James Barber - History of Witness Lee

[Freedom]

The following link found in the Wikipedia article for Witness Lee has a history of the LC spoken by James Barber:
http://www.blendedbody.com/JamesBarb...timony_016.mp3

It is a bit of a long listen, but there are a lot of interesting things worth discussing. Since James Barber was one of WL's close coworkers, it is interesting to hear the thought process behind his decision to follow Lee. Although much of it seems silly now, I can understand why someone like James Barber was so willing to follow Lee.

[Freedom]

The following is spoken starting ~22:44 in the recording:

Originally Posted by James Barber

Then he came back in 1961, to the United States, for the purpose of some business matters and some other matters. It was while he was here in ’61 up to around, I believe September/October of 1962, he was here for some time; he was just fixing to go back to Taiwan because they had a lot of conferences scheduled. A big conference with 10,000 was scheduled.

But I have to mention, before this in May of 1962, the church in Los Angeles took the ground and began to meet. They had some fellowship with brother Lee, and brother Lee didn’t tell them anything, he just said “You pray. You pray, you just pray. Whatever you feel.” Actually, in ’58 they tried to do something, and he said “No, don’t do anything.” In ’60 they wanted to do something, and he discouraged it. But by ’62, he didn’t discourage, he didn’t encourage. He just said “pray”.

So by May of 1962, the church in Los Angeles took the ground in brother Samuel Chang’s home. He lived there in Los Angeles. Well, they had around 30 people, 28 of whom were Chinese. And two, they generally call it 2 ½ Caucasians, because the ½ was a sister who eventually, although she stayed a long time, even into Elden hall, she left. The two were John Ingalls and Jim Reetzke. That was the two Caucasians that began to meet in 1962 of May, that’s when they took the ground.

Brother Lee was going back to Taiwan. If they took that ground, that was up to them, but he was going back to Taiwan. He had no burden at all to come to this country. He had no consideration, he had no burden. He figured “let them take the books, and let them do whatever”. His burden back then was Taiwan. Especially in China they had no burden for this country. Anyway, it was while he was in this country, at that time, there began to be some things that happened, to cause some great pressure upon him. Some great pressure. Some real situations that were happening, and through this pressure, he went to the Lord and he went to the Lord and he went to the Lord. And the pressure did not let up, it increased and increased and increased. He went to the Lord “why Lord is this happening.”

Something like this, I don’t have the exact words, I’ve heard things here and there, I’m just trying to put it all together. Anyways, the decision was though, eventually he realized the Lord wanted him to stay in this country. And the pressure didn’t stop. It’s not that he said “Yes” and the pressure stopped, that’s our concept. No, the pressure continued, but he got clearer what the Lord wanted. That was to stay in this country. So he called brother Samuel Chang - I’ve heard this story many times, and this was in the fall of 1962. He called him in Los Angeles, and he said “brother Chang, I’m coming to Los Angeles.” Well, they had heard he was leaving, because a big conference was already being scheduled in Taiwan. And he said “You are? Oh you’re coming before you’re going back to Taiwan?” And he said, “No, I’m coming to Los Angeles to stay”. And he said, “Oh, you’re coming to stay two or three weeks?” And he said, “No, I’m coming to stay indefinitely.” Well, they were all just shocked…

The part that I have bolded is something that I find to be interesting. Not interesting because the story of WL’s decision to stay in the U.S. is not already known, but because James speaks about it so vaguely. It is almost certain from the way he is speaking that he knew things that he wasn’t saying. Take for example what he says here: “there began to be some things that happened.. Some real situations that were happening…” Nothing specific is said here, and I find it almost humorous at how vague this is. It is painfully obvious that a lot wasn’t being said.

Why is this such a big deal? Because the whole notion of ‘recovery’ was partly rooted in the idea that WL’s coming here was the “Lord’s doing”. This, however, is exactly what was shrouded in mystery for so long until the truth came out. It seems that some of WL’s close coworkers knew some of the truth all along, but instead chose to sensationalize the story of his coming here and make it seem more important than it really was.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The following link found in the Wikipedia article for Witness Lee has a history of the LC spoken by James Barber:
http://www.blendedbody.com/JamesBarb...timony_016.mp3

It is a bit of a long listen, but there are a lot of interesting things worth discussing. Since James Barber was one of WL's close coworkers, it is interesting to hear the thought process behind his decision to follow Lee. Although much of it seems silly now, I can understand why someone like James Barber was so willing to follow Lee.

Yes, that was a long, painful listen. It is full of many "local churchisms", broad-brushing large groups of people, over-exalting two of God's servants and those who chose to follow them, rather than Jesus Christ who is our life.

"I didn't need to pray" is telling.

Why did Witness Lee bother to come to a Navigators Bible study if it was part of the old wine skin?

I found the statement "The ministry is for the church, not the church is for the ministry" at the beginning very interesting. James, do you hear yourself?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by JJ

Yes, that was a long, painful listen. It is full of many "local churchisms", broad-brushing large groups of people, over-exalting two of God's servants and those who chose to follow them, rather than Jesus Christ who is our life.

"I didn't need to pray" is telling.

Why did Witness Lee bother to come to a Navigators Bible study if it was part of the old wine skin?

I found the statement "The ministry is for the church, not the church is for the ministry" at the beginning very interesting. James, do you hear yourself?

You mentioned a few things that I wanted to discuss. I don’t know too much about James Barber, but I think he passed away sometime in the mid-80’s, before the so-called turmoil took place. I have also heard that after the Max R. incident, he was moved to OKC by WL. In other words, it seems that his visibility in the LC gradually diminished over time. I think one of his sons indicated that he had expressed resentment towards the LC near the end of his life

I don’t know when James spoke this ‘history’, but whenever he did must have been a point in time when he was still blinded by the standard LC train of thought. It is interesting how him and so many others worked to give the impression of the whole world situation (WW2, communist takeover in China, etc.) being due to the Lord “preparing the way” for WL to come to America. It’s a ridiculous correlation fallacy at heart, but in the LC, I think that there has been the persistent effort to relate the world situation to what WN/WL were doing at the time. James’ message is indicative of this.

Regarding James’ decision to follow WL, which is summarized by his statement “I didn’t need to pray”, it seems that the underlying motive was his disillusionment with the seminary that he was attending. That is very telling indeed. Towards the beginning of the message he says that he only had two paths for his life: become a lawyer, or go into ministry (a false dilemma), and since he didn’t want to be a lawyer, he chose seminary. It seems that perhaps there was some inner turmoil that he never dealt with and his ‘escape’ was to follow Lee.

On the subject of TAS, it seems WL was seeking to find a way to discredit him. On way was obviously the matter of “the ground”, the other was criticizing his Honor Oak ministry center. I am dumbfounded by this criticism just because of the sheer amount of irony. I am almost 100% certain that LSM officially calls their current building for conferences and trainings a “ministry center”. To WL and his LSM scam, the issue was never about the ministry being for the churches. This was just a way that others could be discredited, all the while WL could have his minions like Benson go around and make people submit to his ministry office.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

Yes, that was a long, painful listen. It is full of many "local churchisms", broad-brushing large groups of people, over-exalting two of God's servants and those who chose to follow them, rather than Jesus Christ who is our life.

"I didn't need to pray" is telling.

Why did Witness Lee bother to come to a Navigators Bible study if it was part of the old wine skin?

I found the statement "The ministry is for the church, not the church is for the ministry" at the beginning very interesting. James, do you hear yourself?

Don Rutledge, in his history of the LC's, wrote this about James Barber ...

In 1964, Herman, his fianceé Kathleen Corley, and his twin brother Thurman were in the Washington D.C. area for a summer of Navigator training. In the spring of 1964, James Barber had returned from the Witness Lee conference in Tyler, Texas. He and about 20 students at Wayland Baptist College had left the Southern Baptist denomination and began to seek the Lord and to meet in the Lord’s name as simply the church in Plainview. Witness Lee accepted an invitation to meet with James Barber and the seeking saints in
Plainview.

In other places, Rutledge indicated that Barber was Lee's most ardent supporter, evaluating all others based upon his own zeal.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

I found the statement "The ministry is for the church, not the church is for the ministry" at the beginning very interesting. James, do you hear yourself?

This is what has come to be known as a "factoid" -- something spoken long enough, and with much conviction, that the hearers believe it is true. Actually it has no basis in fact. Politicians do this all the time.

Lee spoke much in those early days, and no one knew any different. Because initially the meetings were fresh and exciting, and the ministry was truly anointed, we believed all we were told without verification. None of the brothers (Rapoport, Ingalls, Mallon, So, etc.) black-balled by Lee ever was a "rebel," rather they all felt that Lee was clueless to his son's character. Imagine that!?!

It was not until the "new way," with Phillip Lee running LSM in Anaheim, that the leaders around the country even questioned anything Lee had said. If it were not for Philip's profligate, prodigal, reprehensible, and disgusting behavior, none of Lee's past flaws and failures would probably ever be discussed. Though I have no evidence to support it, the only reasonable explanation I can provide for WL placing his son in such a position as he did, ruling over all the LC leaders, was that his son was blackmailing him.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by JJ

Why did Witness Lee bother to come to a Navigators Bible study if it was part of the old wine skin?

I found the statement "The ministry is for the church, not the church is for the ministry" at the beginning very interesting. James, do you hear yourself?

If accurate, Witness Lee met Don Hardy through the Navigators.

In respect to what James spoke, try to keep it in historical perspective. James passed away the year the New Way began in Taiwan. Several years before the pledge of allegiance Benson and Ray allegedly drafted.
It's been documented a former co-elder of James believed the same thing:

"The ministry is for the church, not the church is for the ministry"

The following is from page 11 of Speaking the Truth in Love by John Ingalls,

"I believe that the first was that the ministry was being given a place above the churches. It was being too highly exalted and emphasized, so that it became imperative for every church now to manifest that they were “for the ministry” and to “serve the ministry”. It was no longer, as we were often told, that the ministry was for the churches and that only the churches should be built up; rather the churches now should be for the ministry, and the ministry was being built up. We felt that we should voice such a concern to brother Lee."

On one hand James had to promote the ministry Witness Lee spoke. On the other being supported full-time he had to keep concerns to himself.

Something that was very telling from Brad Barber's posts for those of us that participated and/or read on thebereans.net was this statement:

"If pressed, someday I may tell the reason why James had to leave beautiful sunny Southern California and move us to the lc's version of Australia during the colonial period."

[NewManLiving]

This may give some insight as to how James felt before he died. Extracted from

http://www.laymansfellowship.com/pub...opleChange.pdf
Brent Barber
...A bigger unrighteousness which no one else has discussed is the fact that Philip Lee and the grandsons of Lee had fat Swiss bank accounts which were slush funds from the Living Stream. I know this because my dad told me directly. By the early 80's just before he died, my dad had grown so weary of Philip's shenanigans that he openly discussed it. I was living in Anaheim just before he died and he would stop off at my place when he came into town for the big "elder’s" conventions they had in those days.
He would rip into all the phony pretension and strutting around going on [per Philip]. He could not have been more bored and disinterested. He yucked it up with me a lot during that time and it was the only period when he was honest about everything. He died later that year. I know that he was severely disappointed and disillusoned at the way his dream had turned out. He saw it was a sham, but had nowhere else to go.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

Brent Barber
...A bigger unrighteousness which no one else has discussed is the fact that Philip Lee and the grandsons of Lee had fat Swiss bank accounts which were slush funds from the Living Stream. I know this because my dad told me directly. By the early 80's just before he died, my dad had grown so weary of Philip's shenanigans that he openly discussed it. I was living in Anaheim just before he died and he would stop off at my place when he came into town for the big "elder’s" conventions they had in those days.
He would rip into all the phony pretension and strutting around going on [per Philip]. He could not have been more bored and disinterested. He yucked it up with me a lot during that time and it was the only period when he was honest about everything. He died later that year. I know that he was severely disappointed and disillusoned at the way his dream had turned out. He saw it was a sham, but had nowhere else to go.

I find it to be very significant that James Barber would become disillusioned with the LC towards the end of his life. By all indications, he was one who played a significant role in defining the LCM even as we know it to this day. Earlier today, aron posted an interesting excerpt from Don's book on a different thread: "As I [Don] came to know brother Lee more, I did notice a difference between his public persona and the way he treated different individuals. Publicly, sometimes he got into hyperbole. He would say something extreme and some of the more extreme personality types would take off with it." Notice what Don says about extreme personalities taking off with things that WL said. It is my impression that James Barber was this type of person.

Ohio referred to James as someone full of zeal. After I listened to the recording, that is the view of James that I walked away with. Ultimately, extreme personalities are what it takes to create a movement like the LC. I'm not here to try to determine who to blame for the more bizarre aspects of the LC, but it took more than Lee to make it all happen. A lot has been said about the strong 'Texas' influence in the beginning of the LC. I think that was definitely a factor.

What makes James' eventual disillusionment so significant is that he attempted to distance himself from the monster that he helped create. According to his son, James eventually realized that it was all a farce. Considering just how many who helped start the movement eventually left or were ousted, it really speaks louder than any words about the problems of the LC. Let me put it this way - the current blendeds have given their lives to a movement that eventually turned on some founding members, a movement which other founding members became significantly disillusioned with.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Ohio referred to James as someone full of zeal. After I listened to the recording, that is the view of James that I walked away with. Ultimately, extreme personalities are what it takes to create a movement like the LC. I'm not here to try to determine who to blame for the more bizarre aspects of the LC, but it took more than Lee to make it all happen. A lot has been said about the strong 'Texas' influence in the beginning of the LC. I think that was definitely a factor.

One brother, whom I knew in Cleveland and Columbus in the mid-70's, who took it on himself to "perfect" me, often would tell me about "those Texas brothers, who were 'absolutely one' with WL." From my earliest days, there was definitely an undercurrent of these more zealous brothers in the GLA, who had come to view TC and the GLA leadership with suspicion, as if they were "diluting Brother Lee's burden." Looking back, I do believe that Lee himself solicited this kind of fleshly behavior, with brothers around the country vying with one another for Lee's approval.

Most of the leaders in the region, however, saw this radical zeal exhibited in conferences and trainings, replete with endless winds and waves of fleshly movements accompanied by suspicions towards the "more reserved," and felt TC was like an "umbrella" to protect the region from all the storms and nonsense emanating from Anaheim. The real dilemma here was their inner "disconnect." TC had always conditioned them to believe that Lee's burden was pure and from the Lord, and it was always those around Lee who "messed things up." How could that be? Yet, that's how we all were. For years the GLA leaders operated under the paradigm, "WL good, BB bad."

James would say this was impossible,

"With the tongue we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made according to the likeness of God. Out of the same mouth comes forth blessing and cursing. These things, my brothers, ought not to be so!

Does the spring of water, out of the same opening, gush forth both sweet and bitter? Can the fig tree, my brothers, produce olives, or a grapevine bear figs? So, neither can saltwater produce sweet water.

Is there anyone wise and understanding among you?" -- (James 3.9-13)

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The following link found in the Wikipedia article for Witness Lee has a history of the LC spoken by James Barber:
http://www.blendedbody.com/JamesBarb...timony_016.mp3

It is a bit of a long listen, but there are a lot of interesting things worth discussing. Since James Barber was one of WL's close coworkers, it is interesting to hear the thought process behind his decision to follow Lee. Although much of it seems silly now, I can understand why someone like James Barber was so willing to follow Lee.

James Barber says in this "history" that Witness Lee was the only one talking about eating Jesus in those days, as if he invented the thought.

I noticed the Blue Letter Bible recently has been promoting a book by Richard Sibbes (who lived from 1577 - 1635 ) that has a number of sermons on the feast promised by Isaiah that will take place in Zion upon Christ's return. To illustrate my point (eating Jesus was not "invented by Witness Lee", I copied a small part of the first sermon

"Christ the chief dish in the Feast


This Feast is a Feast of fat things full of marrow and of wine on the lees well refined, the best that can be imagined, the best of the best. A Feast is promised, a spiritual Feast. The special graces and favours of God are compared to a Feast made up of the best things, full of all varieties and excellencies. And the chief dish (that is all in all) is Christ and all the gracious benefits we, by promise, can in any wise expect from him. All other favours and blessings whatsoever they are, are but Christ dished out (as I may so speak) in several offices and attributes. He is the original of comfort, the principle of grace and holiness; all is included in Christ. Ask of him and ye shall obtain, even the forgiveness of your sins, peace of conscience, and communion of Saints. Ask of Christ as of one invested with all privileges for the good of others, but yet this is by his death. He is the Feast itself, he is dished out into promises. Have you a promise of the pardon of sins, it is from Christ. Would you have peace of conscience, it is from Christ; justification and redemption, it is from Christ. The love of God is derived to us by Christ, yea, and all that we have that is good is but Christ parceled out.

Why Christ with his benefits is compared to a Feast; Because the favours we have by Christ are choice ones


Now I will show why Christ with his benefits, prerogatives, graces, and comforts, is compared to a Feast...."

I give credit to Witness Lee for preaching the truth related to eating Christ. But, he surely didn't invent it (comes right out of scripture, and others have preached the same).

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by JJ

I give credit to Witness Lee for preaching the truth related to eating Christ. But, he surely didn't invent it (comes right out of scripture, and others have preached the same).

I don't know how much Christian groups besides the LC have emphasized this, but something tells me that even some of the positive things that Lee emphasized may have been overemphasized or perhaps discussed in an abnormal way. Just because a certain truth is found in the Bible doesn't mean that it automatically deserves an undue emphasis. Especially in regards to what WL taught about eating Christ, I find that a lot of it might have been intended for shock value, rather than because it represented truth found in the Bible.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I don't know how much Christian groups besides the LC have emphasized this, but something tells me that even some of the positive things that Lee emphasized may have been overemphasized or perhaps discussed in an abnormal way. Just because a certain truth is found in the Bible doesn't mean that it automatically deserves an undue emphasis. Especially in regards to what WL taught about eating Christ, I find that a lot of it might have been intended for shock value, rather than because it represented truth found in the Bible.

Yes, "we're divine by eating Jesus" comes to mind.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by JJ

Yes, "we're divine by eating Jesus" comes to mind.

There is a song in the LSM hymnal (#1146) with a line that says "We'll masticate Jesus..." Most newcomers don't understand that the word masticate means "chew". I have seen strange looks on people's faces when that song was sung. No one could convince me that the word choice wasn't there for shock value.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

There is a song in the LSM hymnal (#1146) with a line that says "We'll masticate Jesus..." Most newcomers don't understand that the word masticate means "chew". I have seen strange looks on people's faces when that song was sung. No one could convince me that the word choice wasn't there for shock value.

Of course it was there for "shock value." That's how these people think.

During my final days in the LC during the summer of 2005, trying to work as a long-time church deacon with this new lackey from Chicago sent by TC in Cleveland to be our new "boss," I dared to protest a number of his absurd changes in my church.

His response, "sometimes we need to shock the saints."

Taken straight from the Recovery playbook.