The Ministry Becomes the Lampstand

[Indiana]

1964

“Consider the local churches in Asia to whom he wrote: most of them were exceedingly weak; yet those churches were the lampstands, not the ministry of the Apostle John. John’s ministry was far more spiritual than the condition of those churches; yet he did not set up his ministry as a lampstand.” (W.L., 1964)

1974

The Ministry Coming to the Foreground

Don Rutledge, a former well-respected elder relates: “The turn away from the vision Witness Lee had regarding the practice of the local church life began in January 1974 at the very first special elders and co-workers conference. This is when the concept of the work began. Few of the saints realize the magnitude of effect this meeting had on the churches. With charts and statistics, Witness Lee and Max Rapoport came forth to launch the movement. It was boldly declared that the churches would use Witness Lee as the exclusive source of teaching and Max would serve as the coordinator to bring the various churches, with their elders, into a unified movement. Two life-study messages a week were going to be given in Anaheim. Ministry stations were set up in various cities to repeat his messages through designated brothers. Some smaller churches consolidated to the larger localities where there was a ministry station. The official list of twelve men who could give conferences was announced. From that time on, the individual churches would be called to account if they were moving “independently.” In addition to coordinating the elders to act in a single direction, Max was charged to assist the various churches to be more effective with gospel preaching and outreach.

“He began to travel and, in particular, to meet with the elders. Those who would not be good movement men were pushed aside, if possible, or moved somewhere to be out of the way. On several occasions, Max told me that he was working to bring the elders and churches into one coordination for the purpose of carrying out the burden of Witness Lee. He told me several times that only he could “put the whole thing together”.

"I am not attempting to call into question the motive of Witness Lee or Max. During this time, Witness Lee did some very good teaching and Max did some very good gospel work. But what did happen the nature of the various “local churches” changed from being local in administration and spontaneous in actions to being directed from a center with clear administrative leaders and directors.

“Things were definitely not the same. Some were saying the time of blessing has passed, or we changed our vision, or the moving of the Spirit left the churches, or teaching, doctrine, and methods replaced life.

“This time ended with a split between Witness Lee and Max Rapoport after a power struggle between them. Both had their followers, and Witness Lee won out. It was at this time, the time of becoming a movement that opened the door to Philip Lee and set the stage for the current Blending Brothers.

“After the split with Max, there was a pause in the development of the movement. Witness lee began again to start up the movement consolidation in 1981. He bought property in Irving, Texas and began making plans to strengthen the movement. Benson Phillips and Ray Graver of Texas began traveling to the churches to promote Witness Lee, his ministry, and the office.

“In 1984 the first round of lawsuits had been won. Witness Lee declared that the boulders were off the road and the Lord’s recovery could proceed.” D. R.

1984

One Accord for the Ministry Movement

While the trainings and life-study messages were in their tenth year, an extraordinary change took place in the recovery. Brother Lee was becoming increasingly aware of the stagnancy among the churches, especially in the Far East. It was a very serious problem to him that in many localities the saints had become complacent about his ministry. He was, therefore, burdened to take a turn and have a new way, which would feature him and his ministry in a movement to spread his ministry throughout the earth.

The work for the spread of the ministry took on the look of local churches melting into unity under one universal leader who now held the reins of the churches in the movement he alone orchestrated. The key, he said, to “the Lord’s new move” is the one accord among the saints in all the churches. Thus, he sounded a call to have an army of followers under him as the "commander-in-chief", while brothers responded by constructing and signing a paper stating their allegiance to him and to his ministry.

He had certainly fallen headlong into the terrible cycle of error by gifted ones in making the local churches his, which he had so solemnly warned against in 1964 and put into print in 1968 during years of ministering life and light in the local churches.

“Consider the local churches in Asia to whom [John] wrote: most of them were exceedingly weak; yet those churches were the lampstands, not the ministry of the Apostle John. John’s ministry was far more spiritual than the condition of those churches; yet he did not set up his ministry as a lampstand. “ (W.L., The Vision of God’s Building), 1964)

A Tremendously Vital Matter

(Witness Lee, The Vision of God’s Building, 1964)

“All gifts and all gifted persons are for the building up of the Body; they are not for any work in itself. The practice of today’s Christianity is absolutely different in principle. Wherever there is a gifted person, a spiritual “giant” with a certain gift, that person will begin a work. He will build up a certain Christian organization or ministry, and possibly call it some worthy name. We are not opposing anyone, but we are against the wrong principles which damage the Body life. The Apostle Paul did not form any Christian organization; he did not set up any kind of work. For possibly thirty years, he just established local churches. And, he did not keep any work in his own hands. In reading the New Testament we can only find the churches which were built up by him.

“At the time the Apostle John wrote the book of Revelation he was greatly experienced and matured. Of the twelve apostles he was the only one remaining. Yet he did not build up anything as his work, his ministry. Consider the local churches in Asia to whom he wrote: most of them were exceedingly weak; yet those churches were the lampstands, not the ministry of the Apostle John. John’s ministry was far more spiritual than the condition of those churches; yet he did not set up his ministry as a lampstand. In fact, he did not set up his ministry as anything. All he did was to further the building up of those local churches as the lampstands. Oh, we all must learn this! We must be aware of the dangerous tendency for any local church to become a work, kept in the hand of some gifted person. If such is the case, that is a real degradation. However much the Lord may use a gifted person, however great his ministry may be, the local church must not become his work. God’s intention is not to build up the ministry of any person, but to build up His church. This is not a small matter.

“In the New Testament there are the titles, the “church of God” (Acts 20:28), the “church of Christ” (Rom. 16:16), and the “church of the saints” (1 Cor. 14:33); 1Thess. 1:1). There is never any “church of the apostles. The church belongs to God, to Christ, to the saints, not to any apostle.
“The greater our gift is, the greater is the danger that we will take over the church and keep it in our hands. This will greatly damage the church life. We must learn not only how to minister in the local church, but also how to keep our hands off the church. This is not easy. The local church is not our personal enterprise. The local church is the property of the local saints, not some worker’s business. Some gifted persons put a local church in their pocket. Oh, this is a real problem!

“All the local saints must realize that the local church is their church. If the local saints are not clear concerning this, they will allow a gifted person to take the local churches into his own hands and treat it as his personal property. Then the entire church life will be finished. The local churches belong to the local saints. The gifted persons are just the means to perfect the saints to function; they are only the instruments used by the Lord to build up the churches.

“Consider the situation in Christianity today. Look at the situation even from the time of the Reformation: four or five hundred years have passed, and it is still basically the same. Whenever a gifted person is raised up, a certain kind of work is established. I establish my work, you establish your work, he establishes his work. Then the church is gone. This is the source of all the divisions. However, if one gifted brother comes to build a local church, and a second gifted brother comes to build up the same church, there will be no division. All the work must be for the church, not for the workers. The ministry should be for the church; the church should never be for the ministry. We must be exceedingly clear concerning this principle. We must drop all wrong practices. A gifted brother should keep his hands off the local church. Although a gifted brother may sometimes not speak openly in a way of ministry, yet he still may quietly maneuver behind the scenes. Any such maneuvering damages the church. All gifts and gifted persons must be entirely for the local church. This is a tremendously vital matter.”

For sufficient detail, see www.TwoTurmoils.com

Steve Isitt 12-12-2012

Indiana,

I don't mean to sound dismissive. But I notice that you keep posting new versions of the exact same old material. You've been doing this for years. Do you think you will ever be able to accept that your life with the local churches is over, and move on? Can you enter a new season in your life, with a healthy Christian group?

[UntoHim]

Hey unregistered,
I know we have suggested this before, but if you are not going to register could you please insert some sort of name or moniker in the box provided so that we can know that it is "you". The administration of this forum respects the privacy of all posters, however I don't think it's too much to ask that you be considerate of the other members as well.

Also, one of the major benefits of becoming a member is that you can send and receive Private Messages through the forum PM system. This system is very secure and private. Nobody - not other members, moderators or administrators can view these messages. The reason I bring this up is that some members, such as Indiana, may feel more comfortable addressing your concerns through the PM system. I have no problem with what you have posted here....I think many of us have the same feeling about this, however Indiana may not want to address your concerns in the open forum....and can you blame him with all the sharks swimming around out here in these waters?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Indiana,

I don't mean to sound dismissive. But I notice that you keep posting new versions of the exact same old material. You've been doing this for years. Do you think you will ever be able to accept that your life with the local churches is over, and move on? Can you enter a new season in your life, with a healthy Christian group?

I don't think this is true at all.

Indiana's articles span the breadth of time and space in order to document the history of the Recovery.

Bill O'Reilly wrote a book about "Killing Kennedy." Then he wrote a book about "Killing Lincoln." He seems to be going backwards. Perhaps his next book will be "Killing Jesus." Do you think he will ever "move on?"

Because Indiana writes articles, you assume that he is stuck in the past. How do you know what fellowship he now enjoys? Recently I heard he was engaged in Mission work in the Philippines.

Have you got a better life than that? Perhaps you should reconsider how "stuck" you now are?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Indiana's articles span the breadth of time and space in order to document the history of the Recovery.

Yes, but he keeps cutting and pasting the same material, and then re-posting it under a new topic.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bill O'Reilly wrote a book about "Killing Kennedy." Then he wrote a book about "Killing Lincoln." He seems to be going backwards. Perhaps his next book will be "Killing Jesus." Do you think he will ever "move on?"

I haven't the slightest idea what bringing up a hack writer has to do with this. You're missing my point entirely.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Because Indiana writes articles, you assume that he is stuck in the past.

I'm concerned that he keeps writing basically the same article, over and over again. He cuts and pastes different portions, but it's the same material.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Have you got a better life than that? Perhaps you should reconsider how "stuck" you now are?

My life is fine. I'm not stuck in the past, and I have moved on. I engage here because it seems to do me good, although I sometimes consider it no longer necessary.

I'm not writing to chastise Indiana. But I remember him on the Berean's forum, and not much has changed. And I wonder if it would be better for him not to revisit the same exact material over and over again, and repost new versions of it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Yes, but he keeps cutting and pasting the same material, and then re-posting it under a new topic.

I'm concerned that he keeps writing basically the same article, over and over again.

He cuts and pastes different portions, but it's the same material.

But I remember him on the Berean's forum, and not much has changed. And I wonder if it would be better for him not to revisit the same exact material over and over again, and repost new versions of it.

I doubt if Indiana has been redundant as you have here.

I happened to read his article last week, and responded to him with these brief comments ...

Great article.

To fully understand Lee, one must realize how dishonest he was to his own teachings.

In 1974, during the peak of the blessing upon the Recovery, Lee institutes radical changes, contradicting his teachings of the ten prior years, Then in 1984, when stagnancy had gripped many LC's, instead of properly placing the blame on his ten year old failed policies, he takes them even further. Then in 1994, he proclaims the LC's had become "Laodicea" supposedly because we had not followed his ministry "closely enough."

This to me is hypocrisy, distortion of history for selfish gain, twisting the facts to deceive the saints, and attempting to persuade us that his ministry alone is a "lampstand shining" in a dark place.

Perhaps, you have not read this article completely unregistered, but I thought Indiana had some original thought here.

Since you have been hanging around this forum for such a long time, perhaps you would like to also comment about how much cutting and pasting goes on at LSM?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Because Indiana writes articles, you assume that he is stuck in the past. How do you know what fellowship he now enjoys?

The key here is for Indiana to keep pressing on in his relationship with the Lord. As for the articles he writes, my take is a repetitive exhortation to the brothers to not just re-speak the ministry verbally, but to practice the ministry through action. Maybe someday they will see there is a Spiritual Responsibility to Reconciliation.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Terry

The key here is for Indiana to keep pressing on in his relationship with the Lord. As for the articles he writes, my take is a repetitive exhortation to the brothers to not just re-speak the ministry verbally, but to practice the ministry through action. Maybe someday they will see there is a Spiritual Responsibility to Reconciliation.

A PM to me from a sister in 2006 on the Berean forum.

Steve, I really appreciate … the fact that you have not in your heart separated yourself from, nor do you express anger towards those brothers & sisters who have chosen to misinterpret and reject your fellowship. (I read "In the Wake of the New Way" after I first came across this forum - it is incredible that your humble heartfelt and loving fellowship was considered "opposing" the recovery! That's just ludicrous!! These brothers so need our prayers.) I feel so strongly to encourage you to continue this investigative / informative work, and do not doubt that it is of the Lord. We have no way of knowing who is reading these posts, and who might be having the scales fall from their eyes as a result - perhaps even a Blinded Brother or two! I, for one, have been greatly helped by your thoroughly balanced and objective presentation of (yes, bizzare!) events. I am certain that our Lord is the source of the desire that "we return to the right path of receiving people", and also that He is the supply enabling you to accomplish what I'm sure is a huge job. I thank Him for what He has put in your heart! Stay on the TRACK! _________ (My name is ______ - not ready to say so in public, however, because of family in the LSM/LC).

[Cal]

Unregistered,

Indiana is free to defend himself or not to as the case may be. But this is simply my viewpoint.

I, too, used to wonder about his chosen path in life, and even gave him a hard time about, to my shame. Something about it bothered me. I was threatened by it because I thought he was sending the message that the LCs are the only way and that life after them cannot be found.

Now I simply believe he loved that place and the people in it and wants it to be restored to how it should be. I hoped he's found peace, purpose and fellowship outside its steep walls. But if he continues to feel compelled to labor in the manner he does, who am I to question?

As to him allegedly recycling previous material, I don't know. I know he's become a better writer, and so may feel to rewrite some of it.

Igzy

[Cal]

Posts irrelevant to this thread have been moved offline. Mike and I have had our say. He got the last word but now both our comments are archived. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Please carry on. This is a good thread.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Please carry on. This is a good thread.

Yes, I agree!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Posts irrelevant to this thread have been moved offline. Mike and I have had our say. He got the last word but now both our comments are archived. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Please carry on. This is a good thread.

You have also "moved offline" into the garbage can a good number of my own posts which were in defense of (the original poster) Steve Isitts' quote from Don Rutledge's own history of events which occurred in Anaheim in early 1974. I have long felt that these events surrounding that first elders and workers conference are crucial to the accurate understanding of the history of the Recovery in the US.

It is more than obvious that the moderators view things differently from me and, of course, that is their prerogative. Personally, however, I can find no good way to reconcile the present attitude of the moderators with my own views. What just happened on this thread is a repeat of last months' events, which concluded with unanswered private messages, more deleted posts, and the departure of another poster which I have long appreciated.

To prevent further conflicts, I would like to wish you all a pleasant farewell. This forum, with its many members, has provided me with immense help in my own journey since leaving the Recovery. I came here 7 years ago needing to know "how could something so good become so bad," and all my questions were answered.

I wish you all only the best. Much grace to you all! I only ask that you let this post stand as my last, and not move it "offline."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You have also "moved offline" into the garbage can a good number of my own posts which were in defense of (the original poster) Steve Isitts' quote from Don Rutledge's own history of events which occurred in Anaheim in early 1974.

Ohio, the number of your posts that I moved was one (1). The reason I moved it was because it had a comment about OBW. If I knew it was that important to you I never would have moved it. It has been restored. It is post #87. What other posts are you talking about?

Also, if you don't clarify what views you disagree with, how could we possibly know if we need to adjust those views?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I came here 7 years ago needing to know "how could something so good become so bad," and all my questions were answered.

I wish you all only the best. Much grace to you all! I only ask that you let this post stand as my last, and not move it "offline."

My dear brother Ohio.
Sorry to see you go. Maybe you will reconsider in the future.

Your main problem, I think, is centered in your statement "how could something so good become so bad". This issue is - and it is an issue that all of us former members face - just how "good" was the Local Church of Witness Lee, and just how "bad" did the Local Church of Witness Lee become. Both of these cannot be answered in one single internet forum thread, much less in one single internet forum.

"Something so good". "Something so bad". This alone should tell all us something right from the start. Something from God himself cannot actually turn out to be something so bad. It is us, it is fallen men, that have mucked up the proceedings from the very beginning. This includes any and all movements of men within the Church of Jesus Christ. Church history tells us this. Even secular history tells us this.

The simple truth is that what Witness Lee started here in America was a movement of men. It was doomed from the start to never be "something so good". Conversely, it probably was never "something so bad" (although I think it got pretty bad and is getting worse).

The bottom line is that we brothers are probably wasting our time (and more importantly God's time) arguing and fretting over just how good or just how bad the Local Church of Witness was or became. I'm reminded of something the Lord Jesus, the perfect God-man, said: "And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone". So, the Word of God incarnate himself said that no one is good except God alone. This should be the baseline for all of our considerations and dialog. As far as the baseline for just how bad things may have gotten...well, I'm not quite as clear on that. I think the history is still being written on this.

Much grace to you my dear brother!

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You have also "moved offline" into the garbage can a good number of my own posts which were in defense of (the original poster) Steve Isitts' quote from Don Rutledge's own history of events which occurred in Anaheim in early 1974. I have long felt that these events surrounding that first elders and workers conference are crucial to the accurate understanding of the history of the Recovery in the US.

Igzy wasn't the one who moved our recent back-and-forth, I was. We were talking past each other, and you simply refused to address what I posted. This makes for really bad reading for all concerned. Nevertheless I have restored the posts in question. You're welcome to come back and pick up where we left off, but I must insist that you actually read and react to what I posted...Not what you THINK I MEANT by what I posted. I don't mind you reading between the lines per se, I just wish you wouldn't make that the central point of your retort.

It is more than obvious that the moderators view things differently from me and, of course, that is their prerogative. Personally, however, I can find no good way to reconcile the present attitude of the moderators with my own views. What just happened on this thread is a repeat of last months' events, which concluded with unanswered private messages, more deleted posts, and the departure of another poster which I have long appreciated.

I doubt that you ever will be able to reconcile one person's attitude with your personal views. We are not robots. Each of us has an attitude and each of us has a certain viewpoint. When we were in the Local Church there was only one attitude and only one viewpoint allowed. This is why we didn't see a lot of "conflict" in the LC. But this was a kind of artificial harmony. It was a forced "oneness". Now that we are out here in the real world so to speak, we find ourselves a little unsettled and confused on how to conduct a reasonable dialog regarding all that we saw and experienced. We all need to exercise a little bit of understanding and grace. Sorry if Igzy and I have fallen short here. We're going through the same process as everyone else!

To prevent further conflicts, I would like to wish you all a pleasant farewell. This forum, with its many members, has provided me with immense help in my own journey since leaving the Recovery. I came here 7 years ago needing to know "how could something so good become so bad," and all my questions were answered.

I think I already addressed your concern about "how could something so good become so bad" in my last post. However I don't think all your questions have been answered, and that is understandable. I do think you may be short circuiting the process by leaving the only place that you can enter into dialog. Of course this will at least have the side benefit of preventing further conflicts.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Oh, there is no doubt you are immensely satisfied. That comes across with no problem other than it's made you appear smug and dismissive of others.

Igzy, there is no doubt your observations of OBW are accurate. Perhaps they should have been said privately, but if Mike can hear what you have said, he will definitely be benefited. And if I can speak a positive word for him -- those times where he backed up, spoke from the heart, and was more accepting of others, his posts were indeed helpful observations to the readers.

Originally Posted by Indiana

Don Rutledge, a former well-respected elder relates: “The turn away from the vision Witness Lee had regarding the practice of the local church life began in January 1974 at the very first special elders and co-workers conference. This is when the concept of the work began. Few of the saints realize the magnitude of effect this meeting had on the churches...

Trying to "blend" this conversation back into the topic of the thread at hand, many posters on this forum have stressed the deterioration of the Recovery and Lee's ministry over the course of time. Indiana here quotes Don Rutledge, both of whom have written much about the Recovery. It would be nice if these posters were not always "challenged" for their views of history.

Personally, I have received far more benefit by hearing and thoughtfully considering others' stories of LC history, than by being challenged for my own views. For 30 years I was "challenged" to reassess my views about the Recovery, and it only served to further harden my resolve. Then I found this forum and began to read ToG, STTIL, and many of the old-time posters (OBW included) and slowly my views have changed.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Trying to "blend" this conversation back into the topic of the thread at hand, many posters on this forum have stressed the deterioration of the Recovery and Lee's ministry over the course of time. Indiana here quotes Don Rutledge, both of whom have written much about the Recovery. It would be nice if these posters were not always "challenged" for their views of history.

As long as it's clear that their comments are merely their views of LC system history. Usually they are not stated as such or have any disclaimer rather they are set forth as the truth regarding the history of the LC system and therefore invite challenge.

Consider the quote from Don Rutledge that in 1974 "is when the concept of the work began..." Actually we know that the concept of "the work" is an integral part of Watchman Nee's teachings e.g. "The Normal Christian Church Life". This was nothing new in 1974 except maybe to Don Rutledge in which case he should say it was a new concept to him and not make a sweeping generalization that encompasses the entire LC system.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Personally, I have received far more benefit by hearing and thoughtfully considering others' stories of LC history, than by being challenged for my own views.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

As long as it's clear that their comments are merely their views of LC system history. Usually they are not stated as such or have any disclaimer rather they are set forth as the truth regarding the history of the LC system and therefore invite challenge.

First of all I totally agree with the first part of what Ohio has stated here. I think we would all do well to keep in mind that this is virtually the only place on the Internet where current and former LC members can come and "tell their story". I also think we can be sure that there are many lurkers reading what is posted that we never actually hear from, and yet are receiving great benefit from our dialog.

In regards to "being challenged", well I would say that is part and parcel of an open, healthy exchange among members on an Internet forum. We Local Churchers (current and former) aren't necessarily used to this kind of back-and-forth exchange. I've been out of the LC Movement for many years, yet I still find myself being needlessly offended or upset with another poster, when all they were doing was expressing their views of a teaching, practice or bit of history. Witness Lee did not take well to others view regarding such matters, so this has become ingrained in the hearts and minds of his followers.

Someone just mentioned our dear brother Don Rutledge (where ya been, bro...don't make yourself so scarce!) - I recall a sister coming on the forum and sharing a very painful and damaging event that she experienced as a young person in one of the Texas local churches. Don came on right away and challenged the veracity of her account. As the sole moderator/admin of the forum (at that time) I was put in a bit of a quandary on how to "referee" the conflict. I decided to just let each party say what they were going to say and let the readers sort out what they believed or didn't believe.

I received MANY PMs from each side of the fence, with one side or the other demanding that I censor/delete either the original story as told by the sister, or that I censor/delete Don's claim/challenge that her story was not accurate. Though I had/have very strong feelings about the veracity of the sister's testimony, I think (I hope) I did the right thing for all concerned by just leaving all the posts stand as they were. Anyway, my point is that challenge, for the most part, is good for our forum. The only problem I've ever had with one poster challenging another is when it gets personal or when there is name calling and/or flaming involved.

[Ohio]

IIRC, Don Rutledge's so-called "challenge" to the sister was more in the form of a fact-finding inquiry into events which he did not know nor was a part of, but others felt he should have been responsible for.

But ... back to my original comment about "being challenged." This was mentioned with Igzy's post to OBW in mind. The subject of the discussion was not that our posts could never be challenged, but that I personally have learned more from listening to others' accounts than by being challenged to "prove what I believe to myself and/or others."

Being challenged in order to ascertain all the facts is surely welcomed and sorely needed, but being constantly challenged in order to rebut one's opinions and one's testimony is of no value to anyone, and here I once again reference Igzy's comments in post #93.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

As long as it's clear that their comments are merely their views of LC system history. Usually they are not stated as such or have any disclaimer rather they are set forth as the truth regarding the history of the LC system and therefore invite challenge.

Consider the quote from Don Rutledge that in 1974 "is when the concept of the work began..." Actually we know that the concept of "the work" is an integral part of Watchman Nee's teachings e.g. "The Normal Christian Church Life". This was nothing new in 1974 except maybe to Don Rutledge in which case he should say it was a new concept to him and not make a sweeping generalization that encompasses the entire LC system.

It goes without saying that all forum posts comprise one's personal perspectives and recollections of events. Need we daily disclaimers like Tomes and Myer were forced to include as part of their every article? -- OK fine! See below.

There is also a huge difference between what Nee might have written in a book a quarter century ago and what dramatic changes Lee instituted that "very first special elders and co-workers conference. This is when the concept of the work began. Few of the saints realize the magnitude of effect this meeting had on the churches. With charts and statistics, Witness Lee and Max Rapoport came forth to launch the movement. It was boldly declared that the churches would use Witness Lee as the exclusive source of teaching and Max would serve as the coordinator to bring the various churches, with their elders, into a unified movement. Two life-study messages a week were going to be given in Anaheim. Ministry stations were set up in various cities to repeat his messages through designated brothers. Some smaller churches consolidated to the larger localities where there was a ministry station. The official list of twelve men who could give conferences was announced. From that time on, the individual churches would be called to account if they were moving “independently.” In addition to coordinating the elders to act in a single direction, Max was charged to assist the various churches to be more effective with gospel preaching and outreach." -- DR

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There is also a huge difference between what Nee might have written in a book a quarter century ago and what dramatic changes Lee instituted that "very first special elders and co-workers conference. This is when the concept of the work began. Few of the saints realize the magnitude of effect this meeting had on the churches. With charts and statistics, Witness Lee and Max Rapoport came forth to launch the movement. It was boldly declared that the churches would use Witness Lee as the exclusive source of teaching and Max would serve as the coordinator to bring the various churches, with their elders, into a unified movement. Two life-study messages a week were going to be given in Anaheim. Ministry stations were set up in various cities to repeat his messages through designated brothers. Some smaller churches consolidated to the larger localities where there was a ministry station. The official list of twelve men who could give conferences was announced. From that time on, the individual churches would be called to account if they were moving “independently.” In addition to coordinating the elders to act in a single direction, Max was charged to assist the various churches to be more effective with gospel preaching and outreach." -- DR

Anyone who knows the history of the LC system knows that prior to 1974 both Watchman Nee and Witness Lee held meetings and trainings for coworkers and elders. They also know that Witness Lee was the exclusive source of teaching in the LC system. They know he was operating Stream Publishers. They also know that Los Angeles was the center of the work in the US where Witness Lee held conferences and 3 week trainings and where people were sent out by him to start churches and he also orchestrated a consolidation. He and his sons also started Daystar to make money for "the work". Not to mention he had Christian Chen excommunicated down in Brazil using Titus Chu as his tool to get the job done. This all happened BEFORE 1974. And the list goes on and on.

So definitely the concept of "the work" existed way before 1974 with Witness Lee firmly at the helm. Anything that happened in 1974 and beyond was merely a continuation of what was already there in essence, form and concept.

If Don Rutledge happened not to know any of these things so what? Lots of people do know it and the Internet with forums like this help them know it even more!

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And that's why the both of you never got involved with such a character.

Oh sure we unwittingly got involved with such a character but I won't engage in historical revisionism to somehow justify the fact that I didn't see what was clearly there all along. Witness Lee didn't change. My awareness of what he was really all about all along increased over time.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Oh sure we unwittingly got involved with such a character but I won't engage in historical revisionism to somehow justify the fact that I didn't see what was clearly there all along. Witness Lee didn't change. My awareness of what he was really all about all along increased over time.

Why "didn't you see what was clearly there all along"?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

...This all happened BEFORE 1974. And the list goes on and on. So definitely the concept of "the work" existed way before 1974 with Witness Lee firmly at the helm. Anything that happened in 1974 and beyond was merely a continuation of what was already there in essence, form and concept.

Also let's not forget that that Witness Lee, when things blew up in 1978, TOTALLY AND VEHEMENTLYY DENIED that he ever gave Max Rapaport any such instructions or authority. Too bad Max didn't tape Lee telling him all these things like he taped that infamous phone call between Lee and Sal Benoit Too bad that Ingalls, Mallon, So and the rest of the boys couldn't see that they were next up on the chopping block. Alwayslearning is absolutely correct here. 1974 is not any major change in the way Witness Lee did business. He had to wait for about 10 years until he had built up enough political capital....errrrr spiritual authority....to start pulling out his old bag of tricks again. This is not that hard you guys. The writing was on the wall...and it was there blinking like a 50 foot neon light for anybody who cared to pull off the wool from covering their eyes.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This is not that hard you guys. The writing was on the wall...and it was there blinking like a 50 foot neon light for anybody who cared to pull off the wool from their eyes.

And that's why the both of you never got involved with such a character.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unreg1

Why "didn't you see what was clearly there all along"?

And why not just be honest to acknowledge all the positive things?

[UntoHim]

The title of this thread is "The Ministry Becomes the Lampstand". This is coming from Steve Isitt, one of Witness Lee's biggest supporters on the Internet. In this case he chose to bring out something negative. That is his prerogative.

It is every member's prerogative to start a thread in which the theme may be positive, negative or something in between. It is also the prerogative of other members to contribute to any given thread as they see fit. They may only have enough time to post something "negative", and they should not have to feel obligated to "balance" their contributions by taking the time to post something "positive".

Now, whether a person posts something positive, negative or something in between, other forum members are free to question or even challenge them regarding the accuracy of their post. This is what is happening on this thread. Steve, like a number of other former members, contends that everything was peachy keen and copacetic in the Local Church Movement until a certain point in time, usually placed around 1974. (move from LA to Anaheim) As we have seen on these Internet forums, there were problems with Witness Lee and his ministry long before this. To say that Lee's ministry "became the lampstand" in the mid 70s is simply not accurate. Anybody is more than free to post such a thing, but they can also expect to be challenged with some facts to the contrary. And no, the challenger is not obligated to take time to post some positive things along with providing said facts.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The title of this thread is "The Ministry Becomes the Lampstand". This is coming from Steve Isitt, one of Witness Lee's biggest supporters on the Internet. In this case he chose to bring out something negative. That is his prerogative.

That's like saying I am one of Titus Chu's "biggest supporters on the internet" because I have frequently acknowledged the spiritual ministry he has rendered to the GLA churches.

The difference between you and Steve is that he is attempting to provide a fair and accurate history of the Recovery in the U.S., while you refuse to admit there was anything positive in his ministry. I'm not saying either is necessarily bad, since everyone is entitled to his own views, just that as owner of the forum, you have more "power" to enforce your views, and this is why some very informative posters have decided to leave.

Let me simplify my stance -- as I have tried to communicate in the past, knowing that you do desire to provide a more accessible means for former and current members to participate in meaningful dialog, I feel that I have to be honest and relay my heartfelt opinion that these frequent "challenges" are counterproductive to your mission statement.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The title of this thread is "The Ministry Becomes the Lampstand". This is coming from Steve Isitt, one of Witness Lee's biggest supporters on the Internet. In this case he chose to bring out something negative. That is his prerogative.

Just to give you an example of how extreme your views appear to others ... you just said, "Steve Isitt is one of Witness Lee's biggest supporters on the Internet."

Yet those within the Recovery, both in Anaheim and in his home area, have publicly quarantined him, isolating him and shunning him from any potential contact with their members. They have placed him in the same category as Ingalls, So, Mallon, and so many other "leprous rebels," whose written accounts have assisted us all in understanding Recovery history and the inner workings of the system. LS's chief theologian and editor, Ron Kangas, even went on record to publicly condemn Steve Isitt as a "man of sin."

Yet there are those on this forum, cloaked in anonymity, who can criticize ones like Steve for not going far enough, and somehow conclude, from his numerous articles such as "The Ministry Becomes the Lampstand," that he is one of Witness Lee's biggest supporters on the Internet. Please do reconsider how absurd this statement must sound to the readers.

And as for Steve Isitt not wanting "true two-way dialog - he just wants to use the forum as a free venue to post his writings." It was me who urged Steve long ago to do what he does best, and not get bogged down in the daily banter of the forum. I encouraged him to continue to network with former members and write his articles. He probably didn't need me to inform him of that, since that was on his heart anyways.

Steve also maintains his own websites http://twoturmoils.com/ and http://www.hidinghistoryinthelordsrecovery.us/ . Your comment about Steve taking advantage of a "free venue" here is totally uncalled for. I suppose then you hold the same ill will towards writers like Nigel Tomes and John Myer, since they are, in effect, doing the same thing. I should think that you would be indebted to the three of them for all they have contributed to the forum. I know I am.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And why not just be honest to acknowledge all the positive things?

Speaking for myself I have never denied that Witness Lee had some positive things to offer. Earlier on this thread I wrote: "I acknowledge he was a Bible teacher. Some of his teachings I agree with and others I don't." I have stated basically same thing on numerous occasions.

However IMHO a history of the LC system that concludes a before and after scenario existed i.e. Witness Lee's ministry was good and then at a certain defined point on the time line it became bad does not accurately reflect the reality of the situation i.e. good and bad simultaneously existed in Witness Lee's ministry from beginning to end.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And that's why the both of you never got involved with such a character.

Speaking for myself, I was only 17 when I got involved. I was a relatively new Christian, and had not received much theologically sound teaching. I knew almost nothing of Church history. So I was easy pray for Witness Lee. I believed him when he said that his little sect was the one true Christian Church. I believed him when he said that his ministry was actually the continuation of the New Testament ministry, and that he was "recovering" all the lost truths that had been buried by us mooing cows in poor, poor Christianity. I believed him when he said all other Christians were just lost stars, and that only his followers were hearing the "heavenly music".

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Witness Lee didn't change. My awareness of what he was really all about all along increased over time.

Yeah, what he say.