[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What we are providing for here are explanations to our readers which accommodate the testimonies of many leaders who have left the Recovery and recorded their stories, e.g. Al Knoch, Godfred O., Don Rutledge, John Ingalls, Albert Zehr, Bill Mallon, John So, etc.

Well, I thought I might provide my own explanation. Is that ok with you, brother Ohio?

I'm very aware of the testimonies of all the brothers you have listed here. I actually heard some of the testimonies in their own living rooms, in person. But most of these testimonies were related to us over 30 years ago. (with the exception being Don Rutledge, who has commented on these matters in more recent years, right here on this forum) It is now 2020. I think we all have the great advantage of looking back in a more objective way, and with maybe a far different perspective. I can't be sure, but I believe the testimonies of some of these brothers would be very different today.

Anytime we are discussing "the nature of the Lord's Recovery", I think we are discussing something very subjective. First of all, this thing that many refer to as "the Lord's Recovery" is actually just the little Christian sect of The Local Church of Witness Lee. The whole notion that the Lord needs "a Recovery" is suspect at best, and is really just a man-made notion. It's not in the Bible. There is a vary good reason that many outsiders refer to the LC movement as "The Local Church of Witness Lee" - it is because the whole thing is, and always has been, a personality cult of sorts, based upon the person and work of Witness Lee. In my view, to speak of "the nature of the Lord's Recovery" apart from the nature, character and history of Witness Lee is an exercise in futility. Again, it may make us old guys feel a little better about ourselves, but it belies reality, and even the cold, hard facts of history.

I think if we take an objective look back at the history of the Local Church movement, at least since the move to Taiwan after the demise of Watchman Nee, the "nature" of the sect had changed and evolved many times. But there was always one main factor for the change - Witness Lee. His person, by which I mean his authority. His work, by which I mean his "ministry". We used to call these changes "flows". This flow, and that flow. With each flow there was a change in "the nature" of the movement. Sometimes it was a small change, sometimes it was a big change, but the change was always with the approval of, if not at the direction of, Witness Lee.

This is simply my perspective. This is simply my view. I do understand and fully appreciate that others here have a different perspective. Others have different views. And this is ok! In fact, I think it makes for a more interesting and lively discussions. Understand?
-