[Indiana]

Count, I see that you asked me questions a while back, Oct 3 -

You had asked me, -"Regarding 'writings', whose writings did you read? Were you 'allowed' to read writings other than Nee's and Lee's..and those they allowed you to read..that is in the LC bookstores?"

At that time, as has been shared, Witness Lee was in the background of the church, not the foreground. Although I was in the church only a year and a half, and fresh out of the world, I got in on the last couple years of a revival. The atmosphere was electric.

In my second month in the church we piled into cars (Feb 1971) and headed for San Francisco from Seattle, driving 15 hours, and through the night till daybreak and in time for the first meeting of a conference with Brother Lee.

Everyone across the country looked forward to conferences with him (also conf. with Ingalls, Barber, Mallon). On the way back to Seattle, at a rest stop a brother exhorted that we spend time with the Lord, individually. We did so and got into the word of God and prayer on our own.

This was an exceedingly strong practice that I was introduced to upon coming into the church in Seattle, as the saints were well-grounded in the word of God and in the morning watch and in spending time with the Lord. They knew that “an eating church was a functioning church”. The ministry was secondary, though a huge help; but the Bible was primary.

Praying the word of God into us was our essential practice that resulted in an overflow of the saints’ giving their testimonies in the meetings of their experience of Christ. “Eating Christ for the building up of the church” was a recurring theme in my first three years in the church – Jan 1971 - 1974.

The ministry of Witness Lee had its proper place, and so did the word of God. In the bookroom were precious books by Nee and Lee, but there were no announcements “every week” of new books coming out and there was no campaigning to follow Lee and his ministry. On the cover of some of Lee’s writings were merely his initials – W. L. The few books that were available had plain covers, but those plain covers and the content of the books, were so attractive to me. I gained so much from the ministry of Witness Lee.

In answer to your question, we not only felt free to read other books, we were encouraged to read them. Andrew Murray, George Mueller, Hannah-Whitehall Smith, Suzannah Wesley (John Wesley’s wife, she had writings on raising children that were taken very much to heart by Seattle sisters, as she was an amazing woman of God.). Madame Guyon’s writings were treasured the most by Seattle sisters, and also by many brothers. WL and Nee had spoken highly of her and her spiritual experience. Jessie Penn-Lewis was prized reading in the church in Seattle.

The book on intercessory prayer by Rees Howell was read by many saints. Biographies and the Brethren writings were widely read, such as Panton’s Earth’s Earliest Ages. We were free to read and to learn, and this freedom continued well into the eighties.

And, yes, a brother or sister could freely share in the meetings about their appreciation of the fellowship in books they were reading outside of Nee and Lee. Christ was really the center. He was also the attraction. It didn’t matter what we were doing that might have seemed different or peculiar to a newcomer; the Attraction of Christ often outweighed the concern new ones may have had.

Troubles come when our Center has competition from a second center, as indicated in what John Myer of Columbus has actually been dealing with from his beginnings in the church life in 1984. He shared in his latest chapter about a couple he and his wife were caring for who came to their meeting: – “Immediately after the meeting, the couple disappeared but not before paying a quick visit to the church library to confirm their other suspicion—that we were a Witness Lee church. I had fed them the standing-on-the-shoulders-of-those-who-went-before-us apologetic to prove our inclusiveness, but rows and rows of books bearing one name and one publishing house uniformly reinforced the opposite idea”. – end quote


I understand the idea of Brother Lee having stood on the shoulders of others. But he did not remain in the background in the churches. He was brought forward. When he, his ministry, and the office became inordinately lifted up in the churches, another center was created and Witness Lee came to the foreground in the local churches.


Magnetism of Earlier Era

Another quote by John in his latest chapter: “After years…I began to grudgingly admit that something was broken. Apparently the Local Church meetings that had exerted such magnetism toward seekers in an earlier era had quietly slipped into extinction.”

That extinction began in 1974 with the advent of trainings under brother Witness Lee (See Don Rutledge history or Deviating from the Path.) As the New Center began to emerge and come to the foreground, the magnetism was sliding away and it has never returned. Obsessive attention has been given to the second center bringing in confusion, chaos, and division in the local churches – and the testimony, impact and Attraction that once had its day in the local churches has become diluted, mixed, and compromised.

Thus the need to study local church history in a serious manner to trace the diversion from Christ alone.



Local Church Terminologies

CMW, You also mentioned your concern about using terms found only in the local church, such as the words I used about Christ being “our only center and enjoyment and people had the sense within them that they were home” in the church.

But language is a part of a culture and if the words of local church language have resonated in my heart and in my spirit it would follow that I will want to use some of that language with those of that culture, and sometimes with those outside the culture. There really is no rule about this, but to follow “the sense within”. Yet, as a kind of “rule” the more normal our language the better with ones inside or outside the culture.

Your concern is understood by many, I’m sure, and by me. But I would hope that the LC use of the language is not so that the local churches would “stand out” from other Christians due to an impure kind of motivation among the leadership or the saints. I think you indicated that you felt that this was the case, that they are trying to stand out.

I think rather that WL strove for the highest utterances and labored much on his choice of words to use, for the sake of the highest communication and the most meaningful expression. For this, I am thankful and will always be very appreciative.