed that he was so "spiritual" that he could treat people any way he wanted...especially the sisters. This only fed the likeminded men in the church. Enter Benson Phillips who, also in a "ambush" / "sneak attack" crushed Jane and John Anderson in Houston on the same weekend. Was the timing of these two "attacks" planned? Jane was the target, but John, to his credit, stood with his wife.

Since Sandee was Max's wife, and this action was taken by Lee when Max was out of town, what's the message here? Max was actually called back from Chicago to Anaheim out of concern for his wife. There was another sister who was a victim of an ambush during this time, but her husband stood with Benson instead of his wife. Enter BenM.

Sinful behavior has consequences...far reaching consequences that ripple for years and years.

Nell
Nell, the evidence we have overwhelmingly informs us that Lee publicly shamed Sandee Rapoport in order to retaliate against her husband for exposing Philip's immoral behavior at the church in Anaheim meeting hall offices.

At first I found this hard to believe. What minister would do such an horrific thing? Then I read that this was an ancient Chinese custom to beat your opponents by shaming their wives. Then it all made sense.

When you mention Benson Philips "copycat" behavior against other, unrelated sisters in Texas, we see the rotten results and fruit of fleshly actions.

How much more important it is for those who serve God to be healthy patterns.
03-26-2018 09:53 AM
Nell
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by kumbaya View Post
Not exactly an example of love and grace on WL's part...
Lee practiced "love and grace" toward his immoral sons, not against the sisters.

In 1977-78 Philip Lee was practicing his immoral lifestyle against women in the LSM office. Lee knew this. Max may have been the first brother who brought his son's sinful behavior to Lee's attention. Lee said nor did nothing (in public anyway). Yet, public disparaging remarks about women...sisters whose actions he sanctioned for years...were not a problem for Lee. Lee betrayed these sisters in an open meeting. "Cover the brothers" but "accuse the sisters."

Does anyone thinks these 3 sisters did anything among the sisters in the church without Lee's knowledge and blessing...as Sandee stated? He would have stepped on them like bugs. Memorial Weekend, 1977, he stepped on them like bugs anyway. A setup maybe?

If Lee wanted to "help" these sisters or "adjust" these sisters, in a way to care for them and/or care for the church, why not do it in private? Isn't that what Matthew 18 mandates? Instead he launched a public "sneak attack". An "ambush". He apparently believed that he was so "spiritual" that he could treat people any way he wanted...especially the sisters. This only fed the likeminded men in the church. Enter Benson Phillips who, also in a "ambush" / "sneak attack" crushed Jane and John Anderson in Houston on the same weekend. Was the timing of these two "attacks" planned? Jane was the target, but John, to his credit, stood with his wife.

Since Sandee was Max's wife, and this action was taken by Lee when Max was out of town, what's the message here? Max was actually called back from Chicago to Anaheim out of concern for his wife. There was another sister who was a victim of an ambush during this time, but her husband stood with Benson instead of his wife. Enter BenM.

Sinful behavior has consequences...far reaching consequences that ripple for years and years.

Nell
03-26-2018 07:24 AM
kumbaya
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Not exactly an example of love and grace on WL's part...
03-23-2018 09:10 PM
Nell
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by kumbaya View Post
I'm a newbie to this, sorry. Who did he publicly shame? As in, he did it in a meeting?
He publicly shamed Sandee Rapoport (wife of Max) and two other sisters, Ann and Harriet. He did it in a meeting on Memorial Day Weekend in 1977.

Here's a quote from notes/postings on "the other forum" (Bereans, no longer "alive"). These notes were the work product of Jane Anderson who was also (coincidentally or coordinated?) publicly called out on Memorial Weekend, 1977 by Benson Phillips in Houston as detailed in her book "The Thread of Gold."

In a phone conversation between Jane and Sandee:
"Sandee told her that Benson's statements at the winter training could only have referred to the Memorial Day weekend conference in 1977. While the young people were at a conference in Berkeley and Max was at a conference in Chicago, Witness Lee held a special conference for middle aged saints in Anaheim. Sandee said that at that conference, out of the blue, Witness Lee began to speak disparagingly of the sisters. Sandee was positive that Witness Lee did not call them "holy sisters"(this was the only time he spoke about them publicly). He also definitely did not address them directly nor ask them to stand up."

"(Jane) had always thought that the 'sisters rebellion' in California was dealt with in late 1978 because that was when the Texas brothers announced the end of the 'sisters flow' in Anaheim and called it a 'sisters rebellion'."

"He (Witness Lee) only spoke in a way to put a question mark over what had been going on with the sisters, mainly by saying that those involved should not sit together but take care of other sisters and sit with them. This came as a complete surprise to Sandee, Ann, and Harriet because Witness Lee had been completely supportive of what they were doing with the sisters for several years prior to this. ..."

These notes were posted on the Bereans forum by Jane's son, Matt Anderson.

This is a very long and ugly story, but this should give you the "lowlights". I know of no other sisters who were called out by Lee publicly. With one exception. At a 10-day winter training, a young married sister in Austin was standing with the Church in Austin while the entire church was "tested" over the contents of the previous evening's message by Lee (as was commonly done early on). Lee pointed to her and called on her to answer his question. She froze in fear. She was paralyzed. He could have held a gun to her head and she wouldn't have been able to make a sound. Lee kept saying "Sister! Sister! Answer the question!" something like that. It was an eternal cringe worthy moment for the 1000 plus in the meeting. Everyone was dying for her. Finally he harshly told her to "sit down". Before that, she was a happy sister, loving the Lord and enjoying her place in the church. After that, she seemed never to be the same. Lee had brutalized her and she didn't appear to have the ability to recover from the humiliation she suffered at the hands of Witness Lee.

So Lee's "teachings on women" are one thing. His "practice" was another.

Nell
03-23-2018 04:40 PM
kumbaya
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
I've listened to more than a few RK messages to know this is a consistent trait usually using a certain sister as an example. Yet, he can say it with the confidence knowing not one in attendance is going to make him accountable. This reverberates what's wrong with deputy authority teaching. Co-workers and elders irresponsibly can say what they want without being held accountable. After all in their mind they are the authority.
Yes....I'm learning about this "deputy authority" thing. Actually, if you or someone reading could recommend where to read about it in the ministry/elsewhere, I want to read more on it.

Along with not having accountability, I hate to speculate but I doubt he's attacked someone for being a "smug brother." Why not say, "smug saint?" I'm seeing the sexism more and more.
03-23-2018 04:35 PM
kumbaya
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Pretty pathetic!

Where did Kangas get the license to use the pulpit to publicly shame a sister? or even a brother?

Oh ... wait a minute ... I seem to remember W. Lee doing the same thing.

I'm a newbie to this, sorry. Who did he publicly shame? As in, he did it in a meeting?
03-23-2018 01:04 PM
Terry
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by kumbaya View Post
A sister who attended a Thanksgiving conference a few years back told me about a situation that occurred with her and RK. I don't think she'd mind if I shared it. She said that RK talked about a "smug sister" for a good part of a message at the conference. She suspected he was talking about her due to certain circumstances. Someone asked him and turns out- he was! She doesn't meet anymore but not due to that reason (there are plenty others). I just thought it was shocking how he literally called her out like that and he didn't really even know the situation. She had refused to say hi to a (known) abusive older brother who would somewhat "taunt" her to get her to talk to him. He knew she didn't want to and he'd try to get her to anyways. Then he did it in front of RK, and RK goes on to talk about her being a "smug sister" in the Thanksgiving conference!
I've listened to more than a few RK messages to know this is a consistent trait usually using a certain sister as an example. Yet, he can say it with the confidence knowing not one in attendance is going to make him accountable. This reverberates what's wrong with deputy authority teaching. Co-workers and elders irresponsibly can say what they want without being held accountable. After all in their mind they are the authority.
03-23-2018 06:32 AM
Ohio
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by kumbaya View Post
A sister who attended a Thanksgiving conference a few years back told me about a situation that occurred with her and RK. I don't think she'd mind if I shared it. She said that RK talked about a "smug sister" for a good part of a message at the conference. She suspected he was talking about her due to certain circumstances. Someone asked him and turns out- he was! She doesn't meet anymore but not due to that reason (there are plenty others). I just thought it was shocking how he literally called her out like that and he didn't really even know the situation. She had refused to say hi to a (known) abusive older brother who would somewhat "taunt" her to get her to talk to him. He knew she didn't want to and he'd try to get her to anyways. Then he did it in front of RK, and RK goes on to talk about her being a "smug sister" in the Thanksgiving conference!
Pretty pathetic!

Where did Kangas get the license to use the pulpit to publicly shame a sister? or even a brother?

Oh ... wait a minute ... I seem to remember W. Lee doing the same thing.
03-22-2018 08:16 PM
kumbaya
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
Just to put in my twosense. Anybody heard of Fanny Crosby? She was a sister who lived in the 19th century and into the 20th century (1820-1915). Over 8000 hymns are attributed to her. One of her most sung hymns is Blessed Assurance. #308 in the Hymnal.

Terry
I'm glad to hear they didn't change the words of that hymn. So many others were changed with LC doctrine in place.
03-22-2018 08:11 PM
kumbaya
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
3. Someone needs to tell Ron Kangas he is a borderline misogynist, if not a full-blown one. He really puts down the sisters. The contempt dripping from his voice is obvious to me, and quite offensive, and I am a brother! I can't imagine what it would be like as a female to sit there and take it as he endeavors to put them in their "proper" place. It is really odious. I bet it stinks all the way to high heaven.
A sister who attended a Thanksgiving conference a few years back told me about a situation that occurred with her and RK. I don't think she'd mind if I shared it. She said that RK talked about a "smug sister" for a good part of a message at the conference. She suspected he was talking about her due to certain circumstances. Someone asked him and turns out- he was! She doesn't meet anymore but not due to that reason (there are plenty others). I just thought it was shocking how he literally called her out like that and he didn't really even know the situation. She had refused to say hi to a (known) abusive older brother who would somewhat "taunt" her to get her to talk to him. He knew she didn't want to and he'd try to get her to anyways. Then he did it in front of RK, and RK goes on to talk about her being a "smug sister" in the Thanksgiving conference!
10-09-2017 02:31 PM
Meribah
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Unreg said: "We women are under headship here in the Earthly realm but when we pray and fellowship with Him, we are already seated in the heavenlies--and there is NO curse from the Fall there and, therefore, no need for headship or any lessening of our role. Praise the Lord!" To which our brother Drake replied that there would always be a need for headship in the universe.

Well, let's think about this. When we are in prayer and praise and our spirit soars to unite and be one with our Lord to enjoy Him, is any kind of Earthly headship needed? Isn't the very fact that we are in the presence of the Lord and HIS headship all that is needed to provide any covering? In Christ, there is freedom--for all. Merged with our true Head (the Lord), would anyone need any other headship? I think not. So I would say that Unreg is right--women need no covering or headship in their intimate time with the Lord--for there is neither male nor female in Christ. True fellowship causes us to soar above this realm. The curse of the Fall is only present here on Earth and in this physical life. The more union with Christ we have, the less ALL of us are impacted by the curse--which included headship for women and, really, even for men. Of course, Unreg was referring to male headship over women on Earth. None of us will ever leave--or desire to leave--the eternal and glorious headship of Our Bridegroom.

Yes, praise the Lord for this!
10-09-2017 05:11 AM
Nell
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
And what a great line by Dorothy ...

"If you were really great and powerful, you would keep your promises!"
Then she tells him, "You're a very bad man." He replies "Oh no, my dear. I'm a very good man. I'm a very bad Wizard."
10-08-2017 07:39 PM
awareness
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
Fear is fear, manipulation is manipulation, control is control. In Pilate's case it is naked, in Lee's case it is cloaked. Subtle is more dangerous..
A snake in the open is better than a snake in the grass.
10-08-2017 07:38 PM
Ohio
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nc2GSjmsYQ
And what a great line by Dorothy ...

"If you were really great and powerful, you would keep your promises!"
10-08-2017 07:25 PM
Ohio
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
-1

What is super silly is the notion the local churches wield power like Pilate.... to kill people.

Now excommunication is a serious matter but it us not the same thing and your inability to distinguish them will trip you up.

Drake
What Lee and his future Blendeds did to John Ingalls and others was, in some ways, worse than murder. They destroyed their reputations among the only people that John and others cared about. John and others lived and served the local churches. That was their complete life. Lee and his cadre of blendeds robbed them of that.

Something you refuse to admit.
10-08-2017 06:32 PM
aron
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
It's just your imagination. No comparison.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nc2GSjmsYQ
10-08-2017 06:30 PM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
Fear is fear, manipulation is manipulation, control is control. In Pilate's case it is naked, in Lee's case it is cloaked. Subtle is more dangerous.
It's just your imagination . No comparison.
10-08-2017 06:28 PM
aron
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
-1

What is super silly is the notion the local churches wield power like Pilate.... to kill people.

Now excommunication is a serious matter but it us not the same thing and your inability to distinguish them will trip you up.

Drake
Fear is fear, manipulation is manipulation, control is control. In Pilate's case it is naked, in Lee's case it is cloaked. Subtle is more dangerous. In the subtle case, the prey often doesn't see they're being manipulated. If the host is oblivious, the parasite lives on.
10-08-2017 06:26 PM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

-1

What is super silly is the notion the local churches wield power like Pilate.... to kill people.

Now excommunication is a serious matter but it us not the same thing and your inability to distinguish them will trip you up.

Drake
10-08-2017 06:20 PM
aron
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
""Don't you know that I have the power to kill you?" said Pilate (John 19:10). That's the kind of power wielded in churches like the LC. Fear-based power. "
Let me explicate my "silly notion". People believed into Jesus, but they were afraid of the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin had the power to put them out of the social group, the synagogue. See John 12:42 &c. . .

The LC creates a social group, the "church life". You get job references, job placement (many of us have). You get housing. You get your social group. They are your "true family"; you call them 'brother' and 'sister'. You usually marry someone in the group. Everything in the group is Us; outside is Them.

All this is based on group allegiance. Then the maximum boss does a nutty. What to do? Do you stand up and say what is right, and get put out? Or do you keep your mouth shut, and go on?

That's what I meant by fear-based power. Perhaps Pilate seemed like an extreme example, "silly" to you. But fear-based power is the same, whether it has social stigma/shame/ostracism behind it, or actual violence. Fear is fear. Control is control.

It's not that silly once you grasp what is going on. Temporal, earthly power hides the lack of actual reality.

Jesus took the shame, the humiliation. He never lorded it over anyone. They repeatedly tried to push Him to the forefront, but He repeatedly withdrew. His destiny was clear.

What happens to believers is they become befuddled, and think that somehow earthly greatness is equivalent to heavenly greatness. Jesus was clear: it's not.

That's why I thought the quote by Nee (post # 63) - "Women cannot be great in their persons" - was so interesting. Because it seemed to imply that men, by contrast, can be great in their persons. Which is not following Jesus at all. And once you buy into the illusion, that you're under a great man, the fear (from inadequacy/powerlessness/shame) behind that illusion starts to control you. The shame is transferred. Jesus took the shame away, but the 'great man' transfers his shame to you.
10-08-2017 08:28 AM
Ohio
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
-1

>""Don't you know that I have the power to kill you?" said Pilate (John 19:10). That's the kind of power wielded in churches like the LC. Fear-based power. "

What a silly notion.
Silly notion? Are you serious?

Read again the conversation between John Ingalls and Titus Chu in STTIL and also others in the book.

There were definite threats hung over JI's head letting him definitely know that they had the power to kill him, and his ministry. John had to learn the difficult lesson that it is far better to fear God rather than man.
10-08-2017 05:35 AM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

-1

>""Don't you know that I have the power to kill you?" said Pilate (John 19:10). That's the kind of power wielded in churches like the LC. Fear-based power. "

What a silly notion.
10-08-2017 02:18 AM
aron
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Unreg >"...no need for headship ...."

What a travesty. Of course, there is a need, but more importantly a fact, of headship and authority in the universe.

Drake
Where was the headship when Lee installed son Philip, the "unspiritual chef", as his office manager at LSM?

Where was the headship when Lee dunned the LC members for cash for his son Timothy's new motor home business?

People who insist on headship often have none themselves. Their desire to manipulate and control is an attempt to cover their lack of self-control. Their need for temporal power reveals an absence of spiritual reality, of true power.

"Don't you know that I have the power to kill you?" said Pilate (John 19:10). That's the kind of power wielded in churches like the LC. Fear-based power. It isn't real - reject it. It has no authority over you.

The real authority is to forgive, to heal, to love in repeated, consistent action. We occasionally saw that, furtively, in the margins of the LC, among the so-called small potatoes, but rarely if ever in the center, at the supposed locus of power.
10-07-2017 03:38 PM
Drake
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Unreg >"...no need for headship ...."

What a travesty. Of course, there is a need, but more importantly a fact, of headship and authority in the universe.

Drake
10-05-2017 03:25 PM
Meribah
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

The Lord has given women a wonderful, truly equal role with men. It's not their fault that men cannot see it. To them has been given the greater position of service so that their reward may be great. Hold your heads high, women! The Lord has given you the better portion.

"The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world." Lord, open our eyes!
10-04-2017 05:52 PM
Unregistered
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

I must agree wholeheartedly with Unreg above when she disputes the idea that a woman must learn from a man in spiritual matters! How absurd is this?? Did Mary need a man around to receive revelation from Gabriel? We all know that she did not.

I have been a Christian for many decades and the LORD has been so gracious to me, speaking to me in my heart. How sweet it is to receive revelation directly from our LORD! And we ALL do! We are all fully able to receive that rhema and to enjoy His Presence without any other mediator--both male and female.

We women are under headship here in the Earthly realm but when we pray and fellowship with Him, we are already seated in the heavenlies--and there is NO curse from the Fall there and, therefore, no need for headship or any lessening of our role. Praise the Lord!
10-02-2017 08:53 AM
aron
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

In the quote by Nee in post #63, he says that a woman's work can be great, but her person cannot be great. Does this mean that a man's person can be great?

I'm reminded of the gospel passage where the disciples were arguing over which ones were great (Luke 9:46; also 22:24). Did Watchman Nee think that if he wins the argument, and dominates the assembly, that he'll then be great? That once Leland Wang was out of the way, and the women co-workers 'knew their place', that he'd then be top of the heap? It seems to be implied, in the quote. The apostle of the age, and God's deputy, were sure to follow.
01-08-2016 06:48 AM
aron
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
This need for claiming God's ordination on everything is something that has been bothering me for some time.
I was just using a familiar trope. Probably could have phrased it better.
01-08-2016 06:43 AM
OBW
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
But God's sovereign arrangement, circa 50 or 60 AD Palestine, was not once and for all. Slavery as an institution ended, and eventually women were recognized as having the same personhood as men. Except in certain churches, of course. There, it is still first-century Palestinian social arrangements.
While I agree with your analysis, this idea that the ways of the time was "God's sovereign arrangement" is an overlay that we Christians feel the need to put on everything. Is it not sufficient to state that we are commanded to live peaceably within our environment and then note that the environment has not always been perfect? Why do we feel the need to justify the way things are as being ordained by God?

Unless we are saying that the fact that God ordained to remove his absolute control on a temporal basis is effectively God's ordination of how things are. That God restrains judgment is different from saying God ordains something.

Not saying that whether or not women should be allowed to have position is worthy of judgment. Just generally saying that God is clearly withholding judgment on evil in the world. Do we say that God is ordaining the evil? Or do we rather say that God uses our living within evil to work in us?

Just asking. This need for claiming God's ordination on everything is something that has been bothering me for some time.
01-08-2016 06:17 AM
aron
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nee View Post
"First Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 14, and Revelation 2 all show that God forbids a woman from teaching. Any sect that is started by a woman or headed up by one, or any group in which the woman occupies the same place as the man is highly suspicious. More than half of the heresies in the world have been started by women. For example, the founder of the Christian Scientists was Mary Baker Eddy, and the founder of the Seventh-day Adventists was Mrs. White. When the Bible speaks about Roman Catholicism, it also refers to the teaching of the woman Jezebel." [Watchman Nee, Messages for Building Up New Believers, Vol. 3, Chapter 20, Section 5]

"Paul forbade woman from doing the work of a teacher in 1 Timothy. The ascertaining of truth is a work that belongs to the teacher, and sisters should not do this. Some of the greatest heresies in this world come from women. The founders of the Christian Scientists, the Seventh-day Adventists, etc., have been women. The work of the sisters can be great, but the person of the sisters cannot be great. They should not expose themselves and should not be the ones to discern the truth." [Watchman Nee, Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 3) Vol. 58: Spiritual Judgment and Examples of Judgment, Chapter 13, Section 1]
This assessment is contradictory coming from someone who was saved, trained, heavily influenced by, and who worked closely with women such as Madame Guyon, Jessie Penn-Lewis, Elizabeth Fischbacher, Miss Groves, Margaret Barber, Peace Wang, Dora Yu, Mary E. McDonough, and Ruth Lee. Among others.

If women had constitutional or dispositional incapacity of exerting functional influence, then why the admittedly great influence, here, upon the speaker, who then promptly denied them and their role?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
... Since there is no male or female IN CHRIST, then, when a woman becomes spiritual by being reborn spiritually, she is the same as a reborn man. Both man and woman should be assessed the same way. It is futile to keep harping on the sins of a woman who is still in the natural, because the focus should be on the spiritual, not the natural. I am a born again woman. I contend for the right to be as spiritual as a man, as able to learn directly from God, His Word and His Spirit, as a man. It is God Who teaches us all our roles in Him, whether as godly men or godly women. But nevertheless we all need no man teach us, for we all have the anointing. To represent that man learns directly from God but that woman needs a third entity -- a man -- to teach her, is NOT SCRIPTURAL. Paul could not have meant that. Surely he was speaking only in the context of speaking out of order in meetings, and somehow that was a problem in that particular early setting. Paul in other places, speaks very highly of certain women ministers.
To me, key to understanding Paul's word here (on women functioning in church) was that he was addressing it within his present social context. To Paul, freedom in Christ Jesus did not mean an abandonment of society's mores and constraints. A slave and a master were brothers, and equal before God as redeemed and revived sinners, but they still must heed social conventions. Internally, and eternally, they were "in Christ", but externally and temporally they still were slave and master, with the unchanged expectations of those roles. Paul merely counseled, "Do all unto the Lord." Likewise men and women. In Christ there was no man or woman, but in the flesh one still must respect God's sovereign arrangement. The established and accepted social order must be respected.

But God's sovereign arrangement, circa 50 or 60 AD Palestine, was not once and for all. Slavery as an institution ended, and eventually women were recognized as having the same personhood as men. Except in certain churches, of course. There, it is still first-century Palestinian social arrangements.

And the glaring incongruity of it all is seen in the disparity between the words and actions of Watchman Nee; what he actually did, versus what he proclaimed as his 'truth'.
05-08-2015 10:00 PM
Nell
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
...It is futile to keep harping on the sins of a woman who is still in the natural, because the focus should be on the spiritual, not the natural. I am a born again woman.
The "sins of a woman" issue, more seriously, nullify the death of Jesus Christ as atonement for the sins of mankind. This is heresy. The death of Jesus Christ atoned for all sin, including Eve; including the sin of all men and women. To me this is the great error of many teachings about women.


Nell
05-04-2015 01:00 PM
Terry
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
Oooh... THAT cuts pretty close to the problem, no? They love Christ instead of "christandthechurch", ministry-style. And then they're wide open to love their neighbors, which might well involve putting the needs of those neighbors before the needs of the Mother Church. And so on, as religious organization takes a back seat to love. Big problem, here - can't have that, not for a minute.
It's been my opinion brothers such as BP an RG were utterly offended by Jane Anderson because she as many sisters are Christ first, marriage & family second, and maybe ministry third. I have considered there was shepherding among the sisters on marriage and family according to Christ. Not according to Lee's ministry.
So when BP heard about the so-called sister's rebellion in Anaheim (which I believe was really a counterattack on Max for his restaurant confrontation with Phillip Lee), in BP's mind it justified the actions taken as many of us have read in The Thread of Gold.
My impression of sisters married to brothers who place ministry before the marriage/family, you might see
05-04-2015 12:47 PM
Terry
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
One time in the crowded foyer of Cleveland's meeting hall, my elder was furious with me for a personal decision my wife and I made. He was screaming at me, just inches from my face, amidst the bustle of saints during break time. He made the stinging accusation, "can't you control your wife?!?"
The elder was completely out of line. As I had posted on Facebook this past weekend,

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,
Ephesians 5:25
05-04-2015 07:27 AM
Lisbon
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
What about getting along with his wife? She was a dozy ... and a definite balance for Ron. But she didn't keep his head out of the clouds.

Given that it's no wonder RK made that statement about sisters. That and the fact that the Bible treats women like second class citizens, in the least, property, in the most, and Eve in the worst. Like Paul mentioned in 1st Tim. 2:14,

1Co_7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
I was in a church meeting with Ron once in which he said that he needed to make an adjustment with his wife. After accomplishing the task the Lord seemed to ask him "was that I making the adjustment or was it you." Strangely he didn't answer the question but I did of course to myself. Susan or is it Sue had a mind of her own. I'm sure there were other adjustment made thru the years on both sides.

Lisbon
05-04-2015 06:28 AM
Ohio
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
Seems to me the thread should be renamed Ron Kangas' teaching on sisters. Something I cannot say about all the messages I have heard Witness Lee speak, but brother Ron, I cannot say I haven't heard a message when he isn't denigrating sisters.
I think Ron may have a problem with spiritual sisters because they tend to be Christ-centered instead of ministry-centered. That alone results in Christ versus Religion.
Ron Kangas's views of women seem to be steeped in ancient Chinese cultural norms passed down from Nee and Lee. Perhaps these oppressive ideas are at the root of the marital problems which so plague the LCM.

One time in the crowded foyer of Cleveland's meeting hall, my elder was furious with me for a personal decision my wife and I made. He was screaming at me, just inches from my face, amidst the bustle of saints during break time. He made the stinging accusation, "can't you control your wife?!?"

I paused for a few milliseconds and then responded, "it's against the law to control my wife." Then I turned and walked out the lobby door. It was so tense, that a simple gesture like wiping the sweat off my brow would have resulted in a Pacquio barrage -- just a 30 second video clip into the teachings and practices of "Witness Lee's teaching on women," and it's effect on his protege Titus Chu, and one of his students.
05-04-2015 05:42 AM
OBW
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Obscene ... but Biblical.
Biblical? The Bible actually says this with sufficient clarity that any other position is in contradiction of the Bible?

No matter how strongly some feel about the issues of women teaching in full or even limited capacities, some do not see it the same way and can point to passages that seem to contradict, so it is not so clear. And I don't think that it says anything about "more than half the heresies" being started by women.

So "biblical" does not seem to fit very well.

I would suggest that the way it is bandied about by some, making statements like Lee and RK have, that the lack of love in their rhetoric makes them "not biblical" no matter how right they think they are on the subject.
05-03-2015 05:59 PM
Freedom
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
Oooh... THAT cuts pretty close to the problem, no? They love Christ instead of "christandthechurch", ministry-style. And then they're wide open to love their neighbors, which might well involve putting the needs of those neighbors before the needs of the Mother Church. And so on, as religious organization takes a back seat to love. Big problem, here - can't have that, not for a minute.

So "spirituality" becomes a big shibboleth. No, we want Organization Men (and Women), though and through. They are here for the Lord's Move. No loving your neighbors, or that spiritual stuff.
There is a lot of truth to this. From what I have seen there are many LC sisters who care primarily about practical needs, and of course this gets stomped on by leaders and brothers such as Ron. It's probably safe to say that some are just along for the ride, supporting their husbands and trying to make the best of things. Nevertheless, any hint of "spirituality" is seen as a threat to brothers.
05-03-2015 05:46 PM
aron
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
Ron may have a problem with spiritual sisters because they tend to be Christ-centered instead of ministry-centered...
Oooh... THAT cuts pretty close to the problem, no? They love Christ instead of "christandthechurch", ministry-style. And then they're wide open to love their neighbors, which might well involve putting the needs of those neighbors before the needs of the Mother Church. And so on, as religious organization takes a back seat to love. Big problem, here - can't have that, not for a minute.

So "spirituality" becomes a big shibboleth. No, we want Organization Men (and Women), though and through. They are here for the Lord's Move. No loving your neighbors, or that spiritual stuff.
05-03-2015 05:19 PM
Terry
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
IMO, Ron's main problem is his inability to accept constructive criticism. He is the type who cannot accept blame, and I don't think he is able to admit to being wrong in any way. He has gone beyond his blended peers and insulated himself from all criticism. He calls the brother whom he considers to be his arch nemesis a "man of death". If he says that he considers "spiritual sisters" worse than those he would label as "rebellious", then I'm scared to know what he really thinks of women.
Seems to me the thread should be renamed Ron Kangas' teaching on sisters. Something I cannot say about all the messages I have heard Witness Lee speak, but brother Ron, I cannot say I haven't heard a message when he isn't denigrating sisters.
I think Ron may have a problem with spiritual sisters because they tend to be Christ-centered instead of ministry-centered. That alone results in Christ versus Religion.
05-02-2015 08:09 PM
Ohio
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
IMO, Ron's main problem is his inability to accept constructive criticism. He is the type who cannot accept blame, and I don't think he is able to admit to being wrong in any way. He has gone beyond his blended peers and insulated himself from all criticism. He calls the brother whom he considers to be his arch nemesis a "man of death". If he says that he considers "spiritual sisters" worse than those he would label as "rebellious", then I'm scared to know what he really thinks of women.
We've had many a post about his views of women. None are good.
05-02-2015 06:14 PM
Freedom
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
What about getting along with his wife? She was a dozy ... and a definite balance for Ron. But she didn't keep his head out of the clouds.
IMO, Ron's main problem is his inability to accept constructive criticism. He is the type who cannot accept blame, and I don't think he is able to admit to being wrong in any way. He has gone beyond his blended peers and insulated himself from all criticism. He calls the brother whom he considers to be his arch nemesis a "man of death". If he says that he considers "spiritual sisters" worse than those he would label as "rebellious", then I'm scared to know what he really thinks of women.
05-02-2015 06:00 PM
Freedom
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
When it comes to "raising up" the brothers and "perfecting them" by using public rebukes and shaming, a.k.a. "those weekly ice baths," the recovery is altogether unique. Even though they have no scriptural justification for how their leadership operates, they do have ... as their "founding mother" ... a dominant sister ... a missionary from a degraded denomination ... to vindicate their actions.

How in the world do they reconcile these pernicious anomalies?
The irony is sad. It's probably safe to say that there would be no LC movement if it weren't for M.E. Barber, as she is the one who supposedly "perfected" Nee. I've heard it said within the LC that Nee's ability to handle the "rebuking" of M.E. Barber is what set him apart from all his peers. Nee and Lee should have both admitted the LC is a church with a "founding mother". Like Ohio stated, the LC could be viewed as suspicious by standard of Nee's own words "Any sect that is started by a woman or headed up by one, or any group in which the woman occupies the same place as the man is highly suspicious."
05-02-2015 05:05 PM
awareness
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
Hmmmm, it sounds like Ron wouldn't have gotten along well with Nee's mentor (M.E. Barber).
What about getting along with his wife? She was a dozy ... and a definite balance for Ron. But she didn't keep his head out of the clouds.

Given that it's no wonder RK made that statement about sisters. That and the fact that the Bible treats women like second class citizens, in the least, property, in the most, and Eve in the worst. Like Paul mentioned in 1st Tim. 2:14,

1Co_7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
05-02-2015 05:05 PM
Ohio
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
Hmmmm, it sounds like Ron wouldn't have gotten along well with Nee's mentor (M.E. Barber).
When it comes to "raising up" the brothers and "perfecting them" by using public rebukes and shaming, a.k.a. "those weekly ice baths," the recovery is altogether unique. Even though they have no scriptural justification for how their leadership operates, they do have ... as their "founding mother" ... a dominant sister ... a missionary from a degraded denomination ... to vindicate their actions.

How in the world do they reconcile these pernicious anomalies?
05-02-2015 05:03 PM
Igzy
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
"Sometimes I think that the only thing worse than a rebellious brother is a spiritual sister." - RK, current voice of the Blendeds.
Is there a bigger dope on the face of the earth than Ron Kangas?
05-02-2015 12:42 PM
Freedom
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Let's think about the converse/corollaries to these statements ...

Then the other half of the heresies were started by men.

Any sect started by a Chinese man or headed up by one is highly suspicious.
I had the exact same thought. Both Nee and Lee had a habit of employing faulty logic. In order for them to make this type of argument, the first thing that should have been done is for them both to admit that men also teach heresy and therefore they shouldn't be teaching.
05-02-2015 12:37 PM
Freedom
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
"Sometimes I think that the only thing worse than a rebellious brother is a spiritual sister." - RK, current voice of the Blendeds.
Hmmmm, it sounds like Ron wouldn't have gotten along well with Nee's mentor (M.E. Barber).
05-02-2015 12:32 PM
awareness
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nee Lee View Post
"First Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 14, and Revelation 2 all show that God forbids a woman from teaching. Any sect that is started by a woman or headed up by one, or any group in which the woman occupies the same place as the man is highly suspicious. More than half of the heresies in the world have been started by women.
Obscene ... but Biblical.
05-02-2015 12:26 PM
aron
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

"Sometimes I think that the only thing worse than a rebellious brother is a spiritual sister." - RK, current voice of the Blendeds.
05-02-2015 10:42 AM
Ohio
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman Nee View Post
"First Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 14, and Revelation 2 all show that God forbids a woman from teaching. Any sect that is started by a woman or headed up by one, or any group in which the woman occupies the same place as the man is highly suspicious. More than half of the heresies in the world have been started by women.
Let's think about the converse/corollaries to these statements ...

Then the other half of the heresies were started by men.

Any sect started by a Chinese man or headed up by one is highly suspicious.
05-02-2015 08:05 AM
UntoHim
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

These quotes from Nee & Lee were brought to my attention:

"First Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 14, and Revelation 2 all show that God forbids a woman from teaching. Any sect that is started by a woman or headed up by one, or any group in which the woman occupies the same place as the man is highly suspicious. More than half of the heresies in the world have been started by women. For example, the founder of the Christian Scientists was Mary Baker Eddy, and the founder of the Seventh-day Adventists was Mrs. White. When the Bible speaks about Roman Catholicism, it also refers to the teaching of the woman Jezebel." [Watchman Nee, Messages for Building Up New Believers, Vol. 3, Chapter 20, Section 5]

"Paul forbade woman from doing the work of a teacher in 1 Timothy. The ascertaining of truth is a work that belongs to the teacher, and sisters should not do this. Some of the greatest heresies in this world come from women. The founders of the Christian Scientists, the Seventh-day Adventists, etc., have been women. The work of the sisters can be great, but the person of the sisters cannot be great. They should not expose themselves and should not be the ones to discern the truth." [Watchman Nee, Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 3) Vol. 58: Spiritual Judgment and Examples of Judgment, Chapter 13, Section 1]

"First Corinthians 14:34 should not be understood in isolation from the rest of the Bible. According to the teaching of the entire New Testament, sisters may prophesy, but they do not have the authority to define doctrines. This must be left to the brothers. Furthermore, it is a fact of history that some of the most serious heresies have come in through women. On the one hand, the sisters should not be prohibited from giving testimonies or edifications in the meetings. On the other hand, the sisters should be careful to stay within the boundary and not presume to teach in the sense of defining doctrine." [Witness Lee, Conclusion of the New Testament, The (Msgs. 205-220), Chapter 2, Section 2 also Witness Lee, Life-Study of 1 Corinthians, Chapter 63, Section 3]

"God's creation was corrupted by Satan through a woman (Gen. 3:1-6). In principle, the church that God redeemed also was corrupted by Satan through a woman. For this reason, God does not permit women to teach in the church (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; cf. 1 Cor. 11:5). This is because, in principle, all the heresies were brought in by a woman; it was a woman who brought in the leaven. Both the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches believe in their own creeds more than in the Bible. They would twist the word in the Scriptures in order to give the word of the Catholic Church a higher position. When the word in the Scriptures differs from the word of the Catholic Church, they would rather listen to the word of the Church. The Roman Catholic Church is the adulterous woman who brought in heresy. Everything the Bible teaches is centered on Christ, who is signified by the fine flour in the parable. However, the Catholic Church as the evil woman has mixed things other than Christ, corrupted things, into the teaching of the Bible." [Witness Lee, What the Kingdom Is to the Believers, Chapter 9, Section 2]
04-30-2015 04:32 PM
OBW
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Wow. This is an old thread. But a good one.

And the last point is quite valid.
04-30-2015 03:57 PM
Unregistered
Re: Witness Lee's teaching on women

Lee contradicts himself in his teaching on women. He seems to indicate that a man in Christ has left the life of the natural man, who cannot please God, and entered the realm of the spiritual man, who can and does please God. But a woman is not afforded the same basis? Women are criticized for natural attributes, but as I see it, the same criticism of the natural man is true of the natural woman. Since there is no male or female IN CHRIST, then, when a woman becomes spiritual by being reborn spiritually, she is the same as a reborn man. Both man and woman should be assessed the same way. It is futile to keep harping on the sins of a woman who is still in the natural, because the focus should be on the spiritual, not the natural. I am a born again woman. I contend for the right to be as spiritual as a man, as able to learn directly from God, His Word and His Spirit, as a man. It is God Who teaches us all our roles in Him, whether as godly men or godly women. But nevertheless we all need no man teach us, for we all have the anointing. To represent that man learns directly from God but that woman needs a third entity -- a man -- to teach her, is NOT SCRIPTURAL. Paul could not have meant that. Surely he was speaking only in the context of speaking out of order in meetings, and somehow that was a problem in that particular early setting. Paul in other places, speaks very highly of certain women ministers.
08-22-2008 11:13 PM
Paul Cox
Quote:
Originally Posted by countmeworthy View Post
Quote:

This is the basic and logical principle that we must care for: we can never express God or represent God by our own life. Consider your life. Your life is incapable of expressing God; it is only adequate to express yourself
. ... At any rate, we all must admit that our natural life disqualifies us from expressing God and representing Him.

Witness Lee, Life-Study of Genesis


Well NO WONDER the LSM/LC is in disarray !!! They're reaping what they & Lee sowed!

Quote:
To a certain extent, a woman is not even qualified in life to represent her husband, because her life is not as high as her husband’s.
I wonder how Lee's 2 wives felt about this. They must have suffered something awful...unless they accepted their fate because 1) they were Chinese and 2) they were Lee's wives.

And just so everyone is clear Lee was not a Polygamist. Lee had 8 children by his first wife before she died. He remarried after his wife's death. I don't know if they had any children together.

It would also be interesting to know something about THEM. Anyone know?

"Sister Lee," so far as I know, is still with us. They had no children together, she probably already being past that age when they were married. She is a dear, sweet sister who poured herself out to take care of Witness. From his testimonies, it seems Witness was quite obedient to her in the matter of what he ate.

Also, Stephen Kaung was remarried not too long ago. His first wife died a number of years back. This sister who married Stephen was simply burdened to take care of him. He didn't want, at first, but then agreed.

Stephen is looking pretty good these days. Because of her burden and care, he has had, and probably will have a few more years of needful ministry among the saints. She also has been burdened for the legacy of his ministry. Consequentially, there has been quite a renovation over at his ministry, in every aspect.

Roger
08-22-2008 08:06 PM
Terry
Deception

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane
"WL said that all the major heresies in church history were introduced by women. You might not hear that the same way a woman would. I was told that sisters cannot get revelation from the Bible. Why? ... because they can be easily deceived, like Eve was. You can't know what it's like to not be able to open your Bible for years and read it without fear that you might be being deceived if you happen to think you see anything in what you read, and that because of a pronouncement that was laid on you by some of Adam's descendants. "

Jane, what was taught by Witness Lee easily applies to brothers too. Anyone can be easily decieved. Which is why we all need prayer when we speak or when we listen, that the enemy won't decieve us. It can be easy to misinterpret or misunderstand something that is spoken.
To say it's geared towards sisters because of the Eve typology, because woman was formed from man, or because women are generally weaker than man is just a smokescreen.
Please read Luke 7:37-50, or Mark 14:3-4 and I make my point. It was a woman who broke a flask of alabaster on Jesus. In Luke 7:50 Jesus says,
"Your faith has saved you. Go in peace."

Maybe the real issue among some brothers, but not all, is the fact sisters put Christ firstplace before the ministry. Brothers see the ministry as the way to be overcomers to reign in the New Jerusalem. It's the sisters who just want Jesus!

Terry
07-29-2008 08:09 PM
Terry
Quote:
Originally Posted by YP0534 View Post

And, yes, of course it's possible for a sister to have more growth spiritually than her husband. My observation while among the Local Church people was that this was usually the case. But Lee probably never considered what this might imply because he merely discounted it as the "abnormal" situation.
I tend to believe each couple is different in their spiritual growth so it would be in error to stereotype.

Terry
07-28-2008 03:33 AM
YP0534 The very consideration of a "higher life" or "lower life" in the context of marriage is a ridiculous notion altogether.

It is not that newly married couples don't know each other well enough to know one another's thought. I too would agree with that, as would mostly anyone. But knowing the mind of another doesn't suit Lee's example here. Surely God's thoughts are far above man's.

For Lee, in this statement, it is a woman's created constitution, her "life" which is not as "high," that disqualifies her from being able to be an adequate representative.

It's a lot of superstitious cultural malarkey dressed up in quasi-biblical terminology.

And, yes, of course it's possible for a sister to have more growth spiritually than her husband. My observation while among the Local Church people was that this was usually the case. But Lee probably never considered what this might imply because he merely discounted it as the "abnormal" situation.
07-27-2008 10:47 PM
Terry "Consider your life. Your life is incapable of expressing God; it is only adequate to express yourself. To a certain extent, a woman is not even qualified in life to represent her husband, because her life is not as high as her husband’s. I wonder if the sisters agree with this. At any rate, we all must admit that our natural life disqualifies us from expressing God and representing Him."


Witness Lee, Life-Study of Genesis

Was this quote meant to imply brothers are capable of representing their sister-spouse, but the sister-spouse is not capable of representing their brother-spouse?
If that's the case, I disagree. My marriage is more like a partnership. On most practical matters, my sister-spouse is quite capable speaking on my behalf. On many an ocassion even if she wanted to check with me, our thoughts were the same. Based on the quote from the Life-Study, I would agree on the quote for those couples newly married.

I would pose this question, is it possible for a sister to have more growth spiritually than her husband?

Terry
07-27-2008 09:55 AM
Suannehill
Quote:
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
... In addition to our being enthralled with WL’s grasp of the scriptures, many of us also were very idealistic regarding paying heed to the Word. The verse I Corinthians 11:3, which states that “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” is an encouragement to women as they put their hope in God and trust that their husband will be under the headship of Christ. I for one believed that the more I submitted to my husband, the more accountable to Christ he would be. However, in daily living this may take quite a long time to be worked out due to fallen human nature. And surely this is why this is a problem not only in the LC.
Bookworm,
I remember this being my thought also. (in addition to many other things)
I'm not so certain this is a wrong thought. It just took some awful twists and turns with the cultural things of the LC.

And...we are all "working out our own salvation".

But...I remember being a little pleased that HE was the responsible one before the Lord.
Perhaps even taking a little perverse pleasure in the fact that he was responsible for me!
Sue
07-27-2008 09:03 AM
bookworm
Quote:
Originally Posted by finallyprettyokay View Post
And, I would hate to see this discussion moved to the Women's Only thread.

When this sort of bigotry exists, everyone needs to hear it. OBW, I really do understand your point. I do not enjoy entering into sort of theological discussions at all --- they usually seem so circular to me. But if you know that this is what women were taught at that place, it becomes relevant.

Control on any level was what WL was all about. All holds barred for the sake of control.
I have been following with interest this thread about Witness Lee’s teaching on women. Some people may wonder why the women in the LC went along with this. In addition to our being enthralled with WL’s grasp of the scriptures, many of us also were very idealistic regarding paying heed to the Word. The verse I Corinthians 11:3, which states that “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” is an encouragement to women as they put their hope in God and trust that their husband will be under the headship of Christ. I for one believed that the more I submitted to my husband, the more accountable to Christ he would be. However, in daily living this may take quite a long time to be worked out due to fallen human nature. And surely this is why this is a problem not only in the LC.
07-25-2008 01:16 PM
countmeworthy Quote:

This is the basic and logical principle that we must care for: we can never express God or represent God by our own life. Consider your life. Your life is incapable of expressing God; it is only adequate to express yourself
. ... At any rate, we all must admit that our natural life disqualifies us from expressing God and representing Him.

Witness Lee, Life-Study of Genesis


Well NO WONDER the LSM/LC is in disarray !!! They're reaping what they & Lee sowed!

Quote:
To a certain extent, a woman is not even qualified in life to represent her husband, because her life is not as high as her husband’s.
I wonder how Lee's 2 wives felt about this. They must have suffered something awful...unless they accepted their fate because 1) they were Chinese and 2) they were Lee's wives.

And just so everyone is clear Lee was not a Polygamist. Lee had 8 children by his first wife before she died. He remarried after his wife's death. I don't know if they had any children together.

It would also be interesting to know something about THEM. Anyone know?
07-25-2008 12:21 PM
YP0534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thankful Jane View Post
Good morning!

I have just read and caught up with the posts since yesterday. The first thing I did, YP0534, was note the time you started this thread. I had the same question as FinallyPrettyOkay, did you sleep?? But now that we know you have the ability to search on Lee/Nee's works (wow to that), I can see how you did this.

I note in Hope's post on the other thread that he had heard Lee make the same statement (about sisters and heresies) on numerous occasions. Keep in mind that many times the actual things Lee said in public were modified by the editing process. I have heard this from some who were involved. I have noticed that things I clearly remember hearing in some messages were different when they were published. Hope heard this behind closed doors, I suspect in male company only, which is more insidious.

Watch it there with that loaded language, bubba. A nit is the egg of a louse. The dictionary says nitpicky is to find insignificant details of something unsatisfactory, often unjustifiably. Hmmm... Okay, I’ll give you a pass this time. A nit-picker isn’t what is needed for this big topic, although getting rid of the eggs might be important. I think I’ll get out my gorilla-picker.

Aah, what a beautiful day it is going to be.

Thankful Jane
Actually, Thankful, I got in trouble in my locality because I got to the point of very closely scrutinizing the differences between what I heard in the training meetings and what was eventually issued on the printed pages. This was back in 1988 and, regardless that there were issues with what Lee actually taught, I can tell you that I grew alarmed that some of the best things I heard him speak were just whittled away to nothing by that funky editing process. One leading brother in my place reassured me that it was nothing to be concerned about and that there was no conspiracy at LSM.

Ha.
07-25-2008 11:30 AM
Thankful Jane Good morning!

I have just read and caught up with the posts since yesterday. The first thing I did, YP0534, was note the time you started this thread. I had the same question as FinallyPrettyOkay, did you sleep?? But now that we know you have the ability to search on Lee/Nee's works (wow to that), I can see how you did this.

I note in Hope's post on the other thread that he had heard Lee make the same statement (about sisters and heresies) on numerous occasions. Keep in mind that many times the actual things Lee said in public were modified by the editing process. I have heard this from some who were involved. I have noticed that things I clearly remember hearing in some messages were different when they were published. Hope heard this behind closed doors, I suspect in male company only, which is more insidious.

Quote:
The quote in Genesis I did see but it failed to make a strong impression upon me, at least as it was printed. It wasn't well worded but it would be a little nit-picky to me to discuss at length whether sin entered first through Adam or Eve. (oops! )" --YP0534
Watch it there with that loaded language, bubba. A nit is the egg of a louse. The dictionary says nitpicky is to find insignificant details of something unsatisfactory, often unjustifiably. Hmmm... Okay, I’ll give you a pass this time. A nit-picker isn’t what is needed for this big topic, although getting rid of the eggs might be important. I think I’ll get out my gorilla-picker.

Aah, what a beautiful day it is going to be.

Thankful Jane
07-25-2008 11:27 AM
Thankful Jane
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hope View Post
I know for certain I heard WL say this and heard BP and others quote him. There was always an automatic knee jerk reaction by WL and his close circle toward strong women. But then they had the same reaction toward strong men who did not line up with the program.

I cannot ever remember any more than a passing mention that in Christ Jesus there is neither male or female.

This subject or problem is not limited to WL or the LC.

Hope
Thanks for sharing this, Hope. In many ways this explains a lot. I knew he spoke like this in public and assumed he did in private, but I don't think I have ever heard this clearly stated before by someone who heard him.

I have been in on the picking-up-the-pieces end of the lives of ex-LC sisters and their families for a number of years now, including my own . I agree with you that this is not only an LC problem, but a much broader one among Christians in general.

Thankful Jane
07-25-2008 11:21 AM
Thankful Jane
Quote:
Originally Posted by YP0534 View Post
The other thing I heard that I have been guilty of repeating is that the sisters are in the lead when there is a degraded situation. And I think I made reference to it elsewhere at some point that the thing I noticed was that however much of a position the brothers in the Local Churches held and exercised, I always touched something of more practical enjoyment and expression of Christ in the prayers and singing of the sisters in the meetings. In other words, to my perception, the so-called spiritual brothers were kind of playing at being little kings while the truly spiritual sisters exercised yet more patience and let them play.
Dear YP0534,

Interestingly, until this year, the main thing that gave me shelter when I came under accusation or condemnation due to my gender was the idea about the role of women in degraded situations. It was no small hurdle for this little lady to publish a book. If it had not been for the work of the Holy Spirit in many ways leading me down that path and the support of my husband, son, and another strongly encouraging and determined brother, I might not have made it over that hurdle. Considering my background and what I was accused of in the LC (leading a sisters rebellion) for daring to peep a little, the fact that the book exists is nothing short of a miracle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YP0534 View Post
Of course, this is just my perception. The burdens and sufferings of the sisters clearly aren't worthy to be compared with the responsibility of wielding the power of a deputy authority. Yes. There is something upside down about that, isn't there?

I wanted to laugh when I read your satire here, but like all good satire (Jonathan’s Swift’s “Modest Proposal” to solve social ills by eating children for example), the situation behind the satire is too serious for laughter. It did, however, make the point quite well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YP0534 View Post
(P.S. full disclosure - knowing what makes a good husband doesn't necessarily make you a good husband, unfortunately)
... but it certainly is a step in the right direction! Thanks for sharing as you have. It means a lot for brothers to speak up with care as you and some others such as aron and Terry have done.


Thankful Jane
07-25-2008 10:50 AM
finallyprettyokay But Hope also corroborates your memory on the other thread.

I saw that --- thanks Hope!

Moderators --- it's getting quite cumbersome. Could we combine the relevant parts of these two threads? Thanks.


FPO
07-25-2008 10:49 AM
YP0534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hope View Post
I cannot ever remember any more than a passing mention that in Christ Jesus there is neither male or female.
Boy, does that speak volumes.

Because it's at least as worthy of comment as the other distinctions that are eliminated in Christ...
07-25-2008 10:44 AM
YP0534
Quote:
Originally Posted by finallyprettyokay View Post
YPO:

I have been wondering if it could have been Nee. None of these quotes seem like the exact one I was thinking of, but they all certainly make the case for Lee's feelings about women being waaaay less than men.

So, anything in the Nee stuff?

I'll have to look into it when I get home.


But Hope also corroborates your memory on the other thread.
07-25-2008 09:45 AM
finallyprettyokay YPO:

I have been wondering if it could have been Nee. None of these quotes seem like the exact one I was thinking of, but they all certainly make the case for Lee's feelings about women being waaaay less than men.

So, anything in the Nee stuff?

I remember in one of Nee's books, he expounded on parenting. I wonder what his creds were for that -- he wasn't a parent, and had no training that I know of. Anyway, I remember it said that in order to keep our kids from being puffed up, when they have an accomplishment we should tell them "there are very many children who can do that as well as you can" (obviously, not a direct quote, it is from memory, but it made quite an impression on me.)

Remember Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey? SNL? This one always reminded me of Nee's advice about kids:

Children need encouragement. If a kid gets an answer right, tell him it was a lucky guess. That way he develops a good, lucky feeling.


Maybe it was Nee -----


FPO
07-25-2008 09:39 AM
Hope
All major heresies came from women?

I know for certain I heard WL say this and heard BP and others quote him. There was always an automatic knee jerk reaction by WL and his close circle toward strong women. But then they had the same reaction toward strong men who did not line up with the program.

I cannot ever remember any more than a passing mention that in Christ Jesus there is neither male or female.

This subject or problem is not limited to WL or the LC.

Hope
07-25-2008 08:58 AM
OBW Thanks for the replies. I'm having a good laugh.

Anyway, keep on keepin on.
07-25-2008 08:55 AM
YP0534
Quote:
Originally Posted by finallyprettyokay View Post
YPO:

Did you sleep last night?

Great work. Still, these do not sound like the quote I remember reading and talking about. Let's see, it would have been some time around 1973 or 74, maybe a little earlier, but probably not later than 74. Just by thinking about where we lived at the time.

The quote was concerning Genesis (I think) , and how 'sin and deception entered through woman' and thus women --- blah, blah, blah. We all know the drill by now.

Jane --- any of that time period ring a bell?

YPO, you are the Sherlock Holmes of old quotes! Anyone else?

What a rockin' group of people we are here!!!


FPO

Another full disclosure:
I bought the LS set on CD when it came out, so it's easy for me to search that. I've since acquired the other' publisher's CD of Nee's works. After that, I use Google sometimes and then logic plus my understanding of the group's history. (Still looking for a set of the 1977 republication of The Stream if anyone knows how I can get one!)

The quote in Genesis I did see but it failed to make a strong impression upon me, at least as it was printed. It wasn't well worded but it would be a little nit-picky to me to discuss at length whether sin entered first through Adam or Eve. (oops! ) The main emphasis of Lee's teaching on Eve is that she is a type of the counterpart of Christ, which I have no problem with.

Here is what I found along these lines, for what it's worth. If there were other loose talk along these lines, it hasn't been preseverd in the printed texts that I can see:

Quote:
We not only have these verses, but also a great sign in the universe found in Revelation 12:1----the sign of a woman with the sun, the moon, and the stars. In order to move properly in this universe, we have this woman as a great sign. This woman is something related to the church. I do not say that the woman is the church, but that the church is a great part of this woman. If we are to move and behave and act in this universe, we must know this woman.

She originates in Genesis 3. The Bible is a book of women. Satan entered the human race through a woman, and the Lord Jesus also entered the human race through a woman. Eventually, the Bible consummates with the New Jerusalem, which is a female, the bride of Christ. Hallelujah! We will all be a part of that woman. So, we all must know the woman in Revelation 12. She is a biblical woman, a universal woman covering the whole Bible. Strictly speaking, she began in Genesis 2 with Eve, not in Genesis 3, and then proceeds from Genesis 2 to Revelation 22. If you know this woman, you know the signs. She is a very prominent sign. She is a sign for God’s people to know whether they must go on or stop. Because many Christians lack this woman, they don’t know what to do. They have no way to go on. We need a sign, a sign which comes from the fourth-day lights.

Witness Lee, Life-Study of Genesis


But I found this little gem while I was looking...

Quote:
This is the basic and logical principle that we must care for: we can never express God or represent God by our own life. Consider your life. Your life is incapable of expressing God; it is only adequate to express yourself. To a certain extent, a woman is not even qualified in life to represent her husband, because her life is not as high as her husband’s. I wonder if the sisters agree with this. At any rate, we all must admit that our natural life disqualifies us from expressing God and representing Him.

Witness Lee, Life-Study of Genesis
07-25-2008 08:14 AM
aron
Quote:
Originally Posted by countmeworthy View Post
The problem I have with what he wrote here is he left out THE BROTHERS!!
Yes, I agree. If you are a male or female, Greek or Australian, young or old, tall or short, educated or not, you still need God's healing. This "sisters" speaking was a not-so-subtle control mechanism.

How many bossy brothers were attracted to the 'local church' life, at least in part, because there was a crowd of docile sisters? I shudder to think...Lord, have mercy on us all! Forgive us the error of our ways! Amen, Lord!
07-25-2008 08:01 AM
countmeworthy
Poor Brothers !

Quote:
We who are used to the church life are truly under God’s blessing, not only spiritually and mentally, but even physically. All of the church people are so healthy because they are under God’s blessing through the church life. Many of the church people can testify that before they came into the church life they were weak and sickly. Many were sick mentally, but after being in the church life they became sober and healthy. This is the blessing. This blessing comes as a result of offering Christ to God through the cross.

Sisters, if you want to be healthy, you need to experience Christ and to offer Him to God through the cross. If you live this way for awhile, you will see how strong you will be and how mentally sober you will become. Every young sister who lives this way will be healthy both mentally and emotionally. Most young women are sick either emotionally or mentally. No psychiatrist can help them. However, if you live the church life, the very Christ whom you offer to God will heal you. He is better than any psychiatrist. Do not go to a psychiatrist - come to Christ and offer Him to God. Then you will be healthy, sober, and emotionally balanced. Since the church life is the proper life, it brings in God’s blessing. Peace, joy, love, sympathy, kindness, normal living - all are signs of such a blessing of life which comes by the experience of Christ
through the cross.


Witness Lee, Life-Study of Genesis
The problem I have with what he wrote here is he left out THE BROTHERS!! Poor Brothers! What? They don't suffer from mental problems??? They don't see pyschiatrists? They're automatically emotionally balanced, sober and healthy when they get saved? Please.

Now there is truth as we IMMERSE ourselves in the Presence of God through His Word, dying to self, praying for each other, fellowshipping with each other which includes being FRIENDS in CHRIST..real FRIENDS where we know each other and our families. Where we can confide in one another..we ARE HEALED emotionally, physically and above all spiritually!!

Lee simply said, had a TERRIBLE way of expressing himself!!
07-25-2008 07:17 AM
finallyprettyokay YPO:

Did you sleep last night?

Great work. Still, these do not sound like the quote I remember reading and talking about. Let's see, it would have been some time around 1973 or 74, maybe a little earlier, but probably not later than 74. Just by thinking about where we lived at the time.

The quote was concerning Genesis (I think) , and how 'sin and deception entered through woman' and thus women --- blah, blah, blah. We all know the drill by now.

Jane --- any of that time period ring a bell?

YPO, you are the Sherlock Holmes of old quotes! Anyone else?

What a rockin' group of people we are here!!!


FPO
07-25-2008 05:07 AM
YP0534
Concerning the Sisters

OK

I'm not really feeling like I've got a whole lot to share on this topic of the "proper role of sisters" but it's obvious to me that there's a whole lot to discuss and this thread needs a home.

So, trusting that Admin or Helper will move all of the sisters-related fellowship from the "89 brothers" thread to this temporary abode of Mary, Martha and Lazarus, I offer the following.

I found the quote about the heresies.

Quote:
The "law" in verse 34 refers to the books written by Moses (Matt. 5:17; 7:12; 11:13). In Moses' writings, Genesis 3:16 charges the woman to be subject to man's rule. This is God's ordination.

First Corinthians 14:34 should not be understood in isolation from the rest of the Bible. On the contrary, we need to interpret the Bible by the Bible and with the Bible. According to the teaching of the entire New Testament, sisters may prophesy, but they do not have the authority to define doctrines. This must be left to the brothers. Furthermore, it is a fact of history that some of the most serious heresies have come in through women.

Witness Lee, Life-Study of First Corinthians

So, Lee's word is technically not that ALL the worst heresies came in through the sisters. Still, the implication is obviously that the sisters are just too unreliable.

Here's another interesting quote:

Quote:
We who are used to the church life are truly under God’s blessing, not only spiritually and mentally, but even physically. All of the church people are so healthy because they are under God’s blessing through the church life. Many of the church people can testify that before they came into the church life they were weak and sickly. Many were sick mentally, but after being in the church life they became sober and healthy. This is the blessing. This blessing comes as a result of offering Christ to God through the cross. Sisters, if you want to be healthy, you need to experience Christ and to offer Him to God through the cross. If you live this way for awhile, you will see how strong you will be and how mentally sober you will become. Every young sister who lives this way will be healthy both mentally and emotionally. Most young women are sick either emotionally or mentally. No psychiatrist can help them. However, if you live the church life, the very Christ whom you offer to God will heal you. He is better than any psychiatrist. Do not go to a psychiatrist - come to Christ and offer Him to God. Then you will be healthy, sober, and emotionally balanced. Since the church life is the proper life, it brings in God’s blessing. Peace, joy, love, sympathy, kindness, normal living - all are signs of such a blessing of life which comes by the experience of Christ
through the cross.

Witness Lee, Life-Study of Genesis

Just one more for now.

Quote:
WIVES TO BE SUBJECT TO THEIR HUSBANDS
Let us now go on to consider 3:1-7 verse by verse. Verse 1 says, "In like manner, wives, subject yourselves to your own husbands, that even if any disobey the word, they will be gained without a word through the manner of life of their wives." The phrase "in like manner" refers to the subjection of the household servants to their masters, as described in 2:18. Therefore, as a household servant submits himself to his master, so the wives should subject
themselves to their own husbands. This kind of word is certainly contrary to the emphasis of the so-called women's liberation movement. That movement is against the Bible, for it is against God's ordination in His creation with
respect to male and female. Using Peter's expression (3:7), God created the females weaker vessels. What country would use women as the main fighting force in the army? Females are weaker physically and psychologically. For
this reason, it is easy for women to shed tears, which are often a sign of weakness. Furthermore, it is easy for a female to be troubled in her mind or emotion. All these are signs that the female is a weaker vessel.

Witness Lee, Life-Study of First Peter

Opposition to the "women's liberation movement" (When was the training for 1st Peter held?) is pretty clearly a reflection of a cultural normative belief, although Lee rather boldly uses the Bible to prop up his opinions here. The relationships between husbands and wives and even the restrictions placed upon the sisters within the assembly are at least within the domain of legitimate teaching on the topic.

To read verses like Genesis 3:16 and 1 Peter 3:1 as Biblical injunctions against feminism in general borders on preposterous. These verses clearly relate back to the relationship between husbands and wives, especially the believers. How do they at all implicate a woman's right to seek, for instance, domestic violence, maternity leave, voting rights or equal pay? I think the answer is fairly simply that they do not and Lee was incorrect in such opinions.

I suppose the kindest thing to say is that Lee just didn't really understand women's lib, probably due to his own cultural background. But that's all the more reason he shouldn't have even said anything about it.

I'm certainly not about to hold forth on rocket science or brain surgery since those are topics I know nothing about.

Not that I'm saying that understanding what women want is that difficult
07-24-2008 10:47 PM
finallyprettyokay
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
FPO, back in the 60's when people started meeting what is now known as the Local Churches, not all of them were newly regenerated Christians. I'm sure many came out of Baptist, Southern Baptist, Mennonite, Jehovah Witness, Brethren, Presbyterian, among other possible backgrounds.
In many cases whatever their backgrounds were, attitudes and behaviors from these backgrounds came with them.

Terry
Terry:

That's true, and probably continues to be true. Let's see if anyone can find the place where WL actually writes about how all deception came from Eve, and even to this day women can be so easily deceived, etc, etc on and on. Terry, he did. He preached that women are less than men. And I do know that this is not exclusive to the lc, but like all things, they took it further than many people.

And how single sisters were treated is a whole other story. Without a man, a sister was really really lesser. But it's late, and that really is a whole other story.

I'm going to watch a little Letterman, just a few minutes, read a tiny bit and then it is snooze-ville for me. uttingtosleep:uttingtosleep:uttingtosleep:


FPO
07-24-2008 10:29 PM
Terry
Quote:
Originally Posted by finallyprettyokay View Post

And all sorts of churches have these ideas, the LC is not alone in this.

FPO
FPO, back in the 60's when people started meeting what is now known as the Local Churches, not all of them were newly regenerated Christians. I'm sure many came out of Baptist, Southern Baptist, Mennonite, Jehovah Witness, Brethren, Presbyterian, among other possible backgrounds.
In many cases whatever their backgrounds were, attitudes and behaviors from these backgrounds came with them.

Terry
07-24-2008 09:05 PM
finallyprettyokay
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
Brothers who may have contempt for sisters or have little thought for sister's meaningful contributions, I wouldn't call it a Local Church practice. Rather could a brother's upbringing forge their attitudes and behaviors towards sisters?

Terry

Terry:

Without a doubt, men can have all sorts of reasons why they have wrong and hurtful attitudes about women. And all sorts of churches have these ideas, the LC is not alone in this. Remember, Jimmy Carter was a Baptist for, oh I don't know --- forever --- and he dropped his official membership because of their stances concerning women.

It IS a local church practice, because it is insitutionalized. They preach it from the pulpit. That is not to say that every brother there has those beliefs, but it is to say it is accepted and actually taught there.

Shame on them.

FPO
07-24-2008 08:53 PM
Terry
Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post

3. Someone needs to tell Ron Kangas he is a borderline misogynist, if not a full-blown one. He really puts down the sisters. The contempt dripping from his voice is obvious to me, and quite offensive, and I am a brother! I can't imagine what it would be like as a female to sit there and take it as he endeavors to put them in their "proper" place. It is really odious. I bet it stinks all the way to high heaven.
Brothers who may have contempt for sisters or have little thought for sister's meaningful contributions, I wouldn't call it a Local Church practice. Rather could a brother's upbringing forge their attitudes and behaviors towards sisters?

Terry
07-24-2008 08:43 PM
finallyprettyokay
For Terry

A line from Fanny Crosby's Blessed Assurance:

Visions of rapture now burst on my sight.



Here's the deal ..... she was blind. All the rapturous visions, with her spiritual eyes. Beautiful, huh?





FPO
07-24-2008 08:36 PM
Terry Just to put in my twosense. Anybody heard of Fanny Crosby? She was a sister who lived in the 19th century and into the 20th century (1820-1915). Over 8000 hymns are attributed to her. One of her most sung hymns is Blessed Assurance. #308 in the Hymnal.

Terry
07-24-2008 08:00 PM
aron Some nearly random thoughts along the line this discussion has been taking:

1. On cultural context --In addition to verses on women, Paul also said in Ephesians 6, "Slaves, obey your masters, etc". Today, we don't think much about that apostolic injunction; we ignore it because it is no longer culturally relevant. In the pre-Civil War days of America, perhaps it might have been bandied about in conversations, or even from the pulpit, but the collective enterprise known as 'society' has moved on and so has the 'church'. Why not the same with women, not withstanding the obvious physical differences, and so forth? Why insist on rigidly holding the 'old standard', even when the society of which we are a part has so obviously moved on? Why not give women the same rights of equality we do to the blacks and the native americans and the jews? Very strange to me. It has never computed, the lack of logic of that one.

2. Paul also says in Galatians chapter 3, "There is no Jew nor Greek, no slave nor free, no male nor female". In the eternal realm, the spiritual realm, there is no distinction, no 'rule' and 'obey'. So in the slavery days a christian slave needed to heed the temporal outward situation, knowing that in God he was free forever. But those slavery days are over. Likewise, in the gender inequality times a believing female needed to heed the social constraints, even though in God she was completely free and equal to every one else. Outwardly, she had to accept a context in which there were few choices beyond staying home and tending the children. Those outward days of inequality are over. Why try to keep them in the church?

3. Someone needs to tell Ron Kangas he is a borderline misogynist, if not a full-blown one. He really puts down the sisters. The contempt dripping from his voice is obvious to me, and quite offensive, and I am a brother! I can't imagine what it would be like as a female to sit there and take it as he endeavors to put them in their "proper" place. It is really odious. I bet it stinks all the way to high heaven.
07-24-2008 07:09 PM
Nell
New thread?

Quote:
Originally Posted by YP0534 View Post
If you moved this one to Mary and Martha's house, I think I would have to ask for permission to visit there for this discussion. I do not think we should ignore this important issue.

But I would like to see this in another thread since, once again again, I'm not sure the Midwestern brothers have really been focused on this particular topic.

Although, I could be mistaken.

I'm not up on all the news from the Midwest.
YP--

I know! You could open a thread. Call it "The house of Mary, Martha and Lazrus". Of course, you could call it "Mary, Martha and Lazrus' house, but Lazrus' (possessive) is so clumsy to pronounce.

I see appx. 89 brothers coming this way from the midwest with water balloon launchers in both hands and they don't look like this:

The house of Mary, Martha and Lazrus. Has a nice ring doesn't it? Admin can move the posts as soon as you're ready. After TJ's last post, we've gone to a whole 'nuther level. She's really now.

Nell
07-24-2008 05:39 PM
Thankful Jane
Quote:
Originally Posted by YP0534 View Post
One, I heard the repetitions of the express words of Paul, which present issues of their own. A brother I know and I have discussed this recently and he's of the opinion that some of this kind of talk may actually be later superimposition on the text by clerics. I haven't investigated that but it does seem plausible. In any event, to make too much of what Paul presumably taught doesn't even make sense in the context of the rest of the New Testament. If there is anything to it beyond Paul's own culture, it surely isn't much.
I have been studying a book by a sister who was born in the mid 1800’s who studied in depth what you have touched on here in your post. I have found studying this to be fascinating. If you're interested in this topic, you might be interested in this book. There is an online version of it available: God's Word to Women by Katharine Bushnell. Here is her impressive bio and a little about how the book came into being:

Katharine C. Bushnell (1856-1946) was a courageous and gifted servant of God who modeled her life’s motto “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” (Phil 4:13). She was a physician, missionary, crusader, reformer, author and speaker as well as a brilliant and original scholar who spoke seven languages and was grounded in Greek and Hebrew. Bushnell left medicine to do what she considered the more important work of reforming conditions of human degradation through leadership in the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) of the 19th century women’s movement. The scriptural status of women was of intense concern to Bushnell who came to believe that mistranslations were responsible for the social and spiritual subjugation of women. She left the WCTU in 1896 to spend her remaining years writing and sharing the biblical truth of God’s original and unchanging intent of full equality for women.

God's Word to Women by Katharine Bushnell is a groundbreaking study that carefully examines every scripture relating to women. Jessie Penn Lewis said that the material opened up the Scriptures in a way that can only be described as containing a revelation direct from God. For many today, it is the book that set them free to be what God has called them to be and to do the work that the Holy Spirit has placed in their hearts.

While in China as a medical missionary, Bushnell discovered that the Chinese Bible was mistranslated to support cultural prejudice against the ministry of women. She wondered whether the same male bias might prejudice English translations as well and renewed her study of Hebrew and Greek. Later, while traveling throughout the world for the WCTU, she made good use of hours spent on trains, boats and in rooms where she was staying to carefully compare biblical translations with the Word as found in the original languages.

Through experience and study, the Lord was preparing Bushnell to write God's Word to Women. Begun in 1908 as a correspondence course, it was first published privately by Bushnell. Despite positive early reaction, the book soon disappeared; and Bushnell died believing that her life had made little impact. God knew better! The book was rediscovered and continues to be republished by those who see its priceless value. Today it is finally receiving well-deserved recognition as a foundational reference for those working on the cutting edge of biblical equality for women.

I think WL might have considered her to be a clever sister.

Thankful Jane
07-24-2008 04:19 PM
YP0534
Quote:
Originally Posted by finallyprettyokay View Post
And, I would hate to see this discussion moved to the Women's Only thread.

When this sort of bigotry exsists, everyone needs to hear it.
If you moved this one to Mary and Martha's house, I think I would have to ask for permission to visit there for this discussion. I do not think we should ignore this important issue.

But I would like to see this in another thread since, once again again, I'm not sure the Midwestern brothers have really been focused on this particular topic.

Although, I could be mistaken.

I'm not up on all the news from the Midwest.
07-24-2008 04:07 PM
YP0534
Quote:
Originally Posted by finallyprettyokay View Post
You know, I absolutely remember this "teaching" clearly. I remember reading it, and talking about it.

Jane: WL said that all the major heresies in church history were introduced by women. You might not hear that the same way a woman would. I was told that sisters cannot get revelation from the Bible. Why? ... because they can be easily deceived, like Eve was.

I can not remember where I read it, but I clearly remember it. Jane, do you know where it was?

And then, of course, I heard so many times "this is so simple, even the sisters will understand". If only I had a dollar for each time ---

Simple-minded and all heresies and deception came from woman. Nice.

Huh.


I knew of two things and they didn't quite sit well but I didn't have a huge issue with them.

One, I heard the repetitions of the express words of Paul, which present issues of their own. A brother I know and I have discussed this recently and he's of the opinion that some of this kind of talk may actually be later superimposition on the text by clerics. I haven't investigated that but it does seem plausible. In any event, to make too much of what Paul presumably taught doesn't even make sense in the context of the rest of the New Testament. If there is anything to it beyond Paul's own culture, it surely isn't much.

The other thing I heard that I have been guilty of repeating is that the sisters are in the lead when there is a degraded situation. And I think I made reference to it elsewhere at some point that the thing I noticed was that however much of a position the brothers in the Local Churches held and exercised, I always touched something of more practical enjoyment and expression of Christ in the prayers and singing of the sisters in the meetings. In other words, to my perception, the so-called spiritual brothers were kind of playing at being little kings while the truly spiritual sisters exercised yet more patience and let them play.

Of course, this is just my perception. The burdens and sufferings of the sisters clearly aren't worthy to be compared with the responsibility of wielding the power of a deputy authority.

Yes.

There is something upside down about that, isn't there?


(P.S. full disclosure - knowing what makes a good husband doesn't necessarily make you a good husband, unfortunately)
07-24-2008 04:04 PM
Thankful Jane
Quote:
Originally Posted by finallyprettyokay View Post
I can not remember where I read it, but I clearly remember it. Jane, do you know where it was?
No, I don't. Maybe someone can find it since we now know it’s out there...
Quote:
Originally Posted by finallyprettyokay View Post
And then, of course, I heard so many times "this is so simple, even the sisters will understand". If only I had a dollar for each time ---Simple-minded and all heresies and deception came from woman. Nice.
I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard him use the phrase “clever sisters" in a derogatory way. He said they were always troublemakers. I always wondered what he meant by “clever.” Since he put it in such a bad light, I always thought he meant "cunning" or something like that, but my dictionary says it means “showing intelligence.” Hmmm ....

Thankful Jane
07-24-2008 03:34 PM
finallyprettyokay And, I would hate to see this discussion moved to the Women's Only thread.

When this sort of bigotry exists, everyone needs to hear it. OBW, I really do understand your point. I do not enjoy entering into sort of theological discussions at all --- they usually seem so circular to me. But if you know that this is what women were taught at that place, it becomes relevant.

Control on any level was what WL was all about. All holds barred for the sake of control.
07-24-2008 03:31 PM
Thankful Jane
Quote:
Originally Posted by YP0534 View Post
Thankful?
Quote:
Originally Posted by YP0534 View Post

Are you kidding me?

I mean, I could believe it, I guess, because of the cultural context, but, it just seems so extreme!

Can you tell me where I could find this opinion in print? I've still got a bunch of old books on my shelf but I don't want this sort of thing in my house for sure! That's just ridiculous.

Honestly, the lack of knowledge of Christian history revealed in such a statement is astonishing. Women weren't even permitted speak on such topics for most of the last 2000 + years!

How can they be "silent in the church" and simultaneously the leaders of the heresies???
I wish I was kidding you.... “Extreme” is a word that WL wears well. I cannot tell you where this is in print. It may be one of the things that got edited out. Maybe someone else knows.

One thing for sure, the women who heard it, didn’t forget it. Since this statement is clearly not a product of logic, as you so eloquently stated, then it’s pretty clear that it’s a product of the enmity between Satan and the woman.

That you don’t want to have such a statement in your house warms my heart!!! You’re an okay dude, YP0534!

Thankful Jane
07-24-2008 03:29 PM
finallyprettyokay
Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by YP0534 View Post
Thankful?

Are you kidding me?

I mean, I could believe it, I guess, because of the cultural context, but, it just seems so extreme!

Can you tell me where I could find this opinion in print? I've still got a bunch of old books on my shelf but I don't want this sort of thing in my house for sure! That's just ridiculous.

Honestly, the lack of knowledge of Christian history revealed in such a statement is astonishing. Women weren't even permitted speak on such topics for most of the last 2000 + years!

How can they be "silent in the church" and simultaneously the leaders of the heresies??? :rollingeyes2:

You know, I absolutely remember this "teaching" clearly. I remember reading it, and talking about it.

Jane: WL said that all the major heresies in church history were introduced by women. You might not hear that the same way a woman would. I was told that sisters cannot get revelation from the Bible. Why? ... because they can be easily deceived, like Eve was.

I can not remember where I read it, but I clearly remember it. Jane, do you know where it was?

And then, of course, I heard so many times "this is so simple, even the sisters will understand". If only I had a dollar for each time ---

Simple-minded and all heresies and deception came from woman. Nice.
07-24-2008 03:17 PM
YP0534
Witness Lee's teaching on women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thankful Jane View Post
WL said that all the major heresies in church history were introduced by women. You might not hear that the same way a woman would. I was told that sisters cannot get revelation from the Bible. Why? ... because they can be easily deceived, like Eve was. You can't know what it's like to not be able to open your Bible for years and read it without fear that you might be being deceived if you happen to think you see anything in what you read, and that because of a pronouncement that was laid on you by some of Adam's descendants.
Thankful?

Are you kidding me?

I mean, I could believe it, I guess, because of the cultural context, but, it just seems so extreme!

Can you tell me where I could find this opinion in print? I've still got a bunch of old books on my shelf but I don't want this sort of thing in my house for sure! That's just ridiculous.

Honestly, the lack of knowledge of Christian history revealed in such a statement is astonishing. Women weren't even permitted speak on such topics for most of the last 2000 + years!

How can they be "silent in the church" and simultaneously the leaders of the heresies??? :rollingeyes2:

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:10 AM.


3.8.9