Quote:
Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow
I met with a local church for a little over nine years. I met them as a freshman in college. For many years, I was involved in their Christians on Campus college ministry as a student, participating in just about every event/meeting they had.
|
Thanks for the introduction. Many former LC participants came in under similar fashion. I was a college sophomore, struggling with adulthood and a 'party' lifestyle that was killing me, low self-esteem, few social skills, and suddenly I was sober, "God's best", sitting on the front row. It totally fed my ego - suddenly I was special. That ego feed helped me overlook a lot of questionable things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow
I went to most of the college conferences, internship trainings (these were trainings for students who were interested in reaching out to the incoming freshmen during the summer months), internships (already described), bible studies, Saturday fun times, Lord’s day meetings, etc. I joined the children’s ministry and worked with the coordinator for 7 years...
|
Same here, I was in whole hog, "burning for the Lord and the church" etc. It had advantages. All my questions had answers, and those without pat answers were quickly dismissed by focus on "enjoyment" and other such "just keep eating, just keep drinking" mindlessness. Red flags: I read the book "Fermentation of the Present Rebellion" by Witness Lee, which was shocking to say the least, and heard of far-off rebellions but they were obliquely referenced and I knew instinctively not to ask too much. Just keep eating, just keep drinking...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow
The most striking stories for me were those of Jo and Greg Casteel, Harvest House Publishers, and John Ingalls’ testimony in his book “Speaking the Truth in Love.”
|
I also read "Hope" (Don Rutledge) in "Writings of former members" section, who was in the early USA years, knew WL well, got a front-row view of Daystar. Also "Indiana" (Steve Isitt) who was told by WL, "We have to find out what happened to those who left", and when Indiana did so, they tried to quiet him. Both of those histories are revealing, coming from a group that was so reticent.
The more you dig, the more you understand. Why would anyone join this group? Why stay on, as it feels more and more troubling, less the magical dream world it was sold as, you know, the "glorious church life"? It all starts to look less rosy, but then people stay on - why? Examining the history from several angles opens it up and explained a lot. Of course, others may say not to bother, or may quit in confusion, but for me, it all began to make sense.
As an example, I noticed Watchman Nee had close 'senior' and 'apostolic' co-workers that were women - Peace Wang and Lee. Look in WL biography - "A Seer of the Divine Revelation" and there's a whole chapter on these pillars, along with similar 'lights' like Dora Yu, Margaret Barber, Miss Elizabeth Fischbacher (travelling companion and speech transcriber). Yet, no woman could be local elder or deacon under Lee... when I asked why, only one person responded, "That's because the situation was different with Nee." Otherwise, nobody would touch the question. And yet even Lee's biography said Ruth Lee was a person of 'great spiritual weight'. So you realize there's compartmentalization going on. Inharmonious parts of proposed worldviews are being walled off from each other, because they can't be reconciled.
Another example: I noticed some Psalms railing against foes called "Christ defeating Satan" in the
RecV footnotes. Likewise, where David killed Goliath, Saul slew Agag, Joshua put people to the sword, etc, was interpreted as "We're fighting for the Lord and His interests." Usually, however, such Psalms are dismissed with comments of "low" and "natural", because the
RecV says "we all know we must bless and not curse, and turn the other cheek". I asked why the contradictions, and was told, "Maybe that's how it is", by a previously loquacious defender of all things Recovery. And, nobody else would even touch the issue.
Another example: a young woman was there and heard Nee confess to producing and holding pornography. She published the book on what she saw and heard, and if you look on Amazon, one review goes to great length and detail, how the book was "shoddy" (it was), how the author was biased (she was), how poorly the Chinese Communists treated Christians (which they did), but nothing on Nee's actual confession in court, which underpinned the whole book.
https://www.amazon.com/My-Unforgetta...ps%2C96&sr=8-1
My point is that what you'll see, here and elsewhere, that people can go on and on about things that help construct and preserve their worldview, but will "wall off" aspects of the very same reality and experience that question or challenge it. Certain verses (or parts of verses [!!]) will get exhaustive attention while whole sections are waved away as irrelevant and faulty, as "fallen human concepts." Stories are repeated again and again, but unhelpful parts of those very same stories are scrupulously ignored. The more you look, the more you realize that you're seeing the creation and maintenance of a very deliberately and carefully circumscribed worldview. If the "wrong things" get in, it will collapse.