StandfortheTestimony.Org

[UntoHim]

Email Received from David Canfield:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello -

I have just launched a new website related to the turmoil the churches went through several years ago. It is

www.StandfortheTestimony.org

As the believers in Christ, we should stand for the Lord's testimony. However, this often involves conflict, for the enemy hates to see us take such a stand. Realizing this, we should not be discouraged when troubles arise in the church life, but encouraged and strengthened to follow the Lord as He desires.

To this end, this website, using a number of articles and documents from the turmoil, shows some of the history of that time. Negatively, this is to expose the evil work the Blended Brothers did in subverting the stand of the churches, and in usurping the ministry of Witness Lee. However, it is also meant to serve the very positive purpose of reminding us of what the churches originally did stand for, and should be standing for today, and encouraging the saints to remain in “the things which we have learned” (2 Tim. 3:14), even when there is so much decline around us.

In Christ,
David Canfield
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ohio]

Canfield's opening page is copied here ...

In the 20th century the Lord raised up a number of churches, all over the world, through the ministry of Witness Lee. These churches originally stood for the testimony of Christ. We came together simply as Christians, in the oneness of the Body of Christ, rather than on the basis of some teaching, practice, or person. This was a real work of the Lord to call His people back to Himself, and it was a wonderful blessing for so many of us who had the privilege of participating in it.

Gradually, however, the churches for the most part left their original standing, as they began to focus more and more on Witness Lee and his ministry. Although our brother was a real servant of the Lord, whose ministry was rich both in truth and in the experience of Christ, the fact that he allowed this situation to develop was nonetheless a very serious failure on his part. All of us who serve the Lord need His mercy, for every servant of the Lord has his shortcomings.

After Brother Lee’s death in 1997, his co-workers continued this departure. They were centered around the Living Stream Ministry, which was the publishing house founded by Witness Lee. Eventually, they established themselves as a de facto clergy among the churches, known as “the Blended Brothers,” and made oneness with themselves and the Living Stream Ministry, rather than oneness with Christ, the basis for our fellowship. The end result of all this was a serious division among the churches, which took place in 2006.

This website documents the history of this tragic and completely unnecessary division. This is to help both us and those who may come after us gain the profit from the very difficult experience we have been through, and also to serve as a witness of what the churches originally stood for.

It's worthwhile to examine this opening precis by Canfield because it represents a view which is not atypical of the mindset of many long term members from the Great Lakes area. Nearly every sentence, however, is composed of presuppositions which have been challenged by further inquiry into our history. The core of Canfield's abstract is an idealized view of church history provided by Witness Lee modified by Titus Chu.

I'm hoping that brother Canfield will be willing to discuss his perceptions on this forum. I once espoused the exact same set of views. We now, however, have the benefit of a more full picture of our history, and unfortunately Canfield's opening words due not reflect this.

[UntoHim]

From:a http://www.standforthetestimony.org/

These churches originally stood for the testimony of Christ. We came together simply as Christians, in the oneness of the Body of Christ, rather than on the basis of some teaching, practice, or person.

..and made oneness with themselves and the Living Stream Ministry, rather than oneness with Christ, the basis for our fellowship.

From an email announcing the existence of the website:

…Negatively, this is to expose the evil work the Blended Brothers did in subverting the stand of the churches, and in usurping the ministry of Witness Lee.

First of all let me say that I sincerely appreciate and even laud David Canfield’s writings over the past number of years. I think he has gone about his business with a genuine Christiant heart and attitude, and having this kind of heart and attitude leaves room for the Lord to enlighten minds and soften hearts. When considering these deeply held understandings and beliefs, and cherished views of persons and places, it is so very easy for one to leave love behind, and plow forward, becoming “a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal”. I know this has always been a constant danger here on these open forums out here in cyperspace. I pray often that the Lord would keep this understanding before us all as we consider and dialog regarding the teachings, practices and history of Witness Lee and the Local Church Movement.

I have often said something to the effect that “the further one gets away from the ministry of Witness Lee and the Local Church, the worse they look”. This has certainly been my personal experience, and I have seen the same among many other former LC members as well. We see this same dynamic at work in the writings of John Myer (http://www.assemblylife.com/) His book, A Future and A Hope, is basically a journal in which Myer lets us all in on his personal experience and observations as he and those around him have made their way through the uncertain waters of leaving a Movement which has controlled and even dominated their lives, both personal and corporate, for decades. And no matter how you view some of his conclusions, one thing is for certain, the further he got away from his Local Church connections – physical, emotional and spiritual – the more acute and crystal clear his criticisms of the Movement became. (Sorry brother John, I calls them as I sees them)

Now back to concerns of David Canfield. Unless I am misreading and/or misunderstanding Canfield, he seems to be of the mind that the Local Church Movement, at it’s onset here in America and until Lee’s death, was everything that Witness Lee and his followers have claimed it to be – A true and genuine “recovery” back to the teachings and practices of the original New Testament apostles and local churches. And at some point, most especially after the passing of Lee, Canfield posits that the “The Recovery” has degraded and “left their original standing, as they began to focus more and more on Witness Lee and his ministry”. Canfield, in the email announcing the website, makes no bones about his ultimate intentions: “this is to expose the evil work the Blended Brothers did in subverting the stand of the churches, and in usurping the ministry of Witness Lee”.

There is lot’s to consider and respond to here…. too much to address properly in one post, so I will just start with a premise that most current LC members, and many former members, hold dear to – that the “original standing” of The Local Church Movement, and the ministry of Witness Lee, was something totally altruistic, pure and biblical….that it was a genuine continuation of a “recovery” which can be traced back to Martin Luther and the Reformers. Of course the major cog in this continuation, insofar as Lee and his followers are concerned, is Watchman Nee. This line of thinking presupposes that Nee himself is to be considered along the same lines (literally) as Martin Luther – a supposition that, aside from Witness Lee and some other of Nee’s earlier followers, would be considered as preposterous by the vast majority of contemporary Christians, probably even those of Mainland China. This is not to say that Nee is not held is high esteem among many contemporary Christians (especially those in Asia/China), but few outside the Local Church Movement/LSM would assert that Nee is anything more than a genuine teacher/preacher of the Gospel, and a genuine apostle/church planter raised up by God Himself for the people of his beloved country of China.

Next up at bat… Canfield’s assertion that Local Churchers/LSM have “left their original standing, as they began to focus more and more on Witness Lee and his ministry”.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

There is lot’s to consider and respond to here ... too much to address properly in one post, so I will just start with a premise that most current LC members, and many former members, hold dear to – that the “original standing” of The Local Church Movement, and the ministry of Witness Lee, was something totally altruistic, pure and biblical ….that it was a genuine continuation of a “recovery” which can be traced back to Martin Luther and the Reformers.

I have known far too many brothers who truly believed that the Recovery "was something totally altruistic, pure and biblical." That's why we invested our lives into her. The original ideals were captivating, and the joy of our salvation seemed to confirm this. As one who was reared in Catholicism, and one who never once heard the message of being born again within her confines, I also bought into the story that "all was lost" and slowly since Luther, truth was being "recovered."

As long as we possessed only a cursory history of the church, however, we become primed for other fabrications to come our way. To say things started with Luther is not accurate. The concept of a "silver line of God's grace" from Miller's Church History is more accurate. This implies that there have always been a faithful remnant of God's people even during the darkest times of the dark ages. This also brings to our attention that the Lord has always had leaders -- "gifts given by the Head" -- since the time of the apostles to minister to God's children and preach the gospel to the nations. Even Luther eventually acknowledged that he too was a "Hussite" -- a reference to John Huss before him, who was martyred and condemned a heretic. Huss was just one of many men in church history used of the Lord to speak out for the Lord.

Perhaps it was these misconceptions in church history, passed on to him from the exclusive Brethren, which were the rotten seeds sown into the ministry of Witness Lee which caused him to eventually elevate his own status to that of the "acting God" and the "Minister of the Age." Perhaps, on the other hand, WL only distorted church history for personal gain. Either way it was these exclusive and grandiose views of himself, his followers in the Recovery, and the rest of "degraded" Christianity which colored every part of his ministry. It is impossible to characterize the ministry of WL without speaking of these three -- that WL was THE minister of the age, the Recovery was the unique testimony of the Lord, and the abject failure of all the rest of Christianity.

Canfield continues to make one failed assumption in his writings -- that Witness Lee alone was the faithful minister of the Lord, and that all those surrounding him have failed. I have heard that skewed message for decades, especially from brother Titus Chu.

[Ohio]

Gradually, however, the churches for the most part left their original standing, as they began to focus more and more on Witness Lee and his ministry. Although our brother was a real servant of the Lord, whose ministry was rich both in truth and in the experience of Christ, the fact that he allowed this situation to develop was nonetheless a very serious failure on his part. All of us who serve the Lord need His mercy, for every servant of the Lord has his shortcomings.

This statement by Canfield really burns me up. This view of our history is quite naive to say the least. The churches never desired to leave their original standing in Christ. It was the evil leaders who uprooted them and attempted to transplant them into the fields of WL. When many faithful men of God, the shepherding elders of these local churches, resisted this evil transplanting their names were slandered and their reputations were ruined. Some of the notables I am speaking of are John Ingalls, Al Knoch, and Godfred of Anaheim.

In this matter WL's failures should never be described as "shortcomings." To say that it was a "serious failure on his part" for "allowing this situation to develop" simply absolves Witness Lee of the responsibility he bears in actively silencing all those who cried out on the Lord's behalf.

Canfield really should research the events of the Recovery more closely. It's too bad he has chosen to "write in a vacuum." His views of the history of the Recovery far too closely match those of his mentor James Reetzke Sr. Though they have parted ways since the quarantine of TC, Canfield still has not done thorough research. By presenting only one side of the story, that which was handed down by those remaining inside the Recovery, he has never discovered why things have happened as they did.

[OBW]

The thing that stands out to me is a part of one sentence. It says "a real servant of the Lord, whose ministry was rich both in truth and in the experience of Christ. . . ." I will not presuppose that Lee was not trying to be a servant of the Lord. But I am fatiguing of the kind of code that we learned from Lee. "Rich in truth" and "the experience of Christ" are used in such off-hand ways that they lose their true meaning. (And for "truth" to lose its true meaning is quite a feat.)

"Rich in truth" mostly meant "full of the remnant theology of Nee/Lee and focused on an exclusiveness of 'ground' that marginalized others."

"The experience of Christ" too often meant the experience of a so called "church life" rather than the experience of truly following and obeying in all of life.

My problem is that the focus is/was all wrong. Even in the beginning, there was too much inward-looking such that there was praise for what we were and/or had become part of rather than truly for Christ and what he had done. Our constant clamoring about the church and the church life are evidence of where our focus was. The gospels gave no such emphasis on the church. And even the epistles, which are written to or about the churches, are mostly not about the church, but about the lives of the members.

I do not believe that DC is in any way simply an "I wanna go back to Eldon Hall" kind of guy. But it is so long for us to eliminate the wrong thinking that we got in the LRC. It has so permeated our thinking that we presume it is true. And since we really gave part of our lives to it, it is difficult to admit that it could be so wrong.

But it was. And is.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Canfield really should research the events of the Recovery more closely. It's too bad he has chosen to "write in a vacuum." His views of the history of the Recovery far too closely match those of his mentor James Reetzke Sr. Though they have parted ways since the quarantine of TC, Canfield still has not done thorough research. By presenting only one side of the story, that which was handed down by those remaining inside the Recovery, he has never discovered why things have happened as they did.

I would hope so. There is material available and brothers accessible in order to do the necessary research.
I wonder how many will draw the parellels that I have. The turmoil of the past decade is not that different from that of the late 80's and in many ways the events of the late 80's explains why things have happened as they did in 2005-2006.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Next up at bat… Canfield’s assertion that Local Churchers/LSM have “left their original standing, as they began to focus more and more on Witness Lee and his ministry”.

I would challenge Canfield to show that the focus of the Local Church movement here in America has EVER been on anything or anyone other than Witness Lee and his ministry. There is a very good reason why Lee and his followers came under significant criticism from the very beginnings in Los Angeles. Does anyone really believe that Witness Lee would let the focus be on anything or anyone but himself? From the very beginnings in LA, all the conferences and "trainings" were either conducted by Lee himself, or maybe by somebody going over messages and outlines provided by Lee. The first books distributed (The Economy of God, etc) were almost all Lee, with maybe a few from Watchman Nee.

From the very beginnings in LA Witness Lee and his followers drew the ire from other Christians with all the "WE are THE Church in LA", "WE are meeting on THE PROPER GROUND" and "Poor, Poor Christianity" talk. Marches were made against other Christian churches and ministries with placards proclaiming "Down with Christianity!". Too bad there were no digital cameras and the Internet back in the day....I bet many current LC members would be shocked and ashamed of the aggressive and horrific attitude displayed towards their brothers and sisters in Christ. I guarantee you that there would be a lot more understanding of just why the Local Church got labeled with the dreaded “C” word.

We could go over all sorts of LC history going back to the early days of Elden Hall and before, and how insiders and outsiders were treated, but the bottom line is that it is provably false that “the original standing” of the Local Church Movement was anything other than what it is today – A sect of Christianity with both positive and negative elements. Were there more positives than negatives at the beginning? Probably so, but that is true with almost every movement of man, even those whose beginnings could be traced to something that might be considered a genuine move of God.