Public Claims vs. Private Recruitment: The Lord's Recovery Campus Work
References
Introduction
This analysis examines the rebuttal document from ShepherdingWords.com regarding The Lord's Recovery's campus practices in light of primary source documents, particularly focusing on whether it adequately addresses criticisms of their recruitment methods.
Contradictions Between Rebuttal and Primary Sources
1. On Proselytizing vs. Recruitment
The rebuttal claims: "We must never try to proselytize. Proselytizing is not an honorable thing."
However, from Witness Lee's own words in the primary source "Meeting 14" document:
"If you lose that opportunity once you miss that registration, it will be difficult. No matter how you knock your head against the wall you have to get that way. That is a right way. You are really wise to sneak in among the registration. Ask them to fill in a form. The new students don't know anything. They thought that the school asked them to fill in a form. That is the best. They all got into your hand."
2. On Campus Organization Names
The rebuttal claims generic names like "Christians on Campus" are consistent with biblical practice and not deceptive.
However, the summary document of the "Every Dollar, Every Dime" podcast notes that:
"Students are encouraged to join clubs with generic names that don't explicitly reveal their affiliation with the Local Church, hiding the true nature of the recruitment until it's too late."
3. On Methods and Targeting
The rebuttal emphasizes: "Our way of laboring must also be pure. We should not trust in any shortcuts such as methods or gimmicks."
But Witness Lee's actual instructions in the primary source "Meeting 14" document were:
"...on the campuses the best way is to catch the freshmen, the first year and the second year. After the second year and the third year, it's really hard. All the students got settled and they got into their interest. It's hard for them to have a change, but when they just got into the college from the high school they have nothing settled yet and they don't know their direction, right, you cut in. You would take them away. It's easy."
4. On Genuine Concern vs. Strategic Targeting
The rebuttal states: "Every aspect of our contact with people, including our concern for them, should be genuine."
But the primary source "Meeting 14" document specifically targets vulnerable individuals:
"There are three reasons why we must go to the young people. The first reason is that the young people are not occupied. It is best to contact young people between the ages of sixteen and twenty. During these years they begin to understand things, but they are not occupied."
5. On Priorities
The rebuttal presents a balanced approach to ministry, but the primary source document reveals an extreme focus:
"Forget about everything. Forget about the Sunday morning meeting. Forget about everything. Just take care of one thing: to get these new students. If I can't get 80% at least I have to gain 50%. You have to grab this opportunity."
Why the Rebuttal Is Inadequate
The rebuttal fails to adequately address the criticisms for several reasons:
- It presents a sanitized version of TLR's campus work that directly contradicts their internal teachings as evidenced in the primary source document "Meeting 14" shared by Witness Lee.
- It addresses surface-level criticisms (like the generic names) without acknowledging the intentional deception revealed in Witness Lee's own instructions to members.
- It uses selective quotes from Witness Lee that present a more acceptable public face while ignoring his more problematic teachings that are meant for internal consumption only.
- It reframes questionable practices as biblical and pure when the primary source documents reveal calculated recruitment strategies targeting vulnerable individuals.
- It creates a false dichotomy between "proselytizing" and sharing truth, when Witness Lee's own words clearly show that recruitment ("to catch the freshmen") is the primary goal.
Podcaster's Experiences
The podcaster's summary in "EMEP9-Summary.txt" corroborates the practices outlined in the primary source documents, noting that their experience both as a recruit target and later as a recruiter aligns with the aggressive tactics described in Witness Lee's teachings. This provides additional context to understand the disconnect between the public-facing rebuttal and the actual practices.
Conclusion
The ShepherdingWords rebuttal fails to honestly address the core criticisms because it fundamentally misrepresents the actual practices and teachings of The Lord's Recovery regarding campus work as documented in primary sources. The rebuttal presents idealized principles that directly contradict the aggressive recruitment tactics taught by Witness Lee himself.
The primary source document "Meeting 14" clearly outlines a strategic approach to targeting vulnerable young people (specifically freshmen aged 16-20) using methods that could reasonably be considered deceptive (posing as school officials, using generic names to hide affiliation). The rebuttal does not address these specific tactics that form the basis of the criticisms, instead offering general principles that sound reasonable but do not reflect the actual practices as revealed in Witness Lee's own teachings.
The rebuttal appears designed to present a more acceptable public face rather than to honestly engage with legitimate concerns about potentially manipulative recruitment tactics targeting vulnerable young people.