[Matt Anderson]

I'm introducing some additional source material for review (and yes, I am still going somewhere on topic with all of this! This is still about the LCS factor ). This is another excerpt from the Morris Fred paper. In case anyone is not aware, I am using this paper to establish a key fact. Witness Lee was the same before coming to the US. His temporary lull in bad behavior may not have been at all about repentance but rather about re-exerting control in Taiwan. The good report about Lee in America was one of the tools used to re-establish his pre-eminence among the Taiwanese by the late 60's/early 70's. Lee needed leverage in Taiwan in order to re-establish his pre-eminence among as many of the Taiwanese churches as possible.

It should also be noted that the same tools Lee used in Taiwan to construct a system of worship that was not wholly focused on the Lord, he also used in the United States. There were no differences.

Please note that Morris Fred has rightly detected three of the major ills that we have spoken about on these forums.

1) "Church Ground" (i.e. ground of locality) as the organizational base of the church.

The "ground of locality" was among Lee's first topics in the US. I will find and quote Jim Reetzke on this issue who has written a pro-LC version of LC history. He notes that Lee introduced these concepts of the "ground of locality" from the very beginning of his time in the US. The So. Cal brothers were anxious for Lee to stay in the US so that they could establish a church on the "proper" ground and Lee finally did stay. They had already been meeting in LA, but they were desirous of being on the "proper ground of locality". Hmm...??? Do we see a problem here?

Important Note: I will return to this fact in another post, but note for now that Lee had just been admonished by T. Austin Sparks on this issue and this didn't sway Lee. It strengthened his choice on this doctrine.

See Titus 3:10 - the work "heretick", "factious", or "sectarian" comes from the Greek word:

hairetikos - 1 fitted or able to take or choose a thing. 2 schismatic, factious, a follower of a false doctrine. 3 heretic

and hairetikos comse from hairetizo - 1 to choose. 2 to belong to a sect.

Yes. Lee made a strong choice in regards to this teaching. This forms the basis of heresy if the chosen doctrine turns out to be false. As a doctrine, I believe it has proven to be false.

2) "Positional Authority" (i.e. deputy authority)

We know that he introduced the concepts of "Deputy Authority" in seed form in the mid-sixties to a future inner circle of men who could potentially form one of the layers of hierarchy in this system of worship. This information was not given out freely, because if it were it could fall into the hands of those who would recognize it's source (the Enemy).

We know that where the Local Churches ended up was under a system of hierarchical control that verbally denies hierarchy, but behaviorally exhibits it to a tremendous degree.

3) "Preaching" (i.e. God's oracle, Minister of the Age)

I don't think I have to say much about this one.

----------------------------------------------------------------

The above facts (which will be repeated below) are highlighted because there is a tendency among LCer's and ex-LCer's to discount outside voices. In this excerpt you will read about the methods that Morris Fred used to identify these three items.

In addition, 40+ years of additional evidence from other case examples of problematic situations have proven Mr. Fred to be true.

After this post, I will present additional anecdotal evidence from Mr. Fred's paper that he shares as reports from those involved in the Taiwan split.

Keep in mind: This was written in 1972-75

Page 198-206

Examination of the 1966 split in the Local Church illustrates the relationship between changes in the church's organization and ritual. As noted in Chapter II, Sparks' visit had undermined the ongoing dialectic between world view and experience by challenging the boundaries defining the organization. Once the dissidents left, it was up to Witness Lee to rebuild the church organization on which this world-building dialectic is based. How he did this comprises the subject matter of this chapter.

As stated before, in referring to the history of the bitter split which occurred in the Local Church, individuals on either side supplied information when tended to justify their respective positions. An analysis of the types of information recalled provides insight into the fundamental causes of the disagreement. In general, those who left attacked Lee's manipulation of power within the church as well as other personal behavior. In addition, much attention was paid to what were considered heretical ideas and strange developments in the church ritual after the split. On the other hand, supporters of Lee concentrated on many of the dissidents' desire for personal status that led them to forsake the only true church. To them the proof of God's support for their position lies in the reality of their own successful growth when compared with that of the other group whose Taipei membership is merely several hundred. This may be the reason for the Local Church brethren's general silence regarding the details of the split--discussion could only injure their position by introducing the issue to the more than half the members who have been baptized since the split. Thus, revelation of such events is carefully controlled, as by Witness Lee in a sermon to young brethren at a special meeting (2/12/72). This sermon, as well as three articles written with respect to the split in Hong Kong, is my main source for the pro-Lee position. For the opposite side, I have depended on interviews, a public letter (Shr, 1970), and the Hong Kong magazine article referred to in Chapter II (Lu, 1973)

<< Note from Matt: Does anyone have this public letter (Shr, 1970)? >>

Despite the different information supplied by each group, there are certain points of agreement regarding the dispute. All parties noted that it was tragic and upsetting and had an adverse effect, during its duration, on church growth and unity. Many of the individuals who left the church ranked high in the leadership hiearchy of the church. Because of this, there was much confusion among the brethren regarding the reasons for the conflict. One informant remembered that immediately after the split, attendance at church meetings floundered and many brethren not directly involved wandered about to other church services. Moreover, while the dispute in Taiwan has been finalized and the situation among the various parties is somewhat stable, its effects still linger in Hong Kong. There it has taken on even more drastic aspects, with groups opposing Witness Lee "occupying" church buildings and forcing Lee to turn to the courts for resolution. Given the world view of the brethren, one can imagine the effect of taking spiritual disagreements to secular courts for resolution.

Those interviewed, to whichever group they belonged, agreed that Sparks' visit marked the point in which disagreement began within the Local Church. For those who broke with Lee, however, this visit served merely as a catalyst for quarrels in which underlying tensions became manifest. One informant noted that even before Sparks' visit, he had become concerned with Lee's overemphasis on Nee's concept of the principle of locality. He said that when he questioned Lee, Lee responded by stating that the worker was very young and "what could he know about things such as this." This picture substantiated the overall one of the early years in the church development in Taiwan in which Witness Lee maintained close scrutiny and control over all the co-workers, viewing the relationship as one similar to that between father and children. Time and again various informants recalled the strictness with which Lee directed them in their early training.

This strictness was maintained over the years and as the various co-workers and elders grew within the church organization, they matured and began to question absolute parental authority. One informant has suggested the great importance placed in Chinese churches on authority and discipline (Yu, p.I, 1974); thus, Sparks' prestige and background as a spiritual leader made him a logical alternative to Lee as a source of inspiration without the direct control involved. In stating the three reasons for his own leaving the church, one ex-worker in the Local Church was able to summarize the basic points of disagreement between Lee and the dissidents. They were: church ground, preaching, and positional authority. As will be shown in the ensuing discussion these three elements are not only closely related but also were mentioned with different emphasis by the opposing factions.

"Church ground" (Jyau Hwei Li Chang): is the literal translation for a church's organizational base; in the case of the Local Church that ground is the principle of locality. The nature of church organization has been previously mentioned as the focal point of disagreement between Lee and T. Austin-Sparks. On Taiwan the brethren within the Local Church had been discouraged from the close contact with Christians of other denominations. Lee argued that the ground for building the church was prescribed in scriptures as being that of locality. Any other basis for church organization was considered non-scriptural and thus damaging to the unity of the body of Christ. Universal church unity could only be achieved by restoring the church on the basis of independent local churches maintaining contact and fellowship through the offices of apostle and workers, much like the situation during Paul's time. On the other side of the argument, it was maintained that Lee carried the doctrine of locality to its extreme and was using it to create a denomination such as those that already exist. As such it was not furthering the cause of Christian unity but rather disrupting it. One individual mentioned that while working with Nee on the mainland, he had many friends in other Christian denominations, but while in Taiwan, his contacts were exclusively with Christians within the Local Church. The Local Church shunned (and does to this day) any participation in ecumenical organizations, and this was seen as being in direct contradiction of the spiritual unity of all Christians. Many of these younger co-workers were in agreement with Sparks' statement that the Local Church had been working on too narrow a ground for the growth and spiritual development of Christianity in Taiwan. In effect the dissidents saw Lee as creating an exclusive church on a doctrinal basis of rejecting people with different spiritual feelings.

"Preaching": Immediately following Sparks' departure, Lee expressed his displeasure with the latter's ideas in meetings with his co-workers in Taipei. Nevertheless, several of the co-workers and elders had been impressed with Sparks and began meeting together to read the latter's works. The core of this group was at the Third Assembly Hall. When Lee discovered that such meetings were taking place, he was very angry with the culprits. He felt that they had been meeting behind his back and in doing so were challenging his authority as church apostle.

In addition several of the co-workers heeded Sparks' advice to begin preaching among Christians of other denominations. They were either reprimanded or relieved of their positions as co-workers. Moreover, to insure that those sympathetic to Sparks' ideas would not be able to disseminate them among other church brethren, Lee began to demand that all speakers for the church follow an outline distributed by Lee instead of using their own ideas. To many of them this contradicted the notion that preaching should be spontaneous, according to direction by the Spirit.

"Positional Authority": While the first area of disagreement was discussed in theoretical terms, the problem of authority within the Local Church was revealed in terms of information specific to personalities within the church. The first group of arguments which we will examine regard the person of Witness Lee himself. Several instances were noted in which the integrity of Lee was questioned. One dealt with the finances within the church; the other with Lee's personal moral standards. It should be noted here that this information comes exclusively from those who left the church and there is little information regarding this aspect on the other side. Nonetheless, it was reiterated by several sources (without coaching or leading questions by me). After Sparks left Taiwan, Lee used church funds to go to the United States and England where he visited the church group of Sparks, who according to my informants was not aware of the great hostility Lee felt toward him. Later Lee discovered that his wife had cancer. After returning to Taiwan, he decided to go to the United States to seek medical assistance. At this point, the rather blurred boundaries between church and personal wealth first caused friction. Some members wondered if the church would provide funds for their wives should the need arise for them to go to the United States. It was decided that Lee's wife's contributions to the church warranted making such an exception. The treatments, however, were not successful and she soon died. Within a year, Lee's reputation was not enhanced by his marriage to a sister whose previous simple appearance soon changed to one affected by jewelry, make-up, and a fancy coiffeur. The remarriage within one year of the death of his first wife was considered in bad tasted and some members began to complain that Lee, who often expounded on the need to de-emphasize the matters of the flesh, had perhaps lost his spirituality. A church sister noted that this opposition had been countered by reference to the consequences of Aaron's and Miriam's criticism of Moses' marriage, the former was stricken with a skin disease. The analogy suggested that like Moses, Lee was only responsible to the Lord and no one had the right to interfere with his personal decision. This argument reflected the view that Lee as modern day apostle of Christ held a position above the rest of the members and was thus responsible only to God for his actions.

In the area of finance, a second problem arose when large sums of money were given to Lee's son for investment purposes in the United States, whether for personal or church gain is disputed. When challenged for using church funds for private gains, Lee allegedly replied that the money had been given to him personally by overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia and that nothing illegal or immoral had occurred.

Other complaints regarding the authority of Lee were also mentioned.

(To be continued)

Matt