Mass Movement in the Local Churches

[Indiana]

"Do not say, as if it were a mere slogan, 'I am following the flow.' The real flow is the Lord Himself. How wrong it is to stir up a movement! That is an insult to the Lord. It is an offense to Him. There must never be a movement among us in the Lord's recovery. Do not use the word "flow" as a cloak to disguise a movement. When some of you speak of the flow, you actually mean a movement. To create a movement and then to encourage others to follow it is to make a tremendous mistake (Lee, The Spirit and the Body, p. 9, 1977). This quote is from 1977. The following document in the link is from one year ago, May, 2010.

http://www.OurNeedtoExamineOurselves...entintheLC.pdf

[aron]

This is a good paper, providing a clear summary of what happened in the Local Churches between 1974 and 1986.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Indiana

"Do not say, as if it were a mere slogan, 'I am following the flow.' The real flow is the Lord Himself. How wrong it is to stir up a movement! That is an insult to the Lord. It is an offense to Him. There must never be a movement among us in the Lord's recovery. Do not use the word "flow" as a cloak to disguise a movement. When some of you speak of the flow, you actually mean a movement. To create a movement and then to encourage others to follow it is to make a tremendous mistake (Lee, The Spirit and the Body, p. 9, 1977). This quote is from 1977. The following document in the link is from one year ago, May, 2010.

As a young newcomer in the LC, I was there when these messages were spoken in Cleveland, in August 1977. They were spoken at a time when Anaheim and elsewhere was in chaos due to the "Young Galilean" movement, which was initiated, endorsed, and promoted by Lee himself. Yet, as was so typical of Lee's continual movements and "flows," things all went haywire, and Max Rapoport was axed as the fall guy so Lee could save face.

Titus Chu cited this conference for decades, as evidence in his own defense, declaring that "brother Lee was always welcome to minister in Cleveland," when the so-called "storms" of rebellion battered the recovery.

Few understand how Lee operated. He would directly teach contrary to what he himself practiced. So how do you "properly" follow his lead? Do you follow his public teaching, as Titus Chu, John Ingalls, Mill Mallon, John So, Don Rutledge, et.al. endeavored to, or do you follow what he practiced, as Benson Phillips, Ron Kangas, Ray Graver, and the future Blendeds did. In this manner Lee constantly pitted one faction against the other, each thinking that they were the true and loyal "faithful followers" of the Lord's apostle to His recovery.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Indiana

"Do not say, as if it were a mere slogan, 'I am following the flow.' The real flow is the Lord Himself. How wrong it is to stir up a movement! That is an insult to the Lord. It is an offense to Him. There must never be a movement among us in the Lord's recovery. Do not use the word "flow" as a cloak to disguise a movement. When some of you speak of the flow, you actually mean a movement. To create a movement and then to encourage others to follow it is to make a tremendous mistake (Lee, The Spirit and the Body, p. 9, 1977). This quote is from 1977. The following document in the link is from one year ago, May, 2010.

http://www.OurNeedtoExamineOurselves...entintheLC.pdf

In Lee's lexicon a "move" was of God and a "movement" was of man. Thus the former was genuine and the latter was not. And so, of course, the "Recovery" was deemed by him a move and everything else was a movement. Big shocker there.

This is simply another example of how Lee used word games and equivocation to influence the gullible. These definitions were Lee's. There is nothing set in stone that says "moves" are genuine and "movements" are not. This is a concept he cooked up.

Why didn't Lee just say that something was of God and something else was not of God? Why didn't he say the Pentecostals were not of God, but the Little Flock was of God, if that's what he believed? Why the move/movement equivocation? Why the word games?

Because Lee was a master at suggesting things and letting our minds fill in the blanks. The Pentecostal movement was every bit as much a "move" of God as the "Recovery" was, and both were equally "movements" of men--and Lee knew better than to declare otherwise in blacks and whites. Thus the suggestion and the innuendo and the LCM jargon.

Every manifestation of God has elements of God (move) and man (movement) from the Exodus to today's community church/evangelical phenomenon. To say we know that one is of God and the other is not is self-deception.

Yet some are still fretting over what's a move and what's a movement. Lee's shadow still influences, for the worse. Meanwhile God is telling us to jump in and serve somewhere, and stop squinting for "THE GENUINE MOVE." It's everywhere if you open you eyes.

[Cal]

When Lee said the "Recovery" was the genuine move of God, and all other situations were simply man's movements, he was doing nothing different than those who say their church is the one true church and all others are pretenders.

But, again, this was how Lee used equivocation. Instead of saying directly that the church he was in was the true one, he said the move he was in was the true one.

But essentially there was absolutely no difference between Lee's thought/meaning and the thought/meaning of all the others through history who declared their thing to be the "one true" thing. Whether they called it church, or move, or flow or whatever, the error is exactly the same.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

When Lee said the "Recovery" was the genuine move of God, and all other situations were simply man's movements, he was doing nothing different than those who say their church is the one true church and all others are pretenders.

I can still remember Lee's disdainful words, "the recovery is not another piece of Christianity."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can still remember Lee's disdainful words, "the recovery is not another piece of Christianity."

But, it is. No matter how ones meeting in the local churches would like to think the recovery is unique and distinct from Christianity, it is altogether another piece of Christianity.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

But, it is. No matter how ones meeting in the local churches would like to think the recovery is unique and distinct from Christianity, it is altogether another piece of Christianity.

Of course it is.

Whatever good was there is by now nearly extinguished, and all the rotten things of lustful power, arrogant pride, and filthy lucre have been given lots of time and opportunity to grow unimpeded.

[Freedom]

At first glance, it might seem that WL simply failed to practice what he preached. However, given his history of acting in direct contradiction to what he taught, the inevitable conclusion is that all too often, he used what he taught as a cloak for what he wanted to practice. It's something that WL was very good at. The scary thing is that WL cultivated an environment where what was being spoken was believed to be an absolute truth, in particular, it took precedence over the reality of what was being put into practiced.

I was often struck by how quickly LCers could lie about what they were doing, claiming that a certain practice wasn't really happening. I couldn't believe that they could be so dishonest. But it's not really that at all, it's more representative of a state of mind. At a very basic level, WL essentially ingrained it in members that the LC was infallible, that it could do no wrong. So if there were a clearly wrong practice happening, despite having the evidence straight in front of them, members might question or dismiss that evidence.

In the document linked to this thread, I noticed Steve's interview with Max. Max basically stated that Lee wanted him to do the footwork in carrying out his global conquest. But WL would never admit publicly that he wanted such a global 'movement'. Not before he initiated anything, nor afterwards when the dust of a failed scheme was settling. Of course, WL was quick to project the whole scheme onto Max. All the sudden, Max was the sole ambitious one. Even in modern times, the blendeds have said that Max desired to be the "universal coordinator of the one new man."

The issue, as it turns out, is far bigger than Lee refusing to accept responsibility for his actions. Lee couldn't admit to members what he really wanted to do. So told members something completely different, and then proceeded to do something in contradiction with it. No one would have guessed it. He had so many fooled. And in the aftermath of so many things, leaders would tell everyone "move along, nothing to see here." The state of mind that exists is really hard to explain. Like I said before, the evidence might be directly in front of members, yet they are unable to take it to mean anything significant. Why? Because it contradicts what they've been told. And what they've been told is given more precedence than reality.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

At first glance, it might seem that WL simply failed to practice what he preached.

Everything you just described is exactly what occurs in politics every day, magnified a thousand fold in this election cycle.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Even in modern times, the blendeds have said that Max desired to be the "universal coordinator of the one new man."

I heard this statement from the podium, and spoken with palpable disdain. What wasn't said from the podium was that Max was acting with the full blessing, nay direction, of God's humble bondslave Witness Lee, who naturally wouldn't try to control a fly. The official narrative required them to leave out Lee's driving role in the Max Fiasco.

Incredible.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But essentially there was absolutely no difference between Lee's thought/meaning and the thought/meaning of all the others through history who declared their thing to be the "one true" thing. Whether they called it church, or move, or flow or whatever, the error is exactly the same.

What is so amazing about the confidence trick involved here is how blatant it really is. The only thing holding it together is the willingness or need to believe. At its core it's little more than, "When others do it, it's "X", and wrong, but when we do it, it's "Y", and okay." The re-branding or re-labeling part wasn't sophisticated at all.

Therein perhaps lies its power - when you step back and look, how there's no "there" there. I mean, PT Barnum said you can fool some of the people some of the time, but really? So many people fooled, for so long, with so little?

Originally Posted by Freedom

At first glance, it might seem that WL simply failed to practice what he preached. However, given his history of acting in direct contradiction to what he taught, the inevitable conclusion is that all too often, he used what he taught as a cloak for what he wanted to practice. It's something that WL was very good at.

There's probably something to this. For example, WL warned often about ambition, which made us all assume that he must have none. But the exact opposite was the truth. He had so much ambition that he couldn't tolerate anyone else's! It's the classic sleight-of-hand distraction, where you wave one hand in the air to attract attention, while the other is manipulating in secret. And the thing that was moving in secret was usually the opposite of what was being waved. Coincidence? Doubtful.

And when you see the disparity between what was said at point A versus point B, or what was taught versus what was practiced, it is pretty blatant. It doesn't take an expert in forensics to notice. Just someone like Indiana to come along and point out what's probably obvious to any objective viewer.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

What is so amazing about the confidence trick involved here is how blatant it really is. The only thing holding it together is the willingness or need to believe.

And ever so willing are members to believe it. One generation gets clued into what's going on, they leave, and the next generation is already there waiting to take the place of their predecessors. That's what is so scary about the whole belief system that exists in the LC. It is devoid of all rational or common sense. It is a perpetual game of Simon Says.

Originally Posted by aron

There's probably something to this. For example, WL warned often about ambition, which made us all assume that he must have none. But the exact opposite was the truth. He had so much ambition that he couldn't tolerate anyone else's! It's the classic sleight-of-hand distraction, where you wave one hand in the air to attract attention, while the other is manipulating in secret. And the thing that was moving in secret was usually the opposite of what was being waved. Coincidence? Doubtful.

Lee was the master con man. He developed an entire system that allowed him to get what he wanted, virtually 100% of the time. The actual sleight-of-hand con that was talking place was so simple that we wonder how he got away with it. But more than anything else, WL knew how to play upon people's emotions. He knew what people wanted. He knew how to appeal to that. Take Max, for example. Max was a self-admitted ambitious young man. WL played upon that. WL used that to his own advantage. And when the time came, Max was disposed of.

Lastly, to address the darker side of Lee, I do believe that what he accused so many others of was his own psychological projection of his personality onto others. Ambition? Check. Manipulative? Check. Controlling? Check. But none of these things members would dare accuse Lee of. Those were problems attributed to anyone but Lee.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Lee was the master con man. He developed an entire system that allowed him to get what he wanted, virtually 100% of the time. The actual sleight-of-hand con that was talking place was so simple that we wonder how he got away with it. But more than anything else, WL knew how to play upon people's emotions. He knew what people wanted. He knew how to appeal to that. Take Max, for example. Max was a self-admitted ambitious young man. WL played upon that. WL used that to his own advantage. And when the time came, Max was disposed of.

If not a con, certainly a master manipulator. He could say did not control any churches. Disingenuously Witness Lee would say he doesn't determine meeting times, but all the same he manipulates brothers to be pawns in achieving desired results. Max for one, Benson another, and so on. Various ones are used to do his dirty work while WL's hands are reputed to be clean.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The re-branding or re-labeling part wasn't sophisticated at all. . . .Therein perhaps lies its power -

When you step back and get the tiniest bit of objectivity, the disparities appear quickly. At one point it's all about the local and autonomous assembly, then suddenly it's the "Jerusalem principle" and everyone's talking about consolidation, about "coordination" and "blending". So which is it?

Answer: whatever Leadership wants today. Yesterday's reality was "B", today's reality is "C", and Leadership is always right. That's the unchanging constant. Leadership must always be right. That, my friends, is the basis of Nee and Lee's "good order in the church."

Leadership can flatly contradict itself; just ignore what it said yesterday and give a hearty "amen" to today's speaking. "Forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to what is before". Leadership can say one thing and do another, but Leadership is always right - just compartmentalize the disparities and everything will be fine. Ignore any feelings of unease or dissociation, which are temporary and will fade in time.

Leadership can say that today's proposed activity is the move of the Lord, straight from the throne of God, while anyone else doing the exact same thing is criticized as a movement of men. Likewise, other teachings are dismissed as opinions of fallen men, while our Leadership's interpretations and inspirations are pure revelations from God.

Even the Bible can't escape the grip of this cultural vice: scripture that doesn't square with whatever Leadership is promoting today is held to be natural concepts. Today's speaking by Leadership, however, is always oracular - Leadership never has opinions, Leadership has revelations.

So if the Bible says, Remember the poor (Gal 2:10); Leadership can say, "We don't care for that", and guess who prevails? And if Jesus taught, "Give to those who cannot repay you" (Lu 14:12-14; cf Prov 22:9); and the FTTA trainer replies, "Don't waste your time", whose voice prevails? Paul twice encouraged the saints to sing Psalms, calling them the "words of Christ", yet if WL dismissed them as low and without merit, who won the day?

The one constant in all this flip-flopping and whip-sawing, the one solid rock in all these flows and moves and winds of teachings, is that Leadership must always be right. That's the culturally-derived constant that WN and then WL took as having unchallenged validity, truth, or reality. They weren't egomaniacs so much as simply assuming what they'd been culturally conditioned toward. The fact that Paul and other apostles didn't arrange themselves thus wasn't noted - it didn't square with the social construct. Turns out China wasn't virgin soil, after all; no, the gospel made its home there amongst fallen human culture, just as it had everywhere else.

Is it coincidence that if you publicly criticize Mao in China today, 40 years after his death, you'll lose your job? And that likewise anyone in the LC who publicly criticizes or questions WL will lose whatever standing they have, no matter their good character and/or years of faithful service? One simply can't criticize Leadership - it's a cultural imperative. If you break the cultural norm, you'll break the culture, the very fabric of society itself, and what's left? Chaos and darkness. So they choose the prison of culture. Because it's safe; it's all they know. Put a few Bible verses on top of it and nobody will know the difference.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

When you step back and get the tiniest bit of objectivity, the disparities appear quickly. At one point it's all about the local and autonomous assembly, then suddenly it's the "Jerusalem principle" and everyone's talking about consolidation, about "coordination" and "blending". So which is it?

Whatever is needed at the time. It's like politics. Say whatever you want, knowing your audience can't remember past last weekend.

Obviously "early-Lee" in the USA had a number of contradictions with "later-Lee." Another one became blatantly obvious during the GLA quarantines. "Early-Lee" is on record encouraging others to write and publish the "truths of the Lord's recovery to the ends of the earth." "Later-Lee" put the kibosh on that whole program, which has now become justification for all the quarantines of this century.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

What is so amazing about the confidence trick involved here is how blatant it really is. The only thing holding it together is the willingness or need to believe. At its core it's little more than, "When others do it, it's "X", and wrong, but when we do it, it's "Y", and okay." The re-branding or re-labeling part wasn't sophisticated at all.

First the confidence of the hearers has to be gained by giving them the real thing, which is the Ministry of Spirit and truth from the word of God. For many of us growing up in antiquated denominations, including myself in Catholicism, Lee's ministry was perhaps our first real "taste" of God, i.e. "Taste and see that the Lord is good." Even after decades of dry doctrines, the old-timers still recall those "glory days," and the "riches" in the ministry books.

Unfortunately, and this seems to occur far too often in the whole of Christendom, leaders then use this to keep their followers in tow, even after "driving the car into the ocean," as Lee himself has said. The lust for power consumes them, and predictably, corrupts them.