Originally Posted by Gubei

Aron,

I have been classifing the Biblical teachings into two categories - first, cluture-agnostic teachings that we should follow regardless of specific time/space context, and second, cluture-influenced teachings like "greeting with a holy kiss" or "playing piano or not during church service" etc.
In the past, I regareded "one locality-one church doctrine" as being a culture-agnostic teaching, but thesedays, I think this is a kind of cluture-influenced theaching, becuase unlike ancient times when a "city" was well defined by physical stone wall and churches were in the embryonic stage with so small number of believers meaning naturally there is only one church in one city, moderen times have seen a lot of churches mushrooming with so many Christians.

Originally Posted by TLFisher

There used to be one on YouTube, but of course when LSM can claim copyright infringement they will. It is not a matter of someone trying to make money off a Witness Lee video, but about using it to make a point.
Attached is an article from concernedbrothers.com

Originally Posted by WitnessALot

Gubei, is there a recording of this speaking that you know of, or did you hear it live?

Originally Posted by WitnessALot

Gubei, is there a recording of this speaking that you know of, or did you hear it live?

Originally Posted by Gubei

I remember Witness Lee lamanted his wrong doings towards other christians in a meeting not long before his passing away. He spoke in Chinese, and when I listened to his speaking, I felt his confessions were quite genuine. But later, after his passing away, his successors claimed that WL's confessions was not apology something like that. Which means that was the watershed event that shaped what had come to us afterwards.
In a sense, WL was not so lucky because his last confessions were interpreted in a way of kind of "distortion" by his successors, but... that was also a harvest of what he planted in the past. I'm so sorry about that.

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

Hi, Ohio,

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/...thread&order=0

Do you know Herald Hsu or the story he told?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes, the Blendeds claimed that during his public repentance, WL was not remorseful for his own misbehavior, but was repenting for ours.

Originally Posted by Gubei

I remember Witness Lee lamanted his wrong doings towards other christians in a meeting not long before his passing away. He spoke in Chinese, and when I listened to his speaking, I felt his confessions were quite genuine. But later, after his passing away, his successors claimed that WL's confessions was not apology something like that. Which means that was the watershed event that shaped what had come to us afterwards.
In a sense, WL was not so lucky because his last confessions were interpreted in a way of kind of "distortion" by his successors, but... that was also a harvest of what he planted in the past. I'm so sorry about that.

Originally Posted by TLFisher

Walter Martin was one who comes to mind, but that was not long lasting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=830hmhL-w6A

Originally Posted by Gubei

There was a chance to correct this sad situation when WL passed away, but his successors took the path of "putting him on the highest place" (semi-deification?) and his teachings have become untouchable among them.

Originally Posted by Gubei

There was a chance to correct this sad situation when WL passed away, but his successors took the path of "putting him on the highest place" (semi-deification?) and his teachings have become untouchable among them.

Originally Posted by Gubei

To my best knowledge, WL has not involved in any formal discussions with other theologians. Partly, that was due to his lack of English fluency. Ironically, he stressed the importance of taking off any glasses which keep us from seeing straight from the divine revelation, but he himself has not been officially tested by others, especially Western scholars. He might have believed he himself is totally apart from any errors. When we review his attitude towards his co-workers when they present dissenting opinions(aka, "rebellion"), I would say his "inner composition of an Asian man" has popped up. Unlike western people who are accustomed to dissenting opinions and reasonable compromise by discussions, WL seem not to have had those kind of experience.

Originally Posted by WitnessALot

Hi Gubei, thanks for clarifying the difference between Buddhism and Confucianism. I think it's fair to say that Witness Lee drew on a lot of different sources -- so many that he himself may have lost track of it -- but also added many of his nuances. The result is the "Witness Lee strange brew" that we all spent years/decades marinating in. And it evolved and morphed over time based on Lee's little whims.

Originally Posted by aron

I read the replies of Ohio and TLF and do see the point. I found a book on the Exclusive Brethren in Australia, led by Hales the supposedly Elect Vessel, and read of really underhanded things going on. And clearly they are not Oriental.

Originally Posted by Gubei

WitnessAlot,

1) Buddhist flavor of WL’s teachings

WL doesn’t seem to have been exposed to the doctrines of Buddhist philosophies. I’ve read/listened to most of his works, and he sometimes talked about the Confucian teachings but not Buddhist teachings. The reason someone criticizes him of the similarity of his teaching with Buddhist is that Buddhist teachings, especially those of Mahayana Buddhism, are quite similar to some aspects of the NT teachings. Some new religions’ leaders or Theosophy leaders have claimed that Jesus was under the teachings of ancient India or Buddhism, but to my best knowledge, on the contrary, the Greek philosophies and/or Christian teachings might have been brought to Asia through the conquest activities of Alexander the Great. Currently, many people believe that the canons of Mahayana Buddhism were initiated in Bactria, a central Asia city, where Alexander the Great established his base for East conquest.

Originally Posted by Ohio

But when that Antioch model of self-governing assemblies allowed B.W. Newton et. al. in Plymouth, England to become the largest of all their assemblies, Darby needed a change of plans or soon they would not need him. That's when he returned to the old Anglican-style Jerusalem model with the "king" on top. A new king - himself. That's when he decided that all his chief rivals - B.W. Newton of Plymouth and George Muller of Bristol - needed to be eliminated. A common ploy of new kings. Unfortunately both Newton and Muller were totally blindsided by Darby, since they had no idea that they were "rivals to the throne" - what a sad story that was.

Fleshly ecclesiastic power - nothing new under the sun, as Solomon would say. And a fulfillment of Acts 20.30 as Aposle Paul had warned us.

Originally Posted by aron

The Christian faith settling onto on an Asian cultural substrate explains what's been puzzling. The Antioch model of localism being overturned by the Jerusalem model of centralism, for example, coincides both with the people's need to be free from external control by the west, and then coordinated and managed from within, concurrent with Nee's own path of being a righteous seeker defying corruption to being the authority holding it. First, he defied authority, then he embodied it, and neo-Confucianism gave him the template and operative thrust for each. I don't think he ever did this deliberately any more than a fish feels 'wet' when it swims. He just never knew anything else. The NT had to adapt to the east, not vice versa. Likewise, Guyon, Penn-Lewis, and Keswick were fodder for a local variant.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I felt that the teachings of the Chinese philosophers were more profound than the preaching of the Western missionaries. During those few years, I stayed away from Christianity and did not attend any of their meetings.

CWWL, 1985, vol. 2, "The Fullness of God," ch. 1: The Meaning of the Fullness of God—the Creation of Man Being for the Fullness of God

Originally Posted by aron

This reminds me of what I noticed in the LC in the U. S. - the Caucasians would abandon their non-believing family - "The church is my family now" - whilst the Chinese 'saints' would keep unbelieving family members close by. Also your point about Asians not kissing one another is an example of why I started this thread. Culture determines how we interpret the Bible, and arrange our collective expressions. "Greet one another with a holy kiss" would be ignored in Asia, but would be literally enacted elsewhere.

Originally Posted by aron

Thinking about how many experienced the "early Lee" in the U. S. A., I read a story on Watchman Nee and the influence of neo-Confucianism, noting a similar "early Nee - later Nee" phenomenon. Here is a quote below from the article.

You saw this dichotomy, of the initially humble bondslave, so gentle, but once in power you saw the autocratic despot. Witness Lee told us that China was "virgin soil" for the Holy Spirit to move, but he was incorrect. It was fallen and corrupted human soil, like any other. Same polluted soil, just a different flavor.

Originally Posted by aron

Following post #592, more from the same source:



Tien, H. E. (2020). Spirituality and Authority of the Corporate Christ: An analysis and critique of Watchman Nee’s ecclesiology (Doctoral dissertation).

It probably cannot be overstressed that Nee was converted to Christianity and began immediately to write and publish, unconsciously drawing on previous exposures and experiences to make sense of Christianity and to diffuse it outward. He literally made it up as he went along. Is it any wonder, then, that he seized upon Paul's "Spiritual Man" as his initial manifesto, overlapping so closely with the Confucian ideal?

Originally Posted by Hope

Benson and I had a lunch with Brother Lee and an older bachelor man from Waco. He had been visiting some of our meetings and came to hear Brother Lee. Brother Lee showed him much respect and engaged him in fellowship. Afterwards he told Benson and I that the brother was surely a man of spiritual depth and was very complementary of him.

As I came to know brother Lee more, I did notice a difference between his public persona and the way he treated different individuals. Publicly, sometimes he got into hyperbole. He would say something extreme and some of the more extreme personality types would take off with it. Publicly he enjoyed stirring the pot and poking his thumb in the eye of official Christianity. When challenged on any level, public or private, he way over reacted, and a fight was surely on.

I have a hard time believing he was so complicated to have come up with a method of teaching and behavior in order to create a system for enriching himself or enshrining himself as an uncontested, anointed, God-man, who was God’s man of faith and power for this hour. But it did happen! How he, the local churches, the so called “recovery” got from that simple meal in a one room efficiency with three young people to La Palma headquarters is quite a story.

Originally Posted by Gubei

Ancestor worship and seniority rule in the Church

Ancestor worship is the hallmark of Confucianism. We know respecting our parents are one of commandment of the OT’s Ten Commandments. However, I guess Confucian teachings went too far in this matter. Not only parents, so many ancestors should be respected by way of strict Confucian rituals by descendants. This means they put too much emphasis on the big family collectively rather than individuals. In Confucianism, this filial obligation is extended to King-servant relationship, where servant should be perfectly obedient to King. That’s why ancient Chinese feudal leaders accepted Confucianism as their governing principle.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Apostle Paul made it perfectly clear in Acts 20.30 that there will always be those who lust to be first, speaking distorted things, and drawing God's children, not to His Son, but to themselves. Their perverted teachings must never be construed as God's Word.

Originally Posted by WitnessALot

Gubei, do you think there are elements of Chinese philosophy in Nee's or Lee's teachings?

Originally Posted by aron

Kierkegaard's quote shows that this individual/collective issue isn't limited to the Asian Mind, but I'd argue that in the Little Flock/LC it took a decidedly Asian cast. Watchman Nee took the Western "individualistic" aspect as his fulcrum to reject the West on its own terms. He, like Luther rejecting the Catholics, was free to reject the Lutherans (and Baptists and Methodists), and create a local assembly more to his own tastes. He's thus widely attributed to the rise of indigenous Christianity in China. But the irony is that 100 years later, his exported variants are nothing resembling indigenous or 'local' Christianity - they're Chinese-flavored assemblies! The one who threw off the imperialist yoke became the imperialist.

Originally Posted by aron

No, to me the text is clear: "I (Christ) will sing praises to You (the Father) in the midst of the 'ekklesia'". As soon as we think of "deputy" God we're already taken from safety. The collective has been taken over by the wrong individual. The 'leader' is no more Christ but a usurper.

Now, lest our readers think that I'm some radical bomb-throwing anarchist wanting to burn down 2,000 year of Christian history, I remind them of Jesus' words: love one another. The individual is freed from self by 1) taking Jesus Christ as his/her person, and 2) by loving the individual next to you. Notice that Christ never teaches, "Love God with your whole soul and strength, and love the church". No, he teaches, "love the individual person next to you." This is the balance that frees one from loving some mythical pie-in-the-sky "Christ" while despising all else.

Originally Posted by aron

Notice that Christ never teaches, "Love God with your whole soul and strength, and love the church". No, he says, "love the individual person next to you." This is the balance that frees one from loving some mythical pie-in-the-sky "Christ" while despising all else.

Originally Posted by WitnessALot

So the truth competes with the need for social acceptance (i.e., approval from the crowd). When we were following Witness Lee, hanging on his every word, it wasn't really about a search for the truth; rather, it was about social acceptance within a highly particular social context. It was about holding on to all the benefits (community, belonging, purpose, etc.) that we derived from such social acceptance.

Originally Posted by Gubei

The Body of Christ is a kind of symbol or metaphor (or illustration, type etc...) in the Bible, meaning the expression is not a statement describing Church as an physical entity.

Originally Posted by Gubei

Additionally, even though WL says the head of the Body of Christ is Christ, sometimes he also says there is such members as a Seer (Watchman Nee), deputy authority, prominent apostles..., which leads us to the conjecture that the Head, the Christ, can be seen through this "special" brothers. We know the resultant outcome.

Originally Posted by Gubei

The Body of Christ is a kind of symbol or metaphor (or illustration, type etc...) in the Bible, meaning the expression is not a statement describing Church as an physical entity. We can pay attentin to the fact that the seven gold lampstands in Rev. is a kind of symbol of churches. WL has made this point clear by saying that "The churches, sygnified by the seven golden lampstands,..." in his footnote of Rev. 1:20
But, when we comes to the matter of the Body of Christ, WL's teaching on it gives us the impression that he is describing the Body of Christ not as a symbol but as a physical entity. In the footnote of Eph 1:23, he says the Body of Christ is.... an organism. If I had been in the position of him in the matter of putting together footnotes of the bible, I would have said like this... "the Body of Christ is a symbolic expression of an organism, putting emphasis on the functioning of church members for the expression of Chris...", but interestingly, WL seems to stick to the direct statements by just using the copula "is".
Additionally, even though WL says the head of the Body of Christ is Christ, sometimes he also says there is such members as a Seer (Watchman Nee), deputy authority, promient apostles..., which leads us to the conjecture that the Head, the Christ, can be seen through this "special" brothers. We know the resultant outcome. "Just follow those brothers, not asking back or suspecting" etc.
To my best knowledge, this kind of sad predecament has been warned by a famous theoloian. Søren Kierkegaard. He emphasized the single individual before God. You can check his teaching here -> http://sorenkierkegaard.org/single-individual.html
I opine that "Being collective" has been over-praised among the LCs, and part of it was due to Asian mind of WL and other Asian brothers, I do not know how much they contribute to this result, though.

Originally Posted by Gubei

To my best knowledge, Professor Hofstede’s extensive research is quite famous. For example, China is low in score, vs. US in terms of individualism. (China 20 vs US 91). Most of top MBAs are teaching this to their students for mulinational biz operation. check here -> https://www.hofstede-insights.com/co...Cunited+states


I don’t know how much this result influenced WL’s putting together his teaching on “being identical” of the LCs, but I can say that some portion was operative.

FYI, I’m a native born Korean who speak Korean, English, Chinese, and Japanese with a lot of experience of living or traveling Asia, plus extensive study of ancient and middle-age Chinese philosopies.

Originally Posted by aron

My point is that perhaps WL wasn't necessarily a snake oil salesman, as much as he was trying to fulfill his "church" mandate. The Living Stream Ministry, the full-time training, all of that came out of the requirements for the collective. WL's cultural predisposition wasn't the individual looking for the Spirit to guide him home. Instead his primary "vision" was the collective, and so he worked for the collective, and was willing to lie, to cover-up, to manipulate people, and to lift himself above the flock. Because he felt that was what the collective needed to go forward. All this was required for "good order in the church." So that was where the Deputy God teaching came from, and the idea of unquestioning obedience to the one in front of you.

Originally Posted by zeek

When making generalizations about the "Asian mind' how do we avoid ethnic stereotypes rather than realistic and authentic depictions of actual cultures, customs and behaviors?

Originally Posted by aron

I think you've got my argument in a nutshell. The RecV footnote saying that "every local church must be absolutely identical with no distinctions whatever" would have been as offensive to the Spirit of grace if coming from a British or German, as it was when coming from a Chinese. It's a culturally-mediated attempt at imposition, where none should exist.

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

I've always viewed cultural distinctions as good in moderation. So long as they do not contradict the gospel and the truths in scriptures, let them live as they are. The Greeks and Jews were entirely different, yet Paul urged them to be one in Christ. This was not done by abandoning their culture, but by finding the common ground to fellowship together which was Christ.

Originally Posted by aron

CuriousFellow, thanks for the willingness to consider such topics. Many of us are "hard wired" in Ohio's term to accept what we're told is true, and to reflexively recoil from anything not according to the wiring. Witness Lee's trick was to re-wire us, where everything he gave us was "new" and we "simply" or "just" did what we were taught. "It's so simple, and easy, our worries flee away" - remember that? (from the Grey Song Book, a principal indoctrination tool.https://www.hymnal.net/en/hymn/ns/98)

The NT gospels show Jesus the Nazarene as the promised Messiah, aka Son of David/Son of Man, whose claim is proved by personal righteousness and obedience to the Father as manifested by good works and miraculous signs, and by fulfilled scriptural prophecy, especially the suffering atonement, and subsequent resurrection and glory. Now, in ascension, he's to rule both Israel and the nations. Then, the Acts and Epistles detail where and how the nations fit into this: the glorified Messiah is to be King of Kings, and all nations will walk in his light.

...

The irony of what's happened in the local church/Lord's recovery/little flock movements of Nee and Lee, is that as the gospel of Jesus Christ reached China, it did so hand-in-glove with western imperialism. So the Boxer Rebellion and the indigenous Christian work of Watchman Nee were reactions to that imposition of foreign values. But the 20th century local churches affiliated with Witness Lee were subject to a form of imposition of Asian values. I cannot overstress that Chinese cultural values aren't inferior to any other, but rather my point is that they shouldn't be imposed on non-Asians. That is also cultural imperialism, and is a perversion of the gospel, just as surely as a Roman Catholic cathedral rising in Peking in the 17th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathed...ption,_Beijing

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

This is interesting food for thought to me.

Originally Posted by Nell

This prison is also a doctrine of demons. There can be no other source of such a sinister practice.

Nell

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is called, “The Prison of Two Ideas.”

Two extremes are presented continually, as if no other option can possible exist. Both extremes are unhealthy and unscriptural. They’re “Lee only Lee” and “life without God or a Church life.”

It basically hard-wires your brain cells. It keeps you enslaved in their Prison. The victims know of no other alternatives. Thus, the real tragedy occurs far too often - those who leave, leave also their faith, their connections with anything Christian.

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Conversely, many not only believe you should leave if you aren't there for Lee's ministry but also that there is no other ministry. There's nothing else out there.

[I](Timestamp ~ 1:36:46) If it’s attacking the Ministry, I wanna read the Ministry even more! *amen* Because wha-what else, wh-what’s being offered to me as an alternative? What else am I gonna do? Where el- where else am I gonna go? What’s my direction? If you take away the church life, if you take away, you know, being in the process of being formed as, as the army and building up the wall, what am I gonna do with my life? There’s no purpose in my life. I have found the purpose in my life *amen* And I’m not going to be deterred from this purpose because someone got offended.[/I]

This is interesting food for thought to me.

Originally Posted by TLFisher

"If you're not here for brother Lee and his ministry, you might as well not be here."
True quote, but paraphrased.

Originally Posted by aron

The only "truth" that mattered was,

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

No one can topple the Lord's Anointed.

Originally Posted by aron

The topic deserves discussion, critical reflection, not reflexive indoctrination. If you are going to give your life to follow something, it deserves critical examination. Jesus withstood death; don't we think our ideas can withstand the light of critical reflection? If they endure, so much the better. But if we're afraid of examination, what does that suggest about our ideas?

Originally Posted by Nell

Aron,

What do you mean? I understand this is not the main point of your post but it's important.

I have never heard such a thing...withstanding death. Maybe that's not what you meant. Jesus didn't "withstand death". He died. In every sense of the word, Jesus died. He was buried. Then He rose again.

Nell

Originally Posted by aron

...
Jesus withstood death;

Originally Posted by aron

Our old system was quite free, but unfortunately it was too free, and we gave freedom to someone who didn't want us to be free, and then we became subjects in a vassal state.

Originally Posted by OBW

It makes you wonder how the LC got a foothold in a culture steeped in "rugged individualism" and pulling oneself up "by the bootstraps." Somehow a bunch of people stepped out of the mundane of regular Christianity to become subservient to a non-western system.

Originally Posted by aron

Let me put it another way: each of these groups claims to be the "One True Church" and fulfillment of Jesus' plan, through their anointed leader. Yet by that definition alone, two of them are frauds, heretical personality cults. Yet all these three groups have done well with their native constituencies - Chinese, Filipino, and Korean - nonetheless, by promoting absolute devotion and unquestioning obedience. Is there something about the culture itself that's resistant to critical self-examination? Is there some culturally-sourced innate desire for collective social cohesion that over-rides even the intrusion of objective reality itself? I remember the LC mantra - "don't think - it only produces confusion." To Western minds this looks alarming, but to the Asian mind this is the True Path of Light?

Originally Posted by Ohio

This thread has offered numerous helpful insights into LC culture and thinking.

The following was posted on the Casteel' FB site which caught my attention:
Following the leadership of both Lee in Anaheim and Chu in Cleveland was a never-ending series of "flows" or abrupt changes in direction, always mandated by headquarters. These were always unsettling to the church, and seemed to produce unending "wheel-spinning" with little progress.

It is unsettling, to say the least, to learn that this too was a communist practice.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

There is a management approach of sorts that is like that too. For instance, a new manager comes in and maybe doesn't know exactly what to do, but wants or is expected to do something big. So the manager just starts changing all kinds of things almost randomly. Nobody can figure out exactly what is going on in all the confusion so they have to look to the leader, because they are apparently the only one that knows what to do. Usually before anybody can figure out it was just a bunch of senseless "make work," the manager moves on or gets promoted, because they (again, apparently) got so much done! Of course, what really gets left in their wake is essentially chaos that the next leader has to deal with . . .

Originally Posted by Ohio

This thread has offered numerous helpful insights into LC culture and thinking.

The following was posted on the Casteel' FB site which caught my attention:
Following the leadership of both Lee in Anaheim and Chu in Cleveland was a never-ending series of "flows" or abrupt changes in direction, always mandated by headquarters. These were always unsettling to the church, and seemed to produce unending "wheel-spinning" with little progress.

It is unsettling, to say the least, to learn that this too was a communist practice.

Originally Posted by Weighingin

I just was curious about their affiliation. There's more I could comment on about the ground, but that should be in another thread.

Regarding this thread, I have seen comments that the LCs are increasingly Asian, in the USA and even outside. This is due to the LC practices appealing to their culture. I've observed both by my presence and by others' postings, especially of campus clubs on FB, that there are places that are predominantly Asian. This seems to be true in CA especially, with the YP and campus clubs. I have seen this too with other campus clubs in some cities or towns outside CA, those that have a school with high attendance. But while there is a good number of foreign Chinese or Asian students, a substantial number are ABCs, most of which are "church kids."

Originally Posted by aron

I daresay there are also some LSM-affiliated believers in Sydney. But the very point of a local church has vanished, its ground. Its existence and identity are now tied to foreign affiliation, and foreign control. Isn't this what Watchman Nee decried 90 years ago? How can anyone be so blind as to not see this?

They go to the uni and tell students, "Oh, we're just Christians who love the Lord Jesus", and in the next breath they want to know who you're with - Cleveland Ohio or Anaheim California? What complete nonsense. The only ones who will swallow this are a few homesick Chinese. They may be foreign-controlled, but at least it's familiar culture.

But local ground? Please. Why continue the pretense? Isn't our confession and faith about "reality, reality, reality"?

Originally Posted by Weighingin

Is there a local church there affiliated with LSM or has the "ground" been lost?

Originally Posted by aron

The LCs are trying to grapple with a true demographic shift over the past 35 years, as their constituents keep growing less reflective of the "local" populations they've supposedly been representing.

Originally Posted by Trapped

On the "no individual distinctiveness" thing that Lee's footnotes say.....just wanted to mention that I came across a paragraph in Lee's "A Timely Word" that states (underlining mine):

"It is altogether wise and profitable that we do not expect all the churches to be the same. This is impossible. Even twelve brothers within a local church cannot be the same in everything. If a local church has a burden to visit people in their homes for the preaching of the gospel, they should carry out this commission. They do not need to say that others do not preach the gospel in this way. If others do not feel to preach the gospel by visiting people in their homes, that is not your business. Do not talk about who is for this or who is for that. We should not talk in this way. We should not label ourselves or label others. If we want to practice a certain thing, we can do it. If others do not want to practice it, they have the liberty not to practice it. We should not question who is for a certain thing and who is not for a certain thing. This does not help you or anyone else. We all must endeavor to keep the oneness of the Spirit so that the Body of Christ can build up itself in love (Eph. 4:3, 16)."

So even Lee's own statements contradict his own statements!

Originally Posted by Ohio

Firstly, Lee's teaching that all the differences were "of a negative nature" is frankly wrong. The Son of Man commended each church positively and individually, knowing their positives quite well. Why would W. Lee downplay this fact? Every Pastor/Shepherd in the world knows the positive characteristics of his church, just ask him. W. Lee, however, could not acknowledge that each church had its own good works, pleasing to God. This corresponded with Lee's unending fellowship that only LSM could do anything good. "So, send your best people to the training."

Secondly, why would Lee continually stress that each LC must "not have any individual distinctiveness?" Since God has placed gifts in the body as it pleases Him, and each member has been gifted by the Lord uniquely, it only stand to reason that each church would have different strengths (and weaknesses too.) Why is this so threatening to W. Lee that he would create a teaching about member churches that is completely different from the rest of the body of Christ? What was his motive here? What were the results, or the fruit, of such teaching? How did W. Lee and LSM act to remove "any individual distinctiveness" between churches. These are fair questions to ask. We also have the advantage of decades of history to examine.

One notable action which Lee and LSM has taken is to remove and neutralize the gifted members of the body from ministering according to the anointing Spirit. The list of gifted and fruitful ministers around the globe, who once labored to establish churches, and have been expelled by Lee/LSM is just incredible. This forum is filled with their accounts. They were used by Lee, then were discarded. None of them ever parted peacefully. They were always nasty "divorces." Why would Lee/LSM do this? What was there motive? Just to remove "any individual distinctiveness" from the churches?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great story!

You would be amazed to know how many saints have done the same thing!

One such book was Joyce Meyer's book, Battlefield of the Mind.

Originally Posted by Drake

Bro awareness,

Thanks for your questions.

Of course, you know me. I've provided my testimony, explained my experience both domestically and internationally. Talked about my over 4 decades in the Lord's recovery and my experiences before in Christianity and after taking this way... explained my beliefs and rendered my point of view on a variety of topics. I've talked about my experiences with various local churches and brothers, including leading ones some that stayed and some that left.. those that I knew, or met, conversed with.. etc. Hiding? You might mean that I don't let people know who I am or disclose enough information to figure that out. I explained that recently too.... nut cases.. in a forum very much like this one... Christians harassing me and my family.... stalking and threatening in an ugly attempt to shut me up. Ain't gonna happen twice.
If that doesn't satisfy your curiosity bro awareness then I got nuttin fer ya.

Originally Posted by Trapped

I have no dog in this particular fight, but this is about the only thing I can find online mentioning the points 6.a-d that also has any slight additional details around it (starts about 8-9 paragraphs down):

Originally Posted by Drake

I have no idea whether those things were said or not.

Originally Posted by awareness

And bro Drake, we have no idea about you, or why you are here, or why you say what you say, or why you deny that these things happened or that they were said. Cuz maybe for good reasons ... maybe not ... we don't know ... you actually admit that you are hiding........

....So maybe you could at least come out and tell us why you are so concerned about the integrity of the content on this forum.

Originally Posted by awareness

And bro Drake, we have no idea about you, or why you are here, or why you say what you say, or why you deny that these things happened or that they were said. Cuz maybe for good reasons ... maybe not ... we don't know ... you actually admit that you are hiding.

Truth be told, I know more about the JW guy that comes to my door. He too uses the same tactics to defend his cult, as you use to defend the LSM Witness Lee personality cult ; the same tactics used by anyone devoted to a group, to cover up anything that will reflect poorly on the reputation of the group they are devoted to ; 'cept we know nothing of your devotion to the Lee group, nor your association to it.

Unlike my JW friend, you don't put all your cards on the table. So maybe you could at least come out and tell us why you are so concerned about the integrity of the content on this forum.

Originally Posted by Drake

UntoHim,

I have no idea whether those things were said or not. No idea who “LSM” refers to. Aron uses “—-“ and that in normal dialogue refers to an actual statement. No idea of where it was said or the context in which it was said. Verbal or printed? No idea. So no, I will not concede that those things were said. No, sir. Aron made an assertion, he uses quotes to lend support to it, he says LSM made the statement, .....ok, so let’s see the actual quote.

Originally Posted by Drake

I have no idea whether those things were said or not. No idea who “LSM” refers to. Aron uses “—-“ and that in normal dialogue refers to an actual statement. No idea of where it was said or the context in which it was said. Verbal or printed? No idea. So no, I will not concede that those things were said. No, sir. Aron made an assertion, he uses quotes to lend support to it, he says LSM made the statement, .....ok, so let’s see the actual quote.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

No Drake, you wouldn't know aron's argument if it came up and bit you on the nose. You don't know his argument because you are obviously not listening to a word the man is saying. I'm not asking you to agree, but your constant harping on "sources!, sources!, sources! is making it look like you're trying to distract us from the issue at hand. All the quotes and quips aron is bringing forth are all common knowledge. They've been written about in black and white and on the Internet for years now.

...and speaking of responsibility, it's mine to keep this forum readable, informative and hopefully integrous. You're making my job really, really hard my man. I mean, your arguing about whether the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. Why don't you just concede the fact that these things were said, and then you can spend your time actually addressing the issue(s) at hand. -

Originally Posted by Drake

No Aron. It’s your argument and your responsibility to provide sources you quote. Who said it and when?

Otherwise, it is just hearsay at best.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by aron

I believe it's from the flyer "reconsideration of the vision". You can google it if you want.

Of course this stuff didn't get printed in the official organs.
.

Originally Posted by Drake

Hate the break the news to you Aron. That is called “ Argumentum ad populum “

Originally Posted by aron

Point 6, a-d were exemplars of what was spoken around the New Way to push it forward. I myself heard BP tell us, "Don't pray - just go" (meaning migrate to Russia). That was the kind of talk we heard.

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

Please provide a reference for 6 a-d.

Thx
Drake

Originally Posted by Don Rutledge

"In the church life at that time, Witness Lee was very much in the background among the churches. While we sought the Lord for our daily walk, family life, and function in the Body of Christ, Ray would constantly reference Witness Lee for all matters – personal, local, and extra-local. Ray often told others that they needed to be able to 'read between the lines' of what Brother Lee was saying and 'hear what he really means' and that 'he does not tell you directly what he wants'. Ray was always bringing Witness Lee to the foreground in the church, a trend that only increased with time."

Originally Posted by aron

Note Point 6, a-d for quotes which indicate what happens when one culture begins to dominate..

Originally Posted by Trapped

Thanks. Do you know how far back the BPB went?

It's a small point why I'm asking. I was just thinking today about the seven lampstands and that if other Christian teachers, including Nee, said that one level of interpretation of the seven lampstands is that they represent the church at different points throughout history, then the LRC “the ground of oneness” cannot determine the legitimacy of a lampstand because this “ground” is supposedly a recovered truth in the very present time. If previous gatherings of believers before the Nee/Lee local churches did not meet on this recovered ground of oneness, how then could it be possible for the lampstands to represent the church at different points throughout history?

Originally Posted by aron

Originally Posted by Doug Krieger SEE HERE: http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...7373#post77373
looking back I realize that Lee's methodology was like that of one incensed with control - he had to be the MANAGER (because he "had the gray hair") of everything and dictate to all. Some day he will have to face the Almighty for the damage he did to so many young people who were hurt by his actions and his subtle manners. In sum: He was a Chinese War Lord and practiced it with amazing cunning.

Originally Posted by aron

Drake ok.

Sorry, but I'm being honest and telling you what I see. I see the words, "not having any individual distinctiveness" and that's what I see. I don't see the Bible. Paul told us, God gives gifts that differ. Some have a tongue, some an interpretation. Some are prophets some are apostles. I see distinctions, individual distinctiveness. Yet the footnote tells me no. . . I give you every opportunity to explain part two and you become indignant. But no answers.

Originally Posted by Doug Krieger

looking back I realize that Lee's methodology was like that of one incensed with control - he had to be the MANAGER (because he "had the gray hair") of everything and dictate to all. Some day he will have to face the Almighty for the damage he did to so many young people who were hurt by his actions and his subtle manners. In sum: He was a Chinese War Lord and practiced it with amazing cunning.

I gradually began to see what W.L. stood for and later on realized that his "doctrine of control" was exceedingly cruel and nefarious - he and Joe Stalin would have had much in common!

He could never give up anything to the Lord--he insisted on controlling all the churches, the workers and the elders--his model was that of the Antioch Church (so he claimed and so did Watchman Nee claim as well in Further Talks on the Church Life). In his last meeting with Doug Shearer and me he took out a copy of this text and read the following:

"I seems that Antioch was controlling them."

Then we asked Witness Lee: Was Watchman Nee referring to Antioch's "controlling them" - the antecedent of "them" - does it refer to the churches, the workers or the elders? Lee replied: ALL of them! At that point I looked at Doug Shearer and said: I think it's time for us to leave.

Lee had expressed the most totalitarian concept in Church control--more so than that of Pope Benedict's recent declarations that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church and that all others are "deficient" and/or "lesser" and even eluded to the fact that salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church is NOT an option, not viable--Lee, in essence, declared that the L.C. was virtually the only expression outside of Babylon. This arrogant, preposterous, exclusive, demeaning and pompous attitude and even belief system, is so outrageous and defining of a state of super spirituality that the only thing that one can conclude is a spiritual pride far and beyond anything uttered by modern man, aside from overt cults who acclaim the same but, even then, provide variety of expression--unlike the L.C. wherein all things must mimic the (as it is expressed now) the Living Stream Ministry--even the Methodists have not this conformity!

Originally Posted by Ohio

After that, any dress code violations received a citation from the training office. I once got cited for rolling up my sleeves for dinner.

Originally Posted by aron

A poll.

How many of you heard the local churches referred to as "Witness Lee Duplication Centers"?

I did.

Second question: how many of you were told to be "Witness Lee Tape Recorders"?

I was.

We were told that losing our individuality (and pushing that of Witness Lee) was a spiritual endeavour.

Originally Posted by aron

A poll.

How many of you heard the local churches referred to as "Witness Lee Duplication Centers"?

I did.

Second question: how many of you were told to be "Witness Lee Tape Recorders"?

I was.

We were told that losing our individuality (and pushing that of Witness Lee) was a spiritual endeavour.

Now, read the footnote in Revelation 1:20 and tell me what you see.

Originally Posted by Ohio

It was the Training in Taipei May 1987, the place was that big auditorium in Hall#1. Our uniform was blue slacks for guys and blue skirts for the ladies. All of us wore white shirts and LSM ties, and blue jackets with LSM logos. WL loved it -- the sea of blue! He would even get upset if a seat was empty.

When the training first started, at our first get together for the elders and responsible ones at Hall#3, an orientation session, one brother DP of Florida mistakenly wore a "secular" tie. AY just reamed him out, up and down, left and right, front and back, all for our "edification." After that, any dress code violations received a citation from the training office.

I once got cited for rolling up my sleeves for dinner.

The next day I successfully overturned it on appeal.

They even went so far as to assign teenage trainees to inspect our underwear drawers. That really upset a few brothers. WL was reputed to be so godly that even his socks and ties were all in order. I would credit his wife or laundry service for that. I heard a number of horror stories from WL about co-workers who threw their socks on the table and on the lampshade. Egads!

I regularly heard about those "Witness Lee Duplication Centers" and "Witness Lee Tape Recorders." I never heard that in my LC or in Cleveland. Only when traveling to Anaheim or other LSM venues did I hear about that crazy stuff.

Were you there for that, "Let's Go, Lin Ko!"?

I KNOW that our friend DRAKE was there for that!

Originally Posted by aron

Well I set him up and you set me up. You were the one who told us what you saw in the FTTT. How Lee beamed over the crowd dressed identically! Finally we were all "one"!

Originally Posted by Ohio

Once again Drake is found hiding under the rug of some supposed "Logical Fallacy."

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

aron>"Like the faceless proletariat in front of Chairman Mao, all dressed in their Mao smocks with their little red books."

.....and there it is again.. right on schedule. The use of loaded terms. Chinese imagery too. A double whammy.



Aron, your constant use of loaded terms exposes the weakness and fallacy of your argument.

Argument by Emotive Language (also known as: loaded words, loaded language, euphemisms)
Description: Substituting facts and evidence with words that stir up emotion, with the attempt to manipulate others into accepting the truth of the argument.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

What about misappropriating, misrepresenting, misquoting, and fabricating

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

What about misappropriating, misrepresenting, misquoting, and fabricating the footnote you referenced, that you didn't actually read) is missed on you? Had you not used it a a failed attempt to substantiate your narrative there would be no discussion about it... just an anecdotal exchange between you and I who have different experiences in life. You would have your view of things and I would have mine. But you didn't.... you did what many people who want to take Witness Lee and his followers down... you twisted what the man actually said to create a straw man of your own creation so you could set it afire to roars of approval from the usual crowd.

Originally Posted by aron

-6

Drake,

So according to the "Shape" definition in post #147 is we are all believers, so all local churches that contain believers are exactly identical in "shape", whether or not "they take the 'local ground'"? Whether or not they read HWMR on Sunday morning? Okay, guess I totally missed that. So Lee is saying that all believers everywhere have the exact same shape, form and purpose? Irrespective of their "affiliation" with the ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee? Well, I feel dull, and confess I totally missed that. I thought it was a prescription for outward conformity. He's saying we all already have perfect heavenly "conformity" regardless of present earthly appearances?

Good - part one is resolved. Mea culpa. Now what about part two: not having any individual distinctiveness? I don't know how any "normal" person could interpret that except what it seems to be saying, which is what I thought the first part was saying, that everyone has to be "exactly identical" outwardly in appearance, in expression, etc. Which is, for lack of a better term, "crazytown". Unless you can show us what he really meant?

As far as Chinese/Asian culture in the LC and its source in WN and WL, I already started a thread called "The Asian Mind and the Western Mind" and it has quite a few posts and people seem to have been reading it. I didn't start this thread, and probably UntoHim should have appended this discussion there. If you'd bother to read it, you'd see that I'm not the only one who's noticed these things. In fact I daresay the famous "We Were Wrong" essays from CRI put down most of the problems in LC history to "cultural misunderstandings" - not entirely on the part of the Westerners who appended the 'cult' label. Lee also 'misunderstood' the Westerners (so I remember them saying - you can look it up if I'm wrong). So if you think I'm "outrageous" fine; I'm not the only one who's noticed these things.

Here was a response to my initial post on that thread:



There are about 350 comments on the thread. Here is another one.



So if you don't want to "connect the dots" that's fine. But don't play so insulted when others do.

BTW, there are LOTS of problems of the "everything goes" freedom-first individualistic Western mind. The Chinese (and Koreans and Japanese and Indians &c) have a lot to show us. God created them, too.

Originally Posted by aron

As far as Chinese/Asian culture in the LC and its source in WN and WL, I already started a thread called "The Asian Mind and the Western Mind" and it has quite a few posts and people seem to have been reading it. I didn't start this thread, and probably UntoHim should have appended this discussion there.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree we all have warts, me too. Big ones. And we love all the saints with warts.

But if we have a Publisher/Ministry that is causing a "wart pandemic" then it behooves us to check it out, don't you think?

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Good observation, Aron.

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the record: I have no interest in WL, LC, or BB bashing. I bless the Lord for the privilege of growing up and giving my best years whole-heartedly to be receive what these people gained of Christ, and serve together with them. Some of you here, I feel, have some issues with bitterness that you would do well to seek help dealing with. God forbid that He eventually has to judge you with the same strictness and enthusiasm with which some of you here are casting stones. I have no interest in participating in that or providing ammunition for those who are just looking for rocks to throw rather than to build something with.

If there have been moral or ethical wrongdoings that set some of you off, I can't speak to that, as I never noticed such things in greater frequency or severity than are common to any institution, sacred or secular. I'm just talking about the personal offenses and reactionary cynicism that rise up when a person finds out they don't fit in to something they had hoped to be a part of at some point. I still struggle with disappointment that there seems to be no place for me among what those dear folks are doing. But I'm dealing with it, and staying positive is part of how that is best done.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

In my travels this summer, I may be able to make a LC meeting in person. This way I can see for myself if these things you speak of are true. I don't doubt what you've said, Ohio, and this is much of what I saw and experienced when I visited the LC in Tacoma WA about 7 years ago. But want to be a good Berean . . .

And let me say again that He loves us all and we all have warts of one kind or another.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

In my travels this summer, I may be able to make a LC meeting in person. This way I can see for myself if these things you speak of are true. I don't doubt what you've said, Ohio, and this is much of what I saw and experienced when I visited the LC in Tacoma WA about 7 years ago. But I want to be a good Berean . . .

And let me say again that He loves us all and we all have warts of one kind or another.

Originally Posted by Drake

We’ve already covered nature, shape, and purpose and if you don’t like Brother Lees definition in the footnote from Revelation 1:20.

What I observe in your posts is an oft repeated anti-Chinese theme.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Today every LC uses only Lee's books for their teaching and the content of their gatherings. Not just any old Lee books, but they must use the Holy Word for Morning Revival. And not just any old HWFMR off their shelves, but it must be the one from the latest "Feast." And for those who are not in the know, this "Feast" is the latest semi-annual training held at LSM's headquarters in Anaheim, CA.

Don't think every LC arrived at this decision freely and amicably. This strict practice took decades to reach. Literally hundreds of LC elders resisted their bully tactics over the years, citing their God-given responsibilities to shepherd their own church. But years of coercion, manipulation, threatening, quarantines, evictions, and lawsuits were used to reach such a goal. This takeover work by Lee/LSM began in 1974, about the time I first contacted the LC, and ended with the GLA quarantines, when I left the LC.

In the beginning the LC's were Christ-centered gatherings in each locality, or "local" church. At least it was that way for all of us young brothers and sisters. Slowly we transitioned to "ministry-centered" franchises for the building up of "the body." Why? Because Christ-centered gatherings in each locality created too much "independence" for each member, each eldership, and each LC. So-called "independence" or "autonomy" was great for the children of God, since congregations could more readily focus on shepherding their own members and communities, but bad for business, LSM's that is.

And LSM is all about control. Lee made that clear. He once said that he would rather have ten who were absolutely one with him, than all the LC's. This explains why LSM seems unfazed with the loss of thousands of former members in the Midwest and Brazil. Their message has been simple: If you don't like things our way, just leave, but don't take your meeting hall, it's ours.

Originally Posted by aron

We'd like to know, if the shape of the local churches must be exactly identical, what shape they should be: triangular? If so, isosceles or equilateral? Or, perhaps cylindrical? Or maybe a nice neat cube? Lee just said "shape" and went on, but if we all should be exactly identical in shape then probably we need a little more information.....

....The local churches are to be exactly identical, but in what way? In shape? How are we supposed to implement that? ....

...he was an angry Chinese man defending his business interests....

In the footnote to Revelation 1:20 I see a Chinese fox-tail. How are local churches supposed to be exactly identical in "shape"?

.... and pointed to stuff like this as my reasoning. I also mentioned other things as well but got challenged on a footnote so here we are.

Originally Posted by Drake

Researched. Well said. Factual.

I would only modify that the extension to earth from the heavenly is permitted...

Originally Posted by Ohio

And Lee/LSM has given us the "proper meaning." They have spoken loud and clear.

Originally Posted by aron

What is the shape of the local churches? Does the footnote help us? Does the scriptural text?

How can we tell if the local churches have exactly identical shape? If we can't tell, then how does this footnote help us?

It reminds me of the various abstractions that can be interpreted any old way one wants. Lee, naturally, got to pick the "proper" meaning.

Originally Posted by Drake

there is a shape of the local churches,

Originally Posted by Drake

Revelation 1:20 footnote 1 (concerning the nature, shape, and purpose of the lampstands). The Recovery Version of the Bible

"The churches, signified by the seven golden lampstands, are the testimony of Jesus (vv. 2, 9) in the divine nature, shining in the dark night locally yet collectively. The churches should be of the divine nature — golden. They should be the stands, even the lampstands, that bear the lamp with the oil (Christ as the life-giving Spirit) and shine in the darkness individually and collectively. They are individual lampstands locally, yet at the same time they are a group, a collection, of lampstands universally. They not only are shining locally but also are bearing universally the same testimony both to the localities and to the universe. They are of the same nature and in the same shape. They bear the same lamp for the same purpose and are fully identified with one another, not having any individual distinctiveness. The differences among the seven churches recorded in chs. 2 and 3 are all of a negative nature, not a positive one. Negatively, in their failures, the churches are different and separate from one another; but positively, in their nature, shape, and purpose, they are absolutely identical and are connected to one another."

Originally Posted by Ohio

Shall we assume this is another of Lee's "mistakes," or should we examine the results to determine his motive?

Originally Posted by Trapped

Thus, we can both be fully lampstands with the same nature, shape, and purpose, but still have individual distinction.

Nee said it correctly: in the divine realm the lampstands are identical in nature, shape, and purpose. In the earthly realm there are positive and negative differences from one to another and each has its own earthly appearance.

Lee took it too far/angled into a wrong direction: in the divine realm the lampstands are identical in nature, shape, and purpose. In the earthly realm there is no individual distinction and any distinctions are negative and failures. (We know this is not true, as Ohio mentioned, because the churches were individually commended for their own positive attributes).

Originally Posted by Trapped

Yes, I agree (see my response to Drake just now). Lee took the erroneous concept too far and applied it in disastrous ways.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Firstly, Lee's teaching that all the differences were "of a negative nature" is frankly wrong. The Son of Man commended each church positively and individually, knowing their positives quite well. Why would W. Lee downplay this fact? Every Pastor/Shepherd in the world knows the positive characteristics of his church, just ask him. W. Lee, however, could not acknowledge that each church had its own good works, pleasing to God. This corresponded with Lee's unending fellowship that only LSM could do anything good. "So, send your best people to the training."

Secondly, why would Lee continually stress that each LC must "not have any individual distinctiveness?" Since God has placed gifts in the body as it pleases Him, and each member has been gifted by the Lord uniquely, it only stand to reason that each church would have different strengths (and weaknesses too.) Why is this so threatening to W. Lee that he would create a teaching about member churches that is completely different from the rest of the body of Christ? What was his motive here? What were the results, or the fruit, of such teaching? How did W. Lee and LSM act to remove "any individual distinctiveness" between churches. These are fair questions to ask. We also have the advantage of decades of history to examine.

One notable action which Lee and LSM has taken is to remove and neutralize the gifted members of the body from ministering according to the anointing Spirit. The list of gifted and fruitful ministers around the globe, who once labored to establish churches, and have been expelled by Lee/LSM is just incredible. This forum is filled with their accounts. They were used by Lee, then were discarded. None of them ever parted peacefully. They were always nasty "divorces." Why would Lee/LSM do this? What was there motive? Just to remove "any individual distinctiveness" from the churches?

Originally Posted by Drake

Researched. Well said. Factual.

I would only modify that the extension to earth from the heavenly is permitted.... We are partakers of the divine nature, there is a shape of the local churches, and they all shine forth the Spirit.... or rather should..... when we come to Revelation 2 & 3 we see big differences but those are mostly negative.... even in one case the Lord threatens to remove the lampstand....

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Researched. Well said. Factual.

I would only modify that the extension to earth from the heavenly is permitted.... We are partakers of the divine nature, there is a shape of the local churches, and they all shine forth the Spirit.... or rather should..... when we come to Revelation 2 & 3 we see big differences but those are mostly negative.... even in one case the Lord threatens to remove the lampstand....

Originally Posted by Trapped

In the footnote Lee takes it further (too far) and says, "...not having any individual distinctiveness. The differences among the seven churches recorded in chs. 2 and 3 are all of a negative nature, not a positive one. Negatively, in their failures, the churches are different and separate from one another; but positively, in their nature, shape, and purpose, they are absolutely identical and are connected to one another."

Originally Posted by Trapped

There are also many aspects/significances to this portion of the Word. Seven lampstands which refer to seven churches at a specific time in church history are mentioned, but this passage takes on a scope larger than that. There is the heavenly view, the earthly view, the individual local aspect, the aspect of the universal church, etc, and there is a risk in applying characteristics from one view or aspect to another, in a portion so heavily subject to interpretation, that should not be applied.

In CWWN, Nee says, "The lampstands are seven in number, yet that is not to say that these seven churches are combined into a perfect church.....The word seven represents perfection in number, that is, these seven churches typify a whole church." (emphasis added) So if the seven churches typify a whole church, of course the lampstands which typify that whole church would look the same, since they all typify the same one thing.

Others, including Nee, provide another level of interpretation that the seven churches represent the church at different points in church history. Since "the church" is just "the church" no matter at what point it is in history, again, in type the seven lampstands would look the same because they are all simply "the church".

However (in CWWN again), Nee states, "In life and communion, the churches are one like a body, but in their earthly responsibility and appearance, the churches are administrated separately as seven lampstands. When we read chapters two and three, we see how the seven churches at that time were different in their works, circumstances, failures, rewards, punishments, and responsibilities. To deny this fact is to create confusion."

So in the heavenly or universal senses, yes, the lampstands are the same because they all typify one thing. However, this similitude does not by default extend to ALL local/earthly aspects or characteristics in terms of being identical from one locality to the next. Yes, the divine nature is the divine nature is the divine nature, in every lampstand and in every church. But these lampstands are not physical lampstands. There are no geographical coordinates where you can go and visit/look at/touch the lampstands. So in the divine realm, each lampstand is “identical” in certain divine attributes. However, in its earthly appearance, each local church is different.

How would identical localities even be practically carried out anyway?!

Originally Posted by aron

Suppose I'm talking to someone in a restaurant. I say that I have 4 pet rock pigeons. Then I say, "They all have the same substance - bones, flesh and feathers - and they all have exactly the same shape, form, and purpose." My companion will look at me funny. I'm spouting nonsense. Of course all this is true, but it's essentially meaningless. It adds no informational value. I didn't say, "I have three pigeons and a ukelele."

Then I add, "They have no individual distinctiveness." My companion will probably get up and walk away.

But in the LC its not gibberish. It's code for, "Get with the program." In the LC they don't walk away, because they've been conditioned, or trained, to sit through this stuff. No different than a Chinese man dressed up as Santa Claus. Someone's cultural fluff has become your pseudo-reality.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Whatever a city is, in Revelation there are only 7 mentioned, and only one lampstand per city, so only 7 lampstands. If we want to argue that every gathering of two or three has its own lampstand, then we are forced to come to the nonsensical conclusion that a city can have only two or three people in it. If Jesus mentioned that there are 1000 lampstands that represent all the gatherings of two or three "churches" in the 7 cities then you might have a point, but, it doesn't. 7 cities, 7 churches - a gathering of two or three within each city, therefore, cannot be "a church", otherwise there would be more lampstands that cities mentioned.

Originally Posted by aron

Are the seven angels who stand before God in Revelation 8:2 "absolutely identical" without any individual distinctiveness? Gabriel said, "I stand before God". If Gabriel has no individual distinction, then why does he have a distinct name? But he has the same form, shape and purpose as Michael. But perhaps not the same function. Perhaps God likes variegation. Look around you!

Are the 12 gates (Rev 21:12, 13), each with the name of a tribe of Israel, absolutely identical, without any individual distinctiveness? They are all gates. Same function. But where does it say they have to be identical?

Why the need for no individual distinctiveness? I think it's pathological. It has its roots in the fall. It's not supported by either the text or common human understanding. But it resonates with a certain cultural predisposition which is why it's predominantly taken root there.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes but you can see that the footnote you've been quoting is regarding the divine attributes of the lampstands or local churches, which must be absolutely identical. You have invented an argument about Chinese culture based on a single sentence excerpt of an entire paragraph which shows the whole context.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You cannot play it both ways. If the nature of the Lampstand is golden, referring exclusively to God's holy nature, then we must conclude all Christian gatherings in His name are also Lampstands bearing the light of the Spirit.

Originally Posted by Ohio

What is a city?

Can you tell me how many "cities" are in New York City?

Only someone steeped in Nee's exclusive teachings could even dream to demand that all NYC be one gathering with one eldership.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Those who have spent any amount of time in an LSM run LC can see the wisdom of aron's insight into culture, and the folly of your rejections.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I know you believe a simple gathering of two or three can have its own little lampstand and be called a "church" but this is not biblical. In Revelation there was only one lampstand per city. Not one lampstand per gathering within that city. The biblical and historical fact is that all Christian gatherings are not churches, so your conclusion that "all Christian gatherings in His name are also lampstands" is a false conclusion.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes but you can see that the footnote you've been quoting is regarding the divine attributes of the lampstands or local churches, which must be absolutely identical. You have invented an argument about Chinese culture based on a single sentence excerpt of an entire paragraph which shows the whole context.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You cannot play it both ways. If the nature of the Lampstand is golden, referring exclusively to God's holy nature, then we must conclude all Christian gatherings in His name are also Lampstands bearing the light of the Spirit.

But you and Drake reject this, claiming only LSM franchises with supposedly a proper name can be Lampstands. This is both hypocritical and contrary to the truth.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Based on the quotation Drake provided earlier it is clear to me that aron and others are extracting a single sentence from a footnote and not considering the context of the whole paragraph footnote in which the sentence is found. This is very dishonest and not something a "noble Berean" would do. For a noble Berean does not dishonestly extract a single sentence and then argue their mistaken point of view, but "receive the message with great eagerness and examine to see if what is said was true" (Acts 17:11).

This quote shows clearly the context of being absolutely identical. As we can see it has nothing to do with human culture but the divine nature and other spiritual attributes.

That is:
Same nature - divine
Same purpose - bearing the lamp (Christ)
etc

Now that the true meaning of "same nature, and same purpose" has been established as relating to divinity and not to human culture, aron and others should explain why the divine nature and the person of Christ and the Holy Spirit is not "absolutely identical" for every Christian.

Originally Posted by aron

We were talking about lampstands. Local churches.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Based on the quotation Drake provided earlier it is clear to me that aron and others are extracting a single sentence and not considering the context of the whole passage in which the sentence is found.

This quote shows clearly the context of being absolutely identical. As we can see it has nothing to do with human culture but the divine nature and other spiritual attributes.

That is:
Same nature - divine
Same purpose - bearing the lamp (Christ)

Aron and others should explain why the divine nature and the person of Christ and the Holy Spirit is not "absolutely identical" for every Christian.

Originally Posted by Trapped

I always had trouble with this kind of stuff. In college a well-meaning saint tried to spend time with me but it always centered around reading a ministry book and then asking me to immediately share what I enjoyed from those 2-3 pages. First of all it was always impossible for me to immediately digest and regurgitate after reading anything 3 seconds prior, and secondly so often I felt it had no informational value to me whatsoever. Often the content was this kind of meaningless stuff (repeated over and over again in those 2 pages) and it always confounded me what I was supposed to enjoy or give the slightest hoot about. I got really good at deflecting/faking/changing the subject/making them laugh so they would forget they'd asked me to share my enjoyment.

There have been a rare ministry book or two that I found worthwile (How to Enjoy God and How to Practice the Enjoyment of God, for one.....Practical Issues of This Life, for another), but so many others just left me with nothing.

Cue to years later when a non-LC believer gave me a non-LC book and after the requisite period of time where I shoved that "waste of a book" in my bookshelf and then pulled it out one day when I was bored and had nothing else to do, much to my surprise it actually talked about specific things I was dealing with in my life and thoughts I actually had that I never would have been able to express to anyone in the LC, and it blew me away! Now THAT I could have shared my enjoyment from!!

Originally Posted by aron

Suppose I'm talking to someone in a restaurant. I say that I have 4 pet rock pigeons. Then I say, "They all have the same substance - bones, flesh and feathers - and they all have exactly the same shape, form, and purpose." My companion will look at me funny. I'm spouting nonsense. Of course all this is true, but it's essentially meaningless. It adds no informational value. I didn't say, "I have three pigeons and a ukelele."

Then I add, "They have no individual distinctiveness." My companion will probably get up and walk away.

But in the LC its not gibberish. It's code for, "Get with the program." In the LC they don't walk away, because they've been conditioned, or trained, to sit through this stuff. No different than a Chinese man dressed up as Santa Claus. Someone's cultural fluff has become your pseudo-reality.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Are we talking about how the lampstands all came to be golden and apparently alike?

Originally Posted by Drake

Argument from silence?..... Well, let us do have a closer look then.

"Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands" Revelation 1:12

"As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands.... Revelation 1:20

"‘The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands. Revelation 2:1


So John saw seven golden lampstands and mentions it three times as above....... not 5 lampstands and 2 Birdfeeders... not 4 lampstands, 2 Harley choppers, and 1 Ukelele... I am pretty confident that they are identically shaped as lampstands else John would have called our attention to it. Exodus 25 gives a detailed description of the shape and features of the lampstand.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are not all humans "absolutely identical?" Each has a head, body, two arms and two legs? Each head is "identical" with two eyes, two ears, one mouth and one nose. Cut them open and they all look the same -- heart, lungs, liver, stomach, etc. You get the message.

Originally Posted by Drake

So aron, the way you see things the lampstands in Revelation 1:20 are not identical in their nature (gold), their shape (lampstands), and their purpose (to shine light). According to you that is just Chinese culture talking there..... A Chinese man dreamed that description up. He couldn't help himself because his Chinese "cultural conventions necessitated it".....

Originally Posted by Drake

In any event, it has absolutely nothing to do with Chinese culture and frankly, to insist on that in the face of clear biblical evidence to the contrary is to fail to recognize or acknowledge that our High Priest is the One who designed the earthly pattern of the tabernacle to mirror the heavenly one. Are there all sorts of variation in the heavenly tabernacle?... none that we can see and any argument for variety of nature, shape, and purpose of the lampstands in the heavenly tabernacle is a bonfide argument from silence. Furthermore, if there is a danger to be considered, it is the heart that discards the clear testimony of scripture (here regarding the lampstands in Revelation 1:12, 20 and 2:1) in favor of flawed human reasoning. I'm good to go with the scriptural definition.

thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by UntoHim

not having any individual distinctiveness...but positively, in their nature, shape, and purpose, they are absolutely identical and are connected to one another.

Like I said, this is an argument from silence....and making an argument from silence is a very dangerous thing to be doing when it comes to the bible. "Absolutely identical"? I think not. -

Originally Posted by aron

This was my point: where does one see beaten gold work, especially with calyxes, pomegranites and lilies, looking absolutely identical? Or conversely, where does this get shown or even suggested in the scripture? No, Lee dreamed it up; rather his cultural conventions necessitated it.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

"Can't we all just get along!?"

Originally Posted by Sons

I wonder how LSM views this open discussion board . . .)
.
.

Originally Posted by aron

This is, hopefully, a discussion. AKA "Local Church Discussions". My idea of a discussion is that both parties learn something. Versus a lecture or monologue, in which one person dispenses to a ready vessel. Lee obviously specialized in the second format. I prefer discussions. So I'm happy to have folks critique my ideas. And I'm trying to critique those of LSM.

So in some sense Drake and I are talking past each other, yes. He's fixated upon the appearance of words on paper, what they might seem to mean (gold meaning divine nature) and I'm pointing to the reality of what happens on the ground if you let this spirit in.

Thanks be to God for a format to freely discuss such things publicly.

Originally Posted by Ohio

None of these Lampstands were even "absolutely identical." They were not cast from a common mold, rather they were hammer beaten from a solid talent of gold.

And then Drake uses this as justification for LSM forcing all the LC's being identical?

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Drake

Sadly, aron, what you did by misrepresenting what this footnote actually said is what some opposers of the Lord's recovery have done in the past.

Originally Posted by Drake

Well, aron, why didn't you just say that upfront? I will be more than happy to post that footnote.

And yet, it begs the question, why are you referencing and expounding source material to substantiate your argument that you don't have right in front of you? Apparently you don't know what your own reference actually says.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

We were "wronged" for many years, and we lived with it, and unlike you LSMers, we never sued in court.

But there are other verses in the Bible too. Verses like exposing heresy, marking divisive ones, pointing out error, protecting others, etc.

Originally Posted by Drake

Then why don't you?

That verse has been quoted many times in this forum.....by people who are not humble and apparently unwilling to be wronged.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

I’m not asking for your definition of “shape”. Or any of the irrelevant meanderings about the Coming Seed, angels, creatures, frogs, bugs, Christmas Trees or Easter bunnies, tape recorders, ...or your ironic call for a line of love.

This is ultra simple and it is point of YOUR argument, not mineke

Originally Posted by aron

Because of the fall, we should take the opposite tack. We should all humble ourselves. Paul affirmed this - "why not rather be wronged" - in 1 Corinthians 6:7

Originally Posted by aron

Maybe you can post the entire footnote for our readers? That would be helpful. I don't have a RecV handy at present.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Man, you guys are all so far above my public scholl education - I need a nap!

I'm curious - does anybody ever officially "win" one of these debate hootenannies?

Originally Posted by aron

Also, where did Lee get the idea that the lampstands were "exactly identical"? Are you and I "exactly identical"? I think there is a hidden meaning here, a push for control, which aligns with cultural preconceptions of leadership, which is probably what Jesus taught as "the way of the gentiles". This is, I posit, a "Chinese-flavoured (i.e. gentile)" interpretive model imposed on scripture. At it's source, however, someone is angling for control..

Originally Posted by Drake

According to the footnote you referenced, what is the definition of

1. Nature
2. Shape
3. Purpose

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Man, you guys are all so far above my public scholl education - I need a nap!

I'm curious - does anybody ever officially "win" one of these debate hootenannies?

Originally Posted by aron

Okay, let's try again. Not that you will be satisfied but I enjoy the conversation.

Nature: Chinese
Shape: Hmm? Help me here. There are seven spirits before the throne. Are they all identical in shape? Witness Lee says so. Where did he get this idea? From his culturally-shaped imagination? Then he poses it onto the captive audience?

An angel is in the shape of a man (Rev 21:17). Or do you think the word "measure" translates into height? I think man is formed in variety. This pleases God.

Witness Lee wanted a shapeless, faceless proletariat. This thread, I remind you, was out of a "training" thread. My comment was, and remains, who would want to be trained by this group?

There are seven angels before the throne. Do you think they are all "exactly identical without any differences whatever" in shape, form and purpose? Really? Why? Does Gabriel, who stands before God, have the exact shape, form and purpose as Michael? Do the twelve gates, each bearing a name of a tribe, have exactly the same shape, form and purpose? (Rev 21:12; Exod 28:21; Ezek 48:31) Where did Lee get this idea? He doesn't say in the footnote.

So I see him impose uniformity on the LC, telling us to be "Witness Lee tape recorders" in the "Witness Lee duplication center" and this points to the Full Time Training. If you don't commit yourself to 24/7 immersion in the LC culture the cracks start to appear quickly. You begin to notice where the teachings don't match each other, nor apostolic precedent: in one place, scripture's said to be "Christ", in another "fallen". And so forth. You begin to think, to have an opinion... ! Gasp! No! Mustn't think! Erk!

Now, does this have anything to do with fallen human culture? According to Philip Lin, who wrote the LSM biography of Lee, yes. When he said "according to my culture" he meant Chinese culture. Or do you think he meant another culture? Divine culture? According to divine culture I must abandon my conscience and pledge loyalty to a man?

I don't think so.

Purpose: See shape, above. Each creature has a purpose, to glorify the Creator. But a frog does it different from a cricket. If you get bricks coated with slime, each "exactly identical with no differences whatsoever" you can build a nice tower for yourself, so I'm told (Gen 11:3, KJV). Lee tried to mold us into one purpose - his. Good luck with that. And my point all along is that the Bible was interpreted by his cultural bias. Paul, for example, was "the minister of the age", and evidently John, Peter, James and all the rest had to "get in line". But where do you see John getting in line? I don't.

The only "line", or purpose to get in is to love. You don't need "local ground" or "the ministry of the age" or FTT or "high peak theology" for that. In fact I daresay that all those things just distract and mislead.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake.

Definition of "mistake" please.

Even the *crickets* are silent.

Originally Posted by aron

There are seven spirits before the throne. Are they all identical in shape? Witness Lee says so. Where did he get this idea?

Originally Posted by Drake

So, you are unwilling to post the definition of the way churches are the same in nature, shape, and purpose according to the footnote in Revelation 1:20 .. a footnote that you paraded out to bolster your claim of Asian culture. It does not lend a shred of support to your Asian culture narrative, you know that because if it did you would have enthusiastically posted it, played off of it, and repeated it a hundred times.

Instead of a best effort to prove your point, or better yet, admit that it doesn't .... well, we hear crickets.



Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

So, you are unwilling to post the definition of the way churches are the same in nature, shape, and purpose according to the footnote in Revelation 1:20 .. a footnote that you paraded out to bolster your claim of Asian culture. It does not lend a shred of support to your Asian culture narrative, you know that because if it did you would have enthusiastically posted it, played off of it, and repeated it a hundred times.

Instead of a best effort to prove your point, or better yet, admit that it doesn't .... well, we hear crickets.



Drake

Originally Posted by aron

The footnotes are defined in LC practice. If you don't get that, eventually someone will tell you, "I was with Lee. I know." So I felt it was important to quote people like Doug Krieger who brought many into the Lee orbit, only to find out what the "nature, shape, and purpose" of the LSM-affiliated assemblies really was. You can push words around, but eventually the Lord will send a witness to describe what it means to be "exactly identical" in LSM credo.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The faithful who remain in the LC will dismiss it, pointing you to some wonderful footnote which will "give life," but ...

1. Even if Lee is wrong, he is still right
2. Because only Lee is above the law
3. Never shepherd a young brother using Lee as an example
4. The truth must never get in the way of defending Lee
5. Lee never needs to repent, that would be a mistake
6. Speaking the truth about Lee will get you excommunicated
7. Remaining in the LC requires you to speak Lee's words not the truth
8. All must choose between the spirit of Lee and the Spirit of glory
9. Oneness with the ministry demands a dirty conscience
10. Regarding mistakes, being a "spiritual father" only helps if you are Lee

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I dont think the footnote means chinese culture if you think that you havent done your homework about the point Lee made.

Originally Posted by aron

Here's a post from a dumb American who opened his mouth. Bad move. Keep your mouth shut in the LC, if you want to "make it."

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Thanks for asking about my "excommunication". In an attempt to help a young brother that I brought to the church in OKC who was under condemnation for his personal failings I told him all have sinned and come short of the glory of the Lord and even our dear Bro. Lee had done illegal acts and the Lord had forgiven him and was still using him. This helped the brother and we prayed and he left.

The next day he apparently shared his testimony with another brother who immediately reported to James Barber that I had said Bro. Lee had done illegal acts. James called an emergency meeting of the elders and called me to come meet with them. Upon arrival James informed me that what I said was a lie and unless I repented I would be excommunicated. Of course what I had said was the truth regarding Bro. Lee committing illegal acts was absolutely true and I had been intimately involved in helping Francis Ball prepare his legal defense had he been caught (in retrospect what I said about Lee repenting may have been wrong) but suffice it to say I was in a real quandary.

If I am to stay in Fellowship then I must say what I said was a lie when in fact it was the truth. I did not have the peace to uncover the sins of Bro. Lee even though I knew he was guilty so I reflected inwardly and said Lord I choose You and the Spirit of Glory fell upon me. I said nothing in my defense and James pronounced my excommunication and the other elders nodded in agreement (two of whom I had brought to the church the other two appointed by Benson. Only James had spoken and thus I was excommunicated from the church in OKC that had been birthed in my heart and started in my home.

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok aron... but what does the footnote say? What is the "nature, shape, and purpose" as defined in the footnote?

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

If you read the footnotes to your RecV, Witness Lee wrote that ALL local churches have to be "exactly identical" with "no differences whatever". See e.g., Rev 1:20 footnote.

Or did you have printed messages from LSM giving other directives? Please share, and reconcile that with the footnote.

Unless we hear of sweeping changes in the LC, we are not remiss in assuming this is the case, yes in ALL the LC assemblies, today. Because that's the way it was set up and the current leadership makes such a deal of "closely following the apostles", i.e. Lee's written directives.

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok aron... but what does the footnote say? What is the "nature, shape, and purpose" as defined in the footnote?

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

Lee would hide behind words, "Nature, shape, and purpose". But those on the ground knew exactly what it meant.

Originally Posted by aron

Who was the Chinese brother walking with the American brother in the mid-60s, who turned to the American (Don Hardy?) and said, "You have to watch out for Witness Lee's family", then clapped his hand over his mouth and said, "Oh! I shouldn't have said that!" Why? Chinese culture says it's bad form to speak of others like that. So Lee's past got hidden by people who knew.

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Brother Lee took serious advantage of Francis and put him at serious risk. I was close friends with Francis and his wife Martha lived with us briefly before they married. Francis would and did do anything Bro. Lee asked. When I explained the potential liability to Francis he was shocked and terrified. I was greatly relieved when the statute of limitations expired as Francis would have faced serious criminal and civil consequences.

Don Hardy was shocked when he discovered Phillip Lee was "cooking the books" in other words maintaining two sets of books. Don was outraged and resigned as an officer. Bro. Lee was himself an accountant and had to be complicit with Phillip as he personally funneled money through Francis and others. I have direct proof of this as I prepared the tax returns for Francis and heard first hand from him that Bro. Lee gave him the funds and told him what to do with them and of course I saw the actual bank statements.

Brother Lee and others were advised by Benton Fonner of the illegal and fraudulent nature of the Daystar offering. Daystar was the pivotal turning point for Brother Lee and Phillip and Timothy in the US. It is well documented of their previous business failings in Taiwan and the Phillipines. Bro. Lee came to me in Anaheim asking for Business advice as I had successfully invested for 39 Chinese clients in Taipei, Tainan and Brazil as well as Anaheim and had gained their trust and respect. I later traveled to Taiwan to meet personally with two brothers in Taipei and the other in Tainan. One of my sons has lived in Taiwan for 6 years and two years in China. I visited Beijing for 3 weeks about 3 years ago. I have been retired for 7 years and have no interest in discussing Daystar except to set the record straight. I knew personally all the major players and most of the investors and can say in summary that it was a disaster.

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Bro. Lee often referred to the glorious days of Elden and surely for those of us who were there from 62-74 many would testify to that fact. Why then did those key workers from that era ultimately all leave. Doug Kreiger in his testimony has testified that by 1974 it was all over as a result of Daystar and other issues. Doug had devoted 12 years of his life and had brought hundreds into Elden and Berkley. The core leadership at Elden Hall consisted of Samuel Chang, Don Hardy, John Ingalls, Bill Mallon and Al Knoch and yet all of these were betrayed by Bro. Lee after 20-25 years of faithful service . Godfred Otuteye , Sal Benoit, Ken Unger, Ned Nossaman were also greatly used and then wrongfully much maligned. Fred Malir and John Cowan were chosen to go to Brazil and returned to Elden and both left in 78. Fred now 91 was greatly used later in many countries especially in Cuba where with Don Hardy hundreds of home meetings were established and thrive to this day. Only Samuel Chang and Ken Unger have gone to be with the Lord the other men are still serving the Lord and most have written testimonies available on this and other sites. I could name dozens more like Jose Nunez who has been a missionary to Uganda the past 10 years and has mentored hundreds of Christian workers. More and more names are filling my memory and all left and all have gone on with the Lord. The hidden history of Bro. Lee is shameful in how he treated those co-workers and it will all be revealed at the Judgment Seat. The current activity of the Blended Brothers to me has been incomprehensible since I knew most of them and I'm shocked at the level of deception that has encompassed them, but a little leaven eventually leavens the whole lot.
May we all continue to pray for their deliverance and for all who remain under their control.

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Thanks for asking about my "excommunication". In an attempt to help a young brother that I brought to the church in OKC who was under condemnation for his personal failings I told him all have sinned and come short of the glory of the Lord and even our dear Bro. Lee had done illegal acts and the Lord had forgiven him and was still using him. This helped the brother and we prayed and he left. The next day he apparently shared his testimony with another brother who immediately reported to James Barber that I had said Bro. Lee had done illegal acts.

James called an emergency meeting of the elders and called me to come meet with them. Upon arrival James informed me that what I said was a lie and unless I repented I would be excommunicated. Of course what I had said was the truth regarding Bro. Lee committing illegal acts was absolutely true and I had been intimately involved in helping Francis Ball prepare his legal defense had he been caught (in retrospect what I said about Lee repenting may have been wrong) but suffice it to say I was in a real quandary. If I am to stay in Fellowship then I must say what I said was a lie when in fact it was the truth. I did not have the peace to uncover the sins of Bro. Lee even though I knew he was guilty so I reflected inwardly and said Lord I choose You and the Spirit of Glory fell upon me.

I said nothing in my defense and James pronounced my excommunication and the other elders nodded in agreement(two of whom I had brought to the church the other two appointed by Benson. Only James had spoken and thus I was excommunicated from the church in OKC that had been birthed in my heart and started in my home

Originally Posted by Drake

You may have a point in the above, I cannot say if factually you are correct. ... but perhaps it is related to a point that Evangelical made a few posts back.

Yet that was not my objection. Aron referenced a footnote in the Recovery Version (Revelation 1:20) to substantiate his Asian culture claim. That footnote does not say or even imply what he said it does... it comes nowhere near to it. He is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.

Therefore, aron, back to your assertion...... that footnote says the local churches are identical in "nature, shape, and purpose". According to that footnote what does the nature, shape, and purpose refer to?

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Thanks.

The Footnote says identical in " their nature, shape, and purpose"

What nature, what shape, and what purpose does the Footnote describe?

Drake

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Drake

What nature, what shape, and what purpose does the Footnote describe?

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"They bear the same lamp for the same purpose and are fully identified with one another, not having any individual distinctiveness. The differences among the seven churches recorded in chs. 2 and 3 are all of a negative nature, not a positive one. Negatively, in their failures, the churches are different and separate from one another; but positively, in their nature, shape, and purpose, they are absolutely identical and are connected to one another."
Revelation 1:20 Footnote (Recovery Version)

Witness Lee's footnote here is a classic argument from silence. One could probably throw in an argument of ignorance as well. His logic is shoddy and over-simplistic. "Not having any individual distinctiveness?" These churches were made up of flesh and blood human beings, not mindless, opinionless automatons. Furthermore, it does seem to reflect the Chinese/Asian homogeneous worldview. Of course there is nothing inherently wrong in this ancient worldview...the problems come in when this worldview is sold as "Recovered truth".
-

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hi Drake, how do you define a "mistake?" We seem to have different dictionaries here.

Secondly, if you don't like ex-members addressing the excessive exaltation which Lee received in the LC's, then why do you falsely claim that members "loathe the very ground the man walked on and the air that he breathed."

Please define for us what you would consider a "normal regard" for Brother Lee? I have a problem calling just about anything at LSM "normal."

Originally Posted by Drake

According to the footnote you referenced, in what way are the local churches identical?

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

If you read the footnotes to your RecV, Witness Lee wrote that ALL local churches have to be "exactly identical" with "no differences whatever". See e.g., Rev 1:20 footnote.

Or did you have printed messages from LSM giving other directives? Please share, and reconcile that with the footnote..

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What is your proof that this is the case today? Does it apply to ALL local churches around the world?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What is your proof that this is the case today? Does it apply to ALL local churches around the world?

Originally Posted by aron

Please read the first sentence again. I said, "this IS writ large over the LC". The LC continues to be an extension of the culturally- mediated personalities of its two most dominant members.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If the thread is about the Chineseness of Lee/Nee then why are you and others talking about the LC in the present tense?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What's funny about it? I must have missed the joke. If this situation had occurred in the time of the early church, in Corinth for example, I'm sure Paul would have given them instructions about it, just as he gave them instructions about the problems they were facing like wearing head coverings etc.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's very much exaggerated, I wrote none of that.

Originally Posted by least

Really? That's hilarious.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evangelical, has it really come to this in the "local" church?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Too much Chinese can be a real problem. Some local churches they are trying hard to reduce the Chinese influence. Examples include banning Chinese from being spoken in the meetings and making the pot lucks western instead of Chinese. They also split the churches and West and East meet separately. Promoting Western not Chinese elders. Also giving the Chinese instructions in personal hygiene and good manners.

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok. Fair enough. I see your point, Trapped.

But I think the reason may be simpler than you describe.

Assuming there is a conscious effort to not use the term “deacon” or “deaconess” it would more likely stem from the fact that the descriptor has been used and spoiled by institutional Christianity were it is a title, it is an official associated with the clergy class.... little deacon became big Deacon. That explanation would be consistent with the teachings and practices of the local churches and to avoid inadvertently creating classes in the local churches.

Yet, I have no proof that is why or how this low key use of the term deacon came about. I rather think it is because serving one is the meaning of the Greek diakonos. Just like we don’t use the term “called out assembly” but rather a vernacular expression ....”church”.

Drake

Originally Posted by least

Really? That's hilarious.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Too much Chinese can be a real problem. Some local churches they are trying hard to reduce the Chinese influence. Examples include banning Chinese from being spoken in the meetings and making the pot lucks western instead of Chinese. They also split the churches and West and East meet separately. Promoting Western not Chinese elders. Also giving the Chinese instructions in personal hygiene and good manners.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Too much Chinese can be a real problem. Some local churches they are trying hard to reduce the Chinese influence. Examples include banning Chinese from being spoken in the meetings and making the pot lucks western instead of Chinese. They also split the churches and West and East meet separately. Promoting Western not Chinese elders. Also giving the Chinese instructions in personal hygiene and good manners.

Originally Posted by aron

I wasn't the one who brought up communism. I was talking about a culture and it's effect on what we'd call due process. You know, innocent until proven guilty. In the Chinese courts its not like that. Neither in the LC. If Lee hauled you on the docket you were cooked. That had nothing to do with communism. But there was a shared cultural basis (social expectations and values) and I was noting that.

How come Lee didn't follow the Matthew 18 guidelines? Was he exempt? "Today's Moses" gets to write his own laws?

The only sins I can see Lee forgiving and covering up were those of his immediate family. Everyone else had a different set of rules. Apparently this discrepancy needs to be pointed out - some folks seem to be trying hard not to notice. So I'm just helping them out by breaking the fetters of blindness.

Originally Posted by Ohio

But did not Witness Lee teach us that not even God could forgive sins without a repentance. (I John 1.9)

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Instead of communism, it could be from the bible about forgiveness and covering sins.

Originally Posted by Drake

China has been around for 4000 years. How long has Communism been around in China?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think God has forgiven Lee and so people here are judging him for sins God has already forgiven.

Originally Posted by aron

Except Lee clearly wasn't interested in due process either, and he wasn't Communist by any measure. So much for that theory.

Originally Posted by Drake

And there is no man worship. I regard Brother Lee as a servant of the Lord. He put is pants on one leg at a time. He made mistakes. We all do. The Lord revealed much to me over the past 4 decades and Brother Lee's ministry was instrumental to those experiences of Christ.

Originally Posted by aron

Except Lee clearly wasn't interested in due process either, and he wasn't Communist by any measure. So much for that theory.

Originally Posted by Drake

I am used to it. And there is no man worship. I regard Brother Lee as a servant of the Lord. He put is pants on one leg at a time. He made mistakes. We all do.

Originally Posted by aron

My point was, and remains, that in Chinese culture that's considered "due process"; those who fight the system get worse punishment, so why fight? It's how social order is maintained. Do we in the west agree?

Originally Posted by awareness

Get use to it bro Drake. You'll get over man worship sooner or later ... hopefully. I'll pray for you.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

No. I never spoke with the brother. And I don't want to slander him in any way. My personal belief is he was on track and then somewhere along the line, he got off track. He appears to have been blind that things he believed and spoke earlier on, didn't fully align with things later.

I have received blessings from the Lord through this brother. But in the end, that's all he was - a brother. A brother with vision but also warts, just like the rest of us. The promise and hope in Christ, is that He is faithful to remove all those warts. We're all in process. But when one man gets elevated, church history shows over and over what happens. No difference here.

Originally Posted by Drake

StG,

Couple of points on the above.

First, were you ever in a meeting with Brother Lee? Training or conference or conversed with him around a table in a small group or spoke with the man one on one? If not, then do not believe everything you hear in this forum. There is another side. I have had those opportunities and the Witness Lee in this forum is not the Witness Lee I had the pleasure to know. If Brother Lee was anywhere near like the monster folks paint him as in this forum then no one would be there.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I too strongly question the use of public shaming. What is its intended purpose - to build up the person in love? If so, this is hard to see what are the loving results from using this method. Rather, it appears like a public trial, where the one admonishing pretty much becomes judge, jury and executioner..

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I was speaking with a brother over dinner last night about how Bill Freeman received the boot from the LC. I was told that in 1986 he was called to southern Cal and given a chair in the middle of the room, where he was ringed by a large group of elders. They proceeded to accuse him of various things. According to what I heard he didn't reply much. . .

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

Part of your post above is a fair argument. But frankly, much of it is shallow talking points and those overshadow any reasonable point you might have made. I’m sure you know that so I wonder why you wallow your argument the mire as part of its presentation.

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

I can see your view, and how this idea of the kind, older brother, shepherding the saints in love to perfect them for the building, has taken root in your mind. But it has no power in my mind and I'll tell you why.

Who got to be civil, frank and direct with Witness Lee when son Philip was caught repeatedly molesting the sisters at LSM offices? Who got to shepherd, perfect, or correct Lee when all the money invested by LC attendees into son Timothy's motor home business disappeared, and the church members were told to consider it a donation? Did Saul Benoit get to be frank with Lee? Did the elders in Anaheim? Did anyone? Who administered discipline to Witness Lee?

No, "fellowship" and "discipline" in the LC was a one-way street, a "normal Christian church life" only for those steeped in oriental cultural norms and expectations. News flash: Witness Lee was not Jesus, sinless and perfected forever; rather, he was a sinner like the rest, only placed in "untouchable" status by his cultural expectations. And the result was ruinous. Not building but dividing and collapse. Aka "turmoil, storms and rebellions" - I heard these terms coming into the LC, and now I've some idea from whence they derived.

Who would want to be indoctrinated into such a system?

Additionally, for all the "kind older brother" and "begetting father" stories from the LC, there are ones like Ned Nossaman and Bill Mallon who speak of the tyrannical outbursts. See, e.g., the testimony in post #55, below; note that such behaviours are seen as acceptable, necessary even, from a particular societal standpoint.

But it isn't a heavenly society but rather an earthly one. So everyone except Witness Lee had to be silent and play politics as you noted in your post. Only Lee got to be frank; everyone else had to be political.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Drake,

Yyyyyyyyyeahh........I am not referring to official titles. I am not thinking and do not think in clergy terms. I am well aware there are no titles. I am talking about descriptive terms used to refer to people who carry out the functions of that word. Even as you said, "elder" is not a title. It is a description of that person's function (just like "church in..." is not the name or title, it is just the description).

However, Nee does say there are only two offices in the church – that of elder and that of deacon. And deacons are also appointed in the course of their natural manifestation. So while it is not an official title, deacons are actually “appointed” and therefore “officially” deacons. Not in official title, but in appointed function. (And in communication we do have to use words and terms for things and people, or else we are up a creek.)

So for a group who tries to do everything so tightly according to the Bible, it is odd that the term "deacon" is not generally used, especially when there is even a specific portion in the word describing the qualifications for one. We have “elders” because it is in the Bible, why not “deacon”? You mentioned “serving one” and said that it covers deacons and deaconesses. Personally I would disagree on the grounds that "serving one" is used too broadly and can include saints who do not hold the qualifications of a deacon as described in the Bible, and moreover are not necessarily appointed. At one point or another most saints can end up being a "serving one" in some capacity, whether briefly or longer term. Under the large umbrella of "serving one", however, some can be deacons in function. (In other words, not all serving ones are deacons, but all deacons are serving ones).

Yes, in some LCs there are females who serve in certain specific capacities and who therefore do perform the functions of a deaconess. Why then, if these functions exist among the saints, are the Biblical terms not used to describe them? One realization I had was that to use the term "deacon" would then support the use of the term "deaconess", and having any female termed, or, yes, “appointed”, anything special in the local churches is a no-no. (I do not mean "special" in the sense of being above anyone else. Deacons/esses serve the saints; they are not there to be "over" the saints in a negative way).

You said you have heard the term deacon used. I have never heard the term deacon used myself, but accept that there may be LC's where it is used, although I have to suspect that that is a rare occurrence.

Originally Posted by Drake

Was Paul shaming others in his letters to the churches, calling out certain brothers for their divisive thinking, doctrine, or practice? I do not say Paul was uncivil, slanderous, or reviling. He was civil, frank, direct, even when he administered discipline to members of a local church. In fact, I think to be silent when we should speak is playing politics and it is not Christ.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I too strongly question the use of public shaming. What is its intended purpose - to build up the person in love? If so, this is hard to see what are the loving results from using this method. Rather, it appears like a public trial, where the one admonishing pretty much becomes judge, jury and executioner.

During leadership training, we tell our business clients, "Praise in public; Discipline (these days we actually say "coach") in private." To do otherwise is a fear based tactic which will likely just produce short-term results. Disciplining in public does little more than build the ego at the expense of the other person - again, short term thinking. Definitely NOT the servant leadership model we see in Christ!

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I too strongly question the use of public shaming. What is its intended purpose - to build up the person in love? If so, this is hard to see what are the loving results from using this method. Rather, it appears like a public trial, where the one admonishing pretty much becomes judge, jury and executioner.

Originally Posted by Ohio

What kind of father, spiritual or biological, would use public shaming and humiliation to "discipline" his son?

That is not Asian, German, or American -- that is just wrong! Let's call it what it really is -- the Bully Pulpit.

Regardless of how Drake likes to spin this, LC leaders (from M.E. Barber to Nee to Lee to TC to whoever) regularly used public shaming for one reason -- to continually remind their followers who is in charge. It's goal, pure and simple, is the maintenance of power. That may be fine, even necessary, in the military, but has no place in the church, which is His body.

Jesus Himself, when He saw this behavior among His disciples, nipped it in the bud. He warned them that they should never "rule as the Gentiles do." (Matt 20.25; Mark 10.42; Luke 22.25) The LCM not only did not get this memo, they built it up into their definitive practice.

Originally Posted by Drake

There is no credible evidence that such a behavior is unique to Asian culture nor is it a practice or norm in the local churches. If you detected anything of deference between Brother Lee and Brother Titus it based on the latter regarding the former as a spiritual father. That is not Asian, that is New Testament (1 Corinthians 4:15). Neither is it abuse and mistreatment for a spiritual father to speak frankly to a spiritual son and shepherd him. My birth father said things to me that he never said to my friends. He also disciplined me out of love. That is neither abuse or mistreatment.

Originally Posted by Drake

Nnnnnnnnn... no.

Trapped, you seem to be thinking in clergy terms... title-ish.

I have heard the term deacons used but it really just refers to serving ones, the most used term. And serving ones also includes brothers or sisters. Elders is a term that is used to refer to... well elders... but even then not as a formal title..... not like “Hi, I’m Elder Buzz! Nice to meet you.” but like “there will be an elders meeting in Harold’s VW van this Saturday “. Anyway, serving one replaces deacons and deaconess and means the same thing.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

What you said by way of example of Asian culture in the churches, something you “witnessed” firsthand between WL and TC, is that abuse and mistreatment by leaders results in compliance by subordinates. I said that was outrageous. There is no credible evidence that such a behavior is unique to Asian culture nor is it a practice or norm in the local churches. If you detected anything of deference between Brother Lee and Brother Titus it based on the latter regarding the former as a spiritual father.

Originally Posted by aron

I'm not against Chinese culture, and apologize for occasionally being too caustic in my remarks. I'm rather trying to note the abject failure of taking Chinese (descriptive) culture and making it a universal (prescriptive) culture. If this culture gave a one-for-one analog of heaven that would be one thing, but it doesn't. . . it's a product of the fall, same as any other. And the issue, in the case of the LC, is tragically clear. Earlier I used the word "nutty" to describe what I see. I don't mean Chinese culture is nutty, but that universal imposition of Chinese cultural norms is nutty.

Originally Posted by Drake

aron has a free reign in this forum to leverage stereotypes about Asian culture because Brother Lee was Chinese by birth.

Originally Posted by Trapped

I realized when at least half of the church in any given locality is female, how can their specific needs be met when no female can be in any position of responsibility and none of their words, feelings, or sense carries any weight in any matters concerning the church being fellowshipped?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Regarding Chinese customs, there is a reason that Chinese dynasties went back 5 millennia. No other culture on earth has the ingredients which would allow this to happen. We could make a case for the "Nee dynasty" in China, and the "Lee dynasty" in Taiwan and the US. This whole MOTA characterization is both a guise and a proof of this.

Originally Posted by aron

The issue of the GLA quarantines was at heart about "face". Chu would lose face to Lee but not the Blendeds. That was your point, and I agreed, to Drake's chagrin. And how many thousands got separated? Some, even families?

Originally Posted by Drake

Nnnnnnnnn... no.

Trapped, you seem to be thinking in clergy terms... title-ish.

I have heard the term deacons used but it really just refers to serving ones, the most used term. And serving ones also includes brothers or sisters. Elders is a term that is used to refer to... well elders... but even then not as a formal title..... not like “Hi, I’m Elder Buzz! Nice to meet you.” but like “there will be an elders meeting in Harold’s VW van this Saturday “. Anyway, serving one replaces deacons and deaconess and means the same thing.

Drake

Originally Posted by Trapped

One time a while back I came across something in the ministry that mentioned deacons and deaconesses, in a positive sense. It occurred to me that although that is in the Bible and is even brought up in a few places in the ministry, the LC's, in practice, do not have deaconesses. Then I realized neither term, deacons nor deaconesses, are ever used in the LC's. However, "elder" is used, ostensibly because it is in the Bible. So why isn't "deacon/ess" used among the LC's? The terms are in the Bible, as elder is.

There are brothers functioning as deacons.....but they get called "leading brothers" or "responsible brothers" or "helping brothers" (among other similar phrases). But never the actual word which is in the Bible, deacons! Then I realized......if you use the word "deacon", then the next logical question is "and who are the deaconesses?", since both are Biblical. One way to avoid having women in any official, labeled, position of responsibility is by calling their male counterparts by a specialized name not found in the Bible. No "deacons", then no question about "deaconesses"!

I realized when at least half of the church in any given locality is female, how can their specific needs be met when no female can be in any position of responsibility and none of their words, feelings, or sense carries any weight in any matters concerning the church being fellowshipped?

Originally Posted by aron

But my point about women is specific. I think they systematically suppress women because that automatically eliminates 50% of their potential rivals. Then they can focus on the brothers. . .

And yet they lionize the pioneers like Margaret Barber and Ruth Lee. Out of the other side of their mouths, of course.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Instead of agreeing with Max, thanking him for standing for righteousness and protecting the sisters, because of "face" Lee could never allow that. Face trumped righteousness.

Originally Posted by aron

Have you ever heard of the Chinese concept of "face"?

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by aron

Have you ever heard of the Chinese concept of "face"? That's what I saw with Chu & Lee. It looked formal, ritualistic. That's what I saw. Chu would lose face before Lee but not the Blendeds. Seems quite Asian to me. Likewise, who would Lee lose face to? Nobody. Again, Asian culture at work. ..................... if the Big Boss loses face, the stability of the group is threatened. Seems like fallen human (Asian) culture to me.

Originally Posted by Drake

Finally.

Please provide a credible source that substantiates your above assertion that this behavior is Asian culture and a “Chinese” flavor.

Not looking for an encyclopedia, Aron.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

They have a book, Vision of the Age, which identifies Jean Guyon as the 17 the century Minister of the Age. Supposedly believers from all around the world had to come to her in order to receive God's up-to-date speaking. A truly unbelievable and heretical claim of revisionist history.

Sister Barber supposedly "recovered" the lost art of perfecting the brothers via public rebukes and humiliations. Can I have a verse? This became the standard ingrained leadership practice of Nee, Lee, and Chu.

Originally Posted by aron

It is Asian culture, manifesting itself in human relations. Nothing wrong with that per se, except it was fraudulently sold to us as divine.

Originally Posted by aron

Ok, to Post #16. Titus Chu would bow and scrape (Kowtow) to Witness Lee. I was there, I saw it. But later, post 1997, he wouldn't bow and scrape to Blendeds Wee. I say that is Asian Culture. ..... In this case the social dynamics have a distinctive Chinese "flavor".

Originally Posted by aron

But my point about women is specific. I think they systematically suppress women because that automatically eliminates 50% of their potential rivals. Then they can focus on the brothers. . .

And yet they lionize the pioneers like Margaret Barber and Ruth Lee. Out of the other side of their mouths, of course.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Besides Lee, they have no "lions" either, unless Philip is included.

Wasn't there a song, "Where have all the cowboys gone?" They got Quarantined!

Talk about contradictions. They teach inclusion, they practice exclusion.

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

I asked you for a specific response to a specific assertion you made in your first sentence in post #16. Now you’ve generalized your response into ever expanding circles of irrelevant mental meandering. Probably a defense mechanism has kicked in to facilitate your not answering the specific outrageous assertion.

So please, go back to your post #16, read the first sentence, clarify what you were specifically referring to there, and then provide a credible reference to validate that specific assertion.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by aron

This thread was on Training- whether to attend, or not? My point has been, who would want to get trained by this group? Their teachings and practices are clearly contradictory. I mentioned the role of women as an example, not the only one by any means, but one of the more curious ones. Yet no one says a word. Why? Culture. And yes, this was strongly conditioned by the culture of origin. China was not "virgin soil" but had 5,000 years of social conditioning in their society.

I have named names - the women who were touted in the official organs of the group as lionesses of the recovery in its first few decades. Margaret Barber, a "Miss Groves", Peace Wang, Ruth Lee. . . well over a half dozen names of you include the influences coming in from abroad like Guyon, MacDonough and Penn-Lewis. By contrast, how many lionesses has the group advanced in the past 40 years? Zero.

One must be assidiously trained in non-thought to miss this kind of obvious discrepancy. Well-practiced in the art of mindless oblivion.

Originally Posted by aron

This thread was on Training- whether to attend, or not? My point has been, who would want to get trained by this group? Their teachings and practices are clearly contradictory. I mentioned the role of women as an example, not the only one by any means, but one of the more curious ones. Yet no one says a word. Why? Culture. And yes, this was strongly conditioned by the culture of origin. China was not "virgin soil" but had 5,000 years of social conditioning in their society.

I have named names - the women who were touted in the official organs of the group as lionesses of the recovery in its first few decades. Margaret Barber, a "Miss Groves", Peace Wang, Ruth Lee. . . well over a half dozen names of you include the influences coming in from abroad like Guyon, MacDonough and Penn-Lewis. By contrast, how many lionesses has the group advanced in the past 40 years? Zero.

One must be assidiously trained in non-thought to miss this kind of obvious discrepancy. Well-practiced in the art of mindless oblivion.

Originally Posted by aron

Taylor and Francis is not a credible source? Then what is? Is this LC-speak where "proper" means published or promoted by LSM? And what is so outrageous about my claim that Asian culture influences the LC? Is every religious group on earth tainted by fallen human culture except yours?

How is it that the leader of a group does something so obviously self-contradictory and yet membership doesn't make a peep? What else could be at work here, but fallen human culture?

Did or did not Watchman Nee visit Elizabeth Fishbacher to see what was what, spiritually speaking? And if so, and if they continued in spiritual fellowship beyond that point, are we not remiss if we don't ask why the supposed apostle of the age was seeking spiritual aid and counsel from a woman?

The answer in the LC is that the apostle of the age can make his own rules; today's Moses, as it were. Women can't teach, unless the 'apostle' wants to appropriate something, then Mary MacDonough recovers the three parts of man! How could a woman do that? Because it's advantageous to the selfish narrative. That, however, isn't biblical, but fallen human culture, and it lines up well with what we know of the oriental mindset vis-a-vis authority. And we western yokels thought it was spiritual. It was not.

Either women can teach, and the LC is spiritually bankrupt, or they can't teach, and the LC is spiritually bankrupt. Take your pick.

Originally Posted by aron

The other thing to keep in mind is, once one breaks the guanxi network, the reciprocal web of mutual obligations, there is no going back. There is no "ministry of reconciliation" that can repair the breach of etiquette. Thus it's holding power.

Originally Posted by aron

The public interface between Titus Chu and Witness Lee was ritualistic. I saw it. One clearly 'lost face', prefacing his statement with the words, "I am ashamed. . . " Guess which one that was?

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

Cite a credible source for your outrageous statement about Asian culture.

Drake.

Originally Posted by aron

It is Asian culture, manifesting itself in human relations.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Blendeds have the attitude that if they abuse and mistreat you, then you will become more compliant. WL got away with that, but the Blendeds could not.

Originally Posted by aron

The Full Time Training says that the biblical truth is, Women Can't Teach. Yet this position ignores that the movement itself was founded by Margaret Barber teaching Watchman Nee. She had no "head covering". . . not to mention Madame Guyon, Jessie Penn-Lewis, Peace Wang, Dora Yu, Ruth Lee, Mary MacDonald, and so forth - "close co-workers" and "fellow builders" all. This ministry of the Kingdom of Self teaches out of both sides of its mouth, and we're supposed to ignore these glaring discrepancies?

Originally Posted by Terry

Demographics of the local churches from my youth in 1970's into mid 1980's doesn't even resemble the current state. Something happened along the way to cause an exodus of the Caucasian brothers and sisters. I believe the late 80's turmoil was just that event causing the exodus.
Growth I've seen in the local church I visit is among Asian and Hispanic brothers and sisters.For the Caucasian brothers and sisters, they only get older without any new ones gained.

Originally Posted by Terry

Something happened along the way to cause an exodus of the Caucasian brothers and sisters. I believe the late 80's turmoil was just that event causing the exodus.

Originally Posted by aron

This comment deserved bringing forward. No one knows the future, at least the details. (Matt 24:36) But it's interesting, learning about ourselves, as we struggle against the past. The LCs are trying to grapple with a true demographic shift over the past 35 years, as their constituents keep growing less reflective of the "local" populations they've supposedly been representing.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

... with every passing day, the LC is become more and more particular in its demographic: more Asian, more rich, more urban, and more elitist (in terms of education). Visit the FTTA today, and you will find that 70-90% of the population is either Asian-American or actually from Asia, and that the great majority of those come from wealthy families. LC young people are under constant pressure to attend elite universities on the East and West Coasts. The whole phenomenon is resulting in a cultural shift in the LC that is making it more and more unrecognizable to the original "baby boomer" generation that was captivated by Witness Lee in the 1960s and 1970s. It also means that the up-and-coming demographic of LCers feel more and more disconnected with anything that might be considered more traditionally American.

LC leaders know this, and it's the reason why there is so much emphasis on fixing the "racial ratio" and "gaining 'typical' Americans." But it's a lost cause if you ask me.